New Thoughts (05/23/13-06/15/13)
Authority (05/24/13-05/25/13)
I begin by looking at that introductory statement that Matthew makes: “They worshiped Him, but some were doubtful.” The larger point I would take from this is that in spite of their doubts, yet they worshiped. They were in the presence of a holy God, and worship was no longer optional. Whether they understood His nature, whether they accepted His being really and truly alive, it made no difference. Here, in the disciples, I find the first example of that fulfillment: Every knee will bow. Every tongue will confess. When the full authority of God is manifested before you, no other reaction is even possible, let alone permissible. This, God’s holiness, manifest in Jesus being alive and there on the mountain, is indeed an expression of His authority. It is visible proof of what He is about to speak explicitly.
Quite apart from the authority of His being, think for even a moment of what it must have been like for these men to be here, to be witnessing this moment, and you must know at least a sense of the awe that must have overwhelmed them. These were men who had seen some stuff! They had been privileged to attend upon miracle upon miracle, had even been granted to administer a few miracles of their own. They had hung about with Lazarus after he was disinterred. They had known Jesus to walk across the Sea of Galilee. Peter had even tried it himself for a few moments. But, this! This is altogether far and away beyond everything they have yet known. He is here! He is alive! And it’s not just His shade, His ghost, His angel. It is Him! He is with us.
Now, to be sure, they must have had some sense He would be, else they would never have bothered coming to this mountain to meet Him. Faith may have been shaken, but it was not displaced. Even so, however much one is prepared for such a thing, or thinks oneself prepared, the reality of the event is altogether unexpected.
I will return to the thread of authority which runs through this event. But, I need to take note of yet another shift in my sense of how this all fits together, the timeline of these heady days after Jesus arose. I have been thinking, previously, that this commissioning came after the evening when Thomas met the risen Christ. Now, given that note of doubt which Matthew sounds, I’m not so sure. Maybe they had made this trek during the interim between Passover and the closing ceremonies of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Maybe. It is, perhaps, utterly impossible to arrive at a certain timeline for this period. There is so much that differs from account to account, so many things that appear to preclude other things. Yet, it is Scripture. It is God’s own account of things, and there must, in the end, be an answer. There must be a timeline that succeeds in weaving all these threads into a cohesive, completed picture.
Would the disciples have departed Jerusalem in the midst of a week-long feast? Perhaps, given the command of their beloved Rabbi. But, with those doubts that are noted, one could wonder why they would do so. And, if Thomas were here for this commissioning, wherefore the insistent doubts that Jesus had to come back and address? Of course, one must make allowances for the involvement of God in these things. As He had prevented the disciples from fathoming what Jesus said of this last week, so He could purposefully prevent Thomas from accepting the evidence of this mountaintop moment. “Some were doubtful.” And yet, he had come along for the journey. Well, everybody else was headed back. What else was he to do? Whatever the case, it is clear that he would have cause to believe soon enough.
So, then, let me return to the primary point of authority. In spite of doubts, they worshiped. Why? Because Authority stood before them, and there could be no other response. And now, Authority speaks! “All authority has been given to Me.” We cannot ignore the verbal construction here: “Has been given.” It is a passive matter. Jesus did not take for Himself. It was given to Him. He received it. Well, necessarily, where something is given, there must be one who gives it, yes? That one must necessarily be the owner of that which is given. We understand, of course, that it is from the Father that Jesus has received all Authority. That is not explicit in this passage, but His constant reference to, and subjection to the Father makes this clear.
This might also bring about some confusion in our minds. If God is One in essence, isn’t the Father’s authority necessarily the Son’s as well? And the Spirit’s for that matter? And, if the eternal Son has had this authority for all eternity, how then is it given? Or, are we just looking at a temporary setting aside of that authority during His Incarnation, which having lapsed, has been restored to Him? That’s not an impossible understanding of the matter, although it feels somewhat improbable.
There are matters about the Triune Godhead that will doubtless remain a mystery until the day we meet Him face to face and see Him as He truly is. Yet, there are matters which are made reasonably clear from the Scriptures, as well. It is clear, for example, that the three Persons of the Godhead never function at odds one with another. It is clear that these Persons, while one in essence, remain in some ways unique. It is also clear that some set of rules, presumably self-imposed, governs their interactions. We have the many occasions upon which Jesus declares this situation. He speaks only as the Father speaks, reveals only what the Father has given Him to reveal. There are, He declares, things the Father knows which even the Son is not privy to, at least not at that particular moment. We have as well His explanation that the Holy Spirit cannot enter into His role as our Paraklete until Jesus has departed and returned to heaven. We are not told why this must be, only that it must be.
That, I should note, sets a certain boundary on the possible order of events. This mountaintop commissioning must necessarily have preceded the Pentecost outpouring because Jesus is still here, and the Spirit could not come until He ascended and took up that throne of authority.
Here is a thing that might help us. Jesus speaks of all authority being given to Him. That authority, as the term would indicate, speaks of both power and right. He has been given the right over everything in heaven and earth, and power over everything in heaven and earth. Well, think upon this: He created everything in heaven and on earth. Of course the Creator has power over the created! How could it be otherwise, and how is this news? This is not a notice of change. This is a statement of the relatively obvious. But, we are looking at a specific point of authority. We are not looking at general, inherent power such as we associate with dunamis. We are talking, if you will, moral power, or rather, legal power. It is the power of governance, the right to govern and the capacity to do so.
This, of course, brings us to that whole discussion of the first Adam and the last Adam, and of the Serpent of old who connived authority away from the first Adam. This is a thread that runs front cover to back cover through the Bible. Adam, our federal head, had authority over the earth. It was handed to him as his dominion. It is there in the granting to him the task of naming the other creatures. To name was to have power over. It is there in the explicit work order given him to go forth, multiply, and take dominion over the earth. But, Satan, by convincing Adam, through Eve, to break his one contractual obligation, caused dominion to be lost to Adam, and took up that dominion himself. He has sat as usurper upon the throne for ages. He still thinks, in spite of knowing full well that it is not so, that he can retain that throne. His is the original and the grossest case of cognitive dissonance. He knows he is defeated, yet he proceeds as though he weren’t. But, here is answer given to him. He sought, often, to get Jesus, like Adam, to take shortcuts, to take liberties with the Father’s command. But, Jesus did not. And therefore, all authority, even over that usurper, is now in His eternal possession!
I say it again: He has always had this authority in the sense that He is the creator of all that was ever created, and that must necessarily include Satan. Yet, over the earth, there had been a legal loophole found that allowed this enemy of His a certain title. Through trickery he gained that title, yet gain it he did. God being perfectly Just granted the authenticity of that titular claim. Yet, He still knew this snake to be a usurper and counted him so. You will bruise His heal, but He shall crush your head. This is where we must see the authority given. The legal requirements to toss that usurper off his stolen throne and restore it to its rightful owner had now been met. The necessary prerequisites of restoration were seen to, and all legal claims settled once for all time. The King is come and He shall not be leaving. Long live the King!
This being true, it must be understood, does not alter the nature of the Trinity. Paul makes this clear. “He has put everything in subjection under the feet of Jesus. But, this clearly does not include the Father as being subjected to the Son” (1Co 15:27). The Father remains the Father even as He sets the Son upon the throne. It must also be understood that the dominion granted into the hands of Jesus is not a dominion restricted to this earth, nor even to the physical manifestation of existence as we know it. That authority which is His extends to include all that is, ‘in heaven and on the earth’. It is, in short, an authority with no bounds. There are no physical bounds upon His authority. There are no temporal bounds upon His authority, for having been established upon His throne, He shall be upon His throne forever. Yes, and in truth, He was always there before, although this estate into which He has entered is a new thing all the same.
There are not even any metaphysical bounds upon His authority! The only bound that might even be hinted at is that the Father did not subject Himself to the Son, certainly not as being put under His feet. There was no need. Behold, the Lord your God, He is One. There is a perfection of Unity in the Trinity. There is, it seems clear, a chain of command. Yet, that chain of command is not a matter of superiority and inferiority. It is a matter of orderly governance. Orderly governance requires that one voice be able to speak with final authority. And so it is. Yet, I doubt not that the One Voice never finds cause to speak as countermanding. There has never been a decision of the court overturned by Higher Authority. There can be no need for such things where Unity prevails.
His Authority, both Father and Son, is central to the Gospel. But, it is particularly that authority which resides in the Risen Son which calls to us. Why is that? Well, that authority which is of the Father is His innately. It is not a matter of Him having earned the right to rule. It is that He, being Supreme and self-Existent, has that right inherently. It is part of Who He Is. Jesus, being fully God, shares that same inherent authority which is of His essence. But, He adds to this (not that it was lacking) the right to exercise that same authority not only as God but as Man. This is the new part, if you will. All authority has been given to Me while yet fully man. It was necessary in the economy of God that there be a man to sit upon the throne established for David; established for Adam, really. That throne, upon which the devil had sat for many years, was being reclaimed. The authority that the devil had, though not by right, is given over to our true Lord, our Savior, our King.
