New Thoughts (10/8/07-10/16/07)
There’s a footnote to this passage in the NET that deserves some attention, because apart from the understanding it provides, it would be easy to miss the full impact of what these neighbors are saying. What they are commenting on is particularly clear in Luke’s account, although the note is found in Matthew’s. In Luke 6:3, those folks are pointing out that Jesus is the son of Mary. Now, there are all manner of implications in that, but the one which the NET brings out is that it was particularly unusual to refer to the son by reference to his mother. In Jewish society in that time and place, even if the father were dead and gone, still the son would be known as the son of his father. The mode of identification these people use is an insult. To be a mother’s boy was not an honorable thing.
This makes sense, given the patriarchal nature of that society. Consider the setup even in the synagogue, or in the temple proper, and it is clear that women simply did not have equal standing with men. Now, add to this the circumstances of Jesus birth, which these townsfolk were doubtless still mindful of. Isn’t it interesting, in light of those circumstances, that they leave Joseph out of the picture? Yes, in Matthew, we have him referred to by his trade, at least. But, they will not name him. They are referring to Jesus as the son, and not merely the child, in that instance. Relate that back to what Luke has recorded, and it seems perhaps they would acknowledge that Jesus had certain characteristics in common with His earthly father, but they would not acknowledge a blood connection. They still thought of Him as something of a bastard son, no matter that Joseph had established the legality of that relationship. He was Mary’s boy. Whether or not He was Joseph’s was a matter of debate.
Then we see them point to His brothers. Of these, they had no doubts. They were assuredly Joseph’s, as were His sisters. But, Him? Not so sure. I wonder if there wasn’t a physical distinction. After all, they were not very far from the truth in their suspicions. Did all His brothers have the look of Joseph to their own features in a way He did not? Did all His sisters display more of Mary than He? That would also cast a cloud of suspicion over Him, wouldn’t it? Here around them they have all these family members who display clear, visible traits identifying them as family members, and then there’s Jesus. He just doesn’t look like them. So, the questions forever swirl about Him, particularly here in Nazareth. Just who was His father? What really happened when Mary went to Jerusalem?
Because of these clouds of suspicion, they simply could not parse the fact that God was using Him. They could hear the wisdom of His teaching as well as the next man, but they figured He must have picked it up from somebody else. He’s just the carpenter’s boy, the illegitimate child. He couldn’t be coming up with these things on His own. Likewise, there was too much evidence of His miraculous actions to out and out deny that they had happened. In fact, were they so inclined, we learn that Jesus gave them a few more examples before leaving, although minor by comparison. But this issue of legitimacy would not allow them to really, fully credit Him with His own actions. There simply had to be some other explanation.
It’s a lot like the rationalists of the Enlightenment trying to come to grips with the Gospel. They wanted religion, but they couldn’t accept the miracles. To their way of thinking, the mind of man was so wonderfully advanced that we simply had to recognize all that miracle talk as no more than mythology. They dared not view it as any more real than the Greek mythology they studied in school. So, when they read of the miracles Jesus performed, they are certain that there must be some other explanation. Well, now, if Jesus is the God of all Truth come to earth, I think we’ve already got a miracle of the most inexplicable nature there. If that, too, is to be taken as no more than myth, then we may as well toss the Bible in the trash bin now, because without that central fact, the rest of it’s just worthless delusion. But, allow them their acceptance of Jesus, if indeed they accept Him. If He is the earthly representative of Truth, and these miracles that are recorded as proceeding from Him are not true, don’t you suppose He would be the first to decry that opinion? In fact, even if you can only take Him as a really good teacher, wouldn’t even a really good teacher be inclined to correct your misconceptions about Himself?
Do they suppose that Jesus hadn’t heard what people were attributing to Him? Well, Luke dispels that line of thought, for he reminds us of that earlier visit to Nazareth, and what does Jesus say to His neighbors, “You will doubtless ask Me to do here as I did in Capernaum” (Lk 4:23). No, He knew full well what people were saying about Him, and never once does He take any steps to convince even His own disciples that this is not the Truth of the matter. So, if we accept the Man, even as merely man, we must be compelled to accept His miracles. Likewise, if we accept His miracles, then surely, we must accept the Man in His fullness. Here is the dilemma His townsfolk face. They accept the miracles, but the Man is too well known to them. They cannot accept Him. They know too much, or so they think. In truth, they know too little.
