New Thoughts (04/26/11-05/02/11)
I shall start this particular study with a thought which arises largely from the conclusion of the passage, where we are told of the crowd’s reaction of amazement. Once again, this most consummate of teachers has outclassed the experts. Once again, they have come out thinking to prove Him false, but He has instead proven them if not incompetent then certainly unfit for their positions. Both Matthew and Mark comment on how amazed the people (and even the officials) were at the nature of His reply to these Sadducees (and that coming on the heels of a similarly adroit handling of the Pharisees and the Herodians).
One of the passages that comes up in the parallels to these closing comments is Matthew 7:28-29. There, we are far nearer the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, and we read that after He had taught, the crowds were amazed by His teaching. Why? Because He taught as one with authority, unlike their scribes. Now, I’m not going to avail myself of this excuse to go look at my notes from that part of my studies, but something strikes me afresh in this comment. He taught as one with authority. Well, of course, He is one with authority. He is Authority! But, it finally struck me what was meant by that.
The scribes to which Jesus is being compared were men trained in the parsing of Scripture. However, as they were largely from a Pharisaic background, much of that parsing was done by way of referring to the efforts of past scribes, particularly the greats like Hillel. In much of the rabbinic writings one can find this tendency. “As rabbi so and so has written…” How does this come across?
Our own scholastic efforts tend to be rife with citations of other experts in whatever field the effort involves. Part of this, to be sure, is to make certain that honor is given its due. But, a large part of this is also a matter of lending credence to the current work. Think, for instance, of the whole business of global warming research. Why, everything is peer-reviewed. Everything written has citations of other studies to bolster the findings being described. Well, now. It’s well and good to honor those upon whose work you are building. But, in theory at least, one’s efforts ought to stand just as solidly on their own. In other words, if the research is sound, then one should be able to consider presenting the results with no such references attached, and the reviewers, measuring the research on its own merits, ought to find it just as valid or invalid without all that addendum of references to others. It is, then, primarily an appeal to other authorities.
This brings me back ‘round to my point. All these other teachers, these scribes and rabbis and such, had a strong tendency for appealing to the authority of their predecessors. In other words, they taught as having no real authority themselves. They were but parroting what they had been taught. Comes Jesus, and all this has changed. Jesus appeals to no other for His message except God Himself. Consider His claims. There is not so much as one example of Jesus saying, “As the illustrious Gamaliel would say,” or “As Hillel wrote.” No, His claim is far greater. “I speak only what I hear My Father in heaven say.” Authority! Even that claim wasn’t made until fairly late in His ministry. From the outset, He simply taught. He laid out the Truth with no claims of support from any other teacher or source. It was just the Truth. It needed no such support.
This is what those people were noticing. This is what stuck out when Jesus taught. He spoke from Himself, not from a reference library. He was willing to stand by what He said on its own merits, not feeling any need to back up His views with the opinions of others. If there was any opinion that He appealed to at all, it was solely the opinion of God as revealed in Scripture. That is exactly the appeal we find Him making in this case. He doesn’t go into the Talmud to find arguments supporting the reality of resurrection. He goes to Torah. He quotes nobody but God, as He spoke to and through Moses. In this, of course, He is also pointing to what the Sadducees claimed as the sole binding text, for they rejected Talmud as having any binding validity. But, the key thing I wish to see here is that He spoke with only Scripture as backup. Truth requires no more than that.
This brings me to considerations of the Sadducees as my next topic. I have already touched on one defining characteristic of that sect: that they did not accept the Talmud as a binding matter. In fact, they did not accept anything beyond the five books we know as the Pentateuch. Even the Writings and the Prophets were deemed of limited value for the establishing of doctrine. It is on this basis, we are told, that they rejected the concept of resurrection, for they did not recognize any reference to such a thing in the witness of Moses. This is, as I have noted, why Jesus turns to Moses for His proof of resurrection. It strikes at the heart of their error in a way that abides by their own rules of evidence.
Well, we are also told that the Sadducees denied the concept of angels or spirits, and this we have from the record of the Bible (Ac 23:8). However, it is noted that angelic appearances are sufficiently common in the writings of Moses that their rules of evidence ought certainly to have given them reason to believe in such beings. Thus, Fausset’s Encyclopedia (see? There’s that appeal to other sources!) suggest that Luke overstates the case somewhat in Acts, that they merely rejected the possibility of angelic communications in the present day. Well, I have one immediate problem with that, which is that Luke, in recording what he did in the book of Acts, was writing under the inspiration of God, whereas the authors of the reference work were not. In that case, whose testimony shall I assign the greater value? Secondly, there is a point made in the ISBE that the Sadducees were, as that article describes it, ‘frankly irreligious’.
This leads me to recognize in the Sadducees much of what is current to Christianity in our own age, and has been for many decades now. We could almost think to find similarity even in the roots of much of the Protestant tradition. Let me set out my thinking here. OK, go back to the claimed authority of the Sadducees. What Moses wrote and nothing else. If it was not in Torah it could not be binding on the conscience. This is not far at all from the Protestant declaration of Sola Scriptura is it? Only Scripture has the validity to bind conscience. Thus, we find the Pilgrims declaring that they will follow no man farther than he follows God. This included the pastoral leadership. Indeed, we might suppose it was spoken primarily of that leadership. Pastors do not have that authority except insofar as they are true to the message of Scripture. This also lies at the foundation of our acceptance of civil authority. As all authority is from God, then the civil authorities are authorities only so long as they do not demand a clear breach with God’s Authority.
Now, I would have to say that I have no argument whatsoever with the Protestant appeal to Scripture alone as binding. In the same sense, I don’t think I would be all that upset with the Sadducean stance of Torah alone as binding. The Writings and the Prophets, after all, do not really introduce anything new to the body of doctrine, but rather expound and expand upon the foundation long since laid out in those first five books. What I am attempting to say here is that, much like the roots of the Pharisees, the roots of the Sadducees were reasonably sound. It’s just that what grew from those roots proved to be diseased. We must surely check ourselves to see if our equally sound roots are growing soundly or demonstrating a disease of their own.
When I look at the beliefs of the Sadducees I see that they have much in common with certain relatively modern movements within Christianity. Consider: they rejected the whole idea of there being such things as angels or spirit-beings of any nature. In many seminaries today you would find professors whose views were not particularly different. What, after all, is the basis for so many decades of effort being put into stripping the Bible of its miracles? Why so much time put into showing how all these supposed miracles had perfectly natural explanations? Well, on a purely pragmatic level, people in general have become less open to such concepts and so the church has sought to accommodate them, to stay relevant. On a more sinister level, if one can discount the miracles, one can discount the moral authority. Eventually, the Bible is reduced from representing the views of God to presenting some pretty good morals that one might find beneficial to follow.
Think, too, of their essential discounting of an afterlife. Now, it may be that in rejecting resurrection they did not fully intend to claim that there was nothing for man beyond the grave, but between this view and their rejection of a spirit life, what sort of existence did they posit for the dead? This is not something I have seen clarified anywhere. I am inclined to think that, whether it began so or not, then it had arrived at this conclusion that the present life was all there was to it. Again, this view could be found amongst many pastors and parishioners in our own time. One wonders why they bother themselves with God and church at all, given such a mindset. But, there’s still something, maybe just the social gain, maybe just the habits ingrained in them from youth, but something insists they ought to be in church of a Sunday, however little it means.
