New Thoughts (05/11/10-05/16/10)
It seems I have a great deal of ground to cover, as I consider the number of points that have been gathered out of this preparatory time. Some of this is old business, so let me address that portion first, as best I can.
The first matter I would touch on concerns a passage I have already explored in the course of this long study. But, as I saw it again in the parallels to today’s passage, I found myself wondering something. Back in Matthew 19:28, Jesus tells His disciples that they twelve shall sit enthroned when He is upon His own, assuredly higher throne. There, they shall serve in judging the twelve tribes of Israel. This tidbit was offered on another of those occasions when the disciples needed a bit of corrective to their perspective. But, the particular question that struck me was that of how this applies to Judas. He was, after all, still counted among the twelve at the time, and nothing in what Jesus says explicitly excludes him from the promise made.
Well, it didn’t register at the time, but I have to say that today’s reading in Table Talk rather directly addresses this question. In that article, the discussion was the promise of a Levitical perpetuity. Sure, and the priesthood is preserved in Christ, but what of the Levites? There is not really any direct fulfillment that we can observe for that piece of the promise, nor is there any real reason to suppose a restoration of the old order rituals that would require their services, however much certain factions may play up a return of the types and signs. So, was that promise null and void? Did the prophet lie? The answer offered in that article notes that, even where no conditions are explicitly declared in the oracles of God, there are often, if not always, implicit conditions. They point to the mission of Jonah to the Ninevites. No hope of averting disaster was included in the prophetic message. Yet, as Jonah suspected, the hope was there. Repentance was the unmentioned key, to which the Ninevites instinctively availed themselves.
Does this same implicit condition not apply in the case of that promise to the twelve? Surely, when one of their number is found to be an unfit pretender to discipleship, then the promise is made void by reason of unmet prerequisites, not through any failure of God’s faithfulness! Let every man be found a liar, yet God is True (Ro 3:4)! Judas, not really so much by his betrayal, but by his refusal to come back in repentance, made null the terms of the promise.
Well and good. I must surely note here that this failure on the part of Judas was no surprise to God, no hiccup in His plan. Jesus, in His great high priestly prayer, notes that He kept all whom the Father had given Him, and not one was lost except ‘the son of perdition,’ and this, in order that ‘the Scripture might be fulfilled’. In other words, Judas, for all that his actions were worthy of condemnation, was acting according to plan, just as Pharaoh and his obstinacy was fully in accord with God’s purposes in the day that Moses led Israel out of Egypt. It does nothing to mitigate the guilt of either party. Their condemnation is just, for although their actions accorded with God’s purposes, their willingness to play their part was not a willingness to be of service to God, but a willful assertion of their own plan and purpose above His.
I want to come back to this idea of implicit conditions as it applies to our prayer life. But, that is for later. For the present, there is another question that pertains more directly to this passage, and how it fits with the conceptions I have as regards the Trinity. This is a question, I would note, that I left here over two years ago, hoping that perhaps in the interim I should have an answer to it. Whether or not this is the case, I shall explore tomorrow.
So, here is the problem. At the close of Matthew’s account, Jesus says, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Mt 28:18). Yet, on this occasion, He is saying that the determination of who sits where is not within His authority. How do we fit these two statements together? One possible answer would be to note that for the period of His earthly ministry, Jesus had set aside His heavenly prerogatives (Php 2:6-8), and that His declaration at the end of Matthew indicates that He is now to be restored to His fullness. That is certainly a reasonable answer, I should think, but it raises other questions for me.
These questions pertain to the very nature of the Trinity. It is difficult enough to grasp this three yet one nature of God, that there are these separate persons or offices of the Godhead that we speak of as Father, Son and Spirit, and yet, they are most assuredly and most truly One. This is the great enigma of the Church. It has been the cause of endless difficulties both within and without. The Jews find the whole thing unthinkable, for they know (as we do), that, “Behold! The Lord your God, He is One.” Well, then, if this be true, then how can Jesus – who spoke often of the Father, be God? He is not the Father, is He? And yet, He makes these claims to an eternal nature, claiming to have been known to Abraham, and such.
