New Thoughts (08/05/13, 08/10/13-08/22/13)
Some have apparently looked at this scene as demonstrating a bit of confusion on Luke’s part. The theory runs that he somehow managed to conflate this event with that of the first calling of the Peter, Andrew, James and John. For my part, I would say this is evidence that John was familiar with Luke’s gospel (as he was with Matthew and Mark). I would even go further and suggest that this is evidence of the Holy Spirit’s role in the writing of the Scriptures.
If one accepts that Luke and John are describing two very different events, then it appears that those two events serve as bookends upon the overall account of the ministry of Jesus. In particular, they bookend the development of the disciples. Note that in the earlier event, described in Luke 5:1-8, Peter has been singled out by Jesus to take Him offshore to preach, and it is then that He tells Peter to cast. On that occasion, the catch is so great it truly has begun to burst the nets, and Peter calls the others to come to his help. They get the fish into their boats, but even then, it is almost sufficient to sink the two boats with the weight of fish.
This time, they are out together in one boat, and John makes particular note of the fact that the nets did not break in spite of the weight of fish caught. Peter is in charge, which is simply Peter being Peter. But, John recognizes Jesus on this occasion. And notice the difference in Peter’s response to recognition of Messiah. On that earlier day, he had felt such awe of Christ and such a sense of his own sinfulness that he had begged Jesus to depart (Lk 5:8). This time, in spite of what was assuredly an even keener awareness of his sins, he is diving into the water to get nearer to Jesus! Training complete.
There is much here that we could draw out if we so chose. There is the aspect of teamwork. Ministry is not generally a solo effort, although there will be times when one must act alone. Peter was not alone at the start by choice, but by command. On this occasion, it’s unclear whether Peter was trying to get some space by himself or whether he fully intended and expected that the others would join him. Given a boat large enough for seven, it doesn’t seem overly likely to me that he was planning to take it out by himself, although that can’t be ruled out. I’m inclined to think he’s learned a little something about going it alone. Perhaps those days of male competitiveness are fading.
And notice the ‘many members’ aspect of this scene. Peter is still the energy, the determination, but John is the insight. I will come back to that at length later. The point for now is simply that neither is sufficient in themselves. They need each other. I have commented often enough on the way Jesus paired these two in preparation for what lay ahead. But, isn’t it a marvelous pairing? Spirit and strength, zeal and insight: In either case, the one without the other rapidly goes off kilter, and does as much to damage true faith as to aid. We are all familiar with the phrase, “too heavenly minded to be any earthly good.” Of course, the opposite is assuredly just as true. One who is too earthly minded will have no thought at all for heaven, or heaven’s priorities. It needs both. The Ten Commandments consider both. It is the heavenly minded aspect to love God as we ought (or as nearly so as we may). But, it requires the earthly minded aspect, having been fed and nurtured by God, to love our neighbor as ourselves. As to zeal without knowledge, Scripture speaks plainly of the terrors of such a thing.
If I consider the aspect of the nets which broke on the first occasion but held on this later one, is there significance to this? Does it, perhaps, become an image of the development of the disciples? In those earlier days, they were in that state of zeal without knowledge, weren’t they? They were ready, willing and able to drop all to pursue this One who would make them fishers of men. Yet, in their rambunctiousness, they were as likely to lose much of the catch as to bring it in. Now, there is a degree of maturity to their faith. The nets they cast will hold. The lost will be brought in.
I am brought back to that number of fish John specifies as having been caught. One hundred and fifty three, but very large, so large that had they tried to pull the net in, it might well have caused the boat to capsize, or the men to fall in. Yet, it was not so large that it could not be lifted. Peter was able to bring it ashore by himself after all. Compare to that earlier catch. Two boats filled to the point of sinking by the fish that were caught. Surely, that marks a larger catch than on this occasion? Is there something to be understood from this point as well?
I do not suppose it is in the specific number. That specificity serves only to demonstrate the first-hand experience of the author. I am inclined to think the detail that they were told to drop nets on the right-hand side is of no more significance either. It is but the sort of thing that sticks in the mind of one who was there. This was, after all, a very powerful moment. It was certainly powerful for Peter, but it was no less so for John.
But, returning to the apparently smaller catch of this later occasion, does it perhaps speak to the quality versus quantity aspect of things? I rather suspect that I am attempting to read too much into the scene. Yet, it is intriguing that John notes so many details about this occasion. Is it just that they are clear in his memory, being an eye-witness? Maybe. It seems rather astounding to me that he would remember such things after so many years. The right side of the boat, the precise number of fish caught: One would expect memory to fade a bit over time. But, he does feel it important to mention these details, as well as the particular fact that the net did not break. It seems odd to me that they would have sat there counting fish when they had the risen Christ before them cooking breakfast, but perhaps it’s a natural enough thing for fishermen to do.
So, was there a lesson for these men in the nature of their catch? They caught large fish, apparently, though in lesser number than on that prior occasion. And the net held. Was this intended as an endorsement of sorts for Peter’s later service? He is the one, after all, who single-handedly brings the net ashore, and he is the one who decided to go fishing in the first place. Certainly the Catholic church would love to view this as yet another marker of Peter’s primacy. But, I don’t think that’s it, if there is any it at all.
I have to believe there is a point of some sort to draw from this, else I have no answer as to why John covers the episode at all. Yes, it is an appearance of Jesus to a portion of the Apostles, but we’ve had two already. What more does the third one prove? Is it simply because nobody else thought to cover it, and he didn’t want the story lost? No. I don’t believe John is inclined towards so simple a purpose. True, he tends towards covering those things which the others did not, but not simply for the sake of preserving them. The messages contained in those events are to a purpose, and I am certain the same holds here. That purpose, given the level of detail, must be more than simply introducing that final encounter between Peter and Jesus.
Perhaps John, the more spiritually minded one, saw something prophetic in this event. Perhaps he sensed something in the way the net held where it had not before, in the way the catch was so well matched to their ability. That may well be the message we are to take away. On that earlier occasion, the nets had burst, but there were others nearby, and the catch was kept caught by their efforts. On this occasion, there is no second boat to call alongside, there are only those men and their small craft, and the net too heavy to draw aboard. It’s almost as though, had there been a hundred and fifty fourth fish, it would have proven too much. But, God, perfect in His provision as He is perfect in His planning, saw to it that only the number that could be managed were caught, not one more, not one less.
This could possibly be combined with the Parable of the Soils to grant a more complete picture of ministry. In that parable the clear message is that the sower cannot be responsible for the response of the soil, nor should he restrict his sowing based on the nature of the soil before him. It may be – certainly is so today – that the wise sower discerns the nature of the turf. The natural response for the sower would be to concentrate his seed casting on that soil best suited to growth, or as we might do today, to till the soil in preparation. But, that is not the way it was done then, and it is not the way recommended in the parable. No. Cast with abandon, knowing that even though the bulk of your seed may be cast to no avail, yet that which takes root and flourishes will more than make up for the losses.
Now, we add this imagery of the net that did not burst. Recalling the promise of hundredfold return on that small bit of good soil amidst the poor, it is well to know that God will not so greatly amplify the good soil’s response as to wreck the sower or the harvester. The harvest is attuned to the capacity of the farmer. Anybody who has watched a local congregation growing can see the value of this message. How much more must those earliest planters needed the assurance that the explosive growth they were overseeing would not burst the thin net of apostolic oversight! Think about it: Thirteen men with a world to seed. It was one thing when eleven men were tasked with growing the church in Jerusalem. But, as Samaria, then Antioch, and then the many churches throughout Asia Minor, Greece, Northern Africa and beyond were added, they had but few more men at the helm, only Paul, really, and those he deputized.
Yet the fabric of apostolic oversight would hold. It has continued to hold down through the years. Oh, the church has suffered its difficulties and divisions. It has lost its way on occasion, only to be brought back to its purpose by the Good Shepherd. Looking at the general state of the church today could easily lead one to despair of its future. But, the net holds, and the net, while it certainly incorporates that Apostolic authority, does not depend solely upon said authority. It is held by a much higher authority, that of the Christ chosen of God, begotten of God, and confirmed eternal God.
Does this assessment capture John’s purpose for providing us the narrative? I don’t know. Does it capture God’s purpose in this encounter? Again, I could not begin to claim knowing. Yet, the lesson holds. It is God’s church, God’s catch. If we are made fishers of men, it is assuredly not for our own gain. Those who do so for their own gain are poachers, vile, self-serving raiders of God’s people, and must surely face a just condemnation in the fullness of time. But, for the true fishers of men, it is for God, in God, and by God that they fish. They do not catch the fish to feed themselves, but that the fish themselves might be fed.
Imagine that! Having just been up along the seacoast, where fishing is a way of life, this is almost unthinkable. What? You catch fish that the fish might live? What is the point? Surely the fish would feed themselves just fine if you simply let them be. And we can fall into thinking of our fellow man in much the same way if we are not careful. Surely, if I just leave him alone he’ll be fine. What if I give him the gospel and he rejects it? Is he not worse off than he was in his ignorance? But, the response of the soil is not mine to manage. No, mine is to obey, and I must confess I have great difficulty in doing my part. After all, they seem to be doing alright, don’t they? They continue their daily existence and it doesn’t really seem all that important that when they die, it will be but a confirmation of the state into which they were born. But, that’s so wrong! It’s the same way I once thought of myself, except turned outward. I’m good enough, a nice guy. What do I need with this Jesus business? And now, though I know better about myself, though I am certain as can be that I am His and He is my Lord and Savior, yet I do not feel that compulsion to spread the good news of salvation to those who have yet to hear it.