Well, how about us? I don’t mean how do we respond to Jesus, but how do we respond to His messengers? Do we know too much about our pastor, about our brother or sister, to accept what they say as bearing the influence of a holy God? For myself, having grown up with a pastor for a father, it is easy for me to invest maybe a bit less weight in a pastor’s words. I am fully aware of the humanity of pastors, that they have their failings and weaknesses just like the rest of us. Where I must be careful is in recognizing that this can lead me to reject their message too easily. It is healthy to check the words of our teachers and assure ourselves that they truly do line up with Scripture. It’s unhealthy when we start picking and choosing which part of the message we’ll hear, not because of anything unscriptural, but simply because we don’t like that part.
What about those outside of the recognizable bounds of ministry, though? Are we willing to hear the Truth when it’s delivered by some ‘unauthorized’ source? Now, that has less immediate connection with this passage, but it’s an issue we do well to consider. The Truth will remain True even on the lips of a liar. God is perfectly capable of making Himself heard through any and all means. We, as His children, as sheep who hear His voice, ought to be able to hear it even from such a surprising quarter. That doesn’t make every truth claim true. It simply makes the point that what is true when we read it in the Bible will be equally true if we happen to read it in the pages of a Greek philosopher’s writings, or Shakespeare, or even a comic book. We have a habit of instantly rejecting whatever we may hear coming from the media, and by and large, we do so with good reason. But, there are times when even they will speak Truth, and we should not have our ears so plugged that we cannot hear them when they do.
However, the passage at hand has far more to do with recognizable servants of God who happen to be well known to us. Again, looking at these neighbors of His, they knew too much. They knew the stories about His childhood. There’s another possible issue, here. Sometimes we feel it is beyond possibility that a man should change, that he should turn his life around so completely. We know who they were, what they had done, and we find it unfathomable that they should now be in God’s service. Well, think about Paul! People had a real problem with him when he came to Christ. Understandably so. But, his life from the point of conversion onward bore witness to the reality of that conversion, and people listened.
What about some of the folks I grew up with? What would I think if I found them now in ministry? For that matter, what would they make of me? Some would doubtless have trouble taking my message seriously because they would be too busy remembering when. Reminded of who I had been when they knew me, they would not be able to credit who I am today.
As something of a counterbalance to all this, I look at the verse from Jeremiah which is brought out in the references. They may be saying all the right things when they’re talking to you, personally, but don’t believe them. In reality, they are against you, and together with your enemies, they make their accusations and threats against you (Jer 12:6). Now, this is brought up because this is what Jesus was dealing with amongst His own immediate family. They may well have been respectful towards Him when He was at home, and occasionally even offered Him what to them seemed good advice. But, the reality of the situation was that “even His own brothers were not believing Him” (Jn 7:5).
Here, too, is a lesson we do well to take to heart. Whether we measure our family by physical association, or by association through the local church body, the message is worth hearing. In general form, it would be this: don’t simply assume that what people say to your face is what they say in your absence. We all have difficulty with transparency one with another. The degree of difficulty may vary from one to the next, but it’s there. Complicating things further, we tend to put more weight upon politeness and social graces than we do on open and honest communications. You think not? Well, just ask those you meet on Sunday how they are doing. See how many of them offer anything more than the most cursory, socially required response. Oh, everything’s great. Couldn’t be better. Yet, you know the things they’re going through. You can see the pain in their eyes, in their faces as they turn away. But, we feel compelled not to confess these things one to another. Oh, that would be displaying a weakness of faith. That would be a negative confession. No. That would be honest communication! That would be confessing the truth that God makes plain to us: We need each other. We need fellowship. My faith alone is not up to the task. I need the faith of my brothers joined with mine.
