New Thoughts (07/03/10-07/11/10)
Before turning to the specifics of this passage, I want to take some time to consider the four actors introduced to us here. These comments, as they consider much more than the present set of verses, I will keep as brief as I know how, but as the points have been brought out in preparations done for this study, I shall address them here as well, lest the value be lost to me.
First, let me turn to Mary. It is interesting to me that so much of what is written about her is not about her at all. For instance, the greater part of the ISBE article on this woman is spent on debates as to whether Luke describes this same Mary and associated Simon, or some other Simon and some other woman. Having concluded that there are indeed two events described, they then pursue questions as to the relative value of Mary’s act. After all, if she was just copying something that had already been done on a previous occasion, how is that noteworthy? Besides, they even hint, consider the source she copied! But, that way lies the mistake of Simon the Pharisee at the time of the event!
As I went through that debate material, the conclusion I personally reached is this: If they are correct that Luke describes events that took place in Galilee, then this group from Bethany, just outside of Jerusalem, could quite easily be totally unaware of those prior events. In other words, Mary copied nobody in her action. That they happened to echo the act of that other woman has no bearing on her act. If anything, it might be seen as increasing the value of that earlier anointing. However, I should not be put out by suggestions that the two events should simply be seen as two events, separate in time and separate in significance.
I hope that, as the other events of Mary’s contribution to this ministry become current topics of study, that I shall see more of her and less of the debate.
Martha’s story, which is presented mostly by way of her being contrasted with Mary, is therefore more familiar to us. We get her point, or so we think. The fundamental lesson presented in that contrast is clear enough. As Fausset’s so nicely put it: “serving […] ought to give place to hearing when Jesus speaks.” This needs to be meditated on. It is not that serving is bad. Of course it isn’t. We even include officers in our churches for the purpose of serving. However, our tendency is to get caught up in the service we render and neglect all else.
This is of a piece with the tendency to see our ministry, whatever it may be, as the chief ministry, the thing everybody ought to see as most important. The worship team supposes worship is the chief end of church. The evangelist is absolutely convinced that nobody has an excuse not to be evangelizing. The intercessor will not be satisfied until every last member of the church is showing up nightly to pray for a few hours. But, while all of these things are important to the body, they remain more our own efforts than anything else. The fallen condition in which we live leads us to make these things which could have been good things to be efforts of pride, groundwork from which to say, “look at me. Look what I have done.”
I am seeing a certain tendency in our own fellowship for those who have been highly active to realize a need to stop. We’ve been so busy running, doing, filling the need, that we have ceased to listen. Even our prayer life becomes infected with this behavior. We’re so busy telling God about our problems and our needs that we have no time for Him. We never stop chattering long enough to find out if He’s answering. But, serving, in whatever its form, must give place to hearing. When Jesus speaks, we need to stop what we’re doing and listen intently, give Him our whole attention.
If I put on my conservative hat for a moment, I could note that as far as the worship service goes, this ought to mean that the preaching of God’s Word ought to be the primary thing. All else ought to support this chief aspect of the house. The worship team, whatever its form, provides but a framework. The prayer team provides a foundation. But, there is that point at which all else must cease, in order that God may speak to His people and they be found listening. It doesn’t need all the spiritual paraphernalia of the charismatic approach to faith for God to speak, although I shall not rule out the validity of such things. But, if this is the means of choice, then there must follow the work of confirming what is heard by what is the Word. How much easier on us if we would but preach the Word! How much easier if we would turn from entertainment and salesmanship and simply expound on what God says of Himself.
It is a well known and oft noted matter that it requires less effort to smile than to frown, at least physically. Spiritually, we might apply that same standard to hearing God. It takes a lot less effort to hear Him in His Word than to hear Him through some self-proclaimed prophet, or through tongues and interpretation, whereby we are required by the Word to confirm, not simply accept. The problem is that we tend not to put in the effort. We hear the prophecy and, since there’s pretty much no prophet out there that will prophecy anything that might cause us discomfort, we’re pleased to accept the message. When’s the last time a visiting prophet came and pronounced over the church, “You’re way off track and God will visit His wrath upon you unless you return to your true purpose!” It just isn’t done. No, every prophecy is for great things. Everybody’s just wonderful, phenomenal, even. Wherever we are, it’s the best they’ve ever seen. We’re going to go far. OK. Whatever.
Likewise with the word of knowledge. If anyone is so gauche as to pronounce a negative word over our lives, we simply declare that we shall not receive the message. As if that would change a real word of knowledge! The fact that we feel we can choose to receive it or not should be indication enough that it’s not the real deal. If God were speaking this, if it were He who was showing us a glimpse of the future unless we shift it, then there would be no question of saying, “I don’t receive that.” If it were He and this were the response, then you can be assured that you will be receiving it! If your willingness to accept the message has the power of canceling the message, then the message is meaningless whether it meets our approval or not. I really don’t care how many different, confirming repetitions have come along. It’s all fever dreams and we had best get over it.
But, we don’t check. If there are tongues and interpretation, how many even recall the message? Of that small and select group, how many take on the responsibility of searching it out in the Scriptures when the arrive home, to see whether it be true or not?
This is not, I admit, where I had thought to go when looking at Martha’s business and the need to stop and listen, but it is a matter much on my mind of late. Listen, I see the same issue in these very studies that I see in the pulpit. There is this tendency to take the Word as little more than a board from which to launch into our own sense of how things ought to be. It’s as though we have decided that quoting a scrap of Scripture at the outset is enough to bless the whole message. But, if the message has devolved to be no more than one man’s opinion – oh, and here’s a nice quote to remember it by – then the message is no longer hearing from God, it’s hearing from me. That, my friends, is of very limited value to you, and even less to me. I hear enough of me.
Obviously, we are never fully removed from our engagement with the Word, nor ought we to be. But, we are required to step back sufficiently that we can hear what Jesus is saying, not what we want the message to be. Oft times, the truth is not only difficult to lay hold of, but unpleasant to lay hold of. When the things said by those who like to attribute all their words to spiritual inspiration and revelation fit that description, perhaps I’ll start paying them more heed. Meanwhile, to the Word! Meanwhile, let me begin with me, and start making room in these times of study for God to speak. Yes, there are the shower times I tend to follow study with, where I am more able to hear any whisperings He might have to offer. But, there I am of course at risk of the same overly spiritualized approach as I complain of. I feel strongly that I need to return to something more closely resembling the exegetical approach myself, let alone finding such focus in the house of God. This, too, is the house of God, and if I would seek it outside, I must first seek it inside.
