New Thoughts: (08/24/22-08/26/22)
As Paul wraps up his message to the Thessalonians, he arrives at a
subject that many of us might find challenging, or maybe just a bit
confusing. It is a series of commanded behaviors, all of them again in
that present tense, ongoing, stative form. But the first two come
negatively stated, and we need to pay attention to that, I think,
because it has some greater significance than merely saying, “Don’t
do that.” Greek has two or more terms of negation. The two
most common are ou and me,
occasionally used in combination to really make the point. But they
have somewhat different shades of meaning, as one might expect.
Otherwise, why have two words? So, following Thayer’s Lexicon, we can
see that ou is a categorical denial,
Absolutely, do not. That would perhaps get us closer to the idea of, “Don’t do that.” Me on
the other hand denies the very thought of the thing. “Don’t
even think about it.”
Well, in this passage, we have me, and we
have it in connection with command, which renders the command, rather
obviously, prohibitive. But then, those commands are present tense,
with that sense of continuity, and the combination gives us the idea of
ceasing from a state, not continuing to do. It would be odd, after all,
to have instruction to continuously not think about doing something.
The very command would practically require us to do exactly what it
forbids, and think about it constantly, lest we slip. But that’s not
the idea here. The idea is to not continue, and not continuing has
implications. It implies that there is a current practice that is off
base.
I kind of get the image of the kids jumping on their beds when they are
supposed to be going to sleep, or just caught up in a giggle fest, or
what have you, in that same circumstance. And, Dad comes to the door
and shouts, “Knock it off!” We’re not at the
point of penalty here, but the sternness in his voice makes clear that
continuing down this course will indeed lead to penalty. Knock it off!
That is the power brought to the first part of this instruction, and it
cannot but suggest to us that there were those in the Thessalonian
church who were in fact doing these very things. You’ve been quenching
the Spirit, and laughing off the prophetic words given by your
brothers. Knock it off!
Okay, well. We have on the one hand a fairly solid cause for concern.
I mean, we understand, I hope, that the Spirit, having been so
intimately involved in our salvation, remains intimately connected with
our lives, having taken up residence in the temples of our bodies. This
much, I should think, it would be hard for any believing Christian to
reject. The declarations are too clear. “Do you
not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God
dwells in you?” (1Co 3:16). That
wasn’t just some one-off message for Corinth. Honestly, if it was,
there would be no letter to Corinth preserved for us to read, because
the need for it would not pertain. No, that you is inclusive of all who
are the called, all to whom the Spirit has come and opened hearts and
eyes to the Christ of the Gospel.
You are. Or, perhaps, You are a temple of God, and
the Spirit dwells in you. Your salvation was utterly
reliant upon His first coming to replace that heart of stone in you with
a heart of flesh. It was reliant upon Him touching your ears, tuning
your mind, in order that the gracious offer of salvation and forgiveness
might actually be received and accepted. You remain utterly reliant
upon Him to continue the work of sanctification in you. You are His
temple, after all, and He will see His temple made pure. And would you,
indeed, seek to shut Him down in that work? It should be
unthinkable!
How could one hear that and not think of that cry of Ichabod, “The
glory has departed from Israel” (1Sa 4:21)?
Or, of the horror of God departing the temple that Israel had so
polluted with her whoring after other gods? This is the message
contained in Paul’s command. Don’t quench the Spirit. Don’t give Him
cause to leave the temple to ruin. Oh dear, you might well say. What
has happened to that assurance? Where now is your permanent election?
But I might observe that those who were informed of God’s departure from
the temple were thus informed not as a sentence of inescapable doom, but
rather as a goad unto repentance. It was a redemptive departure,
designed perfectly so as to stir the exiles to true repentance. And
that same goal is in view here.