He is now, not only as God but as Man, head over every rule and authority (Col 2:10). Paul does not explicitly set out the God/Man application here, just points us to Jesus Who is the God/Man. But, what captures my attention in that verse is that it appears to connect His rule over all with something in us. “In Him you have been made complete.” You know, looking back a verse earlier, I’m not so sure Paul isn’t pointing us to the God/Man. “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form [the God/Man], and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority.”
I am not at this time seeking to exposit on Colossians, but I do have to wonder at the string of points Paul is making here. The stringing together of these matters suggests to me a connection to be drawn between them. That He is the Deity in bodily form would seem to be set as the chief or controlling point here. The subsequent clauses depend from this first point. He is God, ergo He rules over all other claimants to rulership, all other exercisers of authority – and here is the key point I am aiming towards – ergo you are made complete.
Do you see the power of that? Your sense of completeness rests in knowing Him to be in charge. Now, this is interesting. I want to note that I have had this verse waiting for me for three days. This morning, I turn to my daily portion in Table Talk, and there is this discussion of Jacob’s disappointment in finding Leah in his bed rather than Rachel. It is presented as a model of the disappointment we inevitably find in all things. Nothing is ever quite so good as we expect it to be. Whatever excitements were in the air in anticipation, when we have the denouement in hand we discover that, as the songsmith said, “The thrill is gone.” And this must necessarily be the case for us until we find our Lord to be our Lord, until we know Him to be King of kings.
The child psychologists amongst us might recognize one of their own truths in this statement as well. It is, I believe, a fundamental of child-rearing that your child not only needs to know his bounds, but wants to know them. He is unlikely to express that desire, indeed, will likely profess the opposite, and test those bounds at every opportunity. But, there is that confidence which comes of knowing that there are boundaries and knowing what those boundaries are.
Much of society around us today appears to be either unaware of boundaries or determined to ignore them. It is clear from the behaviors we see in them that this sort of free-range humanity is not in a happy state. The lack of boundaries does not produce confidence but rather confusion. It does not lead to greatness and to grander accomplishments, but to smallness and lack of accomplishments. It leads to a nervousness bordering on paranoia. If there are no boundaries on me, then there are no boundaries on thee, and what, then, might you try at my cost?
If there are no boundaries, what cause has a thief or a murderer to restrain his hand? If there are no boundaries, there can be no consequences. If there are no consequences, there can be no pangs of conscience. Where there are no standards to compel us towards healthy behaviors, our fallen nature will necessarily lead us to trend in the opposite direction. And, we shall know that all around us are likewise riding the downward spiral. And, knowing what we are capable of, should restraint be tossed to the wind, we fear what others may well do to us. If it survival of the fittest, we know ourselves to have great cause for concern. If might makes right, we are forever in peril of being found wrong.
But, there is this: All the innate power and authority of the Godhead dwells in Him! All authority – supreme Authority – has been given into His hands. He is in control. He has set the boundaries, and He will see Justice done. This is our confidence! This is the thing that makes us complete. We know there are boundaries, and He has seen to it that we have in hand the tools necessary to know where those boundaries lie. This is at least one purpose of the Law. It is just as assuredly one purpose of the Gospel. More so! It is only by that grace which the Gospel proclaims that we are finally, in some degree, able to comply with the Law which sets our borders. It is only by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit, sent at the commanded promise of our Lord and King, Jesus the Christ of God, that we are able to abide in those pastures He has set for us.
Yet, we know this to be the case, which the author of Hebrews states plainly. “You have subjected all things under His feet. Nor has anything been left which is not subject to Him. Yet, we do not see this as our present experience” (Heb 2:8). Note the tension in that statement. You have done this, and it is done. Yet, this is not what we observe. Is this, then, a place where the Christian is forced into cognitive dissonance? Is this a place where we proclaim one thing even though we know the opposite holds? After a fashion, I suppose the answer must be yes. Yet, it is not a denial of reality so much as a recognition of what gets referred to as the tension between the now and the not yet. It is an acknowledgement that we dwell in a period that is between God’s kingdom arriving in the physical realm, and the period of God’s kingdom fulfilled in the physical realm. We are between incarnations. Messiah has come to save, but has not as yet returned to conquer. Yet, He is the Conqueror. He is on the throne. He is already the Supreme Authority, the King of all kings. That is not stating something counter to reality, it is stating the legal facts of the case. At the same time, there remain many opposing forces who still refuse to acknowledge His status. That is stating the perceived reality of our day.
The two things do not stand as paradox, but as two facets of the situation. Legally, rightly, lawfully, He is king. But, rebel forces remain, and even appear to outnumber us in our earthly lives. It is not that He shall reign. It is that He reigns! He reigns now. He is in charge. All of these foes around us, though they act as they choose, though they have no thought for furthering His purposes, yet they do just that! Like Assyria and Babylon before them, they pursue their own ends, but their ends are bent to kingdom purposes, like it or not. Even their chief commander, our fundamental adversary, is thus constrained. The boundaries are set, and having been set by the Supreme God of all, they cannot be violated, however hard one might try. That He can do this, in His Authority, and yet leave each of us culpable for our own decisions is a marvel in itself. That we, acting as our own wills dictate, are yet found to be furthering His infallible purpose, is not something that cheapens us, but ought rather to humble us.
It ought humble us most, I should think, who count ourselves His sheep. There is no good thing in me that I can boast of. I cannot point to my accomplishments on His behalf and find in them evidence of my worth, or even of my progress. A scan of His history shows numerous cases of evil men, thoroughgoing reprobates who never, to our knowledge, arrived at repentance, who yet served Him and in some cases even appeared to be better servants to Him than those He honored as His servants.
Think Abraham in foreign lands. He’s handing his wife off to every foreign power, it seems, because he would rather see her violated than himself dead. But, God. Indeed, God insists that the foreign king, who has in the end acted honorably and kept from doing Sarah such violence as was in his power ought go to Abraham who got him into this predicament by lying to him and have that one pray for him! Really? This is Your best representative? But, God chooses the weak that He may be shown strong. He chooses the fallen that He may be seen in their uprightness. He chooses the least that we might grow in Him, knowing that it is only in Him that we are anything at all.
Beware the arrogant ‘believer’! Beware the boastful brother, recounting all the great things he has done for God! There is a man who, if he belongs to Christ at all, is barely out of his spiritual diapers yet.
Evidence (05/26/13-05/27/13)
It intrigues me that so much emphasis is placed on evidence. Much evidence, after all, was demanded of Jesus. Much is demanded of God today. Prove that You are real. Explain Yourself. How could You allow this disaster, that disease? Prove that You are good. Prove that You even exist. With all this demand for proof from Him, and from His witnesses, is it not fair in some sense that He also requires specific proofs from those would claim to be His children?
Thus, this commission to get to work includes some specifics. The two accounts share the reference to baptism. Matthew indicates a particular formulation, describing the necessity for faith in the Triune God Who Is. Mark’s account indicates a stronger point being made. Belief, or a profession of belief is not in itself sufficient. What are we to make of this: “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved”? How should we understand this?
Before we come to an understanding with baptism, perhaps it would be well to consider the other half of that formula: He who has believed. Who is that one who has believed, and how would we know? It seems that this first clause requires that there have been some sort of profession made of belief, some verbalization. Yet, would any dare to suppose that the mere verbalization of a claimed belief is proof positive that belief exists? More, would anybody suggest that such profession is in and of itself sufficient to save one, or even any contributing factor at all? If salvation is by faith alone, then it cannot be by works, not even so small a work as some spoken profession of belief or acceptance. Walking forward at a revival meeting, signing the “I believe!” pledge card, raising one’s hand at an altar call; none of these acts is sufficient to save. None of these are even legitimate proofs of a salvation already accomplished. A simple bit of accounting will show that to be true. Count those who take such actions, and then count how many are still seeking God three weeks hence. If it were real, the counts would be equal. But, they are not. Too many such confessions are really just emotional outbursts, or worse, mocking efforts of committed unbelievers.
The thing of importance for this discussion, though, is that the profession of faith is not the producer of salvation. Rather, if it is real, it is an evidence of salvation. Baptism must be viewed in like manner. Baptism cannot save. It matters not who applied the water or how, quite frankly. Scripture offers a variety of both. Honestly, if no water were available, I suspect sand would do. But, that baptism is not a salvific work. It cannot be, for there is no such thing as a salvific work. There is but grace.