This whole problem only becomes more difficult when we discover, as we do in this passage, that there is a chain of command within the Trinity. If, after all, to be God is to be Supreme, that above which there is no other, then surely that person within the Trinity who is subject to another person of the Trinity is not Supreme, and therefore cannot be God, right? Of course, this is not the case, but just such reasoning has led some into very heretical forms of belief. It is not a matter reserved to the ancients, nor one reserved to the modern age. It is a repeating problem because man in his finite understanding would come to grips with concepts of an infinite God. We reflect Him in our nature, yet we are not exact replicas of Him. We are bounded where He is boundless. So, the fact that we are so challenged by efforts to conceptualize this Triune nature is not surprising.
It is clear, though, that this chain of command exists within the unified essence of God, within the One. Paul touches on this when writing to the church at Corinth. “When all things are subjected to Him [the Son], then the Son Himself will also be subjected to the One [the Father] who subjected all things to Him [the Son], that God [the Trinity] may be all in all” (1Co 15:28). In other words, even though all authority has been given to the Son, He remains subject to the Father. This is in keeping with the way Christian authority is delegated down through the Church. Jesus delegates His authority, giving us all authority. Yet, He still holds the authority, holding it as delegated by the Father. The Father, then, is the Final Authority.
The thing we learn of authority is that delegated authority ceases when the one to whom it is delegated deviates from the requirements of the grantor of that authority. An ambassador who does not properly reflect the will of the state he represents has no authority to speak on behalf of the state. When he is sent out, specific bounds are placed upon his capacity to negotiate, and he cannot exceed those bounds, else his negotiations are empty and non-binding. So, with the Christian. He is granted authority to act on heaven’s behalf, but if his actions are not in accord with heaven’s dictates, he no longer acts with authority. We could argue that the same applies to Jesus. The distinction is that with Him, there is no question of failing to act in one accord with the other offices of the Godhead. Behold, the Lord our God, He is One. Father, Son and Spirit, He is One. There is no disagreement within or between, no least hint of separation. They are in perfect unity one with another, even as they pursue their separate offices.
There is a chain of command, but it is one to which all three persons set their willing and joyful consent. Our pastor has been known to describe this relationship in terms of there being a first among equals, that first, in this case, being the Father. That is not an unreasonable way of grasping the matter. By mutual agreement, the Father has been set as the head of this Triune Godhead. If ever there is a need for decision, that decision lies with Him. And yet, Son and Spirit are ever in agreement with Him. They could not be otherwise, for indeed, they are Him.
As to the limits we see upon the Son in the course of His life among us, we must return to that statement from Philippians. He willingly set aside His prerogatives, that He might more fully sympathize with us, as He would and does serve as our eternal High Priest. Who better to advocate on our behalf than this One Who has been through those things we go through, who has faced the trials of this finite life? So, yes, there are those matters of timetable that He surely knows in His fullness that He did not know in His incarnation. There are these matters of assignment that are not His to change, particularly in His incarnation. He has set such authority aside for the duration, to be taken up again only when His mission is completed. And having completed it, He has indeed taken that authority back upon Himself.
With that, I think I can turn my attention more directly upon the narrative before me. One thing I would note briefly is a certain contrast between how Jesus deals with His disciples here and how Herod dealt with Herodias. In the latter case, Herod foolishly made offer of the very thing James and John ask from Jesus: I will for you whatever you ask. Jesus, on the other hand, hears this request and gives no immediate answer, instead seeking further details from His followers. Like a wise parent, He makes clear that His answer will depend on the nature of the request made.
Herod, as we saw in the previous study, was caught by his own impetuous offer, and pride refused to admit to that foolishness and rescind the offer. Jesus has no need to rescind, for no offer is made without full appraisal of the implications. This is demonstrative of that passage which reminds us that we are better off making no promise than to promise and then fail of keeping it (Ecc 5:5 – Better not to vow than to vow and not pay.)