More to the point would be the assessments we offer one another as to our progress. Oh, you’re doing fine. Don’t let that issue bother you. God understands. Is that really the sound of exhorting one another to righteousness? Is that really the wording that conveys a loving admonition? What cause is there to repent, if God understands? What encouragement is there for me to change if my present state isn’t supposed to bother me?
Or, what of those who applaud our words or special songs or whatever we may do in the house of God? Be honest with yourself. Is there any special that you have witnessed in that house that you did not applaud? Is there anybody you didn’t tell how wonderfully they did? How many times have you boldly lied in doing so? Oh, they sung off key the whole time, but are we going to be the one to tell them? No way! Oh, the word they delivered was about as meaningful as a phone-book entry, but we’ll praise them for it. Only later, when we can talk amongst ourselves with no fear of being overheard by them will we admit what we really thought about it. No, we’re not crying out accusations and threats against them, it’s true. But, neither are we doing them any great favors.
As regards the brothers of Jesus, though, there is an amazing transformation that we are permitted to witness. What Jeremiah said was largely true of them during those brief years of ministry. They may not have been viciously opposed to His work, but they weren’t buying it, either. And yet, when we see the seeds of the Church gathered together in that upper room, awaiting the power Jesus has promised, these brothers are there. The same ones who did not believe Him while He was with them are steadfast believers now that He is gone. They will have to be, for they will be counted amongst the early martyrs.
The change that is visible in the writing of James or Jude is considerable. These men who had for so long rejected their brother now find they have no patience, no tolerance for those who are like they were. How many of us can make that claim? Now, I need to qualify this statement just a bit. I am certain that when dealing with unbelievers, those who had not yet come to the Christ in any form, these men could be as gentle as any other. But, for those who had already declared themselves part of this new Church, all tolerance for half-hearted efforts is gone. You’re either totally committed or you have no place here. If you’re in that half and half category, it’s time to decide. Jesus Himself makes it plain that He hasn’t much use for fence sitters. Either commit or depart. Don’t play this lukewarm game. How we need to hear that again, and hear it like maybe it applies to us, too!
Not only do we need to hear it. We really ought to have this same spirit in us, this same unwillingness to tolerate pseudo-faith in our brothers and sisters. It may sound harsh, but in reality, it is the expression of greatest love. What love is there in allowing our fellow to walk on under the mistaken impression that he’s right with God when we know full well he isn’t? How loving is it to leave such a man in his illusion? No, far better we give him the hard news and leave him with the opportunity to get real about his faith while there’s still time.
Returning to the reaction of these people, the first thing we hear from them is an acknowledgement of ability. They recognize wisdom in His words, although they wonder where He came by such wisdom. What do we think of, though, when we think of wisdom? I have generally thought of wisdom as applied understanding. It is, if you will, the common sense that not only knows what to do in a given situation, but actually does it. We may know, for instance, that certain dietary choices are inherently unhealthy for us and yet, we make those very choices routinely. That is knowledge without wisdom as we tend to understand wisdom. The wise choice would clearly be to avoid those unhealthy foods.
In eastern culture and particularly in that time, however, wisdom was viewed somewhat differently. Consider the books of the Old Testament that are called the Wisdom Literature. Prime among them is the book of Proverbs, and in some traditions, Ecclesiasticus is right there alongside. These are collections of what we might call aphorisms. They are maxims; short, concise declarations of good sense. Yes, there remains a sense of that applied knowledge to them. The author of such a maxim has taken what he understands of life and character and success, and based on that understanding provides a map by which we might apply what he has learned to our own benefit. Yet, it is not actively applied, just made concise. We who hear the maxims are still free to put it into action or to ignore it as we please.
In a way, then, we might hear these neighbors asking who Jesus had heard these things from. As we see at the end, they could not credit Him with having understood these things on His own. They could not accept that He, a relatively unlearned carpenter, could possibly have framed such wise words without coaching from somebody else. Well, as Jesus only spoke what He heard from His Father, I suppose there was truth in what they thought, although they didn’t think truly.