This is a matter that has been much on my mind the last several days, and the awareness is no doubt due in part to the current focus on evangelism at church. But, the thing that drives this issue home for me is recognizing my response to a dead goldfinch two evenings ago. We have our bird feeders out, and we so love watching them come, hearing them chatter away as they come to eat. But, returning from an evening stroll that night, we came across a goldfinch that had not made its street crossing. My initial reaction was simply to get us past that crushed little body and out of the street ourselves, and to dismiss it from thought. But, it would not dismiss. I was actually quite upset that this poor bird had been destroyed by some callous human passing in their car. Indeed, it seemed to me that the birds outside were far more chatty that evening than usual. I was captured by thoughts of this bird’s mate, who was now bereft of her champion. Was she out there asking the rest if they’d seen him? Were they in mourning, discussing the terrible event? I know it is a fanciful line of thought, yet this is where I was at as night fell.
I could not help but feel the reproach that I should care so deeply for the loss of a tiny bird, and yet feel so little concern for the dying people all around me. Oh, the death of the bird was far more visible than the walking death of the unsaved about me, but it was, if anything, less real. Seriously. The Lord God, Who reminded His own that not one sparrow ever fell to earth apart from God’s notice and even His planning, assuredly knows about this little goldfinch and about the mate he left behind. They are cared for. Is there an afterlife for birds? I won’t speculate beyond noting that if there is not, it seems odd that the whole earth should be groaning for redemption as Paul writes. But, that bird, if I may pursue my imaginations just a bit, is safe in God’s hands, though dead on the street. These men and women about me? They are dead as can be though they walk and drive and go about their daily affairs. Which has my concern? Which ought to? And, of course, the greater question: What shall it take to align my perspective with my God’s? Oh! There is where I am to be, and yet it is where I am not. But, God, my God, is able to achieve the change in me He seeks. I can but lay myself willing before Him, and this I do this morning. May He be swift to answer, to bring about the much needed change.
[08/14/13] A computer failure yesterday injected yet another delay in my pursuit of this study. Praise God, though, that it seems to have recovered without replacement.
Reading through the various articles concerning those mentioned in this passage, I found Fausset averring that this fishing trip took place after the Ascension. No basis or explanation is offered for the statement. It is just set forth as the consensus view. I have a problem with that view, though. It is not so very long after the Ascension that we are presented with the Apostles firmly established in Jerusalem, and it seems very clear that they remained there for some time thereafter, other than occasional forays up into Samaria and the like to spread the Gospel. The scene before us does not show any signs of the men being in pursuit of that purpose. I might, in this case, refer to Luke’s introduction to the book of Acts. “To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God. And gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised” (Ac 1:3-4). As that chapter continues, we arrive at the Ascension (Ac 1:9), and the statement that they did indeed go to Jerusalem, remaining thereafter in the upper room (Ac 1:12-13).
I would contend that subsequent to this point the Apostles, having received the Holy Spirit, having seen the sudden addition of thousands to their number, having established something not unlike a commune there in Jerusalem, had far too much work on their hands to contemplate a fishing trip up in Galilee. However, within that window between the Resurrection and the Ascension, during which Jesus had actually commanded a return to Galilee, a scene such as this would make perfect sense. They were in the area anyway. Both his family and that of the Zebedee brothers still had active fishing concerns in Capernaum. Why wouldn’t he do a bit of fishing?
Now, Wuest’s translation of these verses offers that Simon Peter said, “I am going off, breaking my former connections, to my former fishing business.” This would require that the term hupagoo should be understood as indicating such a complete breaking of connection. Most literally, that word might be given as ‘to go under’, awkward as that sounds to us. Thayer gives it the sense of withdrawing oneself, going away, and Strong adds the idea of retiring. So, perhaps Wuest is onto something. But, if he is, then greater questions arise.
If Peter is at the point of blowing off this whole Apostle business and going back to the life he knew previously, and these others, including James and John, including Thomas and Nathanael, are just as ready to chuck it all, then why? Surely this says that we are prior to the Ascension and the sending of the Holy Spirit. Even with that, it would be hard to suppose these guys so weak in faith that they are ready to give up after what can only have been a couple of weeks, if that. Think about it for a moment. They have had the excitement of those first two encounters with the risen Christ in Jerusalem, and their excitement was absolutely palpable at that point. They had talked with Him. They had touched Him. They had dined with Him! Surely, He had done more than enough to dispel any misconceptions they had that He was but a ghost. Ghosts don’t eat! Ghosts don’t have corporeal bodies that you can poke at.
So, now, having gone to Galilee as He instructed to wait for Him on the designated mountain, they should just give up? They’re not even on the mountain! They’re in Capernaum, else how is Peter going fishing? Since John states clearly that this is the third manifestation, I would have to submit that this has come about prior to the expected mountaintop meeting. It’s possible that this is happening instead of that meeting. I often read this with that same idea of Peter despondent and giving up, and because of this, it proves necessary that Jesus go out there and meet the boys on shore. But, the more I actually think about the timing of this, the less likely I find it that Peter and the others are in that state of mind.
Let me offer an alternative explanation. They have been travelling with Jesus for some three years now. Yes, they’ve generally been close enough to home that they returned to Capernaum fairly often. In fact, we see Jesus making this His home base during the first year or two. But, consider this last journey down to Jerusalem. It had taken time to go. There had been things that needed doing along the way, and frankly, it had been a stressful event from the outset. They had left Galilee in part because of the danger from Herod. They had gone to Jerusalem fully aware of the danger that would arise from the Pharisees and Sadducees (“Let us go with Him, then, that we might die with Him”). They had gone the last leg on the news of the death of their friend Lazarus.
Then, that last week! They had seen Lazarus raised from death. They had seen their Teacher, Jesus put to death in the most gruesome fashion. They had seen themselves, each and every one of them, fail Him in one degree or another. Then, they had seen the empty tomb, the risen Savior! They had suffered enough shocks to their system to kill the average man, or at least shorten his lifespan considerably! And then, Jesus has instructed them to make the trek back to Galilee to await further instructions. That journey, by foot, through the less savory regions where bandits lurked, was no picnic either. Would it be all that shocking, given all this, if the men felt a certain pull to experience something more familiar, even if just for one evening?
Would it be that shocking that Peter, arriving back at home, might want to stop a day or two and reconnect with his wife? He was married, after all. Would it be so surprising that James and John perhaps wanted to stop and pay respects to their parents? And, as long as we’re stopping over for a few days, why not go fishing? It’s not exactly a day at the beach, but even with the effort of fishing, I could surely appreciate how those boats might be calling to them. Even after a brief week at ocean’s edge, there is something about the sound of the fishing boats heading out in the morning that, in spite of the strenuous and tenuous nature of that industry, is so calming. The water glassy smooth in the cool morning air, the motors quieted for the slow, wakeless run out of harbor, a few gulls calling out, and maybe the bells of a buoy tolling off in the distance: For those of us on land, there is a certain draw to all that. It sounds so lovely, so relaxing, particularly as we’re not the ones working the boats! Why, ‘twill be a fine day for sailing. We could get a spot on that schooner and enjoy a few hours in the winds.
I will attest to the fact that in the days immediately following that trip, I really missed those morning sounds. We have our own pleasing sounds here, the birds waking and so on, but it’s not quite the same. It doesn’t speak to the soul in the same fashion. So, then, for these men who had grown up in that setting, who lived and breathed the winds and waters of the Sea of Galilee, how much greater the draw to go out to the sea once more? I really don’t think we need read any sense of despondency or abandonment into this. It’s just men being men.
I was, at one point, inclined to read a bit of disobedience into this, and that may yet apply. Jesus did not instruct them to go take a break back home. He told them to go await Him on the mountain. But, this need not necessarily be viewed as disobedience any more than it must be understood as despair. Peter might be saying no more than that he intends to take a break from all that’s been happening to do a bit of fishing. I wouldn’t be all that shocked if all that was to be read into his statement is the bare words of the NASB translation: “I am going fishing.” Plain and simple. Read no more into it. How often do I find my wife trying to read all manner of significance into something I’ve said, when all I meant was the plain and simple word I spoke! I suspect we are inclined to fall into that same trap in our efforts to fully parse the Gospels. Surely, every last little word is just fraught with meaning and significance. But, sometimes, a statement is just a statement. “I’m going fishing.” Why must that mean anything more than the obvious?
One more aspect of the scene which might throw us a bit is Peter’s reaction when John recognizes that it is Jesus on the shoreline. The NASB offers that Peter “put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work), and threw himself into the sea.” The NET tries for Peter having “tucked in his outer garment (for he had nothing on underneath it), and plunged into the sea.” But, then the go to great lengths in their footnote to back off of this interpretation somewhat. The term gumnos, translated as naked, does not in fact indicate total nudity. Neither, it is explained, ought we to imagine Peter wrapping his cloak about his shoulders and tying it in place. Instead, it is likely that he was simply binding the cloak around his waist as a means of bringing it with him. The understanding here is that he saw the upcoming encounter as something of a religious act, which would require being fully clothed. But, as a man long familiar with the sea, he wasn’t about to attempt that swim to shore with a cloak around his limbs. Far more likely and reasonable that he would be binding it about himself in such a way as to minimize its drag and ensure that it did not wind up getting wrapped about hands or feet. Peter is not stupid, nor is he suicidal. He is anxious to present himself to the Lord, and he is determined to do it right, at least so far as his impetuous nature will allow it.