So, then, what’s the big deal with baptism? It is a second proof, along with the profession of faith, that belief has come. Symbolically, of course, that baptism indicates an identification with that one into whose name you have been baptized. Take that back to the Triune formulation that Matthew’s account specifies. “I baptize you in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Yes, and that name, that singular name of God in Three Persons, is indicative of all He Is. It encompasses His essence, His character, and it most assuredly indicates His all-Powerful Authority. And, the one thus baptized says, “Yes! I belong to this God. I seek to emulate this God. I set myself as His disciple, His servant. He is my Liege-lord and I am His to command.”
There is also an aspect of this, going back to Psalm 69, which I was looking at a week or two back. “For Thy sake I have borne reproach, and dishonor has covered my face. I have become as a stranger, a foreigner to my brothers. Why? Because zeal for Thy house has consumed me, and the reproaches that target You fall on me” (Ps 69:7-9). If You are humiliated and reviled, Lord, I hereby signal my determination to stand with You, to share in Your sorrows, even if it requires the loss of all else I hold dear. There is the significance of baptism. I have not just taken as mine Your promise that I shall live forever. I have taken as mine Your death.
Baptism, then, like the profession made by mouth, is intended to be a very public thing. In Sunday School today we are covering the events of Jesus’ burial, including Joseph of Arimathea going to Pilate for the body. There was a very public profession! There was a man who, in that moment, proclaimed boldly to all who would doubtless find out that yes, he believed, and he would gladly share in whatever befell this Jesus, whether glorification or humiliation. It mattered not which, for belief had come to Joseph. If Pilate should choose to crucify him as a co-conspirator with Jesus, so be it. And bear in mind, he may not have been around for the trial, didn’t necessarily know Pilate’s clear doubts on the matter. He was also putting the Sanhedrin on notice, and no doubt about it: he knew that. He would lose position. He could pretty well count on that. He would likely be tossed even from the synagogue. He would, for all intents, be looked upon as a dog, a Gentile, goyem, a stranger and an alien so far as his fellow countrymen were concerned.
Was Joseph baptized? While there is no record of it, I find it all but impossible to suppose otherwise. Nicodemus, too, I suspect accepted the necessity of this act, knowing the symbolism, and having heard it from the Teacher’s mouth. “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:5). You don’t think he felt the necessity of that now? Why else is he here to honor this dead teacher? Whatever had held him back in the past, these events had pushed him into the open.
Yet, this must also be clear to us: Baptism can be play-acted as easily as profession. While these public identifications with Jesus are set before us as proof of what grace has done, and they are necessary outward effects of that grace, they are not, in fact, proof certain. One who has faith will not fail to provide these evidences, but one may well choose to provide such evidences without there being faith.
We tend to focus on those places where any such public profession of Christ as these could easily prove to be a death sentence. It is right that we should be drawn to care for, to pray for those who come to faith in such places, and the Church has ever celebrated the strength of faith which such situations produce. But, there is something of a dark side to this. In nations where Christianity flourishes with wide-spread acceptance, the reverse bias may apply. I think of my brothers from Kenya, and their propensity for introducing themselves with words to the effect of, “I am so and so, and I love Jesus.” If this is indicative of the standard introduction given to folks back home, what does this suggest? It suggests to me that there would be a great deal of peer pressure urging a similar response. Would one really be inclined to respond with, “and I am thus and so, and I do not love Jesus”? What would come of it? Yes, I know we have a particularly vocal and virulent brand of atheism wandering through society just now, which might very well give just such a reply. But, that’s more a symptom of the fading influence of the church on our society than anything else. Were Christianity flourishing, I doubt not that such frankly rude insistence on proudly proclaiming one’s atheism would be a far rarer thing. It would be as socially unacceptable as boldly wandering into, let us say, some Hollywood gala and boldly shouting out how one thinks the whole output of the entertainment industry to be drivel. It might well be one’s opinion, and quite probably a valid one. But, there’s a time and a place, and proper manners suggest that was not it. Would that our atheist friends had such manners, such a sense of propriety.
All of this brings me to that additional list of proofs which Mark relays to us. “And these signs will accompany those who have believed:”. Depending on your background, you may find this as specifying required evidences of faith, as a list of possible evidences, perhaps partial, perhaps complete. Or, you may be inclined to effectively ignore it, in spite of protestations as to the infallibility of Scripture. After all, there is some question about the authenticity of this section of Mark. But, I must note that despite all such questions, I cannot find a single version of the Bible that opts to exclude the verses. The NCV, in its rendering of this phrase, seems to land on the side of required evidence. “those who believe will be able to do these things as proof:”.
It has to be said that the bulk of these two verses describe the activities as certainties. It is not set, for the most part, in the subjunctive, such that these are things which may or may not occur. It is in the indicative. The exception to this is the discussion of drinking deadly poison, which is in the subjunctive. The certainty is that they will not be hurt by the experience.
Well, then, if these are required proofs, there are further questions we must answer. First, ought we take it as proof of the disciple or the disciple? To rephrase that somewhat, were these things that the Twelve were to offer as proofs of their own legitimacy to those they would reach? Or, were these proofs the Twelve could look for as evidence of a true disciple made? Perhaps, since the Twelve are themselves disciples, we ought to offer the third possibility that both apply. Certainly, we have record of almost all of these signs having occurred at least once amongst the Apostles.
They have already had experience casting out demons, and the book of Acts records more such events. That same book also makes clear that speaking in new tongues was an experience not only of the Apostles themselves, but of most every convert they made. We find Paul, shipwrecked off Sicily, being bit by a snake and, much to the consternation of the locals, failing to be bothered by it in the least. What we don’t find, apart, perhaps, from the matter of languages, is a universal experience of any one of these. We certainly don’t read of the Apostles requiring such evidences of their converts. You, there! You believe in God? Then prove it! Speak in tongues. Bring back proof of a demon cast out of somebody. Grab that snake there, and let it bite you. Let’s see how you do with that.
It doesn’t happen. You won’t find it. The most that can be said is this: That where there was evidence of speaking in tongues, they accepted this as evidence that God included the speakers amongst His elect. This is where Reformed teaching leaves the subject. The Apostles needed it as proof for themselves, that the Spirit had come in power. They later took it as proof that this Gospel they were bearing was not for Jews alone, but for Samaritans as well, and even for Romans. But, the theory goes, once the Gospel had reached the nations, the need for such extraordinary proofs passed. I must ask, though, where is it written?
“These signs will accompany.” Does Jesus in any way suggest a temporary application of this? Not that I read. Does He make it a requirement, a test the Apostles are to apply to all who would petition for membership? Not that I read. What, then, was the point? The point would appear to be the setting of certain expectations. Notice the common thread in these signs. All of them point to things impossible to the bare human power. A man, on his own strength, cannot suddenly become proficient in another language. Given years of effort, yes, but in an instant? No. A man, on his own strength, cannot alter the schedules and plans of demons. Witness the sons of Shiva. The human body, unaided, is unlikely to shake off snake venom, or the poisons of an assassin. I’ll save the matter of the sick for a moment, because there is yet another question to consider there. But, all of these indicate that something more than a man is involved. They are marks of a higher power.
Are they mandatory? Well, we would conclude that baptism is mandatory. As explored earlier, we understand that it is not a salvific act in itself, but it is an evidence. Ought we not, then, to take these other evidences as equally necessary? If one who believes will assuredly be baptized to give evidence of his belief, will he not also manifest at least some portion of these evidences that the power of God has come upon him, that the Holy Spirit of God has taken up residence? We still expect the fruits of the Spirit. In some corners, we still expect the gifts of the Spirit. Why, then, does it seem we have so little expectation that the power of the Spirit will show itself in the lives of believers?
Put it another way: Do you believe that as a believer, should a snake bite you, you can shake it off, walk away, and feel no effect from the venom? Do you, as a believer, walk in the expectation that if, by accident, you were to ingest some terribly poisonous substance, you would not be hurt? Would you even believe as much should you accidently get some cream in your coffee that’s a tad past its expiration date? How about dealing with the sick? Do you accept that in the power of the God Who indwells you, you could go and minister to a ward full of the most contagious of the diseased and have no impact to your own health? If not, why not? Jesus said, “You will.”
As to the power of these signs, as they were perceived by the early church, it is clear that they were deemed just as non-optional as baptism. No, as I said, we don’t find the apostles demanding such evidence, but it is noteworthy what these same apostles do when they come across a population that is not evincing such evidences. Hearing, for instance, that the Gospel was finding fertile soil in Samaria, the church in Jerusalem reacted by sending Peter and John out. What did these two find? “He [the Holy Spirit] had not yet fallen upon any of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Ac 8:16). How did they respond? “They prayed for them; that they might receive the Holy Spirit” (Ac 8:15). And, Lo! “They began laying hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit” (Ac 8:17).