We might, after all, wonder why the Sadducees bothered with doctrine at all. Religion had clearly become nothing more to them than a means to power. They were in it for personal gain and really made no bones about it. Whatever the roots of the movement, time and military tide had worn away every last façade of belief, leaving only the cynical core, the pragmatic application, the arrogant insistence of the power addict. ‘Frankly irreligious’: Think on that description. The Pharisees, at this stage, may not have been much more religious in real terms, but they at least made an effort. Hypocritical? Absolutely! But, they could at least care enough about things of faith to try and look the part of good and pious men. The Sadducees, it seems, in spite of their proliferation on the Sanhedrin, in spite of their all but hereditary hold on the high priesthood, could not have cared less about faith, and could not likewise have cared less about piety.
Consider the case we are watching unfold in this passage. Why are they bringing up this seemingly unsolvable riddle? Do they seek to correct the misconception of the Pharisees? Do they seek to reach the Truth by such pursuits? No! They have one interest and one interest only: downgrading public support for One whom they view as a threat to their power. Frankly, sound doctrine means nothing to them. Nothing at all. At this stage, other than serving as an occasionally useful bludgeon against the competition, I doubt they much cared whether the Pentateuch supported or opposed any given practice of their time. If they had really cared, no doubt the rivalry between themselves and the Pharisees would have been far more pronounced. They held the high priesthood! They could handily have denounced the Pharisaic belief system. But, instead, they were, for all their position in the temple, a distinctly minority view. That, too, didn’t matter much to them. After all, they still held the political power of the priesthood, and they held the profitable courts of the temple. Thus, all their interests in religion were happily served, so far as they were concerned. Beliefs? Beliefs are for fools and commoners. Honestly, they would probably have concurred with Marx in finding religion as most of Israel practiced it, little more than an opiate for the masses.
The liberal branch of Christianity, and the rationalist, existentialist branches which are its cohorts are not all that different. They are not that different in beliefs. They are not that different in their reasons for continuing. They are not much different in terms of their frank irreligiousness. Nor are they much different in terms of being ‘overbearing and arrogant’ as Josephus described the Sadducees (and as they showed themselves to be in their handling of Jesus). One can certainly find cause to criticize many other movements with Christianity, such as the rise of television ministries, and other para-ministries which, if honestly assessed, have little concern for ministry and a great deal of concern for profits. But, the arrogance of those who have pretty much rejected faith in their pursuit of religion, their easy dismissal of all whose beliefs retain a trust in the Scriptural record and a confident hope in the resurrected life sets the dead and faithless practices of these liberalized denominations apart.
There are a few further observations I would make regarding the active sects of Jewish religion in that period. Fausset’s offers us a very simple means of quickly marking out the distinctions between the three major movements of the time. “The Pharisees say that some things are the work of fate (he should have said God's providence; he uses the Roman mode of expression), but others in our own power to be or not to be; the Essenes, that fate rules all things. The Sadducees make all things in the power of ourselves as the causes of our good things, and meeting with evils through our own inconsiderateness.” It would be tempting to find just such a trifurcation in the modern movements of Calvinism, hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism. Honestly, though, I think we could take that further by far. For, it seems to me that all men must find themselves covered by one of these three viewpoints. Even the atheist can find his sense of things satisfied by the Sadducean statement. Man the master; all things in our power, and all consequence due solely to our own choosing. The only issue they might take is with the idea of passing moral judgment on any such decisions.
The Pharisees, as Jesus Himself commented, were nearer the truth of things, at least as concerns understanding. Their practices may have left much to be desired, but their beliefs were reasonably accurate. This strikes at the whole topic of free will, which is not really a topic I want to spend any great amount of time on here. But, the free-will purist will find himself feeling a certain affinity for the views of the Sadducees on this subject. God may exist, but He’s hands-off. All my choices are mine alone, and what befalls me is due solely to my choices. If the doctrine of Providence can be summed up as, “there’s no such thing as coincidence,” then the Sadducean view might as easily be summed up as, “there’s nothing but coincidence.”
Now, the Pharisees strike as certain balance. There’s no such thing as coincidence, but that doesn’t leave you uninvolved in the proceedings. God is assuredly directing all things according to His purposes, but you remain a moral creature with moral responsibility for your decisions. If I can borrow the phrase of my friend once more: You certainly have a free will, but God’s is freer. In this regard, I could consider the passages that were noted during worship practice last night. Jesus warns Peter that, “Satan has asked permission to sift you like wheat…” (Lk 22:31). But, notice the key factor here: Satan had to ask. He could demand all he wanted (he is, after all, a particularly arrogant creature), but God has final say. Likewise, I could point out God’s own statements regarding Pharaoh. “I have hardened his heart” (Ex 10:1). Both Satan and Pharaoh chose as they pleased. Yet, at the same time, the outcome was ever and always in God’s hands, not theirs. Examples along these lines are endless, and they are found both to the positive and the negative. David, for all his errors, could not have failed of God’s purposes for him. We, for all our failings, for all our wanderings, cannot help but return to God in due time. Again, let me consider that message Jesus had for Peter. “When once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” There’s no ‘if’ in that. It’s when. It’s definite. There’s no question of what will result of Peter’s willful actions. He has free will, and he will exercise it much to his own shame for a season. But, God’s will is freer. He’ll be back.
Let’s recognize the risk, though, of pushing this too hard. If God’s got the outcome under control, then I needn’t worry about my actions, right? Well, there’s certainly a degree of truth to such an understanding. But, as we arrive at the position the Essenes took, that fate rules all things, then we are inclined to remove from ourselves any sense of moral culpability for our actions. Good and evil, as applied to man’s choices, become empty words, for the man could not have chosen otherwise. We cannot condemn Judas for his betrayal with such a belief system, for he was only doing what fate decreed he would do. So, too, Pharaoh. If God, as fate, had decreed he would refuse to let the Jews go, then frankly, his death by God’s hand was rather unjust, wasn’t it? After all, Pharaoh had no choice but to oppose God, for opposing God was to obey Him in this case. Herein lies the trap of the hyper-Calvinist view, of the Essene view. If we have no choice, we have no responsibility and, in the end, God is shown unjust; which is to say that God is shown not-God.
Even with a proper sense of Providence and free will, it is very easy to step over that line. We are called, after all, to have a certain hope, or a hope which is in fact a certainty. We are called to recognize that our salvation has come about solely by His grace and power, and that our sanctification likewise hinges solely upon Him to achieve. We are assured that having been chosen we will certainly finish the race, for He Who began it finishes it. All of this can easily make us slip from confidence into presumption, from joyful faith to dismissing all personal responsibility. We may not even notice the slide from one stance to the next. But, we must remind ourselves as Paul reminded the Romans, that God’s control does not relieve us of personal responsibility. Shall we continue to sin, knowing that He’s got our backs anyway? May it never be!
OK, so Fausset’s offers another summary of the three movements presented in these attempts to ensnare Jesus. “The Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Herodians of Jesus' day represent the three schools antagonistic to vital Christianity in our days: infidelity; superstition, spiritualism and spiritual pride; worldly compromise.” The author goes on to suggest that these three groups are symbolized by the three unclean spirits like frogs in Revelation 16:13. I am not inclined to arrive at so firm a viewpoint on much of anything symbolized in that text without a great deal more research and guidance. However, we can certainly agree that the characteristics used to describe these three movements are indeed a danger to the true believer.