As a means of balancing this stopping to hear, I must also briefly note that Martha is in no wise condemned for her busy ways. Willingness to serve is no more evil than willingness to be still. Neither is it any less so. In Martha’s case, the effort she put into her serving were expressive of a faith and love in every way equal to the faith and love her sister held for Jesus. The problem is not a lack of faith, not a lack of compassion, not a lack of ardor. The problem is actually on our part, that we are so inclined to measure the acts of another by the measure of our own predilections. Another who had that same servant’s heart as Martha would know the depth of love from which her service springs. But, one of Mary’s temperament will see something different in those actions for they do not resemble the expression of her own faith and love.
In this sense, I suppose I must accept that the author of ‘The Five Love Languages’ has a point. Love does express itself in many ways. Faith, real and saving faith, may find different avenues by which to manifest. The issue, as we find it addressed by our Lord and Savior, is never with the mode of expression, it’s with the underlying motivation. When service becomes something other than an expression of love for the God we serve, then it has lost all value. When our willingness to sit and soak under some ministry or other is due to reasons apart fro ma sincere love for the God Who Is and the Truth of His revelation, then that willingness has likewise lost all value. The motive must be that sincere love of God, and the God to whom our effort (or lack thereof) is directed must be the True God. The forms may differ, but the motivation and the terminus must not.
I’ll take a moment now with Thomas. Thomas is yet another interesting inclusion amongst the number of the disciples. We should be glad of his inclusion, however, for in his acceptance many of us find cause to believe our own acceptance. Thomas is the skeptical one, the man of reason. No, these need not be the same thing, nor does one necessitate the other. There are skeptical fools, and faith, when once one grasps it, is wholly reasonable. With that in mind, I find it at least a bit curious that Fausset’s feels fit to say, “the demand for sense evidence […] is alien to the very idea of faith.”
While I see their point that if every man were to require a personal miracle in order to believe, and were such miracles forthcoming, then miracle becomes so commonplace as to cease being miraculous. Well, first let me just say that we have all required that one personal miracle, and yet I never cease to wonder at it, nor does any other who has had the experience. I speak of the miracle of my having accepted the whole concept of this marvelous God at all. That I could overcome my innate skepticism even to the degree of allowing a hearing to this concept is a miracle in itself. That I would accept the idea that there could be a miracle is already miraculous. I feel free to make that statement without fear of degrading the sense of what counts a miracle, because in doing so I maintain the high sense of God’s moving in and through nature, in and through me, to achieve what is truly super-natural, above the capacity of the merely natural.
Yet, He has not refused a demand for evidence. Indeed, He has provided precisely the sort of evidence a man of my temperament would need. He has not called me to a blind faith, but to a faith most reasonable. For Thomas, the case was no different. All that differed for him was the nature of the evidence he required that his belief might be firmed up. Had the article satisfied itself in saying that the fact that Thomas was allowed such physical proof for faith does not make it the norm, I should be happy to agree. But, to declare that such need for evidence is ‘alien to the very idea of faith’? No. That is to retreat back into the very same error just addressed in considering Martha. It is to suppose that faith must always be expressed in one, set fashion. It is to suppose that faith must ever be established on one single set of criteria. This is true only insofar as we refer to God’s immediate and necessary involvement in so changing our interior state that faith takes root. But, the things that convince us and the way we express it? These may vary significantly, as God tailors His ministrations to the one to whom He ministers.
Augustine wrote of Thomas that, “Thomas was permitted to doubt, that we might not doubt.” Here, again, I must wonder if the statement is truly accurate, or at least, to what degree. I don’t have the source of that quote before me, so I cannot look at the context to see if the quoters thereof kept to its original intent or not. Taken at face value, I should have to mildly disagree with Augustine, though I do so with no little concern. I find in myself (not that I am the rule and regulation of normal progress in the faith) that doubt is the normal course. Indeed, if I look at the record Augustine gave us of his own progress, doubt was permitted on a grand scale before he was given the miracle of faith that he might serve God on an even grander scale.
It is the very rarest of believers who has navigated the course of life without the least encounter with doubt. Very rare. Even those who have had the inestimable boon of being raised in a household of true believers may know their own doubts. Even if they have, as we say, come to Christ at a very tender age, this may hold true for them. Doubt, it seems to me, is the norm, at least before the arrival of faith. Sadly, I find that doubt continues to be the norm for many who have arrived at faith, not because faith is lacking, but because it has suffered a divorce from reason and Truth. This terrible crime against the minds of the faithful I lay fully at the feet of those who insist that the free will of man trumps the perfect will of God. Truly, I sorrow over the stumbling such insistence has caused for those who should have had great confidence in the salvific work of God in their lives. But, that is not an avenue I am going to travel further this morning.
I would much rather that you considered the incredible blessing that God saw fit to bestow upon this same Thomas we know best as ‘doubting Thomas’. Listen! You can poo-poo his need for evidence all you like. You can puff yourself up with claims that it shows how much better your own faith is, having no such physical underpinnings. But, you must deal with this truth: To Thomas was granted the great privilege of making the most clear, succinct and profound declaration of the Godhead of Jesus in all the four Gospels. His words, when once he is convinced, reflect a faith and a belief more full and more accurate even that that which Peter in his own bluster declared.
Let me just consider that for a brief moment. Peter’s declaration is grand, and also has the honor of first mention, if you will. “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16). From Thomas, the expression of belief that is all but forced from his lungs is, “My Lord and My God” (Jn 20:28). How then is this the greater statement? Well, in Peter’s words there is certainly the dawning of recognition. Yet, at that point he had still not progressed beyond recognizing the relationship. Jesus had shown Himself to be the Son of God and the Messiah of God, but Peter had not yet moved the next step (or at least his confession does not give evidence of it.) There was still that degree of removal from the full Godhead. He was ‘of’ God. But, Peter had not yet expressed the greater truth of He is God. John, as he opens his gospel, looks both backward to Peter’s confession and forward to that which Thomas declares. “The Word was with God from the very beginning, and the Word was God” (Jn 1:1).