They made sure of it. And, I have to note that this is something separate from the baptism of water. It is something different, apparently, then being baptized in the name of Jesus. Matthew does specify the name of the Triune Godhead, incorporating the Persons of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Whether Luke intends to suggest an incomplete baptismal formula was applied is unclear, but that something was lacking in the process of their conversion is not.
In this regard, certainly, we must return to that message Jesus gave to Nicodemus at their first meeting as well. “Unless one is born of water and Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:5). What is to be made of that? Is Jesus pointing to this twofold aspect of conversion? No, in fairness I don’t think so. He is pointing to rebirth, and rebirth, being of the Spirit, is not the same as that physical birth by which we entered the world. That rebirth, as has been said, is not the product of any baptism, whether of a name, by water, or in the Spirit. That rebirth is the work of grace, the gift of God given – and this is critical to remember – while we were yet enemies.
Likewise, the gifts of the Spirit are just that: gifts. Shall we demand that they be given? We dare not! Even these proof-points that Jesus sets forth, as I say, the apostles do not demand. They accept. Where the sign is, the reality is. That would seem to be their perception of things. Where the signs are not only missing, but not even recognized as a possibility, they pray. If the signs come, it remains in God’s will, not by their demand. The signs come to confirm. This is as important to understand as the fact that baptism is undertaken in response.
It is not unreasonable, then, to ask whether there comes a time when such confirmations as these signs become unnecessary, or even counterproductive. In making such an assessment, I suppose human nature must come into play, but far more important, indeed infinitely more important is the matter of God’s nature, God’s plan and purpose.
Were signs for a season? Were they merely an aid for establishing the church? We know that vast portions of the church today would hold this to be true, whether dispensational in outlook or otherwise. We also know that significant portions of the church reject that outright. It may well be one of those debates that will go on unsettled until Christ returns in glory.
That is not to say that there is no risk in getting it wrong. The risk may seem greatest in the case of those who accept the signs as active today. The risk there, though, is more to do with an incurious view of theology. Any sort of supernatural activity is accepted. And this was never a view promoted by Scripture. No! Spirits are to be tested, the Church and its Truths to be jealously guarded against every false teaching, every lying spirit, every counterfeit. That caution, by and large, is not practiced where the gifts of the Spirit are still recognized. There may be some attempts made at proper order, but they are limited, and for the most part, the free-for-all atmosphere of Corinth seems to be the common condition.
But, what of the others? What of those who reject the reality of the gifts in our day? Well, supposing them to be wrong, at the very least, it would seem we strip the church of certain tools God has given into her hand. I would wonder, though, if the case isn’t more severe. To take it but one step further, if these are indeed gifts given by God, how pleased shall He be if we refuse them? How happy, if we don’t just store them away against some rainy day, but won’t even take them from His hand? If one views these gifts as an embassy, then the rebuke of not accepting those gifts is serious indeed.
Let me push the point one step further. If these are indeed gifts of God, gifts of the Holy Spirit, is our rejection of them not tantamount to declaring that they are not so? If we reject them out of hand, what is our basis for doing so, if not that we insist they are not gifts of the Spirit at all? And, if they are not from Him, then from whence do we say they have come? Surely, if there is anything that passes for spiritual activity that we accept as such, it must come either of God or of the devil, and if we have precluded the one as being its source, that leaves only the other. Does this not come to the level of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, if we incorrectly give the devil credit for His doings? And, is that not a great risk, indeed, for the child of God?
It bears considering, I think. It bears a great deal of prayer for one and all, that we be neither too lax nor too severe in our assessment of things such as this. Snap judgments will not do, and may very well lead to judgment we would just as soon not face.
Tongues (05/29/13)
All this having been said, I do think it’s worth considering, at least briefly, these signs that Jesus sets before His disciples as proofs of true faith. The first, and perhaps most contentious of these is tongues. Even the definition of what is meant by this is found to be a matter of debate. At the first Pentecost outpouring, it seems clear that the other tongues which are spoken of are other known languages. Yet, elsewhere, Paul speaks of this as including the language of angels, of expressing things too deep for words. Are these different aspects of the same thing, or two different things altogether? And which is it that Jesus points to here?
Lexicographers note a change in the wording, and suggest that change of wording indicates a distinction between the earlier, proof-of-faith, sign of sudden fluency in some foreign language, and that later, spiritual gift of ecstatic utterance. Perhaps. But, if the former case is to serve as proof of faith, would not the hearer need to understand the language to know it wasn’t just gibberish? Isn’t that, in fact, one of the points Paul makes in clarifying the orderly use of spiritual gifts?
I would return to the question of what these signs Jesus mentions were to prove. Was it to prove the authenticity of the ambassador He had sent, or the validity of the apparent conversions they produced? It seems pretty clear from the earlier chapters of Acts that the Apostles, at least, understood it to be proof of conversion, an evidence that God had called those to whom they were being sent. It marked the Samaritans, and so, the Apostles understood them as having been counted as sheep. In response they sent shepherds. They saw the Spirit’s evidence upon a centurion and his family, and much to their astonishment were forced to conclude that God even wanted Gentiles! Who would have thought? But, it was clearly so. Indeed, so greatly did they value this sign that where they found no such evidence, they felt a stronger need to pray that the Spirit would come fill those who had been baptized in the name of Jesus. They saw it as something lacking.
Isn’t that something? One of the questions asked of me, as I was being considered for the role of elder in this church, was whether I thought there was some second baptism, some second act of God that was needful beyond the first call of Christ. There are, to be sure, corners within the Church where such beliefs are held as nearly self-evident. The AG, for example, will insist that the evidence of tongues is a necessary proof of true faith. No doubt, they come to this passage in support of that claim. Yet, I never see them demanding new believers go grab a rattlesnake or some such as further evidence. There is no requirement for their presbyters or deacons to have documented evidence of casting out at least one demon before they can hold office. Only this bit with tongues. It’s easy enough to see how one might settle on this particular proof. It’s safe.
But, is there a call for some second baptism? Is it to be understood as a baptism at all? Jesus does say to baptize in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but if we would count Son and Spirit as two, then there must be a third baptism to finish the set, and I never hear this suggested. Besides, that name, while indicative of the Triune Godhead, is singular. There is but one baptism indicated by the three persons mentioned. One cannot be baptized into Christ and not have Father and Spirit included. One cannot be baptized into the Father except Christ and Spirit attend. So, in that sense, no. We cannot posit a second baptism involving the Holy Spirit.
Yet, it is clear that the Apostles saw something additional here. There was the move of God upon the heart that led to conversion. There was baptism which followed upon true conversion. But, even then, there were those whose faith was absolutely real, yet they had not been taught of the Spirit’s presence, had not received the indwelling power of the Spirit. Does that mean the Spirit was not within? That their calling was somehow incomplete, imperfect? I cannot believe it is so. At the same time, it is easy to understand how such believers, were they to find themselves deploying such gifts of the Spirit without having first been discipled as to their source and their use, might be either dismayed to think themselves possessed by spirits less clean, or made boastful at these newly acquired magical skills of theirs. Either would be destructive to the soul of the convert. So, God in His wisdom requires a certain impartation of understanding before He chooses to make His gifts evident. That seems wholly reasonable.
Does this, then, require us to think less of those believers who, in spite of the Scriptures, choose to hold the gifts of the Spirit listed therein in doubt? Not as yet, no. I would not say so. Are they missing something God intends them to have? Perhaps. But, not necessarily. It might well be that they are not intended to have them, ergo they find no desire for them. It might also be that they are correct who suggest that the time for these gifts has passed. It might be. But, I cannot say I am convinced that this is the case.
What does seem to be the case is that there is no great understanding of these gifts, either amongst those who accept them or among those who reject them. To those who reject, it is a matter to be set aside and ignored to the degree that is possible. After all, it would only lead to contention. Even the more conservative houses of worship quite probably have some portion of their membership who accept the validity of these gifts, even if their practice is discouraged in the house. As for those places where the gifts are most thoroughly encouraged, well, there’s little enough teaching going on about the gifts in those places. They are to be prayed for, and one might find those who will give them advice on how to turn the tongue loose for the Spirit to use. But, teaching? Real explanation of the place and the purpose? Not very often, if at all, will you hear such a message.
That is rather astounding when we consider how much space Paul committed to the subject. There in the church at Corinth, it seems the gifts were in full play. Indeed, they were the favorite part of worship, if we are to judge by Paul’s letter. Everybody wanted in on the act. Everybody wanted his gift recognized and made part of the service. But, this was not how the gifts were intended, was it? No! Paul writes at length to correct the foolishness that the church had devolved into practicing. Everybody speaking in tongues? What’s the point, and what’s the basis?
