JOB, GOD AND SUFFERING, 7

At times when we are suffering or in some sort of trial, we, like Job, begin to make demands of God. We, as he, cry out with “Why?” questions. And when God is silent, as He usually is, we cry out more loudly and make greater and greater demands. We want answers! We want God to show Himself! But what if He did answer audibly? What would we do?

Job, through all his dialog with his friends, has become increasingly more demanding of God. Sometimes he appears to be confusing God with his friends as he makes greater and greater demands. He wants to stand before God and plead his case. Or perhaps he feels that God should stand before him and make His case. And he seems to have a growing conviction that this is going to happen!

But when it does happen – when God does speak – it is not to justify His ways to Job. It is to interrogate Job and to quiz him on matters of physics and zoology, rather than to answer any of Job’s questions.

In chapters 38-41 of the book of Job, God speaks out of the whirlwind -- the storm that had been approaching while Elihu spoke. And the name that is used here is not one of the names usually translated God, that Job and his friends have been using – EL, ELOAH, ELOHIM or SHADDAI – the Almighty. It is His covenant name YAHWEH – the LORD.

And what beautiful sarcasm is used! Some of us blush to think that the LORD would speak that way! But He does! And He tears into Job!

He introduces His quiz with a challenge to the one who had been challenging Him.

“Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
Now gird your loins like a man,
And I will ask you and you teach Me!
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding!
Who set its dimensions? Because you know!” (38:2-5)

The LORD batters Job with question after question, concerning creation, meteorology, astronomy, zoology, pointing out that Job has little knowledge of, and no control over nature. Then He concludes His first set of questions with another challenge.

“Will the fault finder complain against the Almighty?
He who reproves God must respond!” (40:2)

The LORD sounds to me like an indignant parent or school teacher reprimanding a smart-aleck kid. I believe that what He is saying is something like this. “You want to tell Me how to run My universe? Fine! Just show Me that you have knowledge of a few details of its operation and I’ll let you take control!”

But Job can’t or won’t answer any of the questions. Rather, he sees who he is and Who God is and answers accordingly.

“See, I am insignificant; what can I answer You?
I put my hand on my mouth!
Once I have spoken and I won’t answer,
Twice and will say no more!” (40:4, 5)

But the LORD is not through with Job yet! He challenges him that if he, Job can demonstrate the attributes of God, then the LORD will let him take control (40:6-14).

“Would you question My justice?
Would you condemn Me that you may be right?” (40:8)
“ … Then I will confess to you
that your right hand can save you!” (40:14)

There follows a boast and a quiz on two powerful creatures of the LORD’s creation: Behemoth and Leviathan (most likely the hippopotamus and the crocodile).

Excursus: there are a number of different views as to what these creatures are:

1. They are mythological;
2. They are real creatures that existed in Job’s day, but are extinct (mammoths? dinosaurs?);
3. They are real but other worldly creatures, like cherubim and seraphim;
4. They are literal creatures that still exist today.
I take view four as being the simplest and most plausible. According to 40:15, they had some similarities to Job (“I made with you.”) and apparently could be seen by him. All the other descriptions are from nature and we need to recognize that some of the language is hyperbole.

He says of leviathan:

“No one is so fierce as to arouse him;
So who is he who can stand before me?
And who is he who has given to Me that I should repay him?
All that is under the heavens is Mine!” (41:10, 11)
“He looks on all that is high,
He is king over all the sons of pride!” (41:34)

The LORD appears to be saying to Job, “You can’t even wrestle a crocodile – one of My creatures; how dare you think that you can wrestle with Me – the Creator?” Job and we are confronted with a rather unfamiliar and uncomfortable attribute of God, an attribute for which I don’t have a word – His ferocity? God is to be feared! He is Awesome – not in the bland sense that the word has presently come to have, but in its original meaning of inspiring awe. The LORD is at least as uncontrollable as Leviathan!