Peter, in proclaiming Jesus the true Son of God, had only reached that first understanding. He was in the beginning with God, God’s Son, working in the shop with Father to bring about creation. That there was a bounding of this conception might be understood from the promise John found in the Word made flesh. “As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God” (Jn 1:12). Children grow up to be sons. We are all, then, in some lower-case sense, sons of God who have come to Him by faith. Likewise, in proclaiming Him Messiah, Peter leaves room to maintain a Jesus who is just a man. The conception of Messiah prevalent at the time required no divinity. Indeed, any such idea of divinity in this mere officer of God would have been anathema. It’s the very problem that led to Jesus being condemned, this idea that He should claim kinship to the One and only God.
Now, we cannot know the full extent of Peter’s thought on that occasion, only the extent of his words. His words did not make the leap to divinity. They approached it. They certainly reflected, as Jesus Himself declares, an understanding beyond the ken of man. “Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven” (Mt 16:17).
Thomas, on the other hand, is granted an evidential form that is of flesh and blood. He is granted a degree of physical evidence, grist for the mill of the mind. He does not make the lightning flash leap from Jesus being just some fine teacher to Jesus the Son of God as Peter did. Actually, He makes an even greater leap. He leaps from Jesus the Son of God, to Jesus is God! This was the unthinkable thought for the Jews. So deeply ingrained was that proclamation of, “Behold, the Lord is our God. The Lord is One” (Dt 6:4), that to even suppose any possibility of Him being among men was grounds for the death penalty. This was doubtless more true than ever with the influence of Greek and Roman belief systems all about. Those mythologies are rife with gods coming down disguised as men, dallying with the women of earth and producing all manner of demi-gods as progeny. A good Israelite was not going to have anything to do with such stuff and nonsense, and rightly so!
But, Thomas, weak, doubting Thomas, was so bold as to make the connection. This was something far different than the foreign mythologies put forth. This was not some half-man / half-god concoction. This was God. Period. It is not that Jesus was added to the deity. He is the Deity. The Lord God of Israel remains One. Yet, here is Jesus who speaks of His Father and of things Father does not tell Him. And there will come the even greater confusion of the Holy Spirit, these three who are One Godhead. How can this be? It defies all logic and reason that He Who insists that He alone is One God is at the same time found in these three persons. Yet, He is. Is it mystery? It must remain so in some degree, yes. However much we attempt to lay out the proofs, however much we wrestle with the concept to make sense of it, in the end it does come back to accepting something not fully understood. Yet, this is no more blind faith than is salvific faith. There is sufficient evidence to accept the Truth even when we don’t fully understand the how of Truth.
The summary point I wish to take away from the example of Thomas is simply this: The sort of evidence each of us may require for faith to lay hold in us may differ wildly. Yet, each of us has come to faith due to some form of evidence. Each of us has come to faith by the undeniable miracle of God’s hand moving upon us, planting that belief which He has then nurtured with the exact sorts of evidence we need that faith might blossom within us. Truly, this God, this Creator of all that lives, all that exists, is marvelous beyond measure. Truly, His personalized care for each one of us is beyond astonishing. Who could ever suppose himself to have deserved such treatment at the hands of the Almighty? Who could ever suppose himself to have given enough thanks for such treatment? Glory to His name!
As concerns Lazarus, the ISBE suggests that the miracle of his resurrection was a matter that caused the Pharisees to accelerate their plans, thereby keeping God’s timetable. In other words, even the death of Lazarus was for a purpose. This oughtn’t to shock us, but we simply don’t think of death as something that can serve God’s purpose. Of course, Jesus has already set us up to understand this: It is for the glory of God. It is a setup, so that the Son of God can be glorified in what comes about.
Now, honestly, knowing what happens to Lazarus, my first reaction to the words of Jesus is to suppose He is talking about the resurrection itself. But, on further reflection, I do not believe that to be the case. He’s looking further ahead than that. However, I am getting slightly ahead of myself with that thought, so let me set it aside for later.
What I want to see first, the message of Lazarus, if you will, is the purpose. God does not treat His children frivolously. He does not send blessing and suffering willy-nilly as the mood takes Him. No. All is done towards the purposes of heaven, and those purposes, as Paul so kindly reminds us, are good and for good. When God says through Paul that all things (ALL things) work together for the good of those who are the called and are working in His purpose (Ro 8:28), He means exactly that. Combine that with the realization that it is this same promising God who declares to you that He is the one working in you in order that you may be willing to work in accord with His purposes (Php 2:12), and one must come to the place that whatever befalls, it’s all to the good, for God’s purposes are served and His glory increased.
This is the same reasoning that leads to Aaron being told that he is not to show any sorrow over the judgment against his sons who went so far astray. God’s glory is no less to be seen in His justice than in His mercy. His wrath is no less glorious than His love. It is our own evil propensity for measuring by our own standards that causes us to suppose it is otherwise.
In the case of Lazarus, we know that he was brought back to life. Death was, in this instance, no more than an inconvenience to him. Yet, due to his resurrection, he was marked out for murder by those same heroes that were determined to destroy Jesus. His presence was visceral proof that they were in the wrong, and that simply could not be tolerated by the paragons of righteousness. He must be destroyed lest their image be tarnished, and God can look to His own image.
As intriguing as it is to consider how God orchestrated this whole thing, I really want to focus instead on the confidence that we ought to take in this. What’s happening in our own lives is no less a part of His plan an purpose. The world does indeed seem as though it’s spinning out of control as we see it. I could list any number of sorrows and concerns in my life, were I so inclined. But, you know? As I come to God with these insoluble (by my lights) problems, it seems that He keeps sending me back to Romans 8:28 again. He’s got it under control, and however awful it looks to me, He who sees the end from the beginning is He who is working it out. It will be for good, not only as measured by His purpose and glory, but also as applies to me and to such others of His children as may be involved. He causes things to work for good to those who love God. His glory, friends, is paramount, and is rightfully the focus of all He does. Yet, in pursuit of His glory, He is determined to work things for your good, for my good.