Infidelity: The very word strikes at the core of faith, for it could be translated as unfaith. Lack of belief, lack of trust; these things have no place in the believer’s life, certainly not in regard to God. But, as I have noted already, a major part of the religious landscape of our time is occupied by just such infidelity and unbelief. How else can we explain pulpits that preach what is diametrically opposed to Scripture? How else can we explain congregations that insist that all gods are equally viable as objects of worship?
Superstition: There’s a fair amount of that, as well. Some would write off a belief in miracles, angels and the like as superstition, but that’s not it. Add in the ‘spiritualism’, and consider those who try and toss a bit of new-age concept, a touch of animism, a bit of the occult, into their supposed Christianity. Not to smack the Charismatics around too hard, but much of that movement has been infiltrated by just such a care-free, smorgasbord approach to things. If it involves spirits and manifestations and excitements, let’s try it and trust God to sort us out later! What sort of maturity is this? But, dare to question and one will be accused of risking that one unforgivable sin. Why, you blaspheme the Spirit! We would never dare. That’s why we always let things run their course. We’d not wish to be found rejecting what He offers, so we accept all offers. And, if you don’t participate, why your very standing as a true Christian comes into question. Spiritual pride. One can see how these three are gathered together by the author under one head.
But, spiritual pride is hardly the sole province of this branch of faith. It crops up everywhere. Each one of us, myself included, finds a certain tendency to assume ourselves wiser in faith than others, more correct in doctrine, more consistent in practice. Maybe it’s prayer. We pray better, more true to the Scriptural model, or with greater fervency, or something. Maybe it’s study. We devote ourselves more thoroughly to knowing what Scripture means. But, we may be rather weak in applying it none the less. Yet, we find cause for pride in our advancement in faith. And, having done so, we have lost sight of the greatest Truth: that even faith is a gift to us from God, and nothing in which we find cause to boast before Him.
Then we have worldly compromise: Here we are again looking at a major issue for the modern church. Think seeker friendly. Think mega-church movement. Think all these efforts to modernize the message to better attract the masses. Every one of these must necessarily be a compromise, mustn’t it? There is certainly a Scriptural basis for understanding the culture so as to present the message of the Gospel in terms they understand. But, does this permit going so far as to incorporate fallen culture into the practice of the Church? I think not! Paul’s instructions to the churches he planted, rightly understood, require us to reject such thoughts. Why the covered head? Because to go uncovered was to take on a cultic practice from the heathens of that region, and would give appearance of supporting their ungodly witchcraft. The excesses of the Corinthian church are addressed on similar grounds: You look no different than the worst of the culture around you!
What ought we to hear God saying to us when we are told that divorce rates in the Church show no discernable difference from the general population? What ought we to hear when promiscuity is as great a problem amongst the youth in the Church as outside? What ought we to say when we are encouraged to let the cultural miasma attaching to many pew regulars pass unremarked? Oh, we need to make them feel welcome. Really? How far shall we allow Godly standards to slide so as to accommodate? It’s one thing to admit that we can’t clean the fish before it’s caught. It’s quite another to suggest that we ought best to leave that fish uncleaned for all time.
Whether or not, then, these issues are the intended sense of that passage from Revelation, they are certainly issues worthy of our constant concern and attention. Let us not suppose ourselves free of any such error, but let us instead pray the more fervently that God would reveal and correct any such tendency in ourselves. Let us take heed lest we fall (1Co 10:12), for pride is ever present, and presents the greatest threat to our well-being. Spiritual pride is but the worst manifestation of that great root of sin. And, knowing by God’s own revealing the terrible untrustworthiness of our own hearts, let us not think we can trust our own judgment in these matters. It requires God’s grace revealing to us the places where pride has once more occluded good sense, where error has overtaken the Truth in us, and needs dealing with.
Even so, Lord, let this be my own prayer today. Where pride is once more wreaking havoc in me, reveal it and grant the wisdom and the power to deal with it as I ought. If, in any way, my faith in You and my understanding of Your ways has slipped into error, bring Thou correction and greater understanding. For, I would be found knowing in Truth and acting in Truth, that I might accurately lay claim to worshiping You in Spirit and in Truth.
The Sadducees begin their query with a reference to the institution of Levirate marriage. The basis for this rule is found in Deuteronomy 25:5-6, where Moses lays out both the rule and its intent. There, we read, “When brothers are together and one dies without a son, that one’s wife shall not remarry outside the family, but her husband’s brother shall take her as wife to fulfill the his duty to his brother by her. And, their first-born shall assume the dead brother’s name, so that his name is not lost from Israel.” Note two points here. First, the law was to apply ‘when brothers are together’. Now, reading the book of Ruth we find that this had already expanded into a setup that had a defined order of suitors for the widow. That system essentially assigned the nearest kin first right of refusal, with the widow passing like an option down the family until somebody chose to accept her. Second, it was only the firstborn child by this marriage that was accounted as being child of the dead brother, assuring that there was no tribe lost by attrition.
I want to stress that last point in regard to this passage. The law had to do with one child. Looking at several translations of the three parallel accounts, it seems the translators almost universally speak of the brother’s duty as being to raise children to his brother, or leave it in ambiguous terms as concerns the issue being a singular child or multiple children. The Greek here has the term ‘seed’, and it is distinctly singular, not plural. Now, it may very well be that there is a vernacular usage that would cause one to treat the singular seed as being plural in significance. However, this is at odds with the law in question. That law, as I noted, speaks only to the firstborn child of any such union. I am not aware of any corruption of that law which had led to its being expanded to include all the children of such a union, which would seem to obviate its intent anyway. There is, then, strong reason to understand the term as intentionally singular, and the translations that pluralize it are simply incorrect.
Why does this matter? Well, consider this: The whole promise of God begins with the promise to Eve that the seed of Eve would defeat the seed of the serpent. Here, again, the seed is a singular term. Much is made of this because much should be made of this. God was not pronouncing some primacy of man, much though the humanists would find such a pronouncement welcome. It is only an unhealthy ego (a common affliction of man) that leads us to suppose that such a meaning were even sensible. No, God is speaking of one very specific seed, and throughout the history recorded in the Old Testament, we find a refining of the scope from whence that seed would come. It comes through Abraham, and through a specific son of Abraham. And, that selection process continues over and over again, quite often selecting, if I might borrow from Frost, the road less traveled. Social norms made the firstborn inheritor to the father. God quite often saw to it that the inheritance of that particular promised seed passed not to the firstborn, but to the second and even, perhaps, farther down the line. Eventually, we see the scope narrowed to coming from amongst the descendants of David.
Now, here’s an interesting thing, as touches on this question the Sadducees pose. David’s very existence was due in large part to the institution of Levirate marriage. That is, after all, David’s line we read about in the account of Ruth. Had this institution not been well in place, it is questionable whether Ruth would have had any children from which David might descend. But, this was the channel of inheritance that led to the Seed, and God would not have that channel blocked by any man or any spirit! One child. That’s all that was required. Do you see? Do you see, as I am seeing, that this whole institution of which the Sadducees speak was founded precisely to arrive at that singular Seed which is Jesus, the only begotten Son of God? Do you think, then, that there is very good reason to preserve the singularity of that which was the goal of this law?