Paul is plain-spoken about this. “Not everyone speaks in tongues, do they? Neither do all interpret” (1Co 12:30). Well, now! There’s the answer to those who would make it a necessary sign! It is not! Indeed, as one goes through Paul’s treatment of the gifts, this one lies at the very bottom of the pile. It is the least significant of the gifts, not even up there with helps and administration. Think about that! Yet, we make a big deal of longing for the gift of tongues. Why? Paul goes even further, though. He points out that, so far as public fellowship is concerned, there should be no speaking in tongues unless one already knows there is an interpreter standing by.
Now, having spent many years in Charismatic churches, I have never seen this applied. If it was applied, it was done, as it were, behind the scenes. No. Somebody jumped up and spoke in tongues, and at best, the pastor admonished us to be silent until somebody came forth with the interpretation. Who was to say anybody present was equipped to do so? Who was to say that, if somebody did indeed start producing English words, that they were interpretation of what had been said before? Where were the checks and balances? To the best of my knowledge there were none. That’s out of order, according to Paul, and Paul is our best expositor of the proper application of the gifts.
Here is what would seem to be the best understanding of the matter of tongues. Yes, at least in the earliest days, the evidence of tongues amongst unexpected populations gave proof to the disciples that God had gone before them, that God was indicating these folks for inclusion in the faith. In this respect, there is an account of Peter’s actions that is worth considering. We read, in Acts 10:44-47, of his encounter with that centurion mentioned earlier. Even as he was explaining the Gospel, we read, “The Holy Spirit fell upon those who were listening.” Peter had brought a number of folks with him, and these were stunned! The Spirit was pouring out His gifts on goyem! How did they know? “They were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God.” Peter, recognizing the signs, took it as cause to get these folks baptized.
Now, note the order in this case: First the proof of the Holy Spirit having taken up residence, and only then, the baptism in water, into the Name above all names. Two conclusions we might arrive at, then. The first is that these two things were distinct matters. I note that the pouring out of the Spirit is not spoken of as a baptism. But, it is clearly a second event. The second conclusion we must draw is that there is no necessary ordering of these events. Baptism need not precede the indwelling of the Spirit in power, nor need such indwelling precede baptism. Both are to be understood as effect and acknowledgement, rather than as cause. It is the inward call of God, the grace of God, which remains the single cause of salvation. Baptism does not save, but publicly pronounces that salvation has come. The indwelling outpouring of the Spirit does not save, but publicly proclaims the glories of Him Who has saved.
This, too, we should see in that section from Acts. They spoke in tongues exalting God. Some, at least, find this to be a common theme with tongues. Tongues are not, certainly not primarily, to edify. They are to glorify. They are a tool of praise, not of teaching. Again, Paul makes our point. “One who speaks in tongues edifies only himself” (1Co 14:4a). On that basis, speaking in tongues within the congregation is of limited value, and I think we must recognize that this remains true even with the interpreter present. It is not the purpose of tongues to teach. There are exceptions, certainly, when one is called to teach a populace whose language one does not know, and there may well be a particular form of the gift suited to the teacher thrust into such a situation. But, it would be more appropriate for that teacher to follow Paul’s example, and prepare to address the culture into which he is going.
Here, though, we are not looking at the matter of declaring the Gospel in foreign lands. We are in the house. We are among our local fellow believers. What would be the point, then, of couching our attempts to teach in words beyond their comprehension? If we are in an English speaking body of believers, why would we even think about preaching in Swahili, or Italian, or even Greek? Who would know what we were talking about? Who would have any value of our efforts? That is pretty much exactly what Paul is getting at. Maybe, maybe they will see that you are moved by God, but beyond that, nothing.
No, the gift was primarily a tool for praising God, a voice given to doxologies for the one whose sense of God, whose awe of God had moved him beyond the capacity of words to express. That is, I suppose, a part of why it came as evidence of God having accepted. Who would be moved to such extremes of expression except God’s presence were very near and very evident to them? Even as a tool for praise, though, it seems the proper place for it is in private use more than public. Some take the admonition to ensure an interpreter is present as advocating such an application (1Co 14:28). “If there is no interpreter, then keep silent in the church. He can speak to himself and to God later.”
What was happening there in Corinth, that Paul needed to write at length on this matter? Well, amongst other things, what was given initially as a proof to the preacher that he was preaching to an accepted people had become nothing much more than a status symbol. Look at me! I’m speaking in tongues! Listen! My prayers are so holy I can’t use words anymore! I sing with not only the voice of an angel, but even the words of angels! Am I something, or what? The same thing plagued the use of most of those gifts God had set at their disposal, understand. But, it seems that in the area of tongues, the problem was at its worst, perhaps because it was the most widely distributed of the gifts.
However we understand this gift, we must understand this much: While the gift, like all gifts of the Spirit, remains under the control of the gift’s possessor, yet it remains a thing which comes “only in God’s way and time”. That may seem paradoxical, and perhaps it is at some level. But, Paul makes it very clear that these utterances, whether tongues or prophecy, are not things that burst forth from the believer’s mouth in such a way as leaves him with no choice. Oh, believe me, there is a pressure that builds inside to speak when God would have one speak! But, it is not such a pressure that one must simply jump up and proclaim no matter what is happening at the moment. It is not such a pressure as must speak, even though it completely disrupts the orderly progress of worship.
At the same time, to thus speak ‘on demand’ is to bely God’s role in the matter. I’ve been in places where this comes about. “Everybody! Speak in tongues now!” Well, never mind that this completely defies the Scriptural teaching on right use of tongues in congregation. It also suggests that man is so in control of the gifts of God as to call them up God willing or no. We are back to having man in the driver’s seat, and God required to supply the gas whenever we snap our fingers. It doesn’t work that way. The servant does not manage the master. The master manages the servant.
What has happened? We have taken what was given as an aid, an evidence not only to the evangelist but to ourselves that God has called us His own, and made it a toy and worse. We have taken the gift of an orderly God and made it a tool of disruption. We have taken a means for higher worship and allowed it to be corrupted to the degree that it disturbs and cheapens worship.
One last thought I might explore on this topic. One of the articles I read through pointed out a certain symbolic balance in the gift of tongues. Back in the earliest pages of the Book, we read of the efforts by mankind to build a tower that would reach the heavens. God, seeing the arrogance of that effort, so moved as to block the work. How did He do it? He confused the languages of those involved such that they could not understand each other, could no longer coordinate the work so as to get the job done.
Prior to that point, there had been effectively one tribe of man. Now there were many tribes. From those tribes, God found it necessary to choose one, the least of tribes, to carry on His work among mankind. And, they failed. They drew inward, became proud and even neglectful of the very God they were supposed to represent. They wanted too much to be like everybody else, but at the same time they wanted to keep their distinction. We are God’s people. You are not. You couldn’t handle the Truth! We’d best not try and explain it to you.
In this outpoured gift of languages, then, is seen the countering of that confusion of languages that had come about at Babel. Now, there was a new, unified tribe being established, one whose head is Christ. Now, there was opportunity for men of many tribes to become one people, to achieve mightily, but not according to their own lights, rather according to the plan and purpose of God their King. Here was a reunion such as the world shall not see again until Christ returns! Here was a reversal of yet another curse. Where God had previously induced confusion, He now induced fusion. Where He had allowed disorder to impede the progress of man, now He encouraged order and harmony that man, in the strength of God, might accomplish much indeed.
In light of this, how much greater the error, then, if we make of tongues a tool of disorder and allow it to disturb the peace of God’s house? How much greater the error if we insist on our ‘right’ to pray and sing and speak in tongues in fellowship with the saints, when to do so only leads to confusion and dismay? I am reminded of that book regarding the missionary’s position in the world: “You have no rights.” This is not just the missionary’s status. It is the status of every believer. Faith is not a matter of rights. It’s a matter of marvelous grace having been poured out, and a lifetime of gratitude expressing our understanding of just how marvelously unexpected and clearly unearned our status as sons of God truly is.
Let this, then, guide our understanding of this gift, and of such others as may be considered. They are to serve the purposes of God, not to satisfy some felt need on our part. They are to promote His plans, enhance His orderly pursuits, not to be flaunted in the face of others. They are to build up the church in all its membership. To the degree that their use does anything else, it is not use, but misuse, and we do well to be mindful that if we are granted use of the gifts, we are granted to control their use such that they remain appropriate. If we are to use them, it must surely be in light of Paul’s teachings on indifferent matters. If in the presence of those who do not understand or accept their practice in the present day, this is not cause to insist that they accept. It is cause for restraint on our part. If we think ourselves the stronger, the wiser believer, then Paul makes it clear that we are to be the more responsible believer as well, and do nothing that might cause doubt or dismay in the one we think weaker. If we fail to do so, we prove nothing so much than that we are, in truth, the weaker one in spite of our great self-esteem.