I have said before that this perspective and understanding removes all grounds for complaint, and it is true. It does seem, of late, that He has been making sure I don’t just know that, but that I get that. Indeed, in some recent times of prayer, it’s as though I could hear Him chuckling in His loving way as He pointed me back to that marvelous and foundational truth.
I know I have also found cause to note the question He poses to Martha as the events before us proceed. “I know that you know this, but do you BELIEVE this?” (Jn 11:26). See, if you believe the message of that verse, then you are in a place to trust Him with the issues of your day. You are able to leave the intractable in His hands and simply await further direction. Big decisions ahead? As the titular head of this household, I often feel the need to take action. Think it through as best you can, pray a bit if there’s time, but get moving. Solve it. Deal with it. But, God has a different message. He says not to be so hasty. Oh, should you jump the gun, He’s not going to be thrown off by it. He has taken you into account most thoroughly. But, for your part, the one thing that’s needful is to hear Him before you go off to solve the issue. If you haven’t heard, how is it you think you know what befits His purpose?
There is, as always, a balance to be maintained here. God is not an enabler. He is not raising us up to be total incompetents incapable of making the simplest of decisions. He does not seek a people in paralysis until such time as He shocks them into action. The whole point of study and meditation upon His Word is to train ourselves to see things as He sees them, to respond to things as He responds, to be more fully capable as His earthly emissaries. It would be a pretty worthless ambassador who needed to send home for instructions before he so much as thanked his host for tea. Likewise, the child of God should be capable of serving the greater part of his office without such constant doubt of his own abilities. But, when the way is not so clear? Stop! Business, as we noted earlier, has its place, but must give way to hearing our Lord. It’s not enough to be zealous for Him. It’s not enough to be quick to act, if our actions are misguided.
There’s a song from recent years, a Vineyard thing, as I recall (too lazy to check this morning), that says, “If You say go, we will go. If You say stay, we will stay.” There’s more to it, but this is the critical point for this morning. If You say, we will. But, in order for us to live in that place, we must listen, we must hear what He is saying. Anything else is really just doing our own thing and hoping God will at least protect us from our own stupidity if He won’t bless our decisions. True though that may be, it is not the Way. It is well for a servant to show initiative, but it is not well at all for that servant to ignore the will of his master in what he does.
OK. Well, I have failed utterly, I think, at taking a brief look at the actors in this scene. But, tomorrow I shall indeed turn my attention to the passage that is actually the stated object of this study, beginning, I think, with that thought I set aside earlier. That though, I see, is not something of my own, but something I had picked up from the footnotes to the NET. This causes me no embarrassment, but actually makes me more comfortable in having seen the same thing there, whether that be due to the previously planted seed or not.
[07/07/10] So, here is the footnote from their text: “The glorification of the Son is not praise that comes to him for the miracle, but his death, resurrection, and return to the Father which the miracle precipitates.” This is the thing. We are so caught up in the miraculous, in miracle for miracle’s sake. I don’t really suppose there is anything wrong or sinful in wishing to see somebody healed when all of man’s ability has concluded that there is no cure. I can think of several people in my immediate circle of acquaintances for whom I would dearly love to see God move in such fashion. But, even then, the miracle should not be the point.
I have often commented that I would hold that when Jesus worked a miracle it was for a purpose, and that purpose was not the immediate result of the miracle performed. Even with Lazarus, whom we are meeting here, his resurrection did not prevent him from eventually entering the grave once more. All these miraculous healings did not prevent the death of their recipients. At best they may have delayed the inevitable. This does not diminish the value of the miracle, but it does tell me that if we are looking solely at the immediate result, we are surely missing the point.
What is the point? The point, as is the point with all that God does, is to bring Him glory. All is for His glory. Monday, as we struggled with the challenges of Romans 9, I made the point that whether God shows mercy or whether He shows the wrath of His just punishment, in either case, He is glorified. That He can do both while maintaining the perfection of His righteousness glorifies Him all the more. The focus behind any and every miracle that God performs, as with any word that He speaks, is exactly the same: His glory. It is not vanity in Him to seek this end, it is His worth that makes the end fit.
I find, though, that glory is another of those words we bandy about in the church without ever really contemplating what it is exactly that we mean. As my wife was saying about grace, we use the word constantly, and we have some vague notions of its sense, but what do we really mean when we say it? What does God really mean when He says it? Are they the same thing? In the case of glory, there is that simple, surface meaning that we may have in mind: that of something bright and lustrous, like the gleam of polished gold. More generally, we might think of it in terms of that which attracts our attention or catches our eye or our imagination in a positive way.
In reference to God, however, I find two portions of the definitions given in the various lexicons that really capture the meaning for me. From Zhodiates, I have that glory is ‘all which is excellent in the divine nature.’ Then, add Thayer’s statement that glory is ‘the absolute perfection of the deity.’ OK. Think about that for just a moment. When we speak of a glorious day, doesn’t that fall into similar meanings? It’s a day about which all is excellent, the absolutely perfect day. Now, our definitions of such a day may differ, but our opinions about the day that fits our definitions will not.
God, on the other hand, is not a matter of our definitions. How we need to bear that in mind! He defines Himself. He defines what is glorious, and if we would hold that He is glorious, it shall be on His terms. After all, if ever there was a perfect day, the absolute perfection of that God who established the day is certainly far greater. If we are taken by the sense of all that is excellent in some artist’s performance, then all that is excellent in that One Who both created the artist and imbued him with the talents requisite to his performance while simultaneously orchestrating all else in creation is so much greater as to beggar all comparison.
The purpose, then, of mercy, of justice, of miracle, is what? It is to glorify God, to demonstrate before all who see that His perfection is just that: Perfect. His perfection is perfect in a way that nothing else can approach. He demonstrates His excellence in these things. Who else can be merciful as He is? Who else can be just as He is? Even Solomon at the peak of his game could not demonstrate such Wisdom as He, could not render righteous judgments as He does. Here is that king of whom history records that none before or after could ever touch his accomplishments. No other could offer counsel as he did. No other had the vast wealth that he amassed. Yet, the God who created him and bestowed on him such fame looks upon him and declares that he has not even achieved the glory of a wild flower. And in that, God is informing us that the glory of the wild flower, and equally the glory of Solomon, are all His anyway. Apart from Him these things we think glorious and marvelous do not so much as have existence. Were He to cease orchestrating their upkeep for the briefest of moments, they would not merely wither and die. They would cease to be. But, He does not. He does not cease to manage His creation, to arrange His creation, and bring from it the whole magnificent symphony of life, and that is glorious beyond measure, and redounds to His own glory, as well it should.