I had commented, in my preparations for this study, that it was interesting that here we had the Resurrection providing these skeptics with the proof of resurrection, explaining resurrection. I see that we also have here the very purpose of Levirate marriage being queried on a posited side-effect of Levirate marriage. Contrary to the purported beliefs of the Sadducees, this is no coincidence. Not at all. For all that they have formulated their supposedly clever query all by themselves, even so, God’s Providence has led them to this confrontation. It’s as if He is determined, in one brief moment, to disabuse them of every error of their unbelieving doctrine. No, they are not mere pawns in a play, unable to do other than God insists that they do. They are still pursuing their own agenda wholeheartedly, and with full responsibility for the results. Yet, God has seen to it that their agenda dovetails most marvelously with His own.
So, they pose their clever question, and think that they have at hand a very clear argument against the idea of a resurrection. You know, it’s not much different than some of our own clever arguments. Some, for instance, find the thought of cremation anathema, for how then will God find the dry bones to knit back together? Others, being of a more scientific bent, might recognize that the dead decompose, and might note that the cells and atoms of their bodies will eventually become component to some other living creature, and quite probably some other human creature. Well then, they might suggest, in this supposed resurrection, which body do those cells become part of? The answer to all such attempts to prove paradox in articles of the Faith are much the same. We might well turn to Jesus’ own answer to these men as applying. “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.” That’s coming from the ESV.
Now, I don’t speak this with arrogance. At least, I hope I don’t. After all, it is entirely probable and perhaps nigh on unavoidable that I have my own blind spots and misunderstandings when it comes to the Scriptures and the power of God. Honestly, it is very difficult to really get one’s brain to believe that God can do all things. It’s very difficult, for example, to believe in miraculous healings, particularly when living with somebody who is chronically ill, has been praying for just such a miracle for years on end, and still suffers. It’s very difficult to believe in the perfection of His Goodness when so much seems wrong in our world. It’s very difficult to accept that this Good and Perfect God is in control of all things when so much seems out of control. Of course, much of this is once more attempting to make man the measure, and it all founders on a base assumption that we are more fit to define good than is God. In the end, these doubts reflect the same problem the Sadducees suffered. “You don’t know the power of God.”
As to that response Jesus gives, I chose the ESV to quote because it seemed to me to best preserve the rather combative tone of the reply. I am quite certain I’ve commented on this before, but it has been on my mind throughout the years spent in this study, so it’s bound to come up again and again. There was a book I read years ago, I believe it was Smith’s ‘The Jesus of the Parables’, which laid out an argument for Jesus’ use of parable as something of a weapon. It seems clear that this was not always the case. The parables which compose what we know as the Sermon on the Mount, for example, were not hurled at the crowds like verbal stones. The purpose was different then, as Jesus explained. He was speaking Truth, but in a fashion which would leave it hidden from those who were not being called.
However, as the finale of His life approaches, and as the opposition from the Pharisees and Sadducees and other factions grows, so does the heated nature of His response. May I just say once again that it is part and parcel of Oriental character to be heated. Passions run deep, and are not buried. A cheerful discussion as to where to go for lunch can sound to our Western ears like fisticuffs will ensue shortly if things aren’t resolved. But, it’s just the expression of a passionate people. Love and anger both burn fast and fiercely. This is to say, then, that for Jesus to respond with a degree of heat is hardly to mark Him out as somehow a cad, or one not in control of Himself. And, that He replies with heat can hardly be denied. We will come, shortly, to His woes upon these very groups that are challenging Him now. “Woe to you, Pharisees. Hypocrites!” “You are like the tombs, clean and pretty on the outside, but dead with the stench of corpses on the inside.” These are not gentle reproaches. These are in your face insults.
Matthew, in particular, preserves a similar flavor to this current case. “You are wrong because you don’t understand Scripture and you don’t know God.” That’s the nub of it. You don’t know. You set yourselves as the high priests over God’s people and you don’t even know Him. You come playing this game with the words of Moses, but you are men with no understanding. You don’t even comprehend what you read, assuming you’ve even bothered to read it. Bear in mind, here, that the Sadducees depended on the scribes for such things. The scribes were not generally Sadducees themselves, were actually more likely to be Pharisees. But, they were the experts. The Sadducees, quite frankly, had little use for such pursuits. They didn’t care. They were, as the ISBE had said, ‘frankly irreligious.’ It was little more than a show to them, apart from the power inherent in sitting atop the local religious structure.
In that sense, what Matthew relays as the opening of Jesus’ response, and which Mark relates as something of a closing comment, is not very far removed from the charge of hypocrisy He threw in the face of the Pharisees. It is a pulling off of the mask. It is an exposing to the people how very empty are the suits of those who would claim to be their betters.
It is interesting, in considering this, to see that Luke drops that combative tone from what Jesus says. Jesus comes across much more like a Greek philosopher presenting his views in the Agora. All is calm reasonable discourse. Some of this, to be sure, is because Luke is addressing a Greek audience and therefore presents the record in a fashion suited to Greek ears. However, another reason for Matthew and Mark to have preserved the more combative tone is twofold. First, they were there. Well, in the case of Mark, it’s not certain he was there. But, Peter, from whom we generally accept he got his material, was. They are, then, better equipped to present not just the bare sketch of this encounter, but the tone.
Second, we do well to consider what was learned about the Sadducees as concerned life after Jesus ascended to heaven. The Sadducees were not satisfied with having brought about the death of Jesus. The sect that arose in His absence was still a threat to their power as they saw it, and they persecuted that sect to their fullest ability. It was the Sadducees who instigated the death of Stephen, and of James. It was the Sadducees who had Peter arrested. It was the Sadducees who authorized Saul to go out and persecute these Christians. Their power remained under threat so long as the name of Jesus continued to be spoken of, and it only got worse as His followers insisted that they had personally witnessed His resurrected appearance! Why, this struck at the heart of their doctrinal stance. It was intolerable that this should be allowed to persist. At least the Pharisees offered only theory. These upstarts were claiming to have witnessed the evidence.
All this to say that Peter in particular, and Matthew by proximity, had every reason to hold a degree of animosity towards the Sadducees. If, then, they had witnessed their Teacher demonstrating such a combative tone in dressing down their later adversaries, there would be a certain relish in relaying that fact. Indeed, there would be a purpose to it, in that it would lend some steel to those who were even yet dealing with Sadducean persecution. Luke had no such personal involvement in that particular conflict, and it may well be that the Sadducees were of little note as a movement by the time he was writing. It’s interesting, at any rate.
Being as the question posed is concerned with matters of resurrection, Jesus answers with an implicit assumption of resurrection as a valid premise. Indeed, His answer supposes far more than a premise. It implies something like direct knowledge. Again we are faced with the authority of His teaching. Look at that answer. “In the resurrection, life is like this…” There’s no appeal to any other voice on the matter. It is simple statement of fact. This is how it is. The only authority you might hear Him as having called upon is that of Scripture, but He is not offering any specific verse to support this particular aspect of His answer.