Following that same connection, I must note that it was through the
prophet, through Ezekiel with all his weird ways, that God delivered
this message. Why do you think you are here in this hard place? Why do
you suppose Jerusalem lies abandoned and fallen in? The Spirit of the
Living God was among you, and you rendered that condition untenable with
your sins. You became such a stench and an offense that God must
withdraw from you or be seen to be condoning your sins. And here, as
Paul speaks to these individuals in Thessalonica, we have a similar
connection. Verses 19 and 20 are
not separate thoughts delivered scattershot. They are one thought.
You’ve been quenching the Spirit insomuch as you despise the prophetic
word given to the body. Knock it off!
And you see the scope widen rather immediately. It’s not just yourself
that you put at risk with this. It’s the body as a whole. You have
made yourself a threat to the wellbeing of your brothers. Knock it
off! And now, I suspect, many of us have a serious problem. And it’s
one we must needs confront. The problem is this: Most of us in the
present day, at least outside of Pentecostal circles (and quite probably
because of those within said circles, at
least to some degree), find the very thought of there still being a
prophetic utterance given to be highly problematic. If Scripture is
whole and complete, how can we permit this idea of there being yet a
prophetic voice? How can we accept that men may still speak as from the
Lord? Would that not necessarily give their
words equal weight as we assign to Scripture? Does this not elevate
their message to that same inerrant status? And yet, look at them!
Look at the contradictory body of their words, how it conflicts with the
clear revelation of Christ? And yes, what are we to do with Scripture’s
declaration that God spoke fully and finally in Christ? He has told us
all that is needful for life and godliness. Why, then, should we even
look for any further word?
And yet, here it is, as it was in 1Corinthians, or as it would be, from
Paul’s perspective, for that letter was yet to be written. But it’s not
some incidental comment given to the church only for that time and
place. This is, if you will, eternal instruction, given against eternal
need. Okay, eternal moves the limits too far. Let me back off. It is
instruction suited until such time as Christ Jesus returns, and the need
for prophecy ceases. It’s worth remembering somewhat of that later
exposition on the subject. “One who prophecies
speaks to men for edification, exhortation, and consolation” (1Co 14:3). These are the very things he was
encouraging amongst all members of the body just moments ago in our
letter. “Admonish the unruly, encourage the
fainthearted, help the weak” (1Th 5:14).
Supply the need. Love actively.
I think, perhaps, we have such a confined perspective of what it means
to give prophetic utterance that it closes us off to what is really in
view. We have this sense of the prophet as revelatory, but it needn’t
be so. We see the prophet as declaring future events, but it is not
always so. Sometimes, most times, I think, the prophets are not
proposing new revelations or fresh data on God’s plans and purposes, but
rather interpolating from current events where things must surely be
headed. They are, as has often been observed, serving as God’s
prosecuting attorneys. Here are your actions, and here is the law of
God, and on the basis of these facts, here are events that must
transpire, barring a significant change of course on your part.
There are other aspects to the prophetic utterance, though, which I
think can likewise be said to apply, and would be held proper even in
the most Reformed of congregations. There, you would find the idea that
the pastor functions as prophet when he preaches God’s Word, and I think
we should be hard pressed to disagree. What is he doing? He is
applying that word to the present. He is bringing forward from these
ancient revelations the meaning and significance, and demonstrating its
fitness for the here and now. Isaiah did not speak strictly to those in
the ancient royal court. Jeremiah’s message was not solely for those
facing the fall of Jerusalem and exile in Babylon. It was for the
people of God in all ages. We have our parallels, our reruns of
history, and we do well to hear those words spoken to our circumstance,
the sins accounted against our own generation, and the need for
repentance very real and very present in our own lives.
All that being said, I am sure you have sat through sermons that had
little to impart. I’m not discussing style here. It’s not a question
of one preacher being fiery and charismatic in his delivery, or given a
good store of entertaining illustrations to make his point, where
another may make his delivery in dry, rote, lecture hall style. That’s
not the point. It’s the aptness of the message, far more than the
style. It’s the way certain sermons will make clear a connection in
Scripture, or an application. It’s the way, some Sundays, the sermon
hits you right in your present tense. It’s like the pastor knows
exactly what you’ve been going through, what you’ve been doing, where
you’ve been straying, and delivered this antidote point blank, right
between the eyes. There’s a prophetic utterance. He doesn’t know. At
least, I should account it highly unlikely. But God knows. And God has
seen fit to ensure you hear the needed message.