I am reminded of the passage in C. S. Lewis’, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, where Mr. and Mrs. Beaver are telling the children about Aslan, the coming deliverer of Narnia. Mr. Beaver informs them that Aslan is not a man, but a lion.

“’Ohh,’ said Susan … ‘Is he – quite safe? …’
‘Then he isn’t safe?’ said Lucy.
‘Safe?’ said Mr. Beaver … ‘Who said anything about safe? Course he isn’t safe.
But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.’”

Perhaps Job’s first reply to the LORD was simply the reaction any child would make when getting a chewing out – anything to get out of this verbal attack. But his second reply is that of a true penitent.

“I know that You can do all things
And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.” (42:2)
“ … I declared what I didn’t understand,
Things beyond me, which I didn’t know!” (42:3)
“With the hearing of the ear I have heard of You.
But now my eye sees You;
Therefore I recant,
And repent in dust and ashes!” (42:5, 6)

I don’t believe Job literally “saw” the LORD. He is saying that his knowledge of Him has been, up to this point, second hand. Now he has experienced God first hand. “He does not say in the end, ‘Now I see it all.’ He never sees it all. He sees God.” (F. I. Anderson, Job)

But of what is Job recanting and repenting?

 His ignorance? Yes, he confesses his ignorance of God.
 His too quick assumptions? Yes, he’d spoken beyond his understanding.
 His sin? But if he sinned, the LORD lost His bet!
 His sinfulness? Yes, though Job had not sinned in the particular way that his friends accused him of, or that Satan predicted he would, he recognized his own sinful state. Sin is not simply an act; it’s a condition that all human beings share. As Isaiah the prophet declared when he saw the Lord (Isaiah 6:5).
“Woe is me, I’m ruined!
For I’m a man of unclean lips
And I live among a people of unclean lips;
For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of Hosts!”

The story quickly winds down: the three friends get their comeuppance. Job is blessed again, “And Job died, an old man and full of days” (Job 42:17). We should not take from the happy ending the idea that this is universal nor that happy endings are a “promise.” Not all tales of suffering have a storybook ending, and were we to draw that “moral” from this story, we would have missed the point and pretty much wasted our time in reading the book.

There are many lessons and principles to be drawn from the book of Job and I hope I’ve touched on more than a few of the prominent ones.

But I believe the main thesis of this book is that suffering is designed by God to draw the sufferer closer to Him – to a deeper knowledge of Him. Job needed to wrestle with his questions and was permitted to think deeply on them. Job needed to hear the arguments of his “friends,” no matter how inane they may have been. But finally he needed to see God. Job started this adventure as a man of faith. We’re not told in so many words, but I believe he ended as a man of deeper faith.

The question asked throughout the book was “Can a man be right with God?” (4:17 – see: JOB, GOD AND SUFFERING) Job was right with God. He was a man of faith which is what I believe the Old Testament expression “fearing God” (1:1) means.

Some might question my conclusion. What about Job’s ten children? What about his servants? They were snuffed out without an opportunity to question their fate. What about the people of Haiti? Those who went through the tsunami of a few years ago? The holocaust? I don’t know. To attempt to sum it all up in a few sentences would be calloused at best.

All the person of faith can do is to lean harder on the only One who has all the answers.

Bill Ball
2/10/2010

YES HE IS!

I wrote my previous post with great passion. Knowing that very few people read my blog, I felt I needed to e-mail these thoughts to many of my friends and acquaintances.

It was with some reservations that I did this, feeling that I belonged to a small minority within my circle and that I might lose many of my friends and have to clean off my address book.

I was pleasantly surprised at the responses that I received. Many expressed agreement, most at least gave qualified agreement. Most were civil. Only a small percentage, however, actually responded.

Below are the replies I received. Because these were sent to me via e-mail and contained personal references, I have edited them. I have removed the senders’ names and any material that I felt might indicate who they were. I have also edited for length.

I apparently accidentally deleted at least one. I hope the sender will forgive me.
_____________

ball you're going to burn in HELL!!!!!