Serpents (05/30/13)
As we come to verse 18 of Mark’s closing chapter, it seems to me we are forced to acknowledge that these are not mandatory requirements Jesus is giving us. “They will pick up serpents.” That phrase has no less sense of the definite than do the preceding statements about tongues and casting out demons. All three of these are indicative statements, declarations of fact, statements of certitude. If, then, we would move to insist that tongues are a necessary evidence of conversion, then surely we must also insist on snake handling. Granted, there are a few sects who do just this. I’m not sure if they also require tongues, or if the snake handling is sufficient in their view. But, these sects are rightly construed as fringe elements who have strayed from orthodoxy.
Given that perspective, it would seem that those sects which insist on tongues as evidence ought just as rightly to be construed as fringe elements who have strayed from orthodoxy. It is one thing to accept the validity of tongues. It is quite another to make tongues a requirement for membership among the elect. If one would not accept snake handling as a requirement, then one must likewise reject tongues as a requirement. If one would insist on tongues, one must insist on snakes. Indeed, it could be argued that insistence on snake handling has the greater claim, given that Paul has stated outright that not everybody speaks in tongues. But, that is only an apparent claim, not a legitimate one.
The thing we must address, I think, is the question of why Jesus would even mention such matters as snakes or poisons. Here, I will inject a further reminder that there is some question as to the authenticity of these verses. That might lead one to suspect that somebody was working this in to lend Paul a bit more support. After all, he is the only one we see given as an example of an apostle picking up a serpent. And, bit by this ostensibly poisonous creature, he suffered no harm. Is that why this is here, just to give Paul a leg up? It’s not impossible, you know. It’s not impossible, for that matter, that Peter intentionally made certain that this part of Jesus’ commissioning speech was not forgotten. Certainly, he knew Paul. Certainly, as we see from his letters, he respected Paul and valued his writing as guidance for the Church. They shared a concern for the mission to the Gentiles, as well. If there was any amongst the Eleven who could be expected to give Paul some backing, Peter would be an obvious choice.
This does not, by any means, suggest that the words put in Jesus’ mouth on this occasion are injections into the account. It does not suggest that Peter made this up and preached it as true. Far be it from Peter to do such a thing! He who had been so thoroughly exposed in his failure to speak truth when it might have mattered for Jesus at trial was not going to make that mistake again. The scope of the forgiveness he had received from the very One he failed makes that unthinkable for him. No. These are truly and legitimately the words of Christ Jesus, spoken to His own at their commissioning. Therefore, the question is not whether they should be heeded, but what they were intended to convey.
To pursue that significance, we must step back again and consider the whole list that Jesus presents. They will cast out demons. This is set at the top of the list. Why is this necessary? Demons are, to be sure, soldiers of the enemy. They are also, we might suggest, evidence of the Fall, fallout of that cataclysmic event. Next He moves to the matter of tongues. Again we might ask why this is necessary? Certainly, language is not some attack of the enemy. On the other hand, as we already been reminded, the multiplicity of languages was indeed a curse sent upon man to counter his arrogance and pride. If the capacity for speaking in other tongues is perceived as answering the confusion imposed at the tower of Babel, then this is indeed another power given against our enemy.
Only then do we proceed to serpent handling. The serpent, of course, is a commonly used image for that same enemy. The serpent, symbolically, is consistently used to represent wickedness and persecution. Think, for example, of Jesus describing the scribes and Pharisees as a brood of vipers. They are wicked, attacking from hiding, and the poison beneath their tongues is deadly indeed. It certainly proved to be so in His case, didn’t it? The serpent, we should also recall, was cursed along with Satan when Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden. Here, then, is not merely a symbol of the enemy, but also a tool of the enemy.
And then we arrive at deadly poisons. Poisons are certainly unhelpful if ingested. They are also familiar tools in the hands of the assassin. If armies cannot succeed, perhaps the stealthy infiltration of the king’s kitchen? It certainly isn’t unheard of in history. But, is there a larger point being made? Could we not set down the existence of poisons to the Fall as well as we do the serpent’s nature? Was there poison before Adam fell? If there is anything we might point to as being poisonous, the nearest I can think of would be the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that very fruit which God forbade them to eat. That knowledge, though the fruit tasted well to our first parents, proved deadly indeed, the worst poison ever to enter the bloodstream of mankind. By that poison, death came to Adam and Eve, came to all who have followed. If we take Jesus to have this image in mind, then His statement is powerful indeed! Even so deadly a poison as this, which has destroyed men down through the ages from the very dawn of time, shall not hurt the believer! Something stronger than that poison has come! You, whose forebears ate of that poisonous tree, have also been granted to partake from the Tree of Life, and its fruit is more than sufficient to overcome that poison.
Finally, we arrive at the matter of the sick. “They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” The pronouns in this passage give me pause. It makes the statement somewhat ambiguous as to its application. It may be that there is something in the Greek which makes plain whether the second they is the same as the first, or points to the sick. I confess that a natural reading of that statement would seem to imply that it is the sick who are referenced. But, set in the context of these other things, particularly snakes and poisons, does that change one’s sense of the point? They will pick up poisonous snakes and recover. They will drink poisons and feel no effect. They will lay hands on the sick, and recover.
If I read it thus, then there is a clear connection of thought between these three matters. Each action is something that would naturally be viewed as a threat to health and life. All snakes were viewed as poisonous in that period, whether it was true or not. The poison is specifically marked out as deadly in nature. Disease, in many if not all cases, was deemed contagious. Think of the treatment of lepers. Think of the shock Jesus caused when He didn’t just heal them, He healed them with a touch! What? The marvel there was not just that He had healed them. The marvel was that He did not succumb to leprosy Himself. So, then, it is not completely out of the question to suppose that it is this immunity to contagion that Jesus is indicating as evidence.
It is also entirely acceptable to suppose that He does indeed indicate that the sick shall be healed by this act of laying on hands, or through that action. The whole set of actions listed out here take as a connecting theme of overcoming the effects of the Fall. And, isn’t that the message of the Gospel? Jesus, our last Adam, has succeeded where the first Adam failed. The throne that first Adam allowed to pass to the usurping devil, Jesus has reclaimed to Himself, and there He sits forevermore. He has overturned the worst loss of the Fall, and His disciples are empowered to overturn these lesser effects. He is on the throne. The enemy is defeated, though his poisonous effect is still felt in the land. But, these faithful men and women, commissioned by the King of kings! They are granted to more or less ignore those effects, and to counter them wherever they may be found.
Whether, then, we perceive this last bit as ‘healing hands’ or as a sort of protection against communicable disease, the result is little changed. The commission is given to go make disciples. The commission is given to go not just to preach, but to inculcate obedience to all that God has commanded in Christ. That commission is not powerless, as earthly ambassadors may find their credentials to be in the face of the enemy. No! That commission is backed with the full power of heaven. You shall encounter enemy resistance, but you are ambassadors of heaven! Lo! I, your King, am with you always, and in My name, in My power, the resistance of the enemy is futile. You shall overcome because I have overcome. That is the message. That is the confidence we have to speak boldly the Truth of God.
Now, when I say we have confidence to speak boldly, I must immediately note that this is not by any stretch a call to speak arrogantly. We have this tendency. We hear that we are to go forth with this message, and we immediately have in mind how we are going to get the job done, what great things we shall do for God. It swiftly, in spite of our love and reverence for God, becomes all about us, about our abilities, about God’s need for our talents. We have to step back. We have to be ever mindful that, “Apart from Me, you can do nothing.” It is either God who wills and works in us to accomplish all His good pleasure, or we are accomplishing nothing of worth. We are building with straw, and such works as we do shall be burnt up in the assay.
It is a high calling indeed to which we are called. It is far and away beyond our capacity, and ever shall be. But, in Him we are empowered to so live, move, breathe, have our being, that we can indeed achieve mightily. There remains the perpetual statute, though: do justice, love kindness, and above all, walk humbly before your God (Mic 6:8). Apart from that final obedience, there is no obedience at all. There are only dead works of no value to anyone, even if they are done in the name of Christ.
Impartation (05/30/13-05/31/13)
It seems sufficiently clear that Jesus is informing His disciples that they shall indeed do mightily, as God fills them. They will be commanded, as we know, to await the infilling of the Holy Spirit, coming with power. That power is, of course, given for the furtherance of the Gospel. Whether we suppose such power to be given as a tool to validate the spokesmen for a season, or power given to those God chooses down through the ages, it is given. We can question whether the specifics of the commissioning as Mark relays them apply to the Apostles and their earliest converts alone, or are of continued validity. But, the proof is in. The examples are sufficient to show that at least for that period when the Church was first being spread through the Empire, these things most assuredly did happen.