As to the purpose of this miracle, we find it explained not too much further along in John’s account. “Now, the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in Him” (Jn 13:31). When is this proclaimed? Immediately as Judas departs the Last Supper to go and arrange for Jesus’ capture. In both cases, Jesus has the same thing in sight, which is His own crucifixion and simultaneously, His resurrection. These two events must be considered together, for either one without the other fails of the purpose of salvation, and it that purpose, the salvation of mankind, which Jesus is contemplating.
One might suggest that it was His ascension back to His throne which constituted His glorification, but not so. That act is more on the order of an epilog added to the completed story of salvation. Yes, it is glorious and makes His glory manifest. But, had He not accomplished the whole purpose of His having come to live as a man, then His return to heaven would in no wise mark Him out as anything different than any of a hundred Greek and Roman gods. The Ascension was necessary, but it wasn’t the main point. The salvation of mankind was the main point, and that was sealed and completed upon the Cross and three days later at the exit of the tomb. The Son, crucified and risen again the third day, was glorified as Lazarus was not. The Son, having fully accomplished the whole of God’s plan, laid forth from the outset and amplified by each prophet along the way, glorified God who had laid the plan as His own glory shone. Miracle? Yes, Lazarus’ resurrection was miracle indeed! But, the glory lies in fulfilling the purpose of God, not in enjoying the temporal benefits of the miracle.
The account laid out in these verses covers a period of some three days, of which we are shown only the first and the last. I was struck, this morning, by how shocked we ought to be that His disciples were still with Him after that third day. Consider. On first learning of Lazarus’ illness, Jesus states very clearly (or would at least be heard as having done so) that Lazarus isn’t going to die. “This sickness is not unto death.” Oh, well, all right then. No sense rushing down to see him, he’d just be better by the time we got there anyway. So, no particular surprise on their part that nothing much happens. It’s just the emotional women over-reacting. Jesus is beyond that.
So, two days later, that third day, Jesus says they ought to go after all, and for what reason? Well, Lazarus is sleeping. OK, here’s problem number one for these guys, although it’s a minor one given what they’ve seen. How would He know? The messengers left two days ago and nobody’s come by since. Really, why would He even mention it? Yeah, ok, so he’s sleeping. As good a guess as any, I suppose, but so what? How is that a reason to travel two days on foot? To wake him up, you say? Right. You don’t suppose maybe he will have awakened on his own in that time? I mean, hunger alone would tend to get a body out of bed after two days, yes?
Now comes the really hard part to swallow. When they point out the seemingly obvious to Him, His explanation is that Lazarus is dead. OK, now wait a minute. Didn’t You just tell as a couple of days ago that he wasn’t going to die? Didn’t You say, wait… let me check my notes, here. Didn’t You tell us, “this sickness is not unto death?” And, now You’re saying he’s dead! Well, which is it? And we think of Thomas as Doubting Thomas? If ever there was a reason to doubt, this had to be it. Here they’d thought He was a prophet, and quite a prophet at that. Yet, at least one of these two statements had to be wrong, right? And if that is so, then this is no prophet, and what are we doing following Him? We ought to be stoning Him. Of course, others have tried that and it hasn’t really accomplished much has it?
However, there is no evidence of any such doubts; not in Thomas, not in the others. There is only acceptance. There is only faith. In fact, we might suppose that it is their faith that what Jesus says is True (and everything He says is True) that leads them to misunderstand His reference to sleeping in the first place. If He has said that it isn’t unto death, then clearly, Lazarus isn’t going to die of this disease. Therefore, when He says sleeping, He must mean just that. Except, of course, their understanding is insufficient to compass His meaning.
How often we find ourselves in the same boat! I’ll just quickly note that this is the exact same limitation we are encountering in ourselves when we find the Bible seemingly contradicting itself. Faced with the evidence they had to hand, it would seem quite reasonable to point at the contradiction and shout about the fraud. But, the facts show that their evidence was incomplete, and therefore any attempt at understanding built on that evidence must likewise be incomplete. The appropriate response to God’s words in such a situation is to acknowledge first and foremost that God is not about to contradict Himself and in that Truth, to recognize that our comprehension of His meaning is clearly incomplete if He seems to us to be contradicting Himself.
When, therefore, Scripture appears to say one thing in one spot, and quite the opposite elsewhere, the issue is not that Scripture lies or contradicts itself. The issue is that we have misunderstood one or both parts. The answer, then, is to seek wisdom of the God Who authored those Scriptures, which He is likely more than glad to impart. After all, why would He have gone through the effort of causing Scripture to be written that we might understand Him more, if it would only confuse us? The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom (Ps 111:10, Pr 9:10). That doesn’t mean cringing in terror. It means acknowledging Who He Is. God is Truth and in Him there is no lie (1Jn 1:5), no least shadow of turning (Jas 1:17). His understanding is immeasurably beyond our own meager capacity, but He is glad to impart where we are willing to ask. Somehow, it seems to me, the disciples got that. That somehow, of course, is the hand of God Himself holding them through their spiritual infancy, as He has done for us when we knew it not.
Something of the wonderment of these events, even as John looks back at them across the ensuing years, is evident in the way he relays the story. Jesus loved these three, therefore He waited for two days. What? He loved them so He made certain Lazarus was good and dead before He got there? The whole flow of that is so incongruous that certain of the less literal translators feel it necessary to alter the sense entirely. Rather than therefore, they would have us read ‘however’. In spite of His love He waited. But, that’s not what John says, and he was there. John says, because of His love He waited. He loved them, therefore.
Thayer’s does admit of a possible use of the term translated ‘therefore’ which would be the reintroduction of a topic of conversation that had been interrupted. In other words, there is a usage that would have it serving like the interjection, “So, as I was saying”. If one chooses to see the comment about how Jesus loved these three as a mere parenthetical comment of little to no bearing on the story at hand, then this usage might make some sense. In that case, one could happily simply ignore the word entirely. But, the fact that the majority of translations leave it as a straightforward ‘therefore’ would seem to argue against that.