Perhaps, then, we might at least understand their thinking in recognizing wisdom but refusing to attribute it to Jesus. But, in what way could they do the same with the miracles? After all, they do not deny the miracles as our modern skeptics do. Neither do they seek to give the devil credit for them as the Pharisees did. No, they accept the miracles as real and they would seem to accept them as good. Yet they cannot accept them as having been done by Jesus in spite of the clear evidence that they were so done. So, they lapse into what is known as cognitive dissonance. They find themselves having to hold two clearly opposing viewpoints at one and the same time. The miracles are real and Jesus did them, and yet it is impossible to them that He should be doing miracles. The things He says are wise and true and yet it is impossible to them that He should be wise.
In the end, the “it is impossible” wins out over the evidence of their own senses and we who look upon them from the future wonder how this can be. Yet we are all perfectly capable of the same, and probably well practiced at it to boot. We hold, for instance, that God is pure and holy and cannot tolerate sin in His presence. At the same time, we tend to hold that He can tolerate our sins. We hold that God is a God of Truth and His people should be truthful, yet we can’t even answer a simple, “How are you?” without lying. We hold that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and at the same time, we question whether He still speaks, whether He still heals, whether He still acts. All of this does not make such behavior any more explicable nor any more acceptable. Yet, it ought to give us, perhaps, a bit of sympathy for these townspeople.
Jesus, however, was astounded at their unbelief, as Mark tells us. It was a wonder to Him that they could see and yet not see, that they could hear and yet not hear. Their insistence upon not believing was simply incomprehensible. Why would one choose not to believe? Why would one steeped in the Old Faith, who had grown up knowing himself a child of Abraham, God’s chosen, reject the supreme blessing of the Supreme Being? How could they believe in God and yet not believe in God’s activity? Now, obviously, this did not somehow blindside Jesus. No, He was quite familiar with the prophesies concerning Himself and concerning the people of Israel. After all, He has already quoted the relevant passage in connection with His use of parables in teaching. He does so that hearing, they may not hear and seeing, they may not see. So, no, it is not astounding to Him in that sense. He knows that reaction must come. Yet, even what we know must come may well astound us when it does. The boom that we know must come at the end of the fireworks will still cause us to jump when it comes.
I have to say, as well, that things have not changed all that much in 2000 years. People still have a tendency to hear God’s Word and yet not hear it effectually. People still have a tendency to find ways to write off the miraculous as something explicable by the ordinary rules of nature. Oh, the splitting of the Red Sea, that was probably just an earthquake or some such. Besides, it’s pretty shallow at that point anyway. The rainbow? A sign of covenant? Nah. We see ‘em all the time. It’s just sunshine on rain. A newborn? No miracle there. We know how babies are made.
But, God has not changed. His miracles are not matters of fable and myth, though they are fabulous. Perhaps our much vaunted science can explain the mechanics of some of the historic miracles, but they can’t account for the timing, can they? It is we who need to change. We need to increase our belief that God is still God, that what He can do now is no different than what He has done in times past.
We need to resolve a bit of a dichotomy in our thinking, and I’m not entirely clear what the resolution is. See, in one regard, the idea that I as a man can prevent God from being God is preposterous. That my will could think to override His is to elevate myself well beyond my station. I’ve said it before and I’ll doubtless say it again. If my will could trump God’s will then I would be God and He would not. And, clearly, that is not the case. Neither does my belief or disbelief of a fact change the fact. Whether or not the people accepted Jesus as the Son of the Living God did not change the fact of His being the Son of the Living God. Whether or not people believed Him capable of healing did not change His healing capability.
And yet, we read that He did not do many miracles in Nazareth because of their unbelief. Mark puts it even more starkly, saying He could not. So, in Matthew, we have ouk epoieesen, simply not doing. Mark has ouk edunato poieesai, that edunato is a form of dunamai expressing ability or possibility. It is, as we should recognize, tightly related to the dunamis by which His miracles are described: power. So, we could, I suppose read that as saying the unbelief of the locals left Him powerless to do more than heal a few sick people. Hmm. Well, it occurs to me that the majority of the miracles we find from Jesus are matters of healing anyway, so that’s not much of a restriction in that regard. The limit would seem to be that He didn’t chase out any demons on that occasion. Or, maybe the expectation was that there would always be some act regarding food or drink. I don’t know.