It ought not to surprise us. Jesus had said as much on other occasions. “Truly, I tell you that he who believes in Me will do even greater works than you have seen thus far. It shall be so because I go to the Father” (Jn 14:12). That is an incredible statement for Jesus to make, even if it only holds for the Apostles! Greater than what He has already done? He stopped storms, spoke them out of action. He multiplied miniscule amounts of food so as to feed thousands. He spoke and demons fled, having begged His mercy, and compelled to heed His command. How much greater could they be expected to do? Were they indeed going to pull down mountains with no more than a word? No, we have no evidence of such things, nor, in reality, is it necessarily the case that this is the sort of greater thing Jesus had in view. The establishment of the Church throughout the nations? Even if it had been only in Israel, that was already a work beyond what Jesus had been able to accomplish in His time. But, they spread it not just through Israel, but out to the far reaches of Rome. If extra-Biblical sources are to be believed, they had even achieved an established body of believers in England before that generation had passed on. That’s pretty great achievement.
It is also made abundantly clear that the Apostles did indeed have what we could only construe as miraculous powers in evidence. Demons were cast out. Diseases were healed, and not even by the immediate touch or even proximity of the apostle. In fact, while these things never became a commonplace, there is reason to believe that the Apostles did not view them as powers reserved to themselves alone, but as tools to be in the hands of such elders and pastors as they appointed. It is also clear that this laying on of hands was done so as to impart the gifts of the Spirit. This was clearly something distinct from baptism.
It was also, like baptism, a familiar rite repurposed for this new season. If we would understand the significance of the laying on of hands, we must consider those previous uses to which they had been applied. There was, for example, the laying of one’s hands upon the head of the scapegoat, identifying the symbolism of transferring one’s sins to that sacrificial animal. There was the laying on of hands as a matter of marking out the man of God’s choosing, the anointed king or high priest. There is, then, a twofold symbolism in the act. First and foremost must be the thought of identification with God. As we recognize our sins and pursue the means He has provided for atonement, we identify with Him as our Lord. As His chosen leader is commissioned by this action, that leader identifies with God as his Superior. It can be said that God also identifies with that leader as one He has sent.
The second aspect of this rite, which we see continuing into our own day, is that of transference. What I have, I impart to you. This is something which seems to be primarily in view with these early actions of the Apostles. Surely, when they are in the process of seeking to have the Holy Spirit indwell those who have been baptized but show no evidence of such indwelling as yet, this is the intent. But, careful now! Do not make the mistake of Simon the magician. Though they performed this physical act of laying on hands, it is nothing of their own power that is at play here. They cannot, of their own volition, give the Spirit. It is God’s volition and His alone. This is made abundantly clear in that they come across those whom the Spirit has already indwelt, though they have never met before.
Yet, with this symbolism of identification and transference, the act remains powerful in its impact upon us. There is a reason that it persists in rites of ordination. Indeed, we even apply that same rite to matters such as the commissioning of elders or missionaries – wherever there is a setting aside of men or women to a particular purpose in God’s kingdom. And, I can tell you that one senses that transference. At least, I could sense a greater significance than that some fellow members of the church had gathered around and patted my back.
Can I also say that this was something far different than the laying on of hands so often practiced amongst my charismatic brethren. The significance was certainly different. There, it was almost purely identification, and the hope that maybe the Spirit’s work would be amplified by having so many linked hand to back or hand to shoulder. It was primarily in the hope of directing the impact of one’s prayers at whoever was there in the middle. Was this a proper use of the rite? Perhaps. But, it is something quite distinct from the commissioning aspect.
For those of us who have been commissioned, it is assuredly a call to a more responsible pursuit of Christ. It is also a call to a more responsive pursuit. It cannot be helped but that one comes to recognize certain responsibilities have been added. The need for prayer is greater. The awareness of various needs is far greater. The concern for thinking and acting rightly in accord with God’s plan and purpose is almost overwhelming. And yet, we are called to pray, to think, to act, and we are called to do so with confidence, a confidence that can only come of knowing oneself utterly dependent upon an utterly dependable God.
Look, for example, at the instructions of James. “Is one of your number sick? Have him call upon the elders to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the Lord’s name. The prayer offered in faith will indeed restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, those sins will be forgiven” (Jas 5:14-15). Look! The oil is nothing. It is a symbol, just as laying on hands is a symbol. It has no power to heal. Even if it is, as some suggest, a statement about doing whatever the present state of medical science can do, it is not the science that matters. Notice what came first. Pray over him. And who is to do this? The elders. Fine. So, there’s an added duty. But, notice: “The prayer offered in faith will indeed restore the one who is sick. The Lord will raise him up.”
God responds to obedience in His children, but He responds where there is faith. This is not to say that faith is something we can work up in ourselves, a means we have to manage God or push Him into action. No! Faith is not a power. It is a conviction. It is a matter of belief, of taking God at His word. It is the state of being where, when we say, “God said it and that settles it”, we mean it. We are expressing our true opinion on the matter. We understand no need to add to that statement, as some do, the conditional clause, ‘and I believe it’. God said it. Ergo it is true. Whether I care to believe it or not no longer enters into the equation.
Yet, I find this conviction, that there is an expectation as to not so much the prayer life of the elder, as the inward life. Can these be separated? Probably not, yet they are two distinct matters. That inward life, if it is not of sound faith, certain hope, absolute conviction as to the truth of God: What value can the prayer life have? That instruction from James almost says to me, if you can’t pray in the absolute conviction that God hears and will answer, and will answer in raising this one up from his sickness, then don’t be praying! How dare you profane the Lord’s name by praying for outcomes you don’t actually believe He will bring about? But, when I see this coupled with the elder’s role, a greater concern comes to light. That sick man is told to send for the elders. Why? Because, of all people, they ought to be in possession of that inward life which would lead to such prayer life as can and will pray God’s healing upon him with the requisite conviction that God will do as they ask. Note well: it is not that elders have some right to demand from God. It is that they are possessed of so great a conviction as to God’s being, His character, and are (or better be) so wholly attuned to the Spirit directing their actions, that when they pray, it is never empty words or posturing. It is prayer with conviction that those prayers, being expressions of God’s intentions, are powerful to bring about that for which they have prayed.
That’s not privilege! That’s responsibility. That’s a demand that, if somehow this was not one’s state when called into the office of elder, he soon makes it his chiefest ambition to be brought into that state. It is humbling in the extreme, for it demands that we turn to God in desperation, that He might make us sufficient to this task. It is also a moment in which one appreciates that act of laying on hands. Something was imparted. There is that matter of God’s anointing, a mantle being passed, an authorization given. You have been made an ambassador and now, here are your papers. But, more, here is the full power of the governance of heaven to back you. Go and do well.
Promise (06/01/13)
Having considered the material from Mark at some length, it is time to turn my attention to the closing promise of Matthew’s Gospel. “I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Of this promise, of “I am with you”, the NET points out the way in which Matthew has closed his Gospel account with an echo of its beginning. Back in Matthew 1:20-23, as Matthew recounts the birth of Christ, he records that dream Joseph had in which he was told the nature of Mary’s pregnancy, that he was to wed her as planned, and that the baby she would bear was to be named Jesus. This, Matthew points out for his readers, fulfilled the prophetic word, “The virgin shall be with child, shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel.” This, he continues, translates as “God with us.”
So, then, He shall be called God with us, and here, at the close of Matthew’s account, lies the promise, “I am with you.” And, most wonderful of promises, He shall continue to be so ‘even to the end of the age’. The NET explains this lovely bit of symmetry as forming an inclusio. That is to say that the repeated phrase serves as a bookend to all that lies between. Interestingly, looking for some definition of the term, I find it is most often described in conjunction with chiasm. Chiasm lays out what may well be a series of parallel statements or ideas, with the intent of focusing our thoughts on that statement which lies at center. The outer, paralleled statements serve as arrows pointing us to the central truth being conveyed. It seems as though inclusio works somewhat in the reverse. All that lies between these bookends serves to demonstrate and explain the critical point made by the bookends themselves.
So, then “I am with you.” God is with us! And He is with us even to the end of the age. Indeed, He Who is seated upon the throne of eternity, ruling over the kingdom which has no end and serving as our eternal High Priest, is with us even beyond the end of the age. He is with us forever! For the redeemed, what greater good news could there ever be? This Son of God, this God Incarnate, who paid the price of our sin in His own blood, is not dead. No, He lives! He lives, and He reigns Supreme over all of creation! And, His great promise to those He has rescued from the bondage of sin is that He did not just save them and then leave them to their own devices. He remains with them. He shall ever be with them, for they shall be with Him in eternity when this age is over.