Love you much :-)
____________

AMEN!!!
____________

Well done!
____________

Bill,

I certainly agree with your closing reminder: God is still sovereign. And he sets up rulers and takes them down. 'Course, that includes a lot of rogues (the Hitlers, Stalins, and Amins of this world), and certainly doesn't mean God "approves" of such rulers. God raises up some rulers to bring His wrath on those who deserve it. I believe America deserves God's wrath (decades of increasing immorality, forgetting God, denying His creation, flaunting His commands): God may be setting up Obama to bring this

I long ago committed that I would never cast a vote for someone who advocated the killing of babies. This limits my allegiance in our progressively ungodly culture, but I believe reflects the heart of God.

We'll all see what happens in the months ahead. Time alone will tell if what some who warned against an Obama presidency (who are not all "intolerant" -- I think this was a bit of an unfair and certainly not irenic indictment of many who are truly concerned about the direction of our country) comes true. I hope not.

Finally...I think you overstepped a bit when you dubbed those who made accusations or expressed fears about Obama as having a "strange mixture of fear, eschatological zeal, far-right politics, and I believe, down-right racism." You included me in that assessment, and that hurts. I won't argue the point, but obviously, I believe it is untrue. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Opposition to a political candidate may be misguided, just as support for a candidate can be. But we should all try to avoid slipping from the arena of dialogue about a person's positions on critical issues into a broad-brushed impugning of their character.

(My reply: Please reread my e-mail. I did not accuse all those who opposed Obama. I did not (and still do not ) believe you are among those of whom I spoke. I don't think you are one who passed on some of the slander and fear that I was speaking of. Bill )

Thanks, bro.
____________

Bill,

Like Governor Palin and Senator McCain, I too feel good about the fact that the USA would elect a black man—even though I was torn because of Obama’s record on abortion and gay marriage and several other issues that I disagree with him on. I agree with some of the more sober conservative pundits who advocate support for our new president and hope that he will rise to the level of his rhetoric—bringing unity to the politics in Washington.
____________

YES WE CAN, YES WE CAN. I AGREE WITH YOU, THANK YOU. OUR NEW PRESIDENT WILL NEED OUR PRAYERS BECAUSE HE WILL HAVE GREAT CHALLENGES FACING HIM WHEN HE TAKES OFFICE.
_____________

Amen! We voted for McCain, but rejoiced in Obama's election for the same reasons you did! And our God IS still on His throne.

And, the same day, in California, the majority voted AGAINST gay marriage! AGAINST! CALIFORNIA!!!!! Wow!
_____________

My prayer for our new president-elect is that he doesn't meet with the same fate that Kennedy did. Of that I am very afraid because of some of the action of some of the people that are opposed to him. We will support him how ever we can.

Yes, He is still in control and I have to believe that: Dan. 2:21 and Isa. 45:7.
_____________

Bill: You are and will continue to be in my prayers. We are so polarized as a Nation that believers who have come to see their Christianity as a "Republican", "American" and "pro wealth - free enterprise" world view, seem to lack tolerance for other views. The culture views states as "Blue" or "Red" in a black or white sense, when the truth is that the conservative state of Texas is actually something like 47% Blue and 53% Red, and liberal Minnisota is something like 53% Blue and 47% Red. Even in evangelical Churches, surveys tell us that about 65% of evangelicals are politically conservative Republicans, and about 35% are politically centrist or liberal Democrats. This truth seems to be eclipsed by a surface appearance of black and white "Religious Right" contrast. I think this is because the 65% are vocal and the 35% are silent out of a desire to keep peace, or a fear of being shunned for their political viewsThanks for having the courage to be a voice of reason in the current wave of Christian polarization over non-faith issues. I sure do miss you.
____________

Amen!
____________

Thank you so much for your e-mail. I thought I was the only Christian that felt the way you do. The election of America’s first black president is a great historic time in history.