That said, one common aspect of the coverage in all three accounts is this comparison of the resurrection life to that of the angels. There is a certain question as to how great a similarity Jesus is declaring here, particularly given a slightly different terminology used by Luke. But, I think it’s safe to say that the only similarities being explicitly declared here are those to do with marriage and death, neither of which concepts, Jesus declares, apply to the angels. Nor do they apply, apparently, to anybody in the kingdom of heaven. And yet, we are declared the bride of Christ. But, then, that’s a purely spiritual issue, isn’t it?
Now, it’s rather interesting that Jesus tosses out this business with the angels almost as an aside, little more than an adjective by which to better illustrate His point. Yet, we must bear in mind that, according to the Scriptural evidence, the Sadducees weren’t real keen on the concept of angelic beings, either. So, we might take this particular illustration as yet another bit of combativeness on the part of Jesus. As long as we’re exposing errors, here, we may as well go all the way. See, guys, you reject resurrection on the mistaken basis that it does not find mention in the Pentateuch. We’ll get to that in a minute. But, then, you go on to reject the reality of angels which are quite clearly found in the Pentateuch. As I said, you guys don’t even know the Scripture you claim for authority, let along its real meaning. And you certainly don’t have the first beginnings of a real understanding of the power of God. Yet, you would set yourselves as lords over His church. That’s coming to an end.
For my own part, I will be taking this opportunity to pursue a bit of a sidebar study on this matter of angels. This is a subject of some concern and confusion in our day, and one in regard to which I have reason to try and clarify my own thinking. As is my wont with these studies, I’ll save the sidebar part until I’ve finished the rest of my thoughts on the passages at hand. And in that sense, by way of a segue to the next topic, the TLB offers a particularly apt phrasing, in my opinion. “But as to your real question”.
This gets to the nub, doesn’t it? All this clever tale of the single bride for seven brothers has been nothing but a very thinly veiled attempt to discredit the doctrine of resurrection. Thus, the real question on their minds is not who gets the woman for eternity. The real question is whether there is indeed a resurrection at all, which is to say, is there an afterlife? As noted, Jesus clearly admits that there is. How could He not? He is the Resurrection! But, here, unlike matters of what that resurrected life is like, He does provide a direct support of His position from Scripture. For my own amusement, I would note that it is the Scripture He Himself caused to be written, so it is particularly foolish to challenge Him to defend His views on the basis of what is written. The Word defend His stance from the Word? I think He’ll manage.
Here, He turns to the very scene that validated Moses as God’s man on God’s mission. Moses, after all, is the authority for these guys. You know, that bears thinking about. God was not really their authority. Moses was. They might (and I would stress, might) still see Moses as God’s spokesman, authorized by God, but this really didn’t have as much meaning with them as it ought to have. Moses was their authority, as much an idol to them as the rabbinic tradition had become to the Pharisees, as much an idol as that serpentine staff had become to their predecessors, as much as the temple, as much as Shiloh and Shechem before that. How marvelously apropos, then, that Jesus turns to what is in essence the inauguration of Moses into his ministry for His proof of life beyond the grave.
Atop this, He manages to work in a point relating to the founding fathers of the entire line of Israel, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Think about how much hinged on being able to trace one’s lineage back to these three men. Think about how much was made of being able to say, “we are sons of Abraham!” This was perhaps the single most important fact in the life of the religious Jew of that time, with the possible exception of circumcision. But, one couldn’t (or at least generally wouldn’t) show one’s badge of circumcision. One could show his family tree, trace the lines back through the centuries to arrive at that most critical mark of legitimacy, the descent through these three men. So, here Jesus has combined four major pillars in the religious thought of His people: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the patriarchs, and then Moses, the prophet preeminent. And all of this, He turns to the making of one clear and simple point.
When God announced Himself to Moses, He did not speak of Himself (or of them) as past tense, but present tense. He did not say, “I was the God of Abraham back in the day.” He said, “I AM the God of Abraham.” On this simple factor, Jesus hangs His entire argument, or so it seems. God spoke in present tense, with the implication that those of whom He claimed to be God were even yet present before Him that He might be God to them.
Of course, we’ve had some preceding evidence in this regard, haven’t we? We’ve had the benefit of standing on that mountaintop with Peter, James and John as they watched their Teacher conferring face to face with Moses and Elijah. How could that possibly be if they were not yet alive? This had also been a point He made rather obliquely when He had commented that Abraham rejoiced to see His day (Jn 8:56). This is not a new point for Him. It is but a providing evidence of the sort these Sadducees could not handily reject. Here, in your own preferred authorized version, upon the evidence of your own preferred authority, and with reference to the very foundations of your whole self esteem, is the proof that life continues beyond the grave. We might, if we were so inclined, wish to add to that the unstated point, “and you will have much to answer for.”
One simple point I would like to make from this before I move on. It can sometimes seem that picking away at the intricacies of Greek syntax, and trying to tease out any extra meaning from the original language that may have been lost in translation is a case of getting lost in technicalities. I have even had it suggested to me that such mentally involved pursuits in the realm of Scripture are counter to being led by the Spirit. I would like to think that such thinking doesn’t require much response from me. But, even so, that sense of getting lost in the details does come upon me at times. It’s one of the difficulties in this mode of study I have chosen, and I don’t even pursue it as fully as perhaps I ought. I rarely get down to the level of analyzing syntax and sentence structure. For one thing, I’m hardly qualified for such pursuits. Only when I see reason to check, or feel prompted to do so will I start poking into syntactical matters. Even then, I often find myself needing assistance just to come to terms with the terms. But, there is value there. I dare say that if Jesus saw fit to hinge His entire answer on a matter of this passage being in the present tense, then that same degree of care in parsing is suitable for me to apply.
I have one further thought on this, though, which hinges on the conclusion Jesus draws. “His is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” I am wondering if this was something of a dig on the way in which the Sadducees had been more or less absorbing the culture of their conquerors. Rome and Greece certainly had their gods of the dead. Egypt likewise had a god whose particular charge was to serve as caretaker or ruler of the dead. Doubtless a fair majority of other religions had such a concept included in their pantheons. Israel did not. Israel had and has one God. He is, Jesus declares, God of the living! He specifically does not say of the living and the dead, which would certainly not serve His point. But, I think we do well to consider that He did not say this because it is more directly accurate to declare that God is not God of the dead whatsoever. To this end, we might turn to Luke’s account, where we find it added, “for all live to Him.”
This is, at least for me, a difficult phrase to arrive at a certain translation of. Are we to understand that all who live do so because of Him? Are we to understand that all who live do so for Him, for His purposes? Or, are we to understand it as saying, that from where He sits, all are alive, even those we have considered dead for long ages? Given its proximity to the declaration that God is “not the God of the dead,” I am inclined to take its meaning in that last form, even though I would hold that all of these possible understandings are valid and true. Perhaps this is a case where, while one could construe the phrase as supporting this doctrinal stance or that, it ought better to be left supporting the point at hand and nothing else. I have commented on occasion as to how bothersome I find it when teachers take a verse or piece of a verse out of context and attempt to repurpose it in support of some unrelated bit of doctrine. It bothers me the more when that doctrine being supported is sound, because the use of unsound argumentation for it only serves to weaken the argument in a case when the Truth being argued deserves to be argued strongly. So, let me leave this odd phrase, pantes gar autoo zoosin, supporting the context and nothing else.