This is no new revelation. We needn’t decide that this pastor’s
message or that one’s has now taken on the inerrancy and infallibility
of Scripture. But I can say the same of any brother or sister, can I
not? We don’t know where that application of Truth may come from.
Heck, Balaam had it delivered by a donkey, and that didn’t render the
message any less valid. I can recall the occasion of driving about with
NPR on the radio, and something in the course of their talk delivered a
point of significant spiritual truth. That wasn’t their intent,
certainly. It was not, as we might say, religious programming. I don’t
think it was even a discussion pertaining to religion. It was just a
passing statement which, whatever the intent of the reporter, spoke a
significant truth, a bit of godly wisdom, even if it was despite their
beliefs. I think, too, of Plato’s “Republic”,
in which one can read several things which come almost as quoting Jesus,
or Jesus quoting Plato, whichever direction you wish to go. But why
not? Do we not observe that even a broken clock is right twice a day,
and even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut? Even the most
vehement opponent of God has yet vestiges of His image. Their brain
remains the work of His genius, and will occasionally recognize truth
even still.
So, where we are: You have these concerns about prophecy, and those
who would claim to be prophets. You are not alone. Having seen so many
who made the claim without basis, I would be right alongside you. And
the message comes to us. “Knock it off!”
Prophecy has a place in God’s house, and it should be recognized. Hoo
boy. That’s going to raise some hackles. But these aren’t my vain
imaginations. These are Paul’s instructions. Don’t even think
of despising prophetic utterances.
It might help to recall Paul’s roots as a Christian. It’s not quite
the introduction of Paul to the picture, but it’s close, when we come to
Acts 13. And there, we read, “At
the church in Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas,
Simeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen – who grew up with Herod, of
all things! – and oh, yes, Saul. Saul who would be Paul” (Ac 13:1). Now, clearly not all of those named
were apostles. Indeed, apart from Barnabas, you’ll find no such
reference to this group beyond the verse just set before us. And even
with Barnabas, it seems that application of apostle is more in the sense
of messenger on assignment than in the more upper-case sense that we
would apply it to Paul. Barnabas did not author Scripture. To the best
of our knowledge, he did not receive those heavenly visions, and the
personal tutoring by which Paul received his doctrine. But they were
prophets and teachers. Whether Luke means some taught and some
prophesied, or that the two activities were so close-coupled as to be
effectively one, I cannot say, but elsewhere, it seems to me Paul takes
pains to keep the two distinct.
There were, in the church, those who spoke with prophetic force, as
Paul understood prophetic force at that time. They were not delivering
new revelation, else we would have it in the record. They were not
speaking truths previously unknown to the Church, propounding new
doctrines to be deemed binding upon all who would call themselves
Christians. But they were speaking as from God nonetheless. This is a
distinction we find difficult. How can it be that they speak from God,
but yet are not accounted inspired authors of His inerrant Word? Are
these not one and the same thing? Well, apparently not. Neither, based
on Paul’s instruction, can I come to the conclusion that prophecy ceased
with the passing of the Apostles. I simply fail to find basis for it,
and were that the case, I cannot fathom why Paul takes pains to preserve
the office or the gift. If prophecy was passing from the scene, why
spend the time, in 1Corinthians, to lay out its proper
administration in the public worship of the Church? Why even give it
the attention it gets here?
Well, you can see why it is given attention. It is the working of the
Spirit, for His purpose, and His purpose is the health and development
of the body of Christ which is the Church. And would you indeed seek to
tell Him to knock it off? Far be it from us!