A second contrast I see in this is in the comparison of James and John to the behavior shown by Joshua and Caleb. I have in mind that moment when the twelve appointed by Moses had returned from their assessment of the Promised Land. Out of the twelve, those two alone stood with the faith God rightly deserves. They saw what the others had seen, but rather than bowing to fears, they acknowledged that the God Who had done so much to bring Israel out of Egypt was hardly likely to be bothered by such as was found in this land. In other words, they sought to turn the eyes of the people to God and off of their own weakness.
In a fashion, James and John stand in similar position here. They have been witness to the Promise, having seen a glimpse of the heavenly order in that time of Jesus’ transformation. Now, they are among the twelve, the primary witnesses to the ministry of this ambassador from heaven, but their focus is upon their own gain. Make us this promise, Jesus, that we shall enjoy the greatest prestige amongst all Your companions. It’s all about us!
If I may put it more plainly, for Joshua and Caleb, the response to what they were part of was to call upon the people to honor God. For James and John, the call was for God to honor them. Now, I don’t wish to suggest that James and John are not the men of God that we suppose them to be. They were! For all their rough edges, these remained men of God’s choosing, and almost certainly more worthy of His choosing than I. But, they were men with human failings, men of temperament, and they required a bit of remodeling at the hands of the Master before they would truly be fit for His service. Just like me.
What I do take from this contrast, though, is a cautionary. For, though I decry it often, the truth is that I am inclined towards exactly the sort of prayer life that I would say is demonstrated by James and John. Pray, Lord, do for me as I ask of You. Honor me, Lord. Shower me with praises, God. Make my life easy. But, these are not the prayers of the godly. The prayers of the godly are found in thoughts such as these:
Lord, ask of me, and I shall do. I give You all the honor, Holy God, and Your praises are ever on my lips. How might I make straight Your path, that Your way may be easier? Oh! That I might serve You, it is enough, to be a servant in Your household, far better than anything else that I could ever think of.
It comes down to an issue I was discussing with some dear friends of mine not so very long ago. If we would spend time in prayer without resorting to our long list of requests, spend that time in speaking to God of Who He is, showering Him with those praises we promise to sing to His name; how quickly we seem to run out of material. How can that be? You are holy, oh Lord, mighty and magnificent. How I love You! You provide so marvelously, caring for such as me. Well, that’s about it. OK, got the praise out of the way, now, then, about this list I have…
What is it with us that we are more concerned with our blessing than with God’s purpose? It is weakening the church and it is weakening our own faith! The Church of the Holy Healing is no longer concerned with that which concerns God. It just wants to be comfortable in this flesh. The Church of the Profitable Prophet is not interested in what the Lord is saying, it’s interested in what the constituents are paying. All over the landscape, we are faced with organizations that lay claim to the name of Christian, but offer something that has nothing in it of Christ. We worship at the altar of me, and try and wrap it in enough religious terminology to make it sound less selfish than it is.
This is where James and John are in this moment we are seeing. Of course, we know that both of these men were fiercely devoted to Jesus, devoted to the point of jealousy. They were absolutely in earnest in their discipleship to Him, were truly determined to pursue the course of life that He was teaching. And yet, they are still themselves. They still have their preconceptions and misconceptions. They know that they are traveling with a king, even with the King. This somehow prevents them from really hearing some of what this King says, though, because, well: He’s the King! It can’t be as He is seems to be saying, can it? He’s the Victorious Deliverer! What’s all this death talk, then? Of course, He’s going to Jerusalem to establish His throne. Who knows what He’s getting at with this cross business, but He’s about to establish His kingdom, our kingdom, and we want in on the action. Hey, Jesus! We’ve been here from the start, surely that earns us some consideration, yes? You can work Peter in, too, I suppose, but would You just do us this one little favor, and give us the glory posts?
Church life. It has apparently ever been thus. However often the Master of the Church reminds us that the leadership He seeks will lead by serving, we still prefer the place of honor. To clean house, or to teach, which would you do given the choice? To set the order of service, or to peaceably adhere to the order of another, even when you don’t entirely agree, which is more comfortable for you? Bless me or use me; which do you seek? In each of these, of course, we know the right answer. That’s not at issue. We know how to provide the answers we know ought to be on our lips. I’m more interested in which answers rest in our hearts.