And with that, I want to turn to another part of the message that only Luke chooses to relay: “Those who are considered worthy to attain to that age”. How might one unpack that statement? To begin with, recognize that ‘those considered worthy’ translates the single, though compound, term kataxioothentes. Another way one might choose to translate that term would be ‘deemed worthy’. Additionally, the verb is used in the passive voice. Whether the passive sense should apply to the opinion or the value is not immediately clear to me. If it is but the opinion, then the passive sense is rather obvious and mundane. Of course we are the passive recipients of the opinions others form about us. But, if it is to do with the value or worth, does it not suggest something more?
This is a point certainly upheld elsewhere in Scripture, and I hesitate somewhat, lest I be found bending Scripture to my service in this case. But, if indeed the worth that is spoken of here is assigned to us in passive form, then I might recognize in this simple terminology the fact that my worth is not something I have earned by sweat of my brow, but rather, something more or less handed to me. I am not granted entry into that age because of my stellar character. I do not earn my way into resurrection life by the balance of good works I can show at the end of my earthly days. I am deemed worthy by the only One whose opinion matters. More to the doctrinal point, I am made worthy of this indescribable privilege by the only One Who could claim to have attained to it on His own merits.
If this is not an intended impact of what Jesus says here, yet I find my thoughts drawn in that direction by the phrasing He has used. Those who are considered worth to attain to that age. This, if we are spiritually self aware, is a particularly humbling statement! I know myself too well to suppose I have actually earned a spot in that life. And yet, I simultaneously know that I have in that life a place reserved for me by the One Who did earn His way. Were I measuring my chances on the quality of my own fealty to God’s rule, I should despair of ever seeing real life. But, God has not left me with only my own meager merits by which to arrive. He has paid my way in full. That is the marvelous power of what we are building towards in this final week period of Jesus’ ministry.
I am sensing a bit of spillover from my work with Colossians for today’s Bible study at church. But, that is only as it should be, for all Scripture serves to comment on all Scripture, does it not? Paul, in that book, lays particular emphasis on the sufficiency and primacy of Jesus the Christ of God, our Lord and Savior. It is because of His obedience, His sinlessness, His sacrificial death and His resurrection power that we live and have this certainty that Scripture calls hope. We are deemed worthy because He truly was, and what He did to be thus worthy was done on our behalf.
Paul speaks of the mystery revealed in the Gospel, and he does so in large part to distinguish the message of the Gospel from the many so-called mystery religions of the period. For, the Gospel alone proclaims the full revelation of its mysteries to all who believe, not some select few. There is no deeper, hidden knowledge reserved only for the elite. There is the Gospel and that’s that. This is not to say that those who study more diligently may well reap a greater harvest of understanding. Not at all! But, it is only a greater understanding, not a greater revelation. Some have had a felt need to turn every insight into a revelation. After all, they may be thinking, if it’s but my own insight, then I am teaching the opinions of man, but if I can couch them as revelations from God, then there is no danger of doing so. But, this only leads to a much greater offense of attributing to God’s authority what really is personal insight. Now, I would hope I can say that the insights one receives from times of earnest study and particularly when preparing to preach or teach the Word of God are insights truly prompted and directed by God through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. But, they are not revelation. They are not the unveiling of some mystery kept hidden through all preceding generations. They are but the explaining to a student what the teacher has long known.
OK, that was a bit of a diversion, or perhaps an unexpected bit of commentary for my own teaching efforts later this morning.
If it be the latter, Lord, then thank You, and grant me the time and the memory to relay Your message.
Getting back to the Gospel passage, this is indeed a marvelous mystery, this business of the likes of me being deemed worthy by the likes of God. Do you consider the result that Jesus describes. Entry into ‘that age’, the age of God’s kingdom fully established, the heavens and the earth remade with no place left for sin or its fallout. And this is but the least of the wonders! We are granted to join with the angels. Scripture speaks of us as having been made for a little while lower than these creatures of awesome splendor. And behold what Jesus reveals to us here! We shall be like them in our eternality and in our equality.
Let me stop there for a moment. It is tempting to make far to much of that ‘like angels’ clause. Here, again, at least in Luke’s account, there is a single word underlying the clause, isangeloi. Some, even, of the most careful translations allow this to come across as ‘equal to the angels’. And, having read that, some would take the passage as supporting the idea that there will be some sort of full equality established. Contextually, though, it would seem that there are two specific characteristics of angelic life that are in view.
The first is that which the question from the Sadducees addresses, the matter of marriage. Now, while both question and answer are couched in terms of marriage, there is something deeper which I believe is addressed. It is one of those casual confirmations of authenticity that the Sadducees frame their question as they do. “All seven had her.” And the question itself, “Whose wife shall she be?” Now, Israel in that time was a firmly patriarchal society. The rules by which they dealt with divorce were embarrassingly tilted towards the rights of men, as opposed to those of women. The wife was very nearly a matter of property, a contractual payment perhaps. But, she was as much a property as the livestock one owned, or the slaves. Oh, she might have marginally more rights, but only marginally so. Divorce was easy enough to procure on the shakiest of grounds.
Their question displays the mindset of the male in such a society. The woman is property. That she might have a life of her own in heaven doesn’t even cross their minds. Now, part of that is clearly due to their general unbelief. Not truly believing there is a life in heaven, the idea that it might differ in any great degree from earthly life doesn’t enter their minds. But, Jesus disabuses them of this mistake.
When, therefore, He says that they are neither married nor given in marriage in heaven, He is making a point beyond the perhaps asexual nature of the resurrection body. Indeed, it could be argued that by His answer He denies any such asexual nature. What He declares positively is what Paul would later state plainly in his letters. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:27). There is an equality in this heavenly life. Nobody shall be property in that life. Nobody shall be greater or lesser. All are as each other in this sense. It is this point specifically that Jesus is addressing, as I see it. The Sadducees (and the Pharisees for all that) were particularly mindful of position and rank. They were, as they saw it, the elites. Surely, if there were an afterlife, they should continue to enjoy the privileged positions they had in this life. Surely, as well, the role of the woman would not be any different than today. But, they are very surely incorrect in this viewpoint.
The second aspect of angelic life that we are told is a reality for us in the next life is something marvelous indeed to consider. “Neither can they die anymore.” Notice that: They cannot die. The reason Jesus is assigns is that which we have under the lens, “for they are like angels.” In other words, angels in the present situation cannot die. They can be slowed down by others of their own nature, but they cannot die. In the case of those who serve the God of heaven and earth, this is marvelously good news. Of course, I suppose the same must be said of those fallen angels who joined Satan in his rebellion (and Satan himself as well). In their case, as we have been granted to know the end of the story, this ought to be sobering news for us in the present, but it is the more sobering for their future. That lake of fire which awaits them is not a terminus of life. It is an eternity of agony. Its fire does not destroy, nor does the worm consume.
This same issue lies before those who have not been, as this verse says, deemed worthy to attain to the resurrection. Understand that all who have gone to the grave will most certainly be lifted out of their grave, some to resurrection life, some to a resurrection of judgment. This latter group, to their eternal sorrow, shall also join with the angels, the fallen angels abiding in that lake of eternal fire, eternal punishment. Those are words that ought rightly to strike us to the core with the fear of God. Even we who are assured of our salvation ought to experience a certain quaking of the heart as we consider that future. If anything ought to move us to have a heart for evangelism, surely what we know lies in store for those who reject the King should do so.