Now, there is, of course, a most necessary counterpoint by which this
instruction must needs be balanced, and Paul, who is delivering
inspired, inerrant instruction, goes immediately to that balancing
message. Examine everything. This has that same expansive scope as the
previous instructions in regard to our relationship with God (1Th
5:16-18). Frankly, this is a continuation of that same
instruction, only it has moved from our speech to His. There, the
concern was prayer and thanksgiving. Here, it is the Spirit speaking,
even though it be through the words of a brother. Don’t despise his
message and thereby cut yourself off from what the Spirit is saying.
But neither assume every claimed prophetic utterance is automatically to
be granted status akin to Scripture. Indeed, Scripture is the test of
the prophet.
In the Old Testament, the standard was a bit different, and I think it
quite possible the office was significantly different than what pertains
in the New Testament. There, we saw a test applied consisting primarily
in proven outcomes. If they speak, and what they say does not come to
pass, then they did not speak from the Lord, but from vain imagination.
And the answer, in that case, was not to forgive them and pray they do
better next time, as if they were puppies being housebroken. No. The
answer was to remove this sin from the community, stone the false
prophet, which must surely be the utmost rejection. Second chances do
not apply. You have claimed to speak for God and your claim was a lie.
Coming to the New Testament, as I say, the role of the prophet seems to
me to have shifted somewhat. No longer was he speaking new information
as to coming events in the working out of God’s redemptive purpose.
That purpose had been completed in Christ Jesus. When He said, “It
is finished,” that is exactly what He meant. When Scripture
tells us that He has revealed what needed revealing, given us everything
needful to life and godliness, that’s what He meant. There is no new
law coming, no revamped gospel. Indeed, as we must recognize, so far as
revealing and recording the body of Truth we call Scripture goes, it
wasn’t all prophets, nor all apostles to whom the task fell. Mark and
Luke do not qualify on that count, and were we to remove their texts, we
would lose quite a bit. Jude and James were certainly not apostles, as
we account them in that capital-A Apostle sense. They may have been
prophets of the New Testament sort, even of the office such as it was,
although no claim is made in that regard.
But all of this suggests to me that in the New Covenant order, the role
of the prophet was different. He was not promulgating Scripture as new
revelation. He was, however, continuing that other aspect of the
office, as prosecutor, bringing Scripture’s instruction to bear on
current events. And we certainly see cases of those identified as
prophets making pronouncements as to events of the near future. What is
interesting is that they don’t directly reference God’s plans. There’s
going to be a drought. It is not attributed to wrath poured out.
Neither is it denied that these things come by God’s plan and purpose.
But it is given simply as information. Hey. This is coming up. There
is not even the note of authority that might be found in giving
instruction as to how the church should respond. But the church did
hear, and the church did respond. Call it a test. The same applies
when Paul is informed of how he shall be treated should he go to
Jerusalem. There is nothing there of telling him to cease and desist,
nothing of telling him what to do. There is only the forewarning that
it’s not going to be a smooth sail. Well and good. Forewarned is
forearmed, as they say, but Paul didn’t take it as cause to change a
thing about what he was doing.
More often, I think, prophecy, particularly in the New Testament
church, comes by way of applying that which is written to that which is
happening. It is not, then, a revealing of new truth, but an applying
of existing truth. Such things can come in passing strange ways,
whether it is something so simple as the message being delivered being
so incredibly apt for your situation, though delivered by somebody with
no knowledge, and no discernable means of knowing your situation. It
could come, as it did so often in the Old Testament, as observation of
certain sinful and errant behaviors ongoing in the Christian body which,
if left unchecked, must surely destroy that body, or declare it as
having no part in Christ. I can think of plentiful examples wherein
such a prophetic message might be of significant value in our day. But
I also think it unlikely, if only because those places where the need is
so great have, in my opinion, already declared themselves quite vocally
as having no part in Christ.
Arguably, one could suggest that many of those more serious occasions
that have given rise to denominational rifts have come about in
something like the prophetic voice. And there, perhaps more than ever,
this advice would do well to be heeded. Don’t despise the message, but
test it. And having tested it, if it proves good, hold fast to it.