One thing that must be clear, however uncomfortable it may make us, is that there really is a connection between man’s belief and God’s power. We may choose to see it as unbelief making God unwilling to manifest His power. Perhaps we could even stretch a bit and say it would be unjust of Him to manifest His power in such circumstances, and this is what makes Him, as it were, powerless. I really don’t see that I can accept that, though. There are simply too many occasions of His miracle having no direct relationship to belief, just as His blessings upon the living so often have no direct to relationship to the goodness of the living. Or, like our salvation, which so clearly has no direct relationship to our diligent efforts to earn it.
Given what I understand of my God, I would have to maintain that if there is really any way in which Jesus could not do any miracles, it was solely because by the will of God it was already determined that under such circumstances HE would not. There’s a world of difference there. It is one thing for us to behave in such fashion that God wills not to bless us until we change our ways. It is another to behave in some fashion that coerces God into unwillingly withholding those blessings. I am thoroughly convinced that we are powerless to coerce God. If He is the ultimate being, the highest authority, the all-powerful, then what is going to coerce Him? The idea just doesn’t hold water.
Yet, the record of God’s dealings with man are full of occasions where He has declared a connection between our action and His own. There are so many places where we hear Him saying, “If you do this, then I will do that.” If you will humble yourself and pray, then I will hear from heaven. Well, there’s a constraint isn’t there? If you won’t humble yourself when you pray, or if you humble yourself but fail to pray, there’s no promise that He’ll hear. Or, there’s, “If we confess our sins, and turn away from them, then He is faithful to forgive us.” So, then, if we confess our sins and then go right back to them, deal’s off. Likewise, if we turn away from our sins, but refuse to confess to their sinfulness, the change leaves us with a crime on the books still, doesn’t it? Now, clearly, there is nothing in our actions or lack of actions in these cases that somehow limits God, that somehow makes Him incapable of responding, is there? No. He could, if He so chose, forgive us in spite of our failure to confess. He could, but He won’t. He could hear our prayers even if we continue to have issues with pride. It’s not like that really puts plugs in His ears or some such. No, He can still hear us just fine, but He has chosen not to respond to such prideful prayers.
It’s rather like that lesson I always attribute to my Dad. The prayer of pride comes to God with demands. It comes with presumption. It is the sort of prayer that comes before God saying, “I’m your boy, so You have to do this for me.” How dare we to claim that there is anything that God has to do for us! If there is one thing God ought to feel constrained to do regarding us, it ought to be to condemn us to the eternal punishment we deserve. But, in His graciousness, He has laid out specific means by which we might avoid the one thing His own justice constrains Him to do. He provides the means to assuage His own justice so that His mercy might rather be shown towards us. But, if we will not follow directions, if we come demanding mercy as our right, well, there is no reason for Him to respond as we would have Him respond. Indeed, we can expect justice in such a case.
Never think you can demand a gift, particularly from God! Dad and I were actually discussing this lesson last week, and it really does rather fit what’s going on in this passage. The minute one demands a gift, it ceases being a gift. A gift by its very nature is an act undertaken by free will. If it is given under any other circumstance, it is not a gift, it is a payment. It is a debt being remitted. God owes no debt to any man. So, any idea of a remittance owed by Him to us is ludicrous.
Now, consider the matter of miracles. Nothing whatsoever constrains God to act in such a way as sets aside the normal flow of Creation. Even the greatest of the Biblical heroes could not demand such an act of Him. They could ask, but they could not demand. Clearly, some of those actions were taken in spite of a degree of unbelief on the part of the requestor. Some were seemingly taken without any particular input from the one who would witness that action. Was there something in Moses that wanted to see a burning bush? Did this somehow move God to action? Well, there may have been something in him that attracted God, but I rather think there was something in God that had already determined Moses was His man and wanted to attract him.