I wouldn't be as brave as you. I am so glad that you were. It heartens me to know others feel as I do. The only person I felt comfortable forwarding your message to was my sister who is for Obama, but not a Christian.
____________

Actually Bill, I agree pretty strongly with this post, but i won't be sending it to my friends ;-)

I think Obama has a pretty good idea what people are thinking, but he will face some very difficult decisions in the days ahead, as did JFK. May God give him grace, not just politically, but theologically and personally.
____________

My wife told me that God is certainly pleased that so many bibles are being opened to see what His word says. The dividing correctly part, well..................

But Bill, He really is going to take my guns away, I just know it, the dirty socialist. We miss you guys terribly. (Kennedy was a socialist too.) I think its absolutely fantastic that we have a black president. It is beautiful, I just wish it would of been Condoleezza Rice. It doesn't matter, God still holds the heart of the king in His hand.

Besides, Obama's chief of staff will be Emanuel, God with us.
____________

Hope he does great things!
____________

God is still on the very sturdy throne and I suspect He was smiling Tuesday night. He has two desires for us, unity and love...He saw both that night. Hopefully, prayerfully, this is a new direction for our country.
____________

Amen. I deleted many of the negative messages we got about Obama during the pre-election months. He wasn't our choice, but I am commanded by Scripture to pray for him and I will. I too was thankful to see blacks and whites embracing and to see "the world" celebrating over our choice. And YES, God DEFINITELY is still on the throne and always will be!! Love in Jesus,
____________

Thank you, Bill. As always, you help me see the big picture better. You can't even guess how many times I've wanted to talk with you about this election. I get a lot out reading your blogs.

Give Uni hugs from me.
With love,
____________

Uni, share this with Bill for me…I am so glad he sent his letter about his view of the election of Obama. I have long thought that Christianity was too influenced by the “fear factor” and not by intellect and reason. I find his views very uplifting. They give me hope that there are other thoughtful Christians out there. I think Pres. Bush will possibly go down as the worst President in US history. He’s a real piece of work and I’ve been saying this to whomever will listen for the last several years. I have always admired and respected John McCain but find I am very relieved he was not elected. There is no way I could support him with his views on the war in Iraq and his choice of Sarah Palin. What a horribly bad choice!

Obama will, I believe, bring a new kind of President to the White House. One that is very much needed in these discouraging times with the war and our economic crisis. I believe he will surround himself with intelligent, experienced, thoughtful people and I love the fact that his wife is such a great role model and intelligent thinker.
____________

Bill,

I agree wholeheartedly with you that God is still on the throne. However, believing that God is still on the throne does not mean that one has to celebrate the election of a person that they believe will support legislation that undermines their values. These are two different issues.

I too was moved by Obama’s election and its impact on racial issues in our nation.

I have no problem with a black man being president. Even one with the middle name “Hussein.” I’m just not that excited about this particular black man. I find it difficult to celebrate the fact that we now have the most pro-abortion President we have ever had. I’m deeply grieved by that. Yes, God is still on the throne, but that doesn’t mean I have to be excited about policy issues that are contrary to God’s Word.

I don’t know who your email was specifically aimed at. But I have to honest, to me it has a condescending, angry tone.

I have prayed for president-elect Obama every day since the election. And I have done so with sincerity, not just out of some sense of duty. I hope he has a very successful, safe term in office. However, I will continue to disagree with his pro-abortion stand and some other key policy issues, but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe God is in control.
___________

Bill, I don't share your enthusiasm for our next president and it has nothing to do with skin color, it’s about values. As a Christian I am grieved that our next president is not opposed to abortion ("Determining when life begins is above my pay grade") and in fact will probably get to appoint another pro-abortion supreme court justice which will ruin any chances that we might have to get Roe vs Wade overturned. He has also stated that he will support equal rights for same sex marriages which of course is in direct conflict with Scripture.

We agree on God's sovereignty. He has certainly allowed Obama to prevail in the election. But, we must remember that He also allowed pagan foreign kings to rule over his people in order that their hearts might be turned back to Him.