Don’t just let it pass by, to be forgotten like last week’s sermon.
This is serious. God is trying to get your attention, and you need to
give Him that attention. You need to hear and to internalize, and to
take action upon what He is saying. But if it is evil, which is to say,
if it does not accord with Scripture, it is to be most vehemently
rejected.
This gets me, slowly but surely, to the aspect of the message I bring
out in the heading of this study. Examine without skepticism. The
testing which Paul commands here is not that of the skeptic, who seeks
every possible cause to reject, and even should he find no such cause,
will still reject unless absolutely forced to accept. Oh, sure, you
speak for God. Oh, sure, you’ve had this burden you just absolutely
have to speak. Right. Let’s hear it and get it over with. This, sad
to say, is quite often our attitude, and it gets worse, I think, the
closer to home it comes. You? He speaks through you! As if! I know
you too well. I would no more take your word as God-given than I would
the next newscast. I would no more rely on that than on the ten-day
forecast. It’s just your opinion, and giving it these holy trappings
doesn’t change that. Now, it may be that your assessment is correct.
It may be. But I think we should have to account it
an outlier condition. If, indeed, you are in discussion with one who is
part of the body of Christ, and not merely by a membership claimed on no
basis, but truly present by the calling of the Father, how dare we to
dismiss their capacity to speak as the Spirit gives utterance?
Let me put it more strongly still. If you believe this one is indeed
of the elect, a fellow son of the same God Most High, indwelt by the
Spirit even as yourself, on what basis do you so readily dismiss their
spiritual advice as garbage? Skepticism is not the call here. Indeed,
we ought to be far more concerned that perhaps He is speaking, and
speaking something we have serious need of attending to. Is what is
being said to you in keeping with Scripture? Does it tend to God’s
glory? Does it uphold Jesus our Lord as Savior and Son of God?
Perhaps, then, rather than focusing on the messenger, or being put off
by the style of their delivery, you would do well to listen, and
recognize that God is indeed speaking. This is not some overthrow of
order. This is not a new gospel being proclaimed. It is the Gospel
given once for all to the saints being applied. Be careful! Don’t miss
the message because you have trouble accepting the choice of messenger.
There is something of insidious pride in such a response. Yes, I am
all too familiar with the mindset that if God wants to talk to me, He
can go direct. To be sure, He can. Of course, you may have so shut
yourself off from such direct influence that your skepticism would just
as readily apply there. More likely, you are simply too full of
yourself to leave room for Him, and that has extended to the one by whom
He has chosen to make His point. Is it not pride that cuts off the
messenger without a proper hearing? Oh, but God is no respecter of
persons! If He speaks to you, He must speak to me, as well. Hmm. You
were doing okay there, until you put that ‘must’
into the equation. And that really is at root here, isn’t it? God must
operate on my terms. No. You are not His god. He
is yours. He is the one who needs answer to nobody.
You are the one that ought to hear and obey.
Again, though, this is not blind acceptance of every claimed spokesman
for God. There are far too many out there who can and will take
advantage of such a mindset. Indeed, even where there is not that
immediate claim of speaking for God, this applies, doesn’t it? Have a
conversation with somebody as to whether they believe in God, and they
can offer all kinds of words that sound like agreement and acceptance of
Christ but in fact declare belief in some other god. God, as a concept,
is too broadly defined. It is rather like love in that regard. Do you
love me? Oh, yes. But what you mean to agree upon as love may not be
the same as that love about which I was asking? What you believe to be
God may not be God at all. It is far too easy for some nebulous belief
in some pantheistic god that is in us all, some inherent goodness in
man, and even in the plants, the animals, and I suppose, the rocks as
well, to nod agreement to the Christian’s question of belief in God. Oh
yes! I believe. Of course, I do. But it hasn’t got definition. That
belief is barely even agreement on category, let alone the specifics of
the Truine Godhead. We can go away happy that we’ve met and talked with
a fellow believer when in fact we have encountered one utterly blinded
by Satan, and left him in blindness, fat and happy and still on the path
to destruction.