Moses was not always a pillar of righteousness and faith himself, yet God continued to do the miraculous around him. That rock in Meribah which Moses struck; was it struck in faith? No, it was struck in clear disobedience to the instructions God had given. Yet, He still opted to provide the miraculous outflow of water in spite of this. Notice: He was not suddenly rendered powerless because Moses opted to act in a faithless fashion. Had Moses been absolutely true to the instructions, I suppose we could say that God was still not constrained to respond, at least not by anything in Moses. What constrains Him to respond to faith and obedience is His own character. He is true to His word, for He cannot be otherwise. As He has promised, He will do, for by His own character He cannot do otherwise. He is Faithful and True.
So, if there is a reason that He cannot do many miracles around a people in unbelief, it is a constraint He places upon Himself, it is a matter of His character. The people cannot be credited with having overwhelmed His will. Yet, He lays down this principle, that there is a connection between belief and power. He is not going to pour out His power on an unbelieving people, at least not in such a way as will benefit them. Why should He? Does it magnify His glory? Will the unbeliever be any less an unbeliever when the miracle is done? History would seem to say not. No, they will insist on finding some reason not to believe, even as these neighbors of His have done. They knew about the miracles, and yet they find cause not to believe Him. God is not one to act in vain and empty fashion. He does not waste His words or His actions.
Perhaps that’s the key right there. His word does not go forth without accomplishing His purpose. What, then, is the purpose of miracle if not to awaken His people to Himself? What is the purpose of miracle if not to magnify His glory? An unbelieving people will not allow themselves to be awakened to His presence. An unbelieving people will not glorify Him but will instead manufacture all manner of lame explanations to work around admitting to what He has done. There is a self-constraining issue of character that we could then attribute to God. Because He has said this of Himself, there will be times and places where He ‘cannot’ act because He has already declared His will in the matter, and His will is that He will not.
So, He establishes this connection between our faith and His power, between our belief and His activity. I would have to say that the lack of miracles in our time is not simply a matter of unbelief in us. That is assuredly a problem for us, but it is not the only limit upon our experience. No, I think there is also a matter of our reason for seeking the miraculous. Again, what God does, He does not do frivolously. He doesn’t interfere with the natural order that He established willy-nilly. If He did then first, there would be no natural order, only chaos. Secondly, there would be no miracle, as the ‘miraculous’ would become the ordinary. The miracle would then be if things actually followed their natural order.
Yet, we are constantly praying for miracles, and the question we need to ask is why? Why are we asking that nature’s order be overturned? Is it simply because we are experiencing pain and have no way to stop it? Is it simply because disease bothers us, and we’d like to see it abolished? Worse, yet, there are way too many who simply want the miracles for the show. There are entire congregations, if not denominations, out there that just want to pursue the entertainment of the miraculous. If they are succeeding at all, rest assured that it is the counterfeit activity of the counterfeiting enemy that is keeping them entertained!
No, God intervenes for a purpose or He doesn’t intervene at all. He heals for a purpose or He doesn’t heal at all. That sounds harsh, I know, but there are times when not healing will better serve His plan. In those times, particularly if we are the one left suffering, we have got to trust that God is true to His word. We have got to hold to the principle that He works all things for the good of those who serve Him. If we are serving Him and yet suffering, we must hold fast to that Truth. After all, we won’t be the first to suffer in service, nor shall we be the last. Jesus came, after all, as the Suffering Servant. Who are we to demand better for ourselves? Look at Paul, who was left to cling to God’s all-sufficient grace. So many being healed all around him, but he is left to continue as is. Why? Because it served God’s purpose better that it be so. Because, as He said Himself, His strength and His glory are more evident when our weakness keeps our own pride from taking the credit. OK, He didn’t say it that way, but there’s the gist of it.
So, if we are seeking miracles for the sake of miracles, let us not expect much and let us be very wary of whatever we may witness. If we are seeking miracles simply for our own comfort and ease, let us not expect much and let us be very wary of whatever may come. Indeed, if we are seeking miracles, I think we are all but guaranteed to be off course. Seek ye first the kingdom of God and all these things well be added. I don’t see the apostles running around chasing miracles. I don’t see them demanding miracles. I don’t really see them even thinking in terms of miracles. No, they are focused on the kingdom and because they are focused on the kingdom mission, those miracles happen around them. Why? To put God’s seal on their message. What’s their message? Repent for the kingdom is at hand. The message is not, “come to Jesus and you’ll be healthy and rich all the days of your life.” No, it is much more stark, “REPENT!” And signs and wonders follow that message. Signs and wonders don’t follow the twisted gospel of the easy life. They follow the Truth on a difficult road that leads to our desired haven.