Honestly, the very purposefulness of both Jesus and the Scripture that explains Him would lead me to favor the more purposeful reading. ‘So anyway’ just doesn’t seem to have a place in John’s writing, never mind in God’s exposition. I don’t see either of them rambling in such fashion elsewhere. Why should I suppose it here? In fact, as John is writing from a very retrospective position and it is John who so fully absorbed the reality that God is Love, I think it entirely fitting that he should look back on this event and realize that there was not only purpose in what occurred, but purpose powered by love. Jesus loved, therefore.
This connection between love and action is something that we must understand as being connected to the purpose of glorifying Himself which prompts God’s actions. Were God solely seeking His own glory in what He does, this would be pride on a grand scale, pride and vanity. But, the fact is that God, though pursuing ends which bring glory to Himself, moves on the motive of love. Jesus loved, therefore. It was not love of self that moved Him to act. It is love for others, in this case Lazarus and his sisters.
But, turn to the cross. Yes, it was for the glory laid before Him that Jesus found strength to face even that torment in obedience, and that glory: what was it? As I have already noted, it was the successful conclusion of the eons old plan for the salvation of man. In other words, Jesus loved, therefore. Or, take the immortal words John penned towards the beginning of the Gospel. God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son (Jn 3:16). God loved, therefore Jesus. Jesus loved, therefore the cross.
You know, we are all acquainted with hard times in our lives. We have all heard – and asked – the age old question, “Why does God let bad things happen to good people?” Or, perhaps we’ve asked it on a more personal level. “Why me, Lord?” “How long?” “Why is this happening?” The answer to all of these questions is the same: “Jesus loves, therefore.” Jesus loves you, therefore He does not allow you to rot in a bed of rose-scented petals. He trains you. Jesus loves you, therefore He will not spoil you but strengthen you. He will not coddle you but teach you. He will not grant your every wish but He will meet your every need. Yes, there will be work and pain and even persecution in this life. But, because He loves you He leaves you to meet these challenges and be strengthened by them.
Because Jesus loves you, it may be that you are facing a situation not unlike that of Joseph’s harder years. It may be that you are rejected by those who ought most to love you. It may be that you are being punished for things you never even did. It may be that you are dealing with any number of wrongs. Of course, it’s probably more probable that we suffer punishments that we wholly deserve, and even then, we are brazen enough to ask God why He allowed it. But, let us assume the best. Joseph, we notice, never once is heard pestering God with the why me stuff. Whether or not he was asking in the quiet of his inner dialog we cannot say, but it is a noteworthy absence in the record of his life in a book that does not tend to spare its heroes.
Joseph, I must suppose, understood. God loves, therefore. This, and the knowledge that Paul proclaimed, that God works all things – however horrendous they seem to us as we endure them – for the good of His own (Ro 8:28). We are not granted to see the big picture. We might well consider ourselves blessed that this is so, for I cannot but think that such a vision of the arc of our own history would overwhelm us entirely. Joseph was not sanguine because he knew the plan. He was sanguine because he knew the Planner.
Oh! May I be saturated with this realization on my own part! I have, I think, at least begun to truly lay hold of those marvelous words from Paul’s writings. But, this is another piece that must be fit together with that one. This, too, must become not only a fact known to me, but a reality to me, as fundamental to my perspective on life as is the certain goodness of all He does. However hard the situation, it is because God loves me. However much I would prefer different circumstances, the good health of my spouse, the absence of old habits that die hard, a complacent child whose love for God and parent is palpable and strong. How could I not prefer these things? How could I not prefer a life which, if not all ease and plenty, is at least filled with joyful circumstance?
This is how we tend to understand the meaning of being blessed. It’s hard to look upon somebody who is enduring chronic disease and suppose that they are, even in that circumstance, experiencing the pure blessing of God. Yet, it is so. They are, if they be God’s children, as much under the twin clauses of, “Jesus loved, therefore,” and, “God works all for the good of His children.”
Lord! Bring me to that place. Bring me to that satisfaction with Your will in my life, whatever Your will may be. Bring me to that place of being satisfied whether in plenty or in want. Bring me to the unshakable peace that comes of knowing You, and of knowing that all which You arrange for me is done in the outpouring of Your love for me, and arranged for my good, my benefit. For, this is indeed who You are. This morning, as I soak in this thought, I praise You the more for knowing that it is so. I give You such glory as is mine to give, knowing that all Your glory pours back to You from that which pours out of You in Your inestimable love. Let my own love for You respond the more to this sense of Yours.
As I consider the implications of this idea that, “Jesus loved, therefore,” it is clear that Jesus is not emotionless. He is not the cold God of pure reason, not one who is all mind and no heart. No, Jesus loved. God is Love. Jesus loves with such an intensity that the sorrow He feels for the woes of those He loves causes Him to weep. All that being said, though, He is not led by His emotions. Jesus loved. Therefore what? Therefore He waited. He didn’t rush off after what His heart felt must be done. He stayed put because that was what God knew must be done.
How very difficult it is to accept, this idea that the tragedy of life is in actuality the outworking of love. Jesus loved, therefore He waited while sickness descended into death. Emotion would not allow such stillness. Emotion would be screaming at us to do something, demanding that we must expend every effort to prevent such an outcome. Emotion, if it sought God at all on the matter, would only do so in order to either rail against His unfairness or to demand He do some miracle to change the situation. But, Jesus, though so fully loving, is ever and always concerned with God’s plan.
It reminds me of that encounter Joshua had. Are you for us or our enemies? “No. I captain the host of the Lord” (Josh 5:13-14). Take that same sense into the situation before us. If You really loved us, You wouldn’t have let this happen. This gets rather ahead of the storyline, I know, but it is part of this theme introduced by Jesus waiting because He loves these three. “No. I am of the Lord. Though you grieve, and though I grieve with you, I am His first. Indeed, I am His alone.” Of course, we must assume that Jesus knew the outcome from the moment He heard that Lazarus was sick. He may well have known even before He received that news.
This is the lesson I would draw forth today. While we find it incomprehensible that the tragedies of life could possibly be something good, it must be that they are, for God is Good, and His plans are Good and Perfect. Death by disease is certainly a tragedy. I think even our Lord God would accept that as true. It is not a thing that accords with His design in creation. It is a byproduct of sin. Yet, as we see here, as we see with Job, as we see in many and many a case, the deep sorrow that comes with a temporal tragedy is a needful precursor to a much greater joy to follow.