How much of our religious life is tied up in reactions to peer pressure, real or perceived, and how much is the real and honest expression of a true faith? I dare say it’s an admixture for any of us, the only question being the ratio. But, our mission, my mission, has got to be to reduce that which is just posing as righteousness and to maximize that which is true and real. James and John would come to that place. I must come to that place.
John, in particular, we are given the chance to see clearly as he grows from what we see here into what he would be to the history of the church. James was a life cut short, as we measure things. Of course, we know that God was as much in control over his life as He is in control of everything. In God’s eyes, James was not cut off before his time. He was brought home to heaven precisely at the due time, his purpose accomplished and his rest entered into. For John, more work remained.
I am struck, thinking through all this, by how deeply concerned John was for the Truth in his later years. I wonder if we don’t see the roots of that concern right here in this scene. When he came to realize how far his thinking had drawn him from the real nature of the Gospel, how sensitive he became to the errors that others taught as the truth of Christ! Oh, the old intolerance was there. God had not erased John and re-written him. No, and why should He? He, after all, created John and created him to the specifications that John demonstrated by his temperament. He was fashioned thus for a reason, because among other things it fit him perfectly to stand up as a defender of the Truth when so many distortions were being spread through the church. Oh! Would that we had a few such Johns standing in the Church today!
Indeed, I am certain they are there. God does not leave Himself without a true witness. But, where? Who is it who stands firmly upon the absolute truth of God and renounces with all due vehemence every bit of nonsense that is preached in the false guise of godly counsel? We are becoming conditioned to get along, to seek that which unifies the Church at all cost. Far be it from us to be seen as divisive religious bigots! No, no! No doctrine for us, please. Doctrine divides. We have become the church of the touchy feely. It’s not about Truth. It’s about how I feel about things. We can all have our opinions and just get along. But, really? When opinions collide, surely at least one of them is incorrect? This is Truth we are handling, not pop culture! This is Truth, not artistic taste. There’s nothing subjective about it. It has far more of science to it than art, but we don’t like to hear that any more than the scientist does.
But enough. I am far off on a tangent. Let me return to the text at hand. I had commented, in my preparatory notes, that James and John were thinking all about blessings, while Jesus was thinking of something quite different. But, in retrospect, I should change that statement. Jesus was thinking of those things as well as the blessings that lay ahead. I am thinking of Hebrews 12:2, which states that this Jesus, the author an perfecter of faith, endured the cross for the joy set before Him. It’s not that He ignored the shame and the suffering that He would need to endure, not at all. But, He was, like Paul, convinced that for all that it would hurt – and it would hurt greatly – it was but a light and momentary affliction, when set against the eternity in which it transpired (2Co 4:17). The only issue with James and John in this instance is that they don’t recognize that the two come hand in hand. When they hear about the cup, they’re thinking, hey! Why not? Drink from the king’s cup? Life of ease it is, then! Baptism? Well, yeah, we saw Your baptism. Doesn’t look so bad. I mean, a dunk in the water and up again, a bit of repentance. No big deal, if that’s the cost for those positions of honor. But, realization would come.
This was a lesson that I suppose could only be learned by experience. The Teacher, great though He was, either could not or would not teach them in a fashion that they would grasp when it came to this issue. Oh, He did not hide it from them, but neither did He explain it until they understood. He gave them the message and left it for them to remember after that fact. So, when He had died and risen once more, they finally got what He had been saying on that account. Perhaps they began to recognize some of what He meant when He kept on that what they did to Him, the Teacher, His students could expect as well. The servant is not greater than the master, and all that. I don’t know why we should expect them to have fully grasped that point when we don’t fully believe it ourselves most days.
But, the reality remains unchanged by our unbelief. If we shall not share in His sufferings then we have no reason to expect His blessings. I could clarify that by saying that I speak of those sufferings that He allows to come our way, those sufferings that come to us because it is of His purpose. I should also insist that the blessings are under the same restriction: those that He sends our way because it is of His purpose. As for the sufferings we bring on ourselves, they don’t apply. And, the blessings that we ask for simply because it suits our tastes? Empty. Worthless. And worse: unworthy of the One from Whom we ask them.