That impetuousness shows, it seems to me, in that the distance to shore was not much beyond a football field. Seems to me that six men at the oars with the seventh steering could easily have pulled the boat to shore faster than he could swim the distance. True, the net full of fish would present a bit of drag, but even so, they’ve a fair amount of horsepower in the boat, and Peter has only his own limbs. But, he does apparently outswim the boat and arrive before the others, or at least that is the impression one gets from John’s narrative. It’s not impossible, though, that the boat passed Peter on the way. But, Peter is unwilling that anything should delay his audience with Christ. Right or wrong, he’s taken what he sees as the shortest path to get to Him.
I need to ponder that just a bit more. “Peter is unwilling that anything should delay his audience with Christ.” And how do I compare? It varies moment to moment. Truth be told, there are often times when the duties I have taken up in service to Him are matters I would as soon not know about, let alone have to deal with them. But, He has called me to this, and I have answered. That is something. Now, it is the long perseverance of being faithful to answer in full, and with all diligence. But, I am reminded that the perseverance and diligence required of me is not always that of taking action, but more that of taking the time to pray. How hard that is! And yet it should be easy.
That is the point at which I need to hear the urgent desire of Peter in this scene. Prayer, more than study, more than serving, more than attending services, is my opportunity for an audience with Christ. Is that not how it is described for us? In prayer, we come before His throne, into His chambers, and are granted the unimaginable privilege of speaking our minds with Him. And yet, while I grasp this, somehow the wonder escapes me. It is difficult, I confess, to sense this immediacy of communion with Christ when it so often seems a one-way conversation. I am often in need of reminding, of reading the assurances once again, that God listens and answers, that He has not turned away from me, but indeed anxiously looks for my visit with Him. He longs for these times when we can converse, perhaps wonders how it is that I can have such difficulty hearing Him when He is right there with me, perhaps shakes His head at my propensity for hearing to little or no avail. And yet, He continues to welcome me in!
Oh, my heart, wake up! Even in these last few paragraphs, it is clear that He is speaking to me. No, I have no grandiose opinion of my talents, but I can recognize, on occasion, when the words I type are more than just my thoughts being expressed. Peter is unwilling that anything should delay his audience with Christ. This is where I need to be. The more I take up responsibility in His service, the more fully I seek to be a true servant to my King, the more thoroughly I need to be in this state. It is not to be a case of running after every report that says, “He is here.” No! He already spoke to that attitude, and rejected it. It’s not the spectacle and visions that announce His nearness, but rather His quiet words.
Look at this simple scene. Jesus is not causing all manner of flashing lights to shine around His men. He is not speaking with a voice from out of the clouds, thundering down upon His disciples, “Why are you out fishing?” He is personable, quiet. “Friends, have you no fish to eat with your bread?” It’s a question of commiseration, of sympathy or empathy. Oh. Look at you. You’ve been out there all this time, and nothing to show for it. But, does He rebuke them for wasting time? No! He points them to the place for one last cast of the nets, assuring them that they shall have a catch indeed. This is amazing in its own right, in that these men, tired from their labors, ask no questions but simply comply. Is this, then, so common an occurrence in their world, that a man ashore can spot the fish they cannot see from their boats? Perhaps. Perhaps they suppose He can see disturbances in the water that they fail to perceive from their nearer perspective. Perhaps He has noticed something in the flight patterns of the gulls. Do they have gulls over that sea? Surely they must. But, they accept His advice and they cast. That is the extent of this miracle. They cast where He indicates they ought, and they are successful in surprising degree. Yet, as I have pointed out already, not so surprising a degree as would cause damage to their equipment. The catch is, if you will allow it, neither too little nor too much. It is exactly suited to their ability. Oh, I shall be coming back to that as well! But, let me for now be satisfied to contemplate the ways of my Lord in this.
He has not only sympathized with their fruitless efforts. He has, whether in compassion or merely to correct their focus, turned their fruitlessness into fruitfulness. And, He has gone above and beyond. He has, there on the beach, prepared them a meal. Notice this: He already has fish cooking. Yet, He has not spoken so much as a word suggesting to these men that they ought come to shore and dine with Him. He has merely shown them where to find their own fish. But, John, ever the one in tune with the Spirit, is quick to spot the significance. Whatever they thought when they cast that net in, he sees the meaning in the fullness of that net when they pull it back in. It’s the Lord! Peter, whether or not he was a bit slower to recognize this fact, is no slouch when it comes to acting on that knowledge. Nothing must delay his audience with Christ. Not sea, not wind, not even dealing with this catch. His first, even his only concern is to be with Jesus, to talk with Jesus, to hear what his Lord will say on this occasion.
That one notice, “It’s the Lord!”, and he’s off. Yet, if we are understanding the scene correctly, his native impetuousness has already tempered to this degree: He stops long enough to ensure that he will have appropriate attire once ashore. This is, if we are to accept the NET explanation, the significance of his actions. He is mindful that it is Jesus he is going to meet. He is mindful that the thing he confessed so few weeks ago continues to hold true. “You are the Christ, the Son of God!” Yes, and if he knew it then, he has seen it proven beyond all question since! And we think him despondent? No, no.
Here, I think, is a good moment to consider who all is on this boat. Let me consider the three who most speak to this point. First of all, we have Peter, the voice of that marvelous confession, of whom Jesus said, “You have this from the Spirit of God Himself.” He’s been volatile enough in his thoughts and actions, to be sure. It was but moments later that he was doubting Jesus’ words, even if that doubt was built upon exactly the highly exalted view he had of Jesus. But, Jesus! You are the Son of God! It’s unthinkable that what You say would happen to You. Unthinkable for man, yes, but with God, whose ways are far and high beyond your own, Peter? Not unthinkable at all. No. It’s been determined since before there was a Creation to save.
But, it’s not just Peter who is here. We have also Thomas. And isn’t it interesting that he is the next man mentioned as John makes note of who was there. Thomas, whose state of mind as a disciple is a matter of some debate amongst the theologians. Was he a depressive? Was he a zealot? Where was his heart as he spoke up, on hearing Jesus determined to go to Jerusalem? What attitude ought we hear when he says, “oh yes, let’s go with Him so we can die with Him!” Is it determined devotion or sarcastic irony? We cannot know, for the authors do not deign to describe his tone, only relay his words. Certainly, as we see him post-resurrection, there is something of the skeptic to him, isn’t there? Or is there? There is assuredly a demand for solid proof on his part. He’s not going to ascribe so great a miracle to this dead man based on hearsay. Even if he has the other ten disciples giving witness to the risen Christ, even if the women he has known and travelled with these last few years concur in their testimony, well, he didn’t see it. And some things simply must be seen to be believed. I can’t say I blame him for this. Nor, would I credit the whole of his cautiousness to skepticism.
It is thinkable that what we see in him, as we see in Peter’s post-confession mistake, is actually reflective of a very high regard for the Christ. If indeed this man has turned out to be the Son of God, this is great good news. However, it is God of whom we speak, and that is a most serious, most profound matter. It requires more than second-hand reports. And, Jesus is pleased to give him that firsthand experience of His very real, very physical presence. How did he react to this? Offered the opportunity to touch and feel the wounds of Christ that he might know the truth of this vision, does he avail himself of that opportunity? There’s nothing that says he did. What is said is that his immediate response was to blurt out, “My Lord and my God!” Yes! There it is. Another heartfelt confession of Messiah.
Now, look at the third name in John’s list: Nathanael. We haven’t seen him since the beginning of John’s gospel, yet he has been there all along, or at least that is the general understanding. The theory runs that Nathanael is that one known as Bartholomew in the apostolic listings. Frankly, whether he is to be counted amongst the apostles or merely amongst the disciples matters little in this case. Go back to that last (and first) time we meet him. Jesus has not even truly begun His ministry yet, but is fulfilling the prerequisites in the camp of John the Baptist. Philip has told Nathanael that he thinks they have found Messiah, but Nathanael is not about to take that on one man’s word either. Indeed, what Philip tells him of Jesus’ origins does not accord with his own lofty view of Messiah. Really, Philip? The Savior coming from such a backwater? Most unfitting. I can’t believe God would play it thus. But, Jesus is quick to correct that misconception, although for us on the sidelines it may be difficult to understand what it was in Jesus’ introduction that leads to Nathanael’s response. But, look at the response: “Rabbi! You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” And, I have to ask myself: How is it that Peter is credited with being the first to confess this truth? But, leave that aside.
So, then, the first three men John notes are all men who have unequivocally proclaimed Jesus as the Son of God. They have done so because they know it is true. The depth of their conviction is, or ought to be, beyond question. The next two mentioned are James and John, from whom we have no record of such a confession, but of whom we do know that Jesus set them as two of His chief three. One simple matter I will notice in regard to them: They were witnesses to the Transfiguration. Again, here are men in whom there was no room left for doubt. They had seen heaven come down there on the mountain, had seen Jesus as He truly is, or more nearly so than any other has ever seen who remained upon the earth to tell of it.