Test what you hear. I think it applies as well in that case as in the
case of the prophet, and it’s much the same test, isn’t it? John gives
us the basics. “Test the spirits to see if in fact
they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the
world” (1Jn 4:1-6). Already! And
that’s still in the first century. Do you suppose it’s gotten better
with time? I don’t. So, how shall we test them, John? “By
this: the spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is
from God. The one that denies this, or does not confess it, is not.
That one is antichrist. You were told antichrist was coming, and I
tell you it is already in the world. But you, dear children, are from
God. You have overcome them! For, He who is in you is greater than
he who is in the world. These false prophets are from the world, and
speak as from the world, and therefore the world listens to them. We
are from God, and those who know God listen to us. Those who are not
from God do not listen to us. This is how we know the spirit of truth
and the spirit of error.”
Now, understand, the ‘we’ of that last part is directed at the
Apostles, the pastors and elders, the officers of the Church. I should
qualify that and say, the officers of the True Church, for antichrist
occupies many a pulpit, and often has broad reach in spreading
falsehood. The idea of testing with an eye toward approving no longer
holds there, I should think. We are talking in the house, amongst those
we have cause to account true brothers and sisters in Christ. And
there, the message is: Skepticism is unfitting. If they are of Christ,
if they, like you, have the Spirit dwelling within, we have sufficient
cause to give weight to what they may speak. We do not have cause to
simply accept it as Truth without examination. But we have cause to pay
heed. And, should we find they have spoken wrongly after all, we have
cause to seek that we might offer them that loving correction advised
not so far back in this letter.
Whatever that prophetic office was in Paul’s time, one thing it
apparently was not was inerrant. I have made mention, as is inevitable,
of his larger treatment on spiritual gifts in his letter to Corinth, but
consider simply this part of that instruction. “Let
two or three prophets speak, and the others pass judgment” (1Co 14:29). Look, if we are talking, “Thus
sayeth the Lord,” style prophecy, wherefore do we find a place
for judgment, for assessing the validity of the message? And what, pray
tell, ought to result if that judgment finds them wanting? Again,
following Old Testament standards, at the very least they should be
driven from the body, excommunicated for claiming such authority when it
has not in fact been given. But that is not what’s in view here, is
it? This is not delivery of revelation knowledge. This is, however,
speaking from the Spirit, imparting wisdom. Or at least that is the
intent, the belief of the one thus speaking. But it needs assessment.
Others of Godly wisdom and discernment ought to be listening with care,
and be prepared to pronounce upon what has been said when the saying is
done.
This is not the automatic “amen” of excited,
emotional response. This is considered. Is this indeed how Truth
applies to our current state? Is this a correction we are in need of
hearing? Or is it just happy talk? I’ve heard enough that comes in
that form, and everybody shouts their amen, and the next voice pipes in,
with an absolutely contradictory message, and everybody shouts their
amen again. This is not the way! Neither do we take John’s instruction
as some simple, formulaic question to ask which no false prophet could
answer falsely. Really? Will you so quickly bind the liar from lying?
I think not. More readily, I would take that test John supplies as
directly addressing the specific sort of falsehoods the church he was
advising were facing. There were those movements of heresy that, while
they could hardly deny Jesus, and might even make noises about His
superiority, would not accept that He had been truly human. Oh, no. He
had but possessed another. Or, He had appeared to be human, but was not
in fact so. I mean, how could God die on a cross? How could He be in a
grave. God doesn’t change, right? If God has died, then how is He
God? And so, the having come in the flesh was something they rejected.
And John says, wrong answer! You speak falsehood. We, the Apostles, or
the true sons of God, know and confess this as true. You speak from a
worldly understanding, and therefore come up short on spiritual truth.
We speak from God, and those who love God listen to us and know that
this is so.