I have noted before that James and John shared a zealousness for Jesus and His ministry, a fervor not far removed from the Zealots in intensity. We see them as thoroughly unwilling that any should malign this Christ, ready to call down God’s vengeance upon the slightest insult to His name. Jesus had constantly to rein them in, to point out that this sort of response did not serve the Kingdom or its King. Yet, there was a place for such fervor, a place for that intensity. It was never removed from these two, only tempered by understanding, making of both James and John formidable weapons of Truth.
James, as the early leader of the movement after Jesus had ascended, was almost bound to draw trouble to himself with such a character. He was not the sort to back down from a challenge, certainly not on this point. Like Peter, he would be headstrong, but he was perhaps more deliberate in his ways, less inclined to fly off on the first thought that hit him. No, he was not the master rhetorician that Paul would be, but he was firm in his faith, and ready to take on anybody who dared belittle the person of Jesus. It is thus that he was a particular target of the religious hierarchy of Jerusalem, and it is thus that Herod felt that having him killed would buy him a bit of favor with the locals.
John did not fulfill the prophecy of this passage so swiftly. By all reports, he lived to a fine old age, although he certainly suffered his share of afflictions along the way. Even if we discount the more fanciful claims, such as his having survived boiling in oil, there is more than enough to have broken lesser men. But, what is marvelous for us in John’s case is that we are granted the privilege of seeing what Jesus can do with what was otherwise a rather negative character trait. We see his early intolerance remains, but it has been fine tuned. No more is he ready to reject those who are serving Christ but unfamiliar to him personally. No, he reserves his iron for those who preach a different gospel, and there, he will not suffer his opposition to be heard. They are accursed. They ought not even to be greeted, lest that greeting be mistaken for acceptance of their false message.
Read through his letters, and this fierce opposition to every false teaching shouts from every page. The apostle of love, as we think of him, proves a particularly intense lover, a particularly jealous lover, for his love is of God and for God. To the very end, he maintains that same fierce devotion to Christ Jesus and His Truth, and he suffers no one who would gainsay that Truth, who would dare to lead the followers of Christ away to other systems of belief. I have to ask again, where are those today with such earnest devotion to God? Where are those who are jealous for Him, determined that His Truth shall be set forth without blemish or stain as it is in heaven? Are we willing to be those who stand no nonsense, who insist on the Gospel once delivered, with no leaven of pop philosophy, no distraction of new age happy think? I hope so.
Changing tack now, I wonder how many have looked at the two accounts we have of this exchange, and wondered who was wrong, Matthew or Mark. Matthew, after all, says it was their mother who asked the favor of Jesus, where Mark – again, probably recounting Peter’s recollection of events – says it was the sons. It would be pretty easy to brush this off with questions of what difference it really makes whether it was the mother or the sons who asked. I think, however, it is far more interesting to contemplate the differences. Whoever broached the subject, it’s quite clear that James and John were onboard with the idea. Whether mom came up with it and talked them into it, or whether they had the idea and had mom tag along as some form of incentive for Jesus to accede to their requests is unclear, but by the time they reach Him, they are clearly of one mind on the matter.
What strikes me, though, is how these distinctions in the accounts serve as something in the way of corroboration as to the independence of the witnesses, and to the person of the witnesses. I recall that Matthew was a tax-collector, one taken from amongst the lowest of the low. This profession was so despised by the Jews that the family of a son who became a tax-collector was considered as unclean as the son who took it up. Such a son was disowned. He was not only rejected by society at large, but he was rejected by his own flesh and blood. They would want nothing do to with him, would do their best to see that he was not associated with them in anybody’s minds.
This may serve to explain why Matthew’s name is a bit unclear in the Gospel records. Was he Matthew or Levi? Quite probably, he went by an assumed, Latinized name to protect his family from the stain of his own reputation. The point I am getting at is that this was a man who had, for all intents, no family. Yet, he is here with Peter and Andrew, has been in their house, met their mother. He is here with James and John, whose mother has been traveling right along with them. Can you imagine? This one who was essentially an orphan, although his family was likely still extent, was bound to be a bit sensitive to the signs of familial loyalty around him. One could almost reach the conclusion that he would obviously be the one to take particular note that their mother was their advocating for them. It was an experience he must have longed for.