I do believe that there is a reason John sets out these names as he does. This is not a trip taken in despondency. These are not men who have given up on Messiah, whose hopes have once more been dashed because of a bit of delay. Whatever their motivation in going fishing, I think we can set aside any thought that they were abandoning their calling. Let us speak of it, then, as but a vacation, a moment’s respite in pursuit of their vocation. And Jesus’ reaction to finding them thus employed? “Come and have breakfast.” These are not words of rebuke in any way shape or form. Yes, they have business to attend to, even at this late hour of His time on earth. But, this is fellowship. If they were Rabbi and talmidim before, they are brothers and comrades now. He remains Lord and King, but were He Arthur, these men would come to Him as the knights of the round table. They are His closest compatriots, His most trusted aids. And, as He prepares to return to His throne, they are receiving their most crucial orders, orders they will heed in full and thus turn the world upside down.
Does this, then, answer why John chose to include the event? It was clearly a momentous occasion in his recollection, but I don’t think it was the marvel of the fish that sealed it to his memory. I think it was something far more and far more important. It’s possible that he includes this merely by way of introducing the final act, where Jesus most clearly forgives Peter for his past mistakes. But, as an introduction, it seems far too developed, is in fact longer than that which it would introduce.
What purpose this event, as well as the remainder of the chapter would serve is to more firmly establish the Apostolic authority inherent not only in Peter and John, but in those others who had gone out, of whom we have less of a record. Bearing in mind that this authority was under assault particularly nearer the end of John’s life, it would stand to reason that he, the fearsome defender of Truth that he is, would wish to establish clearly who had the authority of Christ behind them and who did not. Consider the light in which the Gospels, including John’s, have generally shown the Apostles. It is an honest light, and it therefore must display them in all their doubts and with all their failings. The texts close with them in seeming disarray, completely thrown by the death of their Lord, and not yet completely settled in the reality of His resurrection. It is necessary, then, that they be established as true representatives appointed by Christ, and as men firm in the faith.
It was striking to me that this third appearance once again involves food. Indeed, it seems a goodly number of the post-resurrection visits involve food. Jesus meets two men en route to Emmaus, and how do we find them that evening? Sitting down to a meal, and Jesus blessing it. He comes to the distraught disciples locked away against their enemies for the night, and what does He do? He asks for some food. Now, here He is preparing breakfast for these friends of His. Isn’t this a bit curious? Why the focus on food? Well, certainly fish and loaves have played their part in the ministry, so there would be something of a mental connection for the disciples in seeing this rather familiar scene. There are some fish and a few loaves, and Jesus is breaking and distributing the food after blessing it. That is the occasion for two of these times, and in that earlier event at Emmaus, it was the thing that finally triggered recognition.
My general sense of the matter, particularly in the upper room, is that Jesus eating stood as proof to these men of His very real, corporeal resurrection. He was not just a ghost, not purely or solely spirit. He had a real body with real functionality. Ghosts have no cause to eat, and presumably have no place to contain what might be eating without cause. Yes, Jesus could walk through walls and doors as a spirit-being would. But, He could also take sustenance as a corporeal being would. His, then, is a new sort of body – a resurrection body. He remains wholly man, even as He takes back the state of being wholly God. He is spirit and flesh united in a fashion previously unknown to creation. And this, it seems to me, is where Paul derives his own doctrines regarding the resurrection body, as well as the wider doctrines of man as a new creature in Christ.
As to the question of why fish and bread, well these were the staples of the region, certainly, and particularly so on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. What would we think of a shoreline community around New England that did not find seafood to be a major part of its diet? Even in resort communities such as crop up along the prettier stretches, fishing and fish continue to play a large role. As to the importance of fish to this particular region and culture, we might find some hints of that in the many terms we see used to describe fish. In this passage alone we have at least three terms presented to us. As Jesus asks after their success, He asks if they have any prosphagion. That term indicates a side dish, something to eat in addition to one’s bread. It could be a relish, or it could be fish, but primarily, it is indicative of fish, that being the other staple of the diet. Red meat was hardly so common a component of the meal then, for fish was quite simply more plentiful and more readily obtained. As John describes the results of that final catch, he changes to the more generic term, ichthuoon, familiar to us in that it is also used to describe that code-symbol by which Christians were wont to identify each other under Roman persecution, and that symbol persists to our own day. But, then comes yet another term, as we proceed to that cooking fire on the shore. Now, we are presented with opsarion, some sort of relish or food (although particularly used of salted, dried fish), which has been roasted. Well, yes! That is what’s happening here. Jesus is roasting up some fish. From the terminology, we might suppose it to be preserved fish rather than fresh.
This definition, however, runs into trouble when we reach verse 10, where Jesus tells them to bring some of the opsarion they have caught. Surely, they did not catch salted, dried fish! Nor, did they reel in relish in their nets. Perhaps we must take it in its more general indication of food, but even that seems an odd turn of phrase when we could have ichthuoon as a seemingly more natural term to use. Indeed, John returns to that word as he notes the size of their catch. Perhaps it’s little more than the varied perceptions of those involved. Jesus perceives the fish as something to go with bread. The fishermen perceive the fish as fish, a larger matter for them. Fish were life and livelihood. They were not only the food on the table, but what put food on the table, and for that matter, what provided the table in the first place. But, Jesus was raised a carpenter, and while He has been with these men for some time, His natural course of thought and speech is still that of a carpenter. Fish is food.
Well, intriguing though this variety of phrase is, it also leads me towards what seems one of the more important questions we might ask about this episode. Why, if Jesus already had fish on the fire roasting, did He call from them to bring some of the freshly caught fish? Did He not have enough already? I mean, He fed thousands on no more than five fish, and here there are only the eight of them including Himself. Was it merely so that John could have opportunity to count the fish and marvel at their size? So that he and the others might take particular note of the way the nets had held? I don’t think so. It seems to me that this has far more to do with obedience than necessity. Jesus had no need of those extra fish. They had need to learn obedience to His direction whatever the appearance of events.
Other men, myself for example, might have looked at what was cooking and thought to ask why He needed more. I might, had I been one of those present, have thought back to those earlier occasions when Jesus had fed thousands, and also to that rebuke in the boat when He wondered that they had not learned anything from those occasions. Thinking on that, I might see this as another test of sorts, and be inclined to say, “Oho! You don’t catch me out this time, Jesus. You don’t need our fish for so small a crowd.” But, these men do nothing of the sort, at least Peter does not. One word from the Lord and he is off to do as was commanded. He does not enlist help first. He does not question the need. He just goes to the boat, grabs the net, and hauls it ashore. Done.
Of course, this is Peter. We expect him to just jump into action with little forethought. But, perhaps that’s why John was led to include the detail about him grabbing his cloak before he jumped in. He’s still impetuous, yes, but he’s developing a bit of wisdom and forethought. He’s learned, one suspects, the dangers inherent in his impetuous nature, seen how often his zealousness to act has led to nothing but regrets. Peter is growing. And this act is an act representative of his growth. He is not simply jumping into action, he is obeying as the Lord’s model prayer for us indicates we, too, ought hope to obey: Like the angels in heaven, instantly and without equivocation.
As these men come to breakfast, John tells us, they did not ‘venture to question Him’ as to Who He was. He explains that this was the case because they knew it was the Lord. That would seem to raise a fairly obvious question. If they knew Who He was, what would be the point of asking Him in the first place? There’s no venture to it. There’s simply no need. John in particular had figured that out as soon as the net was pulled back to the boat, and Peter was not far behind him. Yes, they knew Who He was. They knew it intuitively, if we are to heed the particular word chosen for knowing in this case. They had figured out that this man ashore was the Lord. Yet, as John is apparently explaining, they had some real questions as to who He was.
Let me attempt to make that easier to grasp. They knew this stranger on shore was Jesus, ergo, they knew He was the Lord, their Rabbi, their Teacher. And, by now, they certainly grasped that He was something more than just a man, and neither was He a ghost. But, then, what exactly was He? Yes, we have three men here who have all acknowledge Him to be the Son of God. But, did they come anywhere near understanding the significance of that claim? Who or what, in their thinking, was a son of God? Had they adopted some level of Hellenistic thinking? It would certainly be possible given the region in which they lived. Yet, there is that about Jesus’ birth which is not entirely beyond the Greek mythologies. He had been fathered by God. Yet, that deed was not as had been ascribed to so many in the Greek pantheon. It was not the pursuit of lust unbridled by some unopposable power. It was the salvific act of the Holy Spirit, leaving the mother as pure as she was beforehand. Presumably the apostles were well aware of this part of the life of Jesus and of His mother.
Nathanael could not have been aware of this when he made his own confession, though, for he did not even know who Jesus was as yet, let alone the tale of His birth. Yet, he too had said, “You are the Son of God.” Well, then: There is something in mind beyond the circumstances of birth. Perhaps we ought to seek the sense of what they understood in the term son. Teknon or Huios? In Nathanael’s case, it is Huios, and this may well be our key. He is not addressing the lineage of Jesus. He is addressing the character of Jesus. He is like God in His ways, in His thinking, and He is (if He is to be accepted as the King of Israel) the Messiah, chosen by God because, like David before Him, He is a man after God’s own heart.
That may well be about as far as their understanding had taken them. Oh, they must have gone a trifle further, given the miracles they had seen. Yet, those miracles never quite seemed to bring them to understanding, only to wondering. “Who is this man, that even wind and wave obey Him?” Who is this Man who raises the dead to life? Who is this man who lays His life down of His own choosing, and Who raises Himself to life? Oh, there were indeed questions they would love to have asked now. But, they ventured not. They had not the boldness, the courage to question Him on this matter. They didn’t dare do so, couldn’t bring themselves to ask. Why? John tells us. It is because they knew this much: It was their Lord Who called them to breakfast. It was Jesus, Who had been dead and was now alive, and not only alive, but cooking them breakfast!