As concerns our likeness to the angels, though, let us restrict the points of likeness to those which Jesus has here enumerated: lack of death, and an equality of worth. It may well be that we can take Jesus’ meaning as including asexuality, and if this be so, then praise God! There will be an infinity of things far more wonderful than sex for us to contemplate and enjoy in that life. If sexuality has indeed been removed, be assured that God has something greater in store for us.
There is a question which I am hopeful I may get to in my class this morning, which is worth contemplating in regard to this life of which we are deemed worthy. “In what ways is Christian faith an immense privilege? In what ways an immense responsibility?” I have already been exploring my answer to that question somewhat in contemplating the significance of ‘cannot die’ as applied to the lost. Listen! I cannot begin to fathom the full extent of the privilege that has been extended to me in salvation. Were I so inclined, I could spend the next several hours listing out myriad reasons why I ought not to be thought worthy. But, they don’t matter! It’s not me that’s worthy anyway, it’s Him! He paid for what He had not done. He paid for what I have done, and did so willingly. God, in His infinite wisdom, discerned the one way in which He could rescue me from the necessary consequences of my sin and my outright opposition to His rule and yet remain the Just God that He Is. That He should even bother is already marvelous beyond words. That, having seen what it would take, He was yet willing to pursue His plan is more marvelous still. And, as I look to see the thread of His planning winding through the entirety of history from the first days in Eden even ‘til now, it is far and away too wonderful for me. That I should be granted all of this: who am I, Lord, that You should bother? What can I ever do to properly display my gratitude? It’s beyond all hope of repayment, this favor You have shown me. And yet, You know all that. God! Such love. How is it that I can ever feel untouched by it? How can I be so often unmoved, unwilling to pursue Your ways even yet? And yet, You love me still. Amazing!
This is the responsibility side. We who have even such a limited understanding of what lies ahead, and who have even so minimal a grasp of God’s true heart: Can we not sense upon our own lives a responsibility akin to what Paul felt upon his? Let me go back to Colossians once again this morning. “For this purpose also I labor [to the point of exhaustion], striving [exerting every effort] in His power” (Col 1:29). What purpose led Paul to pour himself out so? “That we may present every man complete in Christ” (Col 1:28). In other words, that God’s greatest desire might be satisfied. Paul saw the dread consequence that lay ahead of every man who did not avail of God’s gracious mercy, and it was intolerable to him that any should find themselves facing that future. Even those who had abused him personally, even those who had expended so much energy trying to thwart his efforts in spreading the Gospel; even these, he would see brought into the kingdom, lest they face an eternity of punishment.
Listen! We are told point blank that no man shall enter into eternity with an excuse for not knowing better. There shall be no plea of, “I didn’t realize”. We are also told that the watchman shall be held accountable for those he failed to warn of what lay ahead. We are the watchman. For each one who comes before God with the attempted plea of ignorance, shall we not find ourselves held accountable? How many, even just yesterday, did I fail to give warning to? How many did I leave blindly shuffling onward towards Babylon? How can I not care about them, knowing what I know, knowing Who I know? How can I fail to take this responsibility more seriously? What will it take?
One thing it clearly will not take is working myself up to the task. This is a danger when we consider such matters. We arrive at, “I’ve got to do something.” But, the “I” part of that is a recipe for disaster. Too often, we feel the urgency and, instead of seeking out God and His plan, we just formulate our own and take off running. Then we wonder how it is we feel so wrung out and yet nothing is happening. Pay close attention to that message Paul gave us in Colossians 1:29. In His power. His power “mightily works within me.” If that is not the case, then we are not serving His purpose but our own, no matter what motive we may claim for our efforts, and no matter how piously we decorate the plans.
I said, some several paragraphs back, that I would leave that closing phrase from Luke’s account as touching only upon the immediate discussion of resurrection, but I find I cannot do so. Or, perhaps I do still leave it touching only upon the matter of resurrection. But, it seems there is more to be said yet. Life is in the balance, in the focal center of my attention just now. It is the nature of this life that Jesus describes us as having been deemed worthy – the resurrection life as over against the eternity of punishment our actions have deserved. We have been deemed worthy and, indeed, have been made worthy. We have in no wise earned it or shown our worth, that worth has been handed to us, and at incomprehensibly great cost. And, all this great gift given to us for the purpose that we might enter into Life.
When it comes to this matter of life, one thing we learn from other places in Scripture is that all life is from God. Whatever the shape and purpose of this specific physical vessel or that, we share this much in common, that our life is shaped by His hands. It is on this basis that we arrive at the sanctity of life as a doctrinal belief. Well, actually I’m a step short of that point just yet, for thus far I am speaking of more than just the life of humanity. Thus far, I must include every creature from the least mite to the greatest whale in that statement. In the case of mankind, the human specie, there is the added marvel that He has opted not just to give us life, but to fashion us after His own image. That is the foundation for the sanctity of life, and that is also (as something of an aside) reason enough to assign to mankind greater rights and honor than we might be inclined to assign to other creatures. It is not that we disdain these fellow works of His hands, nor that we devalue them. But, neither to we elevate them to a valuation above their true worth. Man may not be the measure, but he is, by God’s own declaration, the pinnacle of creation.
Let’s add, though, to this foundation. All life is from God. It exists, has being because of Him, because He has decreed that it shall be so. Indeed, it is due to His power that there is life in anything that is alive. So dependent are the living upon Him for their lives that were He to turn His attention from us for the briefest of moments, we should cease to be. In that sense, we might be inclined to slip into thinking we are all but figments of His imagination, and in a sense we would be correct. But we would not be true. In Him we live and move and have our being, Paul declared (Ac 17:28). Thus is answered the great philosophical question. He is our source and He is our continuation. Apart from Him, as Jesus said, we can do nothing (Jn 15:5). John also tells us, returning to my opening gambit, that apart from Him nothing came into being that has ever come into being (Jn 1:3). No, nor ever shall. But, if I might build just a little atop what Jesus has said, I might reasonably declare that apart from Him, we are nothing. Apart from Him we frankly don’t exist.
Now, that is as true of the evil as of the good. This shocks. This offends the sensibilities. Yet, God is not ashamed to declare it true. In one of His earliest sermons, Jesus declares boldly, “God causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good. He sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Mt 5:45). Jesus lays this out as a basis for understanding what ought to be the scope of our own love for others. If God can love the evil man enough that He would sustain his life, how much more ought we to love even those who misuse us? God loves them enough to allow their lives to continue, to sustain them, to see them provided for. Why? As well ask why He saw fit to save me. I have no real answer to that question either. Love is the only answer given, and it remains beyond me to comprehend such love.
But, all life continues solely because He is determined to sustain life. In the case of man, at least, we have this statement from Jesus, amongst others, to inform us that the life He sustains in us He shall sustain forever. And, if I have read this passage aright, I think I can reasonably hold that He shall do so, once more, for both the evil and the good. Yet, only that latter class shall find much cause to thank Him for it. Does this apply to the animals, to the plants? I cannot say. I could suppose that when Paul tells us that all of creation anxiously awaits the very same day that we look to, pines away for the time when we shall be revealed in our perfected states, that this at least hints at an afterlife, a resurrection if you will, even for these lower life forms. But, I’m not sure I’d care to set out a doctrinal stake on that position.