A side note on this thought comes in the form of another question: Where are the fathers? You know, we hear all the time how the church has become the women’s domain. They are the volunteers, they are the ones getting involved and making more and more of the decisions. The men, we are told, tend to be more passive in church matters. We are told this is a particular disease of the modern day, but here it is in the Gospels! Name one father who is counted amongst the followers of Jesus. There is one, as I recall, but I doubt you’ll find a second. James and John left theirs in the boat. But, Mom came along.
Of course, we could note, and rightly so, that somebody had to keep making a living in order to provide for those who had gone off after Jesus. It’s kind of like our view of the missionary. If all were missionaries, who would fund them? This, too, has Biblical backing. The church in Antioch selected a specific small team to send, and the rest remained, working at their labors so as to fund the work of the few. There’s no shame in that.
But, it is not just the Zebedees. Throughout, from Jesus on down, there is an absence of fathers in the narrative. Joseph, having returned from Egypt with wife and child, disappears from the accounts. Peter’s father is never mentioned at all, and of course, Zebedee, to the best of our knowledge, is still plying his trade up on the Sea of Galilee, throughout the whole of this historical period. As for the others? No mention is made. And yet, this was a patriarchal society. Isn’t this just a bit odd? Where are the fathers? But, then, God is Father of the fatherless (Ps 68:5), and faithful judge for the widows. This tells me that, while it is no surprise that we find the situation as it is, it is not as God intended. Were it His design to so devalue the role of fathers, then He would not Himself stand in the place of being our Father. He would not take that name upon Himself, if it were a name of no value, a name dishonored.
I just offer this thought: can it be that we are indeed pursuing the role of father faithfully in that we are focused on providing for our families? Can it be that this is the order of things God intended, and we are giving ourselves unnecessary angst in supposing it should be otherwise? This is a subject that would require a much greater effort to resolve properly, an effort I am disinclined to put forth at present. But, it’s a curious thing that over the course of 2000 years, little seems to have changed in this regard. One would think that if it was an aspect of the Christian family life that God was displeased with, He might have made progress in reforming it by now.
I shall turn to the subject of prayer, now, which this passage comments on in a tangential way. There is that verse from earlier in Matthew’s gospel that so much is made of. “If two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven” (Mt 18:19). How we love to hear that! What power is given into our hands! All we have to do is agree, right? But, as others have pointed out before me, if this is the case, why does cancer persist? If this is the case, what’s up with that oil spill down in the gulf? You mean to say we couldn’t find two of us to pray for an end to that? What of war, of terrorism, of murder and theft? There are numerous examples one could come up with that make it clear that there are implied limits on that promise.
We should understand that the limit, in this case, is that we are pursuing matters that accord with God’s will and God’s purpose. We like to think we know when this is the case. In fact, we like to think that whatever we are praying is surely His purpose, for we know His word inside and out. Maybe we don’t recognize it, but with that, we have just played Adam’s game and decided we have become like God. The reality is as Jesus says to these two. “You do not know what you are asking for.” After all, these two clearly agreed on their request and, in that they address themselves to Jesus in making it, we might consider that they are praying. Maybe they’ve even got that two or more thing in mind as they come. But this is prayer that availeth nothing. It is vanity prayer, ATM prayer. It’s nothing to do with kingdom purposes and everything to do with personal pride and personal ignorance.
See, if I may draw us back to that two or more bit, look forward one more verse. “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst” (Mt 18:20). That doesn’t mean simply that this group has come together and repeated, “in the name of Jesus,” as some sort of mantra after their prayerful requests. It means so much more. In this instance, let’s focus on the authority aspect. We might then say that they are gathered together on His authority. Thus, their prayers are on His authority. As I have often said in regards to the ambassadorial authority, it is bound by the issuing power. It has strict limits, set to reflect the agenda of that power. The ambassador who steps beyond that limit in his negotiations or promises has rescinded all claim to authority. Just so with our prayers. So soon as they have exceeded the limit, moved beyond or aside from the express purposes of God, they are vain and empty things. They express only that we still don’t know what we are asking for.