Can we just stop and consider how this must have seemed to them? Here is this man we have been traveling with for years now, who just before He died was teaching us that we must serve one another as He was then serving us. And now, with Him resurrected and clearly in exceptionally close communion with God, He has come here to serve us breakfast? Who can fathom it? But, the primary reaction that John is looking at is that of understanding. They understood He was Jesus, and He was alive though He had been dead. They understood He was marked out by God, the Messiah sent for Israel, for the world. They understood, in some sense, that He was the Son of God. But, it seems to me they still did not quite grasp that this was literally true, that He was not only Son of God, but just plain God. They were beginning to sense this Truth, but it still seemed unimaginable to them, too much like those pagan mythologies. Surely it’s not really like that, is it? But, then, if it’s not like that, Who Is this Man?
If you doubt their confusion, or that their misconceptions about the nature of Messiah, at least in His first visitation, consider that final meeting we have depicted in the opening chapter of Acts. Jesus is giving them their instructions – go to Jerusalem and await the Holy Spirit. This leads to an immediate question from them. “So, are You going to restore the kingdom of Israel now” (Ac 1:6)? They still haven’t shaken off this concept of Messiah. He’s a conquering King! So, when’s that conquering going to happen, Lord? We’re ready to be set up as Your cabinet, but Rome’s still here. What’s the plan? And, then, the plan is revealed: Jesus is lifted bodily into the heavens before their very eyes (Ac 1:9-10). Here, I think, they finally have their answer to the unspoken question of this breakfast. Oh! That’s Who He Is.
Well, then: Let me turn back to the reason this message has been included. Was it simply to show that even the Apostles were a bit slow on the uptake? Was it simply to establish that they were indeed marked out by Jesus for special authority? Or was there a lesson for them in this, a lesson we could use ourselves?
I have tended to think that the message here was one of patience in obedience. If, after all, the disciples were supposed to be in the mountains according to His command, but they are instead here on the sea, where is the obedience? Or, had they just decided they had waited long enough and He apparently wasn’t going to show up? It’s like Saul facing the Philistines again. But, they hadn’t gone so far as to take upon themselves the priestly office because the Prophet hadn’t come in time. They had not gone so far as to utterly cross the line of God’s Law. They had only detoured, paused en route.
Surely, there is a place, an absolute need, for patient obedience in this life of faith. But, I am less inclined at present to think that is the message here. See, to arrive at that lesson, we are back to assuming that the reason these men have gone fishing is because they’ve given up, and I am just finding that a bit hard to believe, given what these men have seen and lived and spoken. Sometimes a break is just a break. Jesus is not rebuking them on this occasion, not demanding to know why they couldn’t follow His simple instructions. Not at all. He is feeding them. He is satisfying their need. He is seeing to it that their labors are not in vain. And it is in this last that I think we find our true lesson.
Their labors are not in vain for one simple reason: Jesus is with them. That held true for this little fishing break. It would hold true for their ministry. Boom! There’s a lesson they were going to need in the coming years. There’s a lesson John still needed to remind himself of in his waning days. Think about that! John, whose abiding concern was that the True Gospel be established and all others be not just cast off, but destroyed. He has seen what’s happening. What Paul warned of John was seeing. Wolves in sheep’s clothing, come to destroy the church, little foxes in the vineyard, seeking to ruin the vintage. But, as he fought the good fight, as he proclaimed in this very Gospel the superiority and uniqueness of the Christ over all those fanciful gnostic claims, how he needed to hear from his Lord again that these labors were not in vain. The church would not fall into ruin at the passing of the last Apostle.
It was not, after all, the Apostles who upheld and preserved the Church. Oh, they are foundational, let there be no doubt. Their authority in setting forth the Truth of God and establishing His order over His Church are not to be questioned. As to that authority, they are outstripped only by Jesus Himself, Who gave them this authority. But, while they could set the foundations, they remain mortal men. They could not hope to uphold the Church down through the ages. They would not be present to do so. Their shades do not roam the halls of ancient cathedrals, nor do they frequent church halls today. It is God Himself, in and through Christ Jesus, Who upholds His own house, Who maintains His own authority, and Who, in doing so, assures that the Church remains fruitful in every age.
We can have our plans and programs, but unless it is the Lord Who builds the house, our plans and programs are in vain. We can preach and teach and evangelize and mentor and do every last thing in our power to do, but if God is not in it, then it will all burn up leaving nothing but ashes to our credit. But, when He is in it? When He is directing? Lo! Look at the fruitfulness! As much as you can manage, and not one fish more.
How we need this lesson ourselves! We see churches fearful of dropping membership, churches seeking to modify themselves so as to be relevant. We see churches at the other end, deeply concerned with being prepared for the rapid increase in numbers as efforts towards evangelism bear fruit. There is assuredly nothing wrong with preparing, with doing what lies within our power to increase our capacity for fruitfulness in God’s service. But, look at this lesson. Not one fish more than the nets could bear! We need not fear that God is going to pour out so much upon us that we wind up damaged, or that we damage others because of our own unpreparedness. He is in control, not us. He is ultimately responsible, not us.
We will, have not doubt, be accountable for our actions and for our preparations. But, God is not so foolish as to entrust the results into our fallible hands. His call is sure. His salvation is not dependent upon any man. Whom He has foreknown, He predestined to be conformed to His Son. He called them. Notice that. He called them. We may be instruments in His hands, but it is He who calls else there is no call. He justified them. He glorified them (Ro 8:29-30). Oh! The wonderful good news that all of these things are declared in past tense, accomplished actions, not possible futures. It is finished! And it is His doing. It is the Lord’s doing, and this is marvelous in our sight (Ps 118:23). That is the story of the Church. That is the story of the Apostles. That is the message of this fishing trip. It is the Lord’s doing, and He, my friends, loses no fish. If I might borrow from John’s letters, if there is a fish that escapes the net, it is because it was never truly in the net in the first place (1Jn 2:19).
What great comfort, then, we can take from this scene. Yes, we must be obedient, even when the instructions we have from God seem to make little sense. We think ourselves strong, yet You tell us to cry out in our total inability? Yes. We see trials ahead such as would shake an army, and You tell us all we are to do is pray? Yes. We see nothing but troubles all around, the Church seemingly in decline and evil sweeping over like a tide, and You tell us to just stand our ground? Yes. It is the Lord’s doing, not ours. It is His house, not ours. We are but servants. He is King of kings. If our King commands that there shall be fish, there shall be fish. If He speaks victory, what possibility is there of defeat? There is none. He is in control. Our responsibility is to be responsible, to be available, to be prepared and awaiting His command, and then to act upon that command, always knowing that it is not our actions that bring about the gain, but His presence. If I may quote something said in my preparatory explorations, “The harvest, whether of grain or of fish, is dependent not so much on the harvester but on God Who makes the grains to grow, the rains to fall and the sun to shine.” This is our story. Let us take it to heart.
[08/18/13] I think I am nearing the end of my comments. We shall see. I do want to observe, though, that we have here another window into the growing partnership of John and Peter. It is much the same dynamic we saw back at the tomb. John is first to recognize, but Peter is first to react. Both, it needs to be said, are wholly committed to the Lord, and are anxious to see His claims proved true. Does that seem an overstatement? Why, then, the anxious rush to the tomb? If it was merely to observe a missing body, then there really wouldn’t be much cause for running. But, if they had some inkling that the three-day forecast was about to be shown accurate, well! Now, there’s reason. On this occasion, we see it again. John, seemingly more attuned to the spiritual, mystical aspect of things, is first to acknowledge that this man on shore is Jesus. But, Peter, if slower to recognize, is quicker to respond. It is not enough that he should join the others in rowing to shore. No! He must act in recognition of his Savior.
I believe I have explored that aspect of things sufficiently, but Oh! May I also recognize that passive acceptance of the work of Christ is never enough. Faith, if it be alive, must have works. The call is of no avail if we will not act. That we can act, and do, is wholly to be credited to Jesus. Yet, it is we who act, and our will and effort remain a required ingredient. I know not how this balances with the standards of Calvinism, but it seems a reasonable conclusion to me.
As Peter will be firmly in focus in the next section, I just want to observe one thing about him at this point. It seems to me that there is more than just obedience and reverence moving Peter to swim ashore. There is something left undone with him. Whether or not Jesus was wholly reconciled to him, he is not yet wholly reconciled to himself. He feels the need for another private moment with Jesus, and who can blame him? I am, of course, accepting Luke’s testimony to that earlier point when Peter met Jesus while those other two were still out at Emmaus. Having tasted this private moment, having enjoyed this moment of his Savior’s love all to himself, and the flood of forgiveness pouring over him, how could he not hunger for another? But, it’s more than love that moves him on this occasion, I think. I cannot say it with certainty, but it strikes me that if it was merely a response of devotion, there would be no cause for the next scene. If Peter already grasped the depth of forgiveness that was his, there would be no reason for Jesus to drive it home in their private discussion. At the same time, if Peter had not known deep down that Jesus would indeed forgive him, it’s hard to imagine him being so anxious to reach that Presence.