Death shall not dissolve this union. When we marry, we take as a vow that we shall honor the marriage bond “til death do us part.” We understand that in the event our spouse passes from this life, we are not required to abide in enforced celibacy until we have likewise passed. The covenant we took is dissolved by death. But, as the Scriptures so often give us to understand that our relationship to God is akin to that established in marriage, we ought to understand that we have taken a like vow in that case. As we enter into the life made possible for us in His salvation, we have indeed taken a vow. Baptism is, after a fashion, the public acknowledgement of that vow, much like the wedding ceremony is a public proclamation of the vow which has effectively already been taken between husband and wife. Let it be known! We two are one, and shall remain inviolably so for life. Let he who would disturb this union be put on notice that he shall not succeed. Let him be on notice that God Himself stands behind this vow, and should that one seek to disturb what He has established, it is not with an angry spouse he shall have to deal, but with God.
So it is with baptism. Let it be known that I belong to God alone. We have become one. He dwells within me, and I abide in Him. And, this shall be so to the exclusion of all others. There shall be no other gods come between us. And, should they try, it is not with me they shall have to deal, but with Him! But, lo! It is a greater thing, for here, there is no death to end the contract. He has breathed into us Life like unto His own, life eternal! The flesh may dissolve, this temporary structure of the body come to the end of its usefulness. But, the spirit, the soul lives on. And, there shall be, as there was for Him, a new body given it; a body suited to eternity, free of those marks of the fall like aging, wear, and disease. We live forever. That is to say that though the age comes to an end, we do not.
As I say, for the redeemed this is marvelous news indeed. For the reprobate? It is perhaps the most disturbing news that ever they shall receive. They too shall outlive this present age. They too are possessed of an eternal soul and spirit. But, they depart to an eternity of that separation they so professed to desire in this life. Having wanted nothing to do with God and His ways, they shall have nothing to do with Him and His ways. But, the ignorance or willful blindness that allowed them to proceed as if all was well in this life shall be stripped away. It shall be an eternity of knowing just how wrong they were, how great a mistake they made for those few moments of seeming pleasure. It shall be an eternity spent not just in woeful contemplation of opportunities lost and regrets for the present, but an eternity spent under punishment for the sins of their short lifespan on earth. The penalty of sin is death. The enormity of sin is that it’s penalties echo through eternity, as sin is committed against an eternal God. An eternal sin requires an eternal penalty, and that penalty shall be extracted in full. For these, the message is, “I shall not be with you, ever.” All hope is destroyed utterly for these.
But, the Gospel, the Good News, focuses rather on the living. Is it written as an evangelistic tool? Yes it is. It was also and simultaneously a tool for the encouragement and education of those who had already heard the Savior’s call. For those, that “I am with you” that defines the Gospel is joy unspeakable. To those whom the Father is calling, but who have thus far resisted that call, or have had their doubts, this Gospel goes forth as an encouragement to hope, to trust. He came as God with us. He died as God with us. He lives as God with us! He came to offer you life, you who have yet to even recognize that for all that you live and breathe, you are dead even as you walk. The stark future of weeping and gnashing of teeth need not be your story. There is a Messiah! You need not look for Him to be coming. He is here, Hallelujah! He is here, Amen! And, He’s not leaving. He is with you even now. He is with you to the end.
I must bring this home to the present, to the personal. That word, with: meta. It is, in a way, a rather surprising choice of words Jesus makes. Greek has a number of terms which we might translate as with. Of these, we encounter en and sun more often. Given the connotations specific to these terms, it would seem that either of them would be more to be expected in this context. En, with its suggestions of intimacy: Isn’t that what we desire and even expect with this holy relationship? Entire theologies are built upon this requirement of intimacy with God. This is what Jesus came to establish, this is what it is to be a branch of the vine. Could there be a more intimate connection?
Or, we might expect to find sun, with its indication of close union. Yes, God and me, we’re like that, man! We’re one. We are one in the Spirit, we are one in the Lord… Who hasn’t sung that, of those who have been in church sometime in the last several decades? We are in close union one with another, that whole koinonia thing. But, we are in close union with God, which is all that empowers us to endure the koinonia, let alone enjoy it. We go back to the prayer John records for us. “That they may be one with You as I am one with You, I in You and You in Me, and they in Us.” Yes, I paraphrase, but you know that’s the gist of it. That is sun. We are united. We are one. We are so together that even death shall not part us!
But, these are not the terms Jesus speaks in here. He speaks of meta. It’s not so intimate a togetherness as en, not so close a union as sun. It’s amid. It’s in association with. It’s more like that which He said of prayer. “Wherever two or three are gathered together (sun) in My name, there am I in the midst of them” (Mt 18:20). We who pray are sun, united as one. He is mesoo, in the midst. Mesoo derives from meta. There’s just that least little hint of distance.
This really oughtn’t to surprise. We, though united with and in Christ, are not as yet of like character and spirit with Christ. We remain, for the duration of this age, creatures with a fallen nature. We have been freed from the bondage of sin, but not yet from its influence and effect. Our prayers and our efforts for the kingdom are as yet imperfect. Indwelt though we be by the Holy Spirit of God, temples though we be of the Holy Trinity, yet we are human and we have human failings. There is a reason we need the Holy Spirit to pray in and through us. We don’t always (ever?) know how to pray as we ought. We err. Our theology is flawed. Our understanding of God is flawed. Certainly, our attempts to walk in perfect righteousness are flawed. How, then, can we expect that a Perfect, Absolutely Holy and Righteous God would be so closely united with us as sun would indicate when we pray? He must needs maintain some distance, for He must needs hear our prayers filtered through the working of the Holy Spirit. There are prayers we offer that He will not, ought not to heed, for we too often pray according to the limits of our understanding. We are too often like Peter when he first heard of Jesus’ upcoming trials. God reveals His plan and purpose, and what is our reaction? “God forbid it, Lord! This shall not happen” (Mt 16:22). How could God honor such a prayer? And what would become of us were He to do so? There, indeed, is a case for “God forbid!”
But, He is not promising to be our yes-man. He is not declaring that He shall concur in every decision we make, every petition we offer, every works program we set in place. He is not, in this aspect, in us, united with us. He is with us, in our midst, alongside if you will. He is here. He is speaking, should we care to hear it. He is willing to instruct, to guide, to lead, if we will but stop trying to lead Him. He is, as He says here, always present, always at our side. How often do we notice Him? I know the answer. You know the answer. And, however well we might honestly be able to answer that question, it would still not be enough.
“I am with you always.” That is so marvelous a promise! It is also, or ought to be, a marvelous caution. Those times when you’re giving Me no thought? I am with you then. Those times when you pursue your secret sins, content that none can see you? I am with you then. Those times when you speak things that ought never to touch the lips of the redeemed? I am with you. I hear you. There is a thought to drive you to your knees! Were it not for the wondrous character of Christ, as He took such great pains to reveal in these Gospel accounts, I should be in abject terror for my foolishness, knowing He stood by me as witness to every last bit of it. Indeed, I must know the pain of knowing that account shall be given, not just for every sinful act, not just for every ungodly word to pass over my tongue, but for the very thoughts that gave rise to those words and actions, thoughts I must confess I feel rising against me even now, even as I contemplate this most marvelous of messages.
Herein, then, lies the greatest Good News and at one and the same time the most terrible of cautions. “I am with you always.” Back as I was doing my preparatory steps for this section of study, I wrote, “He is ever with me. Let that Truth infiltrate my being today.” Indeed, let it be so! But, when I wrote that, I was focused solely on the happy note of promise. Today, as I close my contemplation of this commissioning message of my Lord and King, I see the need is even greater when it concerns the cautionary aspect of that promise.
Lord, I know You are ever with me, and yet so often I ignore You, even wish You would go away for just a moment or two and leave me to my own devices. Yet, how stupid a desire this is! And, thanks be to Your great goodness that You do not heed me in those moments. Thank You indeed! For, where would I be if You were to turn from me? I’ve seen where my feet lead me without Your direction, and it’s not a pleasant pasture at all. It’s darkness and despair. But, You have caught me out from the thicket of my wilderness. You have pulled me out of darkness and into Your most glorious Light. I do indeed pray that I would be mindful of Your presence beside me throughout my days. I pray that I would be mindful of You as witness to my most private moments. But, I pray as well that I would draw strength from the knowledge of Your presence as I actively seek to do Your will. You are with me. Whom, then, shall I fear? You are with me. What, then, has power to prevent me from doing all Your will? There is none but myself, and even there, You are able to so will and so work within me that I can excel my own self-estimates. So be it, Lord! Yes, and amen! Let it be thus with me that I not only know You are with me, but live in the light of that knowledge.
Meeting the People - Matthew (06/02/13-06/15/13)