Fortunately for us, we have the attendant promise of Romans 8:26. True, we don’t know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit is within, abiding, and He intercedes for us and through us to help in our weakness; praying through with “groanings too deep for words.” Notice that connection: We don’t know how to pray as we should. We don’t know what we’re asking for. This is not the voice of condemnation, though. It is only the voice of correction. James and John were not condemned for this request. Jesus did not boot them from His school. He taught them, as we shall see in the next study. And, as I have already noted, they were good students. They learned.
For ourselves, the story is not much different. We need not to hang our heads in shame because of things we have foolishly sought of God in the past. We need only to grow, to set aside such childish things and mature into the fullness intended for us. We need to pray with a heart focused on heaven’s purposes, with a tongue guided by heaven’s King. We need to come to that place of seeking His kingdom and His righteousness rather than our ease and our enrichment.
How far we have strayed from that model, how fully we have neglected so much that is taught by the text! Paul had to admonish certain of his charges, for they made too much of their earthly privilege to the point that it was interfering with their spiritual heritage. Yes, they were citizens of Rome, but in the scope of eternity, that was nothing. Your citizenship is in heaven! We in America could stand to remember this. We are hardly the first nation to suppose that we were some big deal in God’s eyes. We are not the first to make the mistake of thinking that He would never allow us to fail because we’re too important to His kingdom.
I don’t need to go listen to the modern day claimants of the prophetic mantle for this. I could simply study history. For all that, I could just read the Old Testament. Israel played this game repeatedly, trusting in the special relationship, trusting in the holy places in their midst to protect them however vile their personal practices had become. Israel fell. Indeed, as is occasionally pointed out, it wasn’t just the idolaters who suffered in the falling, but the devout as well.
Turn to England, which once used to think itself the New Jerusalem, defenders of the faith. For a time, they were the power to be reckoned with on this planet. For a time. Now? How the mighty have fallen! The once great nation, the nation that held out as the last bastion against evil during the dark night of World War II, has allowed itself to be felled by the powerless, by its own foolishness. Now, it cannot even support those on its own soil, and those on its own soil, by and large, are not English. They have voted themselves into subjugation.
Now, we can turn to America, established, yes, on religious principles, although hardly in religious purity. America, birthed in large part by the very real revival that was known as the Great Awakening. Yet, America that has ever been an admixture of faith and materialism. Yes, this nation has done much to be proud of. Yes, we have sent out wave after wave of missionaries into the world. Yet, what has happened to us? We have become a nation in need of missionaries ourselves. We who hold to Christ are, by many accounts, a diminishing number, overwhelmed by foreign gods, and by those who blindly insist that there are no gods. And yet, we suppose that we can count on God to keep the country intact. Why? What reason does He have to do so? What reason do we have to suppose He would? Is our righteousness so much better than those who have gone before? Were their sins so much greater than our own? I think not. I think, rather, we might want to pay heed to what Jesus said of such things. “Do you suppose those upon whom the tower in Siloam fell were worse sinners than those in Jerusalem? But, I tell you, unless you repent you will all be just as dead as they” (Lk 13:4-5).
If God is no respecter of persons, neither is He a respecter of places. If He would not preserve His own house, as Israel once supposed, why do we think He would preserve this country? You know, nations rise and nations fall, some for good and some for ill. But, whatever man has gotten himself up to in the earth, God has always found the means to preserve faith. If one empire falls into darkness, another arises to the light. We are not, in the end, citizens of the United States first and foremost, however proud we may be of that citizenship. No! Our primary citizenship is in heaven. Our primary allegiance must be to heaven’s King, from whom our President’s authority comes. For the Christian, there can be no other order than God first, His appointed authorities second. If this brings a conflict between authorities, our path ought to be clear.