In this case, it is not simply the joy of having Lazarus restored to them. If things stopped there, if that was the whole point of this delay, then I should have to accuse Jesus of being a crass and heartless manipulator as well as a show off. There would have been joy at having Lazarus returned to them, but there would also have been the bitter recognition of having been cruelly used by this powerful man.
But, the resurrection of Lazarus was not the end for which he was allowed to die. We hear a part of the purpose behind his death and resurrection as Jesus speaks to His disciples here. “So that you may believe.” That’s the purpose. It is allowed so that your belief may have yet another solid foundation upon which to stand. Once more, I see that faith is not blind. God sees to it that we have every good reason to believe. Here shall be your evidence. You shall see one clearly dead restored to life. You shall know from the evidence of your own senses that death has no power over the Son of God. He rules even there. The grave is not the end. Therein is cause for great joy in those who love God. Therein is cause for great fear in those who do not.
Let me come back to my main line of thought, though. What seemed to be greatest tragedy turns out to have been this occasion for belief. The tragedy as with the blessing is brought about for one reason: That God may be glorified. I will dare to say that even if God’s purposes had not included the resurrection of Lazarus, there would have been some other aspect by which His glory would be made clear.
I say this because we need to be corrected in our thinking. We think that God can only be glorified where there is that clear, fairy-tale ending when everybody lives happily ever after. But, you know? We have no idea how happily Lazarus lived out the remainder of his days. There are hints in articles about him that the reason we hear nothing of him in the other gospels is because he was a marked man still. He needed to disappear from Pharisaic sight lest they carry out their plans for his death. In spite of the resurrection he had already experienced, in spite of his relationship to God, those threats were still thoroughly real and thoroughly threatening.
Of course, when we find ourselves in the hard places, our thoughts turn to how we might be done with those places. If we are not busy trying to think up the solution ourselves, we are likely praying to God that He would give us the solution and pull us out of our jam. If our temperament is, perhaps, a bit more resigned, we might instead cry out to God with the plaintive, “Why me, Lord?” I doubt not that we have all found times when we felt it right to cry out in this fashion. David did. “How long, o Lord? When will You get around to answering me?” It is perfectly natural that we should feel this way. Honestly, I don’t see any sin in such a response. Yet, there is a better way. There is a way that acknowledges that even in this, God’s hand is guiding the events of our lives, even in this, there is something good that He is achieving.
Like Joseph, we can be stuck in jail awaiting death for a crime we never committed and yet know that God is in control. Like the myriad martyrs that mark the history of the Church, we can face the most terrible of deaths knowing that even in this, God is good. Even in this, God has a plan and a purpose to be glorified by the very act of martyrdom. He will bring good from it. Romans 8:28 remains fact. Sorry, I know I have brought this verse to bear repeatedly in this study, but it’s critical to our faith to have it thus firmly planted in our consciousness. It is that understanding that will allow us to make the shift of perspective that we need to achieve. We need to change from that, “why me?” response into a response of, “how might I serve You in this, Lord?” How much more easily shall we bear up under the trials if our eyes are on the purpose of God? How much lighter the burden if we recognize that great good must come of it, even if we are unclear what that good might be?
Fausset’s makes this marvelous statement in regard to the record of Lazarus’ death and resurrection. “God sees cause for joy where even His people see only cause for grief.” This is the story of why Jesus waited. This is the story of why He made His way there not in spite of Lazarus being dead, but because Lazarus was dead. This is why He walked to His own cruel crucifixion with eyes open and head high. For the joy set before Him. Because, seeing through the eyes of the Father, He knew that though death must come, death was not the end. Sorrow may come for the night, but joy comes in the morning. What a people we shall be when we finally grasp that joy comes in the mourning! Even in the mourning.
There remains the rather curious answer Jesus gives when it is pointed out to Him that He puts Himself at great risk returning to Jerusalem. Were this recorded simply as one of the sayings of Jesus, devoid of context, it would seem inane. But, it is not devoid of context. It is spoken in answer to the reminder of the danger that Jerusalem represented. Jesus, as they reminded Him, was suggesting going to that place where His enemies had already tried once to kill Him, and where they doubtless awaited the chance to finish the job. Jesus, of course, was aware of this. He was also aware of the necessity of this. God’s purpose must stand.
In consideration of this, it is reasonably clear what Jesus means to convey, so long as one stops for a moment to consider. There are twelve hours in a day. The point is not the length of time, but the fact that the length is known. We know when evening comes, and we know how long we’ve got before that occurs. Jesus is telling His companions that it is thus with Him and His enemies. Jesus knows the time of His mission’s completion. Until that time, until all is ready, He need not fear these enemies, for they cannot touch Him until the kairos moment that God has prepared. Yea, though I walk through the valley of death. Can you hear that echoing in what Jesus is saying?
He continues by way of explanation. So long as the light of day persists, we can go with no fear of stumbling. The light of this world allows us to see what lies in our path. It is only when walking at night that stumbling is an issue, “because the light is not in him.” Now, that closing clause is interesting. We see because the light if this world lights the way. We fail to see because the light is not in us. Here, then, is something far greater than simply the explanation of why He can feel free to go to Jerusalem. Here is something for the disciples to lay hold of, and for us to lay hold of as well.
The light of the world, what is that? It’s not the sun, certainly. It won’t take long in reading through John’s account to know exactly what is meant by that phrase. Jesus is the light of the world. He has said it most clearly. “I am the Light. Follow Me and you shall not walk in darkness” (Jn 8:12). If that’s not sufficiently clear, there’s this. “While I am in the world, I am the light of the world” (Jn 9:5). So, then, while it remains day, this light of the world, this Jesus makes our path clear and we do not stumble.
There shall come a night, though. Just prior to telling His disciples that He is the light, Jesus had commented that He and His must work God’s works ‘so long as day lasts,’ for ‘night is coming in which no man can work’ (Jn 9:4). With Lazarus restored, Jesus would note that His time was growing short. The light would remain only a little longer (Jn 12:35), so don’t let darkness overtake you.