Okay, so the test in Corinth may have been a bit less severe, but not
so very much so. Considering all the junk going on in that church, the
opening for false prophets was wide. Just make some noises, put on a
display, and you’ve a ready audience. Stop! God also gives the gift of
discernment. God sets you in community in order that your brothers and
sisters may guard you from straying after these novelty acts. Put
things to the test. I mean, if it doesn’t even pass the smell test,
there’s not cause to probe deeper. Toss it. But if it sounds
reasonable on the face of it, check it out. See how it accords with
sound, established doctrine. God gave us Scripture for a reason, and it
wasn’t to serve as a coffee-table book. It is our guide and reference.
It is our first resort to, “God speaks.”
Yes, indeed, He does, and He may very well be speaking through this
prophet. But if He is, then what has been said by that prophet will be
of a piece with what has already been said and established. God’s truth
is not one thing today and another tomorrow. There is no shadow of
turning in Him.
So, then, test but not from a place of skepticism. Test, but not from
a place of gullible acceptance. As Wuest translates for us, “be
putting all things to the test for the purpose of approving them.”
And let me add from the Message, “On the other hand,
don’t be gullible. Check out everything, and keep only what’s good.
Throw out anything tainted with evil.” And honestly, apart
from the tortured spelling, I like Tyndale’s concluding phrase here,
which I will restore to modern spelling. “Abstain
from all suspicious things.”
What is of excellent nature and characteristic? What is genuine and
approved when tested? Hold fast to that. Internalize it. Grasp hold
of the application and put it into action. That is the spirit of the
message here. But examine first. Measure against God’s Word, neither
rejecting things out of hand, nor accepting them out of hand. God
still speaks, even if we accept (as I dare say we should) that no new
revelation is forthcoming. There is still plentiful need for
illumination. And there is still need of those forewarnings of coming
events. It doesn’t need the thrill of apocalyptic vision. It really
doesn’t need the force of, “Thus sayeth the Lord,”
with pronouncements of judgment and so on. Sufficient to know that
certain events are to transpire, and let the godly discern godly
response to the news.
Just recognize that where there is God-provided information, given for
the good of His own, there are also enemy actions, injections of
misinformation, as we have come to term so much, intended to distract
and, were it possible, to destroy the sons of God. And yes, we can be
misled by such things, if only for a season. No, he cannot wrest us
from God’s hands, but he can certainly convince us to head the wrong
way, to attend to the wrong things, to believe what ought not to be
believed, and thereby to weaken ourselves and limit our effectiveness.
Examine, but don’t let skepticism poison your soul. Skepticism does
nobody any good. It is discernment that is needed, sound, biblical
judgment and a firm grip on the Truth of God. To that end, yes, I would
advise and instruct that we seek first and foremost to know His Word,
these Scriptures He has been so generous as to provide for us. Know His
Truth. Is it all relationship? No. It is indeed relationship, but not
all relationship. That relationship which claims to
be with God but has no use for His word and His Truth is not much of a
relationship is it? It may be spiritual, but on what basis shall we say
with what spirit? At the same time, intimate familiarity with God’s
Word, apart from relationship with Him, is equally valueless. We may be
able to talk a good game, and yet have no place in His kingdom. It’s of
a piece with James’ admonition that even demons believe God is one.
They have knowledge of the Truth. But it leaves them to shudder (Jas 2:19). It serves them no good.
Father, I cannot but recognize my own attitude in what is rejected
here. I have become far too skeptical of such claims, tending to
assume them false out of hand. I have shut off avenues of
communication which You might well be putting to use to get through my
thick skull. I can only ask Your forgiveness, and that You would help
me in true repentance, not as returning to old, freewheeling ways
necessarily, but neither rejecting Your message on the basis of the
messenger, nor on grounds of style. Keep my heart and mind open,
Lord, to what You are saying, however uncomfortable it may make me.
And I must ask again, it seems, that You would deal with this foolish
pride that so readily consumes me. Who am I to demand that You speak
on my terms? Forgive me. And thank You for Your patient love.