There is one final aspect of this whole thing that deserves note, for it, too, has an impact on our prayer life and our faith life. See, we have come to a point where we think all hardship must be ‘of the devil,’ and God is only in the nice, pleasant stuff. We have done our best to strip God of His wrath. Oh! God is Lo-o-ove. It’s true, He is. He says so, Himself. But, He also says, “I bring calamity.” But, we prefer not to hear that bit.
As I consider the question Jesus puts to these two men, it is clear that what He is looking at is not blessing, as we would measure blessing. The cup He speaks of is not one of honor, but the bitter cup so often promised to the oppressors of God’s people. The baptism He looks to is not a nice, emotion-filled dunk in the river. It’s drowning in a river of agony, every limb, every joint on fire with pain. It’s drowning in the deep sorrow of the whole weight of sin, the sins of every man, woman and child. It’s feeling the fullness of that God is Calamity part of God, in such a way as no man before or since has ever had to experience it. Yet, Jesus does not shrink from what is ahead. Rather, He steels Himself, sets His face resolutely towards that very goal.
What is in this for us? What should we take from our Master’s example? The thing I have in mind is that we have no grounds for grumbling. Consider the words of Jesus as that moment became imminent. Peter had pulled his sword, surely a futile gesture, but so very like Peter. Jesus says, “Put that away! This is the cup the Father has given Me, shall I refuse to drink it?” (Jn 18:11). Let me put it a bit more plainly, at least as I see it. If God is in control, truly the God of Providence, truly all-Knowing, all-Wise and all-Powerful; and if we truly believe that He works all things together for the good of those who love Him and whom He has called for His purpose (Ro 8:28), what remains to complain about?
If we are going to thank Him for the good stuff, doesn’t that cover everything? What is there that we ought not to thank Him for? Consider Joseph. No doubt, he had experiences we would consider worthy of complaint: dumped by his own brothers, sold into slavery, jailed for a crime he never committed (and we may well suppose that the one who jailed him knew that). Yet, Joseph is never once recorded as complaining of this treatment. He doesn’t fall into questioning God, or seeking some other god that might treat him a bit better. No. Joseph knows God is in control, whatever the current situation. Joseph knows that whatever man’s intent, God’s intent is good, and He will do it. What about us? Do we know that still? When markets fail, and the government seems to be in the hands of fools, do we still understand that God is in control, and is working for our good? When it hurts, do we still see the blessing ahead?
Have we turned our eyes upon Jesus? That’s the question. Are we still seeking His kingdom, or just hoping that He blesses us with one of our own? Listen to what Paul says in this regard: “I would know Him – the power of His resurrection, yes! But, also the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death” (Php 3:10). We have been trained to stop at the power. It’s all about power. We want the power. But, we don’t want the discipline that makes that power something other than dangerous in our hands. We don’t want the suffering. Suffer like Jesus? No thanks. He already paid, just give me the power. But, it doesn’t work that way.
Let me take you to another point Paul makes. If we are children, he writes to the Romans, then we are also heirs of God (Ro 8:17). Sounds good, doesn’t it? Cool! We inherit heaven. What can be bad about that? But, hear the whole of it. We are heirs along with Christ, assuming we suffer with Him. You see, we can’t expect to be glorified with Him if we haven’t also willingly suffered with Him. You can’t have the one without the other. You can’t pray your way to wealth, health and happiness if you’re not fundamentally focused on seeing the kingdom work accomplished.
Honestly, all those prayers keep our eyes firmly on this life. Health? However good it is and however long your days, the final act remains the same. What happens then? That’s what matters. Wealth? You fool! Today your riches are required of you! What profits it a man if he gain all the riches of the world and yet forfeits his soul? Happiness? The very purpose of your existence is to know God and enjoy fellowship with Him. If that hasn’t brought you happiness yet, then nothing here is going to do it, and such pleasures as this world may have to offer? Well, like your health, they all end at the same point. What happens then? Eighty, ninety years: it may sound like a long time. It may feel like a long time. But, in the scales of an eternity ahead, they are less significant than a single grain of sand measured against the whole of the planet. They are nothing. God is training our hearts for eternity. Let us learn to look beyond this speed bump of a life to what lies ahead, and let us be preparing ourselves to rejoice in that boundless future!