This must be understood, though. If the light is strictly to be associated with Jesus’ physical, human presence on the earth, then all of these things said of darkness must apply to us in our time. It is a time when no man can work. It is a time when all stumble for lack of light, and this has been the case since Jesus ascended back to heaven. But, this is not the case. All is dark and growing darker, it is true, but the light remains. The apostles continued the work. The Church continues the work, however flawed its efforts in one season or another. The time is not upon us yet when no man can work in pursuit of God’s purposes. Therefore, the dictum of John 9:4 applies. We must work His works so long as day lasts.
There is, of course, more to the concepts of light and darkness. For these, as much as we hear that Greek thought has been the death of the Church, we must actually turn to the Greeks to find our understanding. It is a particularly Greek sense of these terms that John bears in mind throughout his Gospel. Light is the embodiment of reason. Light is what the wisdom and knowledge that God so encourages in His children brings to the thoughts of the mind. This conception carries over into our own day. When we are trying to explain a difficult subject, we are inclined to say, “let me shine some light on that.”
Light exposes. Light allows sight. Notice that the most common term for knowing in Greek is also a term for vision. Is it any wonder that when understanding comes to us, when it ‘dawns’ on us, our response is, “oh, I see.” This connection of light and knowledge, light and reason, is not merely an inheritance we have from the height of Greek civilization. Greek civilization has the same source to look back upon for its accomplishments and for its purpose. The same God Who so intentionally established Israel as a nation unique among the nations of the earth had a very clear purpose for Greece and Greek thought. That nation, that empire, was as much under God’s control as ever Israel was. All that they brought into the realm of understanding, all their philosophical achievements, all of their expansions of man’s knowledge in more mundane realms, they achieved for the same reason that Solomon achieved such glory. God had ordained it. God had a reason for it. God wanted their knowledge base available to His children at the kairos time.
It was necessary that Greek philosophy had established these deeper meanings connecting light and reason so that when the Light became man, there should be for John a way to describe Him. There must be that linguistic support, that philosophical support, that would allow John to speak of the Logos of God, the Word, the very expression of God’s well-reasoned (perfectly reasoned) Wisdom and knowledge. You seek to understand philosophy? Here is Philosophy. You seek to understand life? Here is Life. You seek the light of knowledge? Here is the Light.
This really ought to throw a wrench into the machinations of those who insist that God is a Hebrew God and we must think in Hebrew fashion. Such as these decry the Greek influence, but fail, apparently, to note that the whole of the New Testament was written under the Greek influence. This was not some failure on the part of Jesus. This was in every way a very intentional timing set in motion by God.
In light of this, (if you’ll pardon the phrase), there is something I should like to touch on very briefly before I close out this study. Having just passed the annual celebration of Independence Day, I have once more encountered the American Church, and those who call her friend, proclaiming with all certainty that this nation is unique in God’s sight, that He has set this nation here for a purpose. The idea, of course, is that if He has such determined purpose for our dear country, then He surely will not suffer it to fail.
Frankly, I think we should be very afraid if our thoughts travel along these lines. First, we might look to history. Israel was very clearly a country with Godly purpose, a people of His own choosing, set in their place in history to serve His purpose. And, they knew it. I’m not going to argue as to whether this remains true in our day or not, because that is beside the point. The point is that they became so convinced of their unique status under God that they all but forgot about God. The Temple! The Temple! He would not abandon this. So, they felt free to do whatever they felt like doing with no thought for God, because He would not allow anything to destroy His house. They were wrong. The house didn’t matter to God. The people did. If they would sin so flagrantly on His very doorstep, then they would suffer His discipline.
Perhaps you would like something a bit more modern. How about England? It hasn’t been all that long, as history goes, since they were the player on the world stage. It hasn’t been all that long since they were convinced that here was the New Jerusalem already being established. What of them now? Forget the political power, the crumbling empire. What of their spiritual estate? The Church of England advocates Sharia law and accommodation to the not merely heathen, but truly evil beliefs of the idolaters. Pastors are faced with litigation should they dare to preach what is in the Bible. It’s deemed hateful and therefore criminal. It’s shocking. It should be shocking. It should be a warning shot across America’s bow that is so near that we can feel the wind of it.
How often we are told of how America was set as a city on a hill. How often we are told that we still are such a city, set up for the world to see what God is all about. Let us suppose this is so. Do you think God is likely to be pleased with how our current conditions speak on His behalf? Can you look back upon the record of the nations and suppose that He is likely to just put up with it? Though it may be painful to face the consequences of our national stupidity, I fear the pain of being allowed to simply pursue our ways unimpeded would be far worse. Would I rather the dread disciplines that Israel has faced in her long history, or the ban God pronounced on the likes of the Amorites? The difference between discipline and ban is the difference between life and death. I know which I should choose.
On a related note, I have to wonder at the scene I saw in our own house of worship last Sunday. Can we really suppose God is pleased that we come to worship Him and we’re waving our little national flags before His face? What are we worshiping, God or country? The correct answer, my friends, is not both. We remain, whether the atheists like it or not, one nation under God. If we are concerned about the proper and decorous display of flags, and we feel we must have the American flag in our church, do you understand that it must be set lower than the flag of Christ, if that flag is also present? The reason the American flag is required to be higher than that of any other nation is because America rules this nation. All other nations shall have their due respect, but they do not rule here, no matter what the current administration might think. But, America rules under God. God remains supreme, and it behooves us as a nation to remember that. It behooves us as a church to recognize that. It is well and good to seek God’s blessing upon our nation, and to seek His good will in appointing us leaders not as we deserve but as we need. But, I cannot find any cause to suppose that we ought to be touting our wonderful nation in His house, as part of His worship.
Let me be very clear on this point. I love this country. I would not willingly choose to live anywhere else on the face of this earth. But, I recognize that my country is no god, nor even terribly godly in this day and age. I love my country, but I shall not worship it. My worship is for God alone. After all, He reigns supreme. It is He Who appoints the nations, He Who determines their ascendancy and their decline. It is He Whose vote determines the outcome of our elections, whether we choose to acknowledge that or not. He reigns forever. All these others shall pass. Choose you this day whom you will serve, whether God or idols of patriotic fashioning. As for me and my house? I have already chosen. I will serve God.