Yet, life comes into being by the power of God. Life continues to be maintained by the power of God. This promise (or threat, if you’re on the wrong side of salvation) that Jesus proclaims: “They cannot die anymore”, for those who are perishing, this is indeed more a threat. This is, I suppose, that second death of which Scripture speaks. Yet, it is a death with no final act, or with an interminable final act. It is a death in that it is a clear and permanent separation from the presence of God. It is a death in that it a final and irrevocable exclusion from every possibility of access to Life. Yet, it is not such a death as results in the end of the soul, and end of consciousness. It is not oblivion. But, those who suffer that fate will almost undoubtedly wish it were.
Consider how much of our behavior in this present life is predicated on the belief that this life is all there is. How much, even as a believer, would be far different in my day to day activities and concerns, were I really gripped by an awareness of the eternity that lies ahead? For the unbeliever, surely the impact of such understanding must shake them from their sins. If the consequences are assured, and so inconceivably terrible as they are shown to be, who could willingly choose the path that leads inexorably to such an end? And yet we do. We did. But for God’s sovereign intervention, we would still be cheerfully stumbling down that wide avenue. We could plead ignorance, I suppose, but it would be only a willfully ignoring, a purposeful self delusion. We are, after all, particularly adept at lying to ourselves, of convincing ourselves that the most obvious of consequences will somehow not come to pass in our case. Oh, it may have happened to everybody else that ever made these choices, but not me. I’m special or something.
It is the particular idiocy of youth to suppose an eternality that has no basis. We have all known that particular foolishness. In the flush of youth, death can gain no hearing. Consequences are for oldsters. To the youth belong fearless adventures. But, with age can also come a certain disillusionment. Dreams that once bolstered us along have faded. The harsh realities of life have perhaps worn us down. Comes a point where some simply no longer care about the consequences. Life is short, they reason, and may as well be enjoyed to the fullest, however sinful that full life may be. Such a view is, of course, terribly short sighted, failing to perceive anything beyond the lip of the grave. But, it allows us to pursue our chosen sins with a false sense of security. (And those who do so will look upon our faith as being the false sense of security!)
I need, however, to turn my attention back on my own perspective on this landscape. It is by God I have come into being, and it is solely by His attentiveness that my being continues. That being which is me, He tells me, shall visit the grave most likely. But, like my Lord and Savior before me, it shall only be a visit. There awaits the fullness of real and true Life, a Life so firmly supported by Him that it cannot die anymore. Is this, then, to be finally allowed a taste of the fruit from that tree of life which was set off limits in Eden? It is more than that! That Life is already mine, already in me, for He Who IS Life has taken up His residence in me. How He can bear it is beyond me to fathom, but He has made the choice and He does not renege on His lease. This must impact my thinking. This must change me. It cannot be otherwise. If this realization does not radically alter my sense of things, then I must assume that what I thought was realization was instead delusion.
What do I mean by this? Well, we are warned most clearly that there will indeed be many who supposed themselves children of God who will discover far too late that they were never so. Oh! They shall say. We did this for You, and that for You. By our hands, so many miracles! Surely we are yours. But, He will reply that He never knew them (Mt 7:23). Yes, they may have availed themselves of His name, of the authority inherent in Him, but they were not truly serving Him. They were serving themselves, amusing themselves, pursuing their own agenda with nothing more than window dressing. The Pharisees (those who snapped out of it) found themselves in this position. They thought they were in. They are only to discover that they are out when no time remains to change. We are not much different at all. We are so near to being Pharisees that we ought surely to heed Paul’s advice and pursue our sanctification with all fear and trembling, knowing that same concern that he felt, “lest I find I’ve run the race in vain.”
I am, I see, skating circles around my point and never quite arriving. Let me just drive straight to it, then. If, indeed, all life is both brought about by God’s power alone and maintained by God’s power alone, how much more worthy is He to be the central and sole focus of my life? Listen to Paul’s statement on this matter. “Not one of us lives for himself, nor do any of us die for ourselves. If we live, it is for the Lord. If we die, it is for the Lord. So, then, whether we live or die, we are His” (Ro 14:7-8). This is where we are supposed to be in our thinking. This is where I am supposed to be in my thinking. But, I am not, and I know it. How much of any given day do I really spend thinking about Him, contemplating what He would have me do? Do I even give that the least thought in the midst of the average work day? Not really. Oh, to be sure, He shapes my character. To be sure, I feel a responsibility to provide my employer with a worthy day’s effort, but that’s not the point. It’s a point, but it’s not the point. Whose life am I touching with the salt of the Gospel? Who am I telling that Life is on offer? In what way, if any, am I really seeking to know what God wants me to be doing?
If I am in this company, Lord, is there a point beyond it being my source of provision? Is there a greater purpose here that I am failing to see? Refusing to see? The checkout line in which you place me at the store: what is it you want me to say?
Part of me says, “you already know the answers, you just don’t want to deal with them,” and that part is quite accurate. Another part, however, knows well that to evangelize where He is not directing is just as rebellious and fruitless. Is that anything more than an excuse on my part? Probably not. If I return my thoughts to that parable of the seed and the sower, or to any number of other parables directed at the task of spreading the Gospel, it would seem the call is for evangelizing anywhere and everywhere. It would seem that I should perhaps work on the assumption that if I act, He is with me. A pretty safe assumption that. After all, if I don’t act, it doesn’t give me doubt that He is with me.
Do you know what stops me from acting? I’m sure you do. It’s fear of ridicule and rejection. How sad is that? You know, those apostles in particular, but also many in the early church, were proud to be found worthy to suffer for His name’s sake. They didn’t take it as cause to go out and be obnoxious so folks would be offended by their message, but they took it as a privilege when they were misunderstood and misused for having done the right thing. I consider what John says in his letter. “The world doesn’t understand us, because it didn’t know Him” (1Jn 3:1b). We are not allowed the delusion of supposing our treatment deserves to be better than what our Teacher received. But, we are grown soft. We have allowed ourselves to be bullied into silence without even much of a whimper. We don’t really know what reception we might have from that stranger, were we to tell him the Truth, but we’re pretty sure he won’t accept it. So, we don’t bother.
We should know better! After all, we don’t generally accept honest and loving criticism right away ourselves. The flesh always seems to get in the first reaction. But, the spirit is listening. The conscience will not so easily dismiss truth, but will hear it all unwilling, and acknowledge that yes, that criticism is valid. There is something needs changing here. So, why should I suppose that the rejection of the instant necessarily means a rejection with any permanence? For that matter, do I even care? Or, am I just not willing to find myself rejected? That’s nearer the point. I have become risk averse when it comes to my fragile little ego. And that is no excuse whatsoever for inaction. That is simply evidence of utterly ignoring the power of God which should be my strength and confidence. That is falling back into thinking that supposes I am the measure after all.
Father, forgive me. Let me relearn the power of walking in You, serving You from Your power rather than mine own. And if, though it seem so unlikely, I be flailing myself for no real cause, then bring Your comfort. In short, my Lord, I pray Thee retrofit this child of Yours as needed and may You find me ever willing and ready to work right along side You in that effort.