So, then, let me turn back to John, John whom Jesus Himself chose as one of the leaders. Isn’t it something, though, that in spite of this choice, John seems to have preferred to remain more in the background? Peter wants to lead? By and large, that’s apparently fine with him. Oh, there’s that business with he and his brother seeking the chief positions in Jesus’ kingdom, but if we are to believe Luke that had more to do with his mother’s ambitions than his own. Sure, there was the same capacity for bragging competition in him that the others all shared. But, in spite of being one of those inner three, we don’t see a great deal of active pursuit of leadership from him.
This continues as we follow the Apostles through their earliest days. Peter has proven the natural leader, and John is perfectly happy to be in a supporting role. He’s always there on the frontlines, but not leading the charge. Not yet. No, nor does this indicate some weakness of character in him, some lack of drive. He was not called son of thunder for nothing! There are those things that will move him to instant response, most critically, anything that smacks of an attack on the exclusivity of the Truth of Jesus!
Think of those few accounts we have of his actions. He is there to call down the vengeance of heaven upon that Samaritan city that rejected Jesus. What? You would reject God? May God Himself repay you! It is an insult to His glory, and He shall not let that slide. One of the articles explained the discrepancy between the response of John and Jesus by noting that this was appropriate for Elijah in his day, and Elijah would appear to be John’s model. But, it is the wrong response for the mission at hand. I would note that this is presented by an apparently Dispensationalist source, so it bears that sense of history. But, there is this: All Israel knew that the spirit of Elijah comes before Messiah. Would it really be that surprising, then, that John would find Elijah a proper model for his actions? Not at all. Indeed, I think John has more of the spirit of Elijah about him than is generally recognized.
Turn to that other action we know about. He has come across some individual not known to their band, and this individual has been using the name of Jesus to perform exorcisms. John will have none of it! What? Unauthorized use of the authority in this Rabbi? Not on your life! You are either one of us, or you have nothing to do with us. You are either utterly devoted to the True King, or you have no business even mentioning His name.
Truth, John recognized early on, is exclusive. It is not relative. It admits of no personal interpretation. That is the positive side of his reaction. That, and his exceedingly high regard for the person of Christ. But, as Jesus would explain, his zeal was yet without full knowledge. This one was working with them, for the same kingdom, even though he was not known to John. If, then, he is for the kingdom, he is not against us. What a critical matter for us to remember in our denominationally divided day! Baptist or Congregationalist or Presbyterian or Pentecostal or <shudder> even Catholic: It is not the denomination nor even the fine quality of our doctrines that matters in the end.
Let me stress that point a bit further before I provide the counter balance. Doctrine does not save. Denominational affiliation does not save. Neither, it must be stated, do doctrine or denomination condemn. It is God and God alone who saves. It is God and God alone who condemns. We can have (as I dare say the demons do) a perfect understanding of doctrine, an absolutely solid grasp on what is True and what is not, and yet remain (as the demons surely are) damned for all eternity. Knowledge != faith. They are not mutually exclusive, but they are not the same thing. Faith comes of knowledge, and knowledge of faith. They are additive in that sense. But, knowledge alone won’t save, especially as our knowledge is doomed to remain incomplete so long as this life persists. We may know God, and we must know God, but we shall never know Him so fully as He is. His ways will ever remain far and away above our own, beyond our ken. Were it not so, He would be no God at all, but just some human genius.
All that being said, the Truth claims of Christ are thoroughgoingly exclusive. What He declares as Truth is True. Neither belief nor unbelief can alter it. It is advice I have given my daughter often enough. Here is the Truth. You may believe it or you may not. You calling it a lie will not change it. Why? Because it is Truth. Truth is not malleable, as so many wish to believe. It is not my truth and your truth. It is Truth. What is mine and yours is the degree to which we accept that which is True, or insist on our own personal delusions.
John got this early on. Truth is Truth, and that Truth is Jesus. Anything, then, which runs contrary to Jesus is a lie. It is antichrist. This is the main point of his letters. But, notice this about John. He is not locked down to the concrete matters, the physical realities, nor even the proofs of logic. He has no fear of the mystical, as so many do today. We of the scientific age do have an abiding fear of the mystical. Oh, we will mostly poo-poo the very idea of the mystical as being so much stuff and nonsense. We are far too sophisticated to believe in that sort of thing. But, the truth is we are afraid of it. Much like we speak of there being something in man which knows of God no matter how much the man himself denies it, we have that within us which knows the mystical is real, that the miraculous not only did happen but does happen, and deny its present-day applicability though we may, it remains of the Truth, and cares little for our denials.
See, just as faith and knowledge are additive rather than mutually exclusive, so too are reason and mystery. Paul had no problem with this. I’m not sure why we do, other than that we have too high an opinion of our own powers of reason. It is admittedly a near constant tension within the Church, this question of reason and mystery. To be certain, faith is hardly without reason, as much as unbelievers insist it is so. Not at all! The very term describes a state of being convinced by the evidence. Now, it is true that faith may be misplaced, and the evidence misinterpreted, just as can happen in any court of law. But, even such misinterpretation requires application of reason. Never was the object of faith, real faith, chosen by whim, arrived at without thought. One simply does not place one’s trust in anything so easily. Even such child-like faith as is often spoken of is not without reason. A child doesn’t put faith in his parents without cause, and if those parents have shown themselves consistently untrustworthy, said child will have no faith in them at all.
But, faith, with God as its object, necessarily discovers the limits of reason, the boundaries beyond which reason alone cannot suffice. Our powers of reason are, after all, constrained by our own intelligence. Except God intervenes, providing wisdom and knowledge beyond our own limits, there must remain much about Him that we do not, cannot know. He reveals much about His own character, His ways and His thoughts. He does not reveal all, nor would we comprehend it if He did. But, what He does reveal is sufficient to establish faith and more. His revelation of Himself is sufficient for us to intuit far more, to apply what we know to what we question, to give further grist to the processes of reason. But, the wise man will arrive at that point where he recognizes his own reason can take him no farther. The wise man, recognizing his own limitations, will refuse to speculate, seeing that he has arrived at a matter which God, in His infinitely greater wisdom, chooses to keep to Himself. Wisdom must look at this boundary and accede. So be it! This is God’s prerogative, and it is a fool that would insist on answers He withholds.
John, as I say, has no fear of the mystical. But, he does have a fierce loyalty to Truth. He will not suffer the burning imaginations of those who are too enrapt by mysticism to overwhelm or replace truth with speculation. It is there throughout his writings. Reading his gospel account, there is a very clear streak of mysticism running through it. We may not like applying that term to Scripture, but too bad. Paul uses it bluntly. “It is a mystery.” He may as well have added, for our benefit, “Deal with it.” John, however, gives expression to that mystery. He infuses his writings with that spiritual sensitivity which was his. Yet, never at the expense of Christ, never at the expense of Truth. Look to his epistolary writing. Woe be to that one who would subvert Truth to his own views! Woe be to any who would come with some corrupt message. Let them not even receive a greeting. No welcome awaits, no meals will be shared. They are anathema, and must be thoroughly rejected. The claims of Christ are distinct, and absolutely exclusive. It does not matter how one feels about truth, or about the need to be inclusive of all beliefs. God could care less about such opinions. Whether we like it or not, He is exclusive – absolutely exclusive. “No one comes to the Father except through Me.” It doesn’t get a lot clearer than that. “No one can come to Me except the Father calls him.” It is for God to decide and He has decided. What sort of God would He be who abandoned His own decisions because His own creations found them uncomfortable?
John, more than any others amongst the Apostles, demonstrates reason and mystery in balance. They are not enemy camps. Neither is either to be given primacy over the other. They are additive aspects of faith, working in harmony towards their singular purpose, else we must see that either our reason or our sense of mystery are false, misleading, and that we are in deadliest peril if we continue. Look carefully at the writings of John. Look at the fierce guardian of his letters, the loving devotion of his gospel, the awed reverence of his revelation. In no case does reason depart him. In no case does reason insist that these visions he has seen, these spiritual insights he has gained, are invalid because of their source. No. The two are yoked together, and they are a well matched team.
May we, then, never be so enamored of our reason that we can no longer perceive the mystery. May we also never become so entranced by mystery as to cast aside reason. Where we have fear of the Holy Spirit as He is consistently shown in Scripture, I dare say we have allowed reason to convince us that mystery is to be avoided. Where, though, we have those who are willing to try anything once, twice if they like it, and call that proper care of the Church, reason has left the building, if ever it had entrance. Surely, we must recognize the capacity for abuse and counterfeit that exists in that which we construe as spiritual, or Spirit-led. Scripture is certainly blunt enough in its warnings. These things are to be tested, not accepted at face value. We do have the revealed Word of God. We do have a concrete measuring stick by which to test. Do these things act in harmony with revealed religion, do they contribute to the clear message of Law and Gospel? Or do they run wholly counter to the clear message of Scripture?
Much of what passes for Holy Spirit activity is clearly of a counterfeit nature. That does not in any way obliterate the reality of the gifts. It makes them harder for many to accept. If they are so easily counterfeited, and subject to such abuse, how are we to safely avail ourselves of the true gifts of the Spirit? Well, the easy answer would be, by God’s grace, as with anything to do with His kingdom. But, more to the point, there is that revealed Word of God, the study of which ought, like the handling of true currency, cause the counterfeit to stand out like a sore thumb. People howling like dogs and calling this the infilling of the Spirit? I don’t think so. Gold dust falling from the ceiling? Unlikely in the extreme. Tongues spoken with total disregard to the presence of an interpreter? Clearly out of order and unlikely to be valid. And so much of the rest: little more than amateur magic acts. But, the reality remains. God did, in His wisdom, endow His people with these Spirit-infused powers. There does not appear to be any clear, Scriptural basis for insisting that those days are gone, any more than we have reason to suggest God no longer performs miracles. He does not change. Yes, His ‘economy’ may change, but He does not. He remains God, and His power has not altered in the least. He has not waned due to unbelief, as some suppose the gods of mythology to be tied to the strength of belief.