Well this is a bit of an aside. However, this passage which comes as a parallel to Mark 6:6 really caught my attention at the time. It is from Isaiah 59:16-17. It speaks of God’s astonishment at finding no intercessor amongst all His people. Yes, this provides a connection to Jesus’ astonishment at the unbelief of His townsfolk. But, look how things continue. “His own right arm brought salvation to Him; And His righteousness upheld Him.” Isn’t that a picture of exactly what is transpiring in the ministry of Jesus? Isn’t that exactly the purpose of God in this whole thing? Seeing that no man who would or could intercede as he ought, seeing that no man could hope for salvation on his own, God brought salvation to Himself. God upheld Himself in the form of the Son by His own righteousness.
Honestly, though, it is verse 17 that really caught my attention, and not because of this study. Rather, it is the echo of this passage that Paul delivers in Ephesians 6:11-17 that really stood out, for I had just been speaking on that at our men’s retreat. I just hadn’t noticed the connection back to Isaiah before. But, there it is: The breastplate of righteousness and the helmet of salvation. When Paul speaks of the armor of God, I had always interpreted that as what God provides. Now, however, it becomes clear that this is what He Himself wears. That’s a whole different matter. So, I would have to look upon that Pauline passage with a new appreciation, recognizing that what he is getting at is that God has granted us the use of His personal armor. It’s rather like King Saul when David offered to go up against Goliath, and like David in that situation, we may find that the armor doesn’t fit us well. However, unlike David, we are given to be changed such that we do fit. It’s not the armor that needs adjustment, in our case. It’s us. We need that reshaping of rebirth in order to properly fit the form of that armor which God chooses.
What is of almost equal interest is that there are portions of the Godly outfit that Paul does not carry over into his message. Gone are the garments and the mantle. Well, those garments: They are declared garments of vengeance, so by rights, they cannot be worn by us. God may allow us the use of His armor as we go into battle on His behalf, but he retains the sole right to vengeance. “Vengeance is Mine” (Dt 32:35, Ro 12:19, Heb 10:30). Do you suppose God thought it important that we get that understood? He sure seems to make a point of it!
The other item which Paul does not see fit to carry to us is the mantle of zeal. What shall we make of that? Perhaps nothing at all. Perhaps we ought to recognize that such zeal is a gift God bestows upon but a few, the chosen among the chosen if you will. Then, too, there is a certain risk that zeal unaccompanied and unconstrained may become folly. Zeal without wisdom can be a great danger to us, for it can get us going out ahead of God, or going in directions He never called for. Think, for instance, of John and James on that occasion which earned them their nickname. Their zeal for Jesus was great; so great that when this town refused to host Him as they knew He deserved, they were ready to call down the fire of heaven to destroy the town and its people. How dare they offer such affront to the Son of God! Plenty of zeal is in evidence in their reaction, but no wisdom. Jesus had to stand as Wisdom and wake them up to the fact that such behavior did not fit with His purpose.
One big issue for us is that our greatest zeal tends to be combined with a thirst for vengeance. Now, we may try to make that vengeance look better by claiming it is somehow a matter of God’s honor, but really, it’s our own honor that is first in our thinking. There is no man who is strong enough to carry zeal and vengeance in such fashion and yet remain steadfast in righteousness. This is, I suspect, why God reserves the latter for Himself, and limits with great care His sharing of the former with His children. The right to wear the mantle of zeal must be earned. Like our own children, the maturity required to handle that right must be manifestly established before the benefit of that right will be entrusted to us.
Righteousness and salvation are given to us, as it were, in spite of ourselves. We did not deserve them, and we cannot really hope to earn them. Yet, God shares it out to us to overflowing. Not so with zeal. Zeal must await the time when we are shown able to handle such power. And vengeance? Vengeance is ever and always reserved to God’s hands alone.