I was reading this morning from the start of Ezra. There, we are shown the king of Persia authorizing the return of his Jews to Israel. And I say that advisedly. From his perspective, they were his Jews, and Israel was also his. He wanted his territory prosperous and this was the most likely motivation for him sending to have the temple rebuilt. I was struck by this statement from him. “He is the God who is in Jerusalem” (Ezra 1:4). Yes, Cyrus. But, He is not the God who is solely in Jerusalem. He is in Persia as well, though you acknowledge Him not. Oh, you offer these gifts to Him in what you perceive as the land under His influence, but you do so on the theory that He is under your influence, as your own gods are. But, He is not like these other so-called gods. He is truly God, Creator of all! While your deeds will be recorded for posterity as you have blessed His people, don’t suppose that He has missed the fact that you do not consider them His people, but yours. Oh, no. He is not deceived. In the end, the worth of your gifts will be measured not by their weight in gold and silver, but by the degree to which they were given from a heart that acknowledges God as God, and seeks His kingdom over one’s own.
As I have touched on this topic of the Holy Spirit, I must, I suppose, touch upon this matter further. The standard teaching of the Reformed churches demands that the Holy Spirit is given in the moment of conversion. This point was brought up again in a recent Table Talk article, which is what has brought this to mind particularly. I happened to be reading that article about the same time I was following Peter and John. One of the articles I was reading made note of the rather surprising matter of John being one of those sent off to Samaria to seal the work of the Gospel in that place. The Apostles heard that the Gospel was gaining a hearing there, and it was not only Peter who was sent to firm things up, but John as well – John, who had once called for the fires of God’s vengeance upon these very people! Is it any wonder that Jesus had rebuked him on that occasion? No, John! They are not lost, only delayed. Now was come the time to bring them to the fold (Ac 8:14-15). But, notice what is said about this sending of Peter and John. They were sent to pray for those coming to Christ, and to seek that they might receive the Holy Spirit. Well, I must ask: What cause was there to seek this receiving of the Spirit if He was already given at conversion? Were they not converted? They had come to Christ. What other requirement would we set upon conversion? Baptism? Fine. But, the Apostles are not going up to baptize, and we may reasonably suppose that these have already been baptized. Yet, the Apostles saw fit to seek for something more. Why should we consider such a thing offensive?
This is not, I must confess, likely to be anywhere near so simple a matter as I set it forth to be. Were it that painfully obvious, there would be no least debate on the topic. Reformed faith would be of a Pentecostal bent, and that would be that. But, it is not so. And, I am strong enough in my Reformed leanings to recognize that it is not so for reason. Thus far, my explorations in search of a reason have left me dissatisfied and unconvinced, but there is assuredly reason to be found. The question, then, must be whether reason has been allowed to trump mystery rather than working alongside mystery.
I am not going to be able to pursue this to the degree that I should at this stage. I am too near the end of this study of the Gospels, and too anxious to arrive at that end, particularly eyeing the need for other studies ahead as I return to teaching. But, it is interesting to me that this matter of charismatic versus reformed seems so constant a thread, particularly of late. It is interesting to me that while my home church has altered over the course of the last few years, I having moved from a firmly charismatic setting to an equally firmly reformed one, the general sense I have that the Truth lies somewhere in the middle ground has only become refreshed, restored. How greatly we need the doctrinal care, the devotion to the Word of God and to the Gospel mission which are all to be found in the reformed church. But, how we also need that infilling power of the Spirit, and the willingness to allow His work to manifest in and through us, if we of the reformed world are to be fruitful.
I have to say that if ever I am to discover these two branches of faith brought to proper harmony, I expect it will have sprung from the reformed side. How I would that we could experience a church that functioned on the lines that Paul sets out! How I would that we could observe the gifts of the Spirit in active use, but in orderly use. How I would that we who care so deeply for the accuracy of God’s Word preached would preach to ourselves from Paul’s discussion of gifts. How I would that we would no longer fear the work of the Holy Spirit, but grant Him His proper place in our worship. Someday I may see it, and it may even be this side of heaven. In the meantime, at the proper time, I am sure that God shall lead me to explore this topic as it deserves to be explored.
The one other aspect I feel I must address now is that of a second baptism. This is actually a question at arose as I stood for the office of elder. Having been very open about my charismatic past, and continued acceptance of the gifts of the Spirit as active in our day, there was this matter of second baptism. I would have to say that scene I have been looking at in Acts could be taken as suggesting such a thing. These were people who had come to Christ, and were being baptized (Ac 8:12-13). This was being administered, just to be clear, by Philip, one of the Apostles. And it was into this fruitful field that Peter and John had gone. And what was their prayer and purpose? “That they might receive the Holy Spirit.”
It might be well to parse the next verse with particular care. “For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Ac 8:16). Okay, then. Fallen: epipeptookos, to seize, embrace with great affection. This they had not experienced. But, they had experienced baptism, baptizo, to be immersed in ‘the name’, onoma, of the Lord Jesus. They had been immersed in His authority, His character, everything that defined the Lord Jesus as He Is. Yes, we know that this is speaking of that specific, ceremonial act which Paul tells us symbolizes first our death to sin, and burial in Christ which terminates the bonds of our relationship with sin, and then our rising in Christ into this newness of life to which He has borne us. But, it is baptism in His name. It is not in Him, if I might make a bit of a distinction here. It is baptism in His name. It is His name into which we are immersed symbolically, as we are immersed physically into the waters. His name: All that He is, every aspect of His being, everything we know and feel about Him, everything He knows and feels about Himself: All of that is wrapped up in His name. So, I must ask, as God in three Persons is yet One, can it be supposed that the entirety of Christ Jesus can be named without the Holy Spirit being just as present in His name?
You may find that line of argumentation a bit of a stretch. But, there is much to be understood in that concept of His name. One last aspect of that verse which deserves a bit of attention is the term simply. They had simply been baptized… Here, we have monon, which Strong’s offers as an adverb indicating the idea of merely. Thayer allows, even gives some slight preference to, the idea of alone, only. We are pointed to Romans 5:3 for a further example of the usage: “And not only this, but we also exult in tribulations…”. Well, let me take my lead from that verse. Paul is certainly in no way suggesting that the exultation we have in our hope of glory, in that faith which is by grace, is somehow lessened, cheapened when compared to the exultation we may have in tribulation! It’s not even thinkable that he would mean such a thing. So, then, in the case of Paul’s letter, the use of ‘only’ is not intended to convey any sense of comparative degree between what is only and what is not only. It is merely a means of saying that we’re not done yet. There’s more.
So, too, in this matter of the Samaritans. They had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. They had learned of His primacy and having been called by Him, they had answered with obedience to Him. But, this was the extent of it, if you will. They had not, as yet, experienced this affectionate embrace of the Holy Spirit. Does this, then, suggest that they had not yet been indwelt by the Holy Spirit? This, I believe, is the issue upon which the matter swings. This idea of a second baptism would appear to assume that indeed, they had not been indwelt by the Spirit up until the moment when tongues occurred, and these further prayers of the Apostles were answered.
But, we would do well to consider the Apostle’s example. This is one of those things that leads folks to ask questions, whatever their stance on the matter. There is that point, described in the first post-Resurrection encounter, where Jesus breathes on those Apostles then present, and says, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (Jn 20:22). And yet, it is not until that stunning event in the upper room some time later that the Holy Spirit fell on them (Ac 2:1-4), and they were “filled with the Holy Spirit”. Well, how is this? They had received Him, and yet He had not filled them? Clearly, there is a distinction made here. There is the indwelling, and then there is this filling, this epleesthaeesan, which Thayer offers has this sense of fulfillment, completion. Well, isn’t that something? Whether or not we ought to hear that sense in the present passage, I am not nearly sufficient to answer, but it’s certainly suggestive, under the circumstances.
There does seem to be something of a two-stage, or even a three-stage process happening here. We can presume, I think, that the Apostles had long since been baptized by and into Jesus Christ before He died and rose again. It might also be said, though, that they never fully comprehended what that meant until that moment when He stood before them, risen from death. So, perhaps we can count that moment when He breathed upon them, and gave to them the Holy Spirit as one with the truly significant aspect of baptism. The symbol had transpired earlier, when understanding was partial at best. Now, the reality was coming. (And what does that do for believer’s baptism? But that is yet another thorny topic for another time.) But, whether we take baptism and indwelling as simultaneous in their reality, or distinct events, there remains this third matter.
Let me back up just a moment, though. There is an explanation as to why this event of breathing the Spirit upon the Apostles (or into the Apostles) was necessarily separated from their baptism, and it is an explanation that removes such distinction on our part. John is actually quite explicit about this. There was a time when the Spirit was not given because He could not be given, and the reason He could not be given was because Jesus had not yet ascended to heaven. Recall that Jesus Himself had explained that it was better for them that He should depart back to heaven, for until and unless He did, He could not send the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit could not come to indwell.
Let me be clear about this, as well: The Holy Spirit is very clearly involved throughout the record of God’s work. From the first moment of creation right through to the end, He is present and active. How could He not be? He is God as Father is God as Son is God, and the Lord our God is One. Where Father is, Spirit must be. Where Son is, Spirit cannot but be. And, we can declare the obverse with equal confidence. Where the Spirit is, there we will assuredly find Father and Son abiding as well.
All that being said, something clearly changed in God’s dealings with man in that moment when Jesus, the Christ, having finished all God’s purpose, was taken up into heaven. Before that we would find the Holy Spirit visiting certain of God’s people, working with, in and through them for a season. We see it, for example, during the manufacture of the tabernacle. It was to be built by those “skillful persons whom I have endowed with the spirit of wisdom” (Ex 28:3). In particular, Bezalel, son of Uri was personally called by God (“I have called him by name”) and filled with the Spirit of God in wisdom, understanding, knowledge and skill (Ex 31:3), a point Moses reiterates later (Ex 35:31). Prophets were assuredly speaking as the Spirit of God gave them utterance, doing as He directed. The Psalmists of Israel penned praises of God as God Himself inspired them by His Spirit. But, in none of these cases did the Holy Spirit remain in any man for the duration. It was for a season, for a purpose, for a mission.
Now, Jesus having departed for heaven, He fulfills His promise, sending forth ‘another Advocate’, a Paraklete to remain with us, and this, as I said, He tells us is to our advantage. It is to our advantage that He should go, and the Spirit should come! But, Lord! You are the Savior! What more could we desire? Ah! But, He has gone to be our Advocate in heaven’s court, even as the Holy Spirit has come to be our Advocate in this life. And He comes not to walk beside us, but to reside within us. He comes to establish the temple of God within us. Note that this is the precise work we find Him doing in that first appearance in Exodus! He was building a temple then. He is building a temple now. And where He is, He is in power. Where He is in power, He gives gifts, for God is gracious beyond measure! Are those gifts limited to the particularly spectacular ones which Paul takes note of? I think not. And, in reality, as one goes through his list of those gifts, not all of them fall into that ‘spectacular’ category, do they? I have witnessed ones who have a true gift of hospitality. It is not as flashy, if I may use that term, as things like tongues or prophecy. But, it is, if anything, the more impressive when one witnesses the real, Spirit-infused gift of hospitality in action! It is something above and beyond.
Yet, nothing here precludes those more spectacular gifts. Nothing here precludes the matter of tongues, of prophecy, of knowledge beyond learning, of discernment beyond wisdom. To the degree that we insist on bringing these gifts down to earth, yoking them to the cart of logic and reason, it seems to me we are attempting to rein in the Holy Spirit Himself, and that can only be a futile effort. If herding cats is the metaphor for the difficulty of managing genius, what shall we use as metaphor for seeking to corral the ineffable? And what degree of foolishness would suffice to describe so futile an effort?
But, nothing I have explored here demands a second baptism. There is the imparting. And then there is this embrace. How much lovelier an image that is then the Spirit falling on people. Indeed, having experienced that overwhelming sense of His presence and activity on occasion, there is assuredly a feeling of Him falling upon you. There is a certain irresistible aspect to His promptings, and yet, I would have to say that it is not so in the sense of coercion, but rather in the sense of urgency. I suspect, and feel I have solid Scriptural backing for this view, that one would never feel that irresistible falling of the Spirit except he had already declared himself willing to receive. Again, I must stress it is not coercion. It is the very real matter of knowing oneself to be in the service of a greater power, and gladly so.
But, this idea of embrace: how lovely! And allow that concept to play back into what is being said in that Acts passage. They He had not yet encompassed them in this embrace. He was present. He could not but be present. They were indwelt. God had established His tabernacle in them, just as He had with the Apostles. The baptism was symbol, yes, but it was symbolic of a reality within them, just as it is for us. That reality was that God had called. The golden chain of Romans was in place. God foreknew. God predestined conformance to His Son’s image. God predestined – Oh! That we might not fear to accept destiny on such terms! God called, and having called, He also justified, and having justified, He also glorified (Ro 8:29-30). It is finished! The temple is cleansed, the temple is occupied. And that house, He having cleansed it and occupied it, shall not be defiled. The Spirit is present, in residence, not leaving.
But, there remained the embrace. Oh! To know the embrace of our Savior! Oh! To accept so full and deep a relationship with Him! Oh! To have that sense of intimacy with Him that the Apostles knew, that David knew! Yes, I feel certain David knew his Savior – the Lord, my Lord said to me… These aspects of the charismata, the outward impacts of the indwelling, embracing Holy Spirit, are not for show. They are not for pride. They are not even particularly for our own confidence. They are for the edification of the body. They are tools given that we, as a community of faith, might be better equipped for the mission of faith. As we look towards a stronger evangelistic effort, as we seek how we might better reach the lost for Christ, why should we reject out of hand the very tools He gave for the task?
I’m going to leave off this topic on that point. It is sufficient for the moment. I have, to my satisfaction at least, found basis for understanding this activity not as a second baptism but rather as a deepening of fellowship, of relationship. I cannot allow that this creates some class structure within the body of believers, for in Christ there is no such class structure. But, something happened, that cannot be denied. The Apostles felt it desirable that these – whom they had already accepted as believers like themselves – should experience those gifts as they had. Paul felt it of sufficient importance that he taught those churches he established how to use the gifts properly without going to excess, a lesson sadly lost on the majority of those who accept the active gifts today.
Faith and reason, mystery and knowledge: May I, in my own life, be granted to hold this in proper balance and proportion, in harmonious cohabitation. May we, the people of God, be granted to come to that same place where mystery and knowledge are not combatting poles of belief, but rather equally yoked, empowering aspects of true and lively faith.
I have one last, I think very brief, point upon which to comment before I wrap up my studies on this passage. There was a phrase that arose in the ISBE discussion of John. It is so powerful a phrase that I left it here, at the end of my preparatory notes, completely devoid of context. “Until faith seems to have become vision.” This phrase seems to me to capture much of that balance point I have been speaking of. It describes not only John’s development, I think, but the struggle we all face. There are times when faith does not have anything concrete to which it may look. We have our history with Christ, the record of His past actions, but even with that, our rational self looks at what is promised and balks.
Don’t you suppose there’s a reason that so much of what we find in the Psalms consists in looking back across what God has done? In the midst of fiery trials, when we are being pressed down but not yet crushed, it would be a miracle indeed were we to stand fast with no history behind us. If all we had was these promises of God, and no personal inventory of past proofs, faith would not be faith. It would be delusional fantasy. It would not, could not withstand the least challenges from our adversary. But, faith does not stand on promises alone, it is not built solely on things unseen. It is the evidence of things unseen. And it stands because it has the evidence of things already seen. We have seen God at work in our lives, and this gives us reason to have faith in what remains to be seen.
We are called to be a people who, like the John the ISBE describes, clings to faith until faith becomes vision. As we are called to do things for our Lord, they will often be things that defy vision, things we are absolutely certain are beyond our capacity. Think Moses. God, You want me to do what? Me? Look, Pharaoh’s a sharp guy. I lived with him, remember? Grew up in his house? Me, I can’t even speak clearly. I’m a nothing, a runaway, and You want me to go confront the most powerful man in the region? Right. But, Moses had to walk it out until faith became vision. How often, during those forty years spent wandering the Sinai, must he have felt as though this whole thing was futile? We had our chance to go into the Land, and my brilliant counselors opted out. Why should God give us a second chance? Look at how many have died since then, a whole generation lost except for two or three of us. And those coming up after them are no prizes, either. What reason do I have left to suppose there shall ever be a promised land in our future? But, he kept going until faith become vision, until he himself was granted to see that land laid out before him.
These eleven Apostles, given the assignment of spreading this Gospel across the known world: Really, Jesus? Israel’s had what, 4000 years or so to get the job done, and they failed miserably. Now, it’s down to us eleven men, and You expect us to achieve in our adulthood what they couldn’t manage in all that time? But, they did not balk. They did not abandon the ship of faith. They kept going until faith became vision.
I, too, have impossibilities before me. Most of them are trivial in comparison with these events. All of them are, in all probability. But, there are those things to which I have felt Him calling me, this eldership for example. Almost daily I find myself feeling wholly unequipped and unfit for the task. But, I am confident of this: I did not seek this post, and came very near to not accepting the possibility of it. But, God so moved as to make His calling clear, to the degree I can see anything clearly. And, I have this: He has been faithful to me these many years, ever handing me things I thought beyond my skills and ever granting me the skills I need to do that to which He has called me. So, then, I am confident in this: that to which He has called me, He shall do in me, through me. It is not my skills that matter. It is my will, and my will is subjected to His will to the degree I am able to will it so. (Praise God that it is He Himself Who is at work in me both to will and to work!) Knowing this, I can, like the Apostles before me, like David before me, like Moses before me, walk in faith until faith becomes vision. I shall see Him do marvelously. I shall see these present crises brought to beautiful conclusion. I shall see both the Love and the Wrath, the Mercy and the Justice of God manifested in perfect balance.
And, given the recent thread of my thoughts, I think I can say this as well: I shall see faith and reason, mystery and knowledge, lived out in harmony and balance not only in myself, but in the life of the Church.
Lord God, let it be so, if indeed this be Your will!
Meeting the People - James (08/21/13-08/22/13)