It is my Christian responsibility to pray for my leaders and I will be doing that, but I will be no happier that he is president that the people were when Nebuchadnezzar over ran Judah.
_____________

Hi Bill, Thank you for your e-mail on "Is God still on the throne". I would say absolutely! Do we support President Obama, he was not our choice, but absolutely, God is solidly in control. I wouldn't presume to guess what my other Christian friends think who have their own opinions on this subject. I'm a conservative thinker politically which has little to do with my Christian belief. But I Do still have questions about President Obama, which are not just rumors, that will hopefully be answered in the future. What that will show hopefully will be good, not bad, for our country. Incidentally the color of a person's skin has nothing to do with a person's qualification for office.

Bill, I write letters to the editor from time to time in answer to people who have been very hateful toward the Bush administration for the last eight years. I have tried hard to maintain my Christian testimony throughout. And believe me it has been a real challenge. They talk a lot about how we should be more tolerant towards others but their rhetoric oozes with intolerance against those of us who think differently than they do. I find that hypocritical to say the least. In this mornings paper these same people, now that they haven't got Bush to bash anymore are starting on the Republicans. I guess that will keep me in material to write about. I just wish people would just start being civilized.

I know none of us have all the answers and are not ever going to be perfect until we get to heaven so we just have to keep our eyes on Jesus and pray that God will guide our leaders in everything they do.

In Christ love,
____________

Bill Bsll
11/10/2008

WHAT IS WORSHIP?

When I taught Bible Study Methods at the College of Biblical Studies in Houston, I would assign different texts of Scripture in order to teach my students the various steps and methods of interpretation. I often used Revelation 5 for teaching how to do an analytical outline. I taught them to look for major breaks, pivots or changes in direction in the text.

Most students would break the chapter at verse 9: “And they sang a new song, saying …” I’d ask why they broke it there and frequently I’d be told, “That’s where the worship begins.”

“Are you sure?” I’d ask. Sometimes I’d receive a blank stare, so I’d repeat, “Are you sure that’s where the worship begins?”

“Yes. Verse 9!” I’d be told, sometimes indignantly.

“Well, what’s going on in verse 8?” I’d ask, a bit impatiently. “Read it!”

So they would. ”When He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.”

“Where does the worship begin?” I’d ask again.

“Oooh!” Verse 8!” was the usual reply.

[I’ve done this dozens of times and nearly every time the dialogue was nearly the same, as if it were rehearsed.]

Now, why do I tell this story? Because it shows that most of us don’t really know what worship is. Like my students, we have a very narrow definition. We think it’s singing in church. All that stuff about falling down and harps and incense and prayers is not considered worship.

Maybe we need to consider some definitions (always a good place to start).

Webster’s 10th Collegiate Dictionary gives the following definitions that would seem to fit our usual usages:
n. “reverence offered a divine or supernatural power; also: an act of expressing such reverence”
vt. “to honor or reverence as a divine being or supernatural power”
vi. “to perform or take part in worship or an act of worship”

One difficulty we have is that there is no exact one-word equivalent of our English word in either the Hebrew Old Testament or the Greek New Testament. The words usually translated as “worship” are Shachah in Hebrew and proskuneo in Greek, both of which in their narrowest definition mean “bow down to” or “prostrate oneself before (someone).” Sometimes they are used as signs of respect for a human being. Obviously, while bowing down may be an act of worship, it can be something other, and our idea of worship includes more than this.

There are other words in both testaments that describe worship. Abad in Hebrew and douleuo in Greek, usually translated “serve”; Yare (Hebrew) and phobeomai (Greek), translated “fear.” All of these could be translated as “worship.”

Actually, I’ve found at least 14 different word groups in the Greek New Testament that describe worship, all with slightly different nuances or aspects. (There are undoubtedly many more; I just haven’t found them yet; but I’ll keep looking.)

Worship, it seems, is much broader than our narrow categories of activities, ancient or modern. It is both personal and collective. It is both internal and external. I believe our problems and conflicts involving worship are mainly due to our narrow focus, not only on a particular aspect, but also on style.

It is interesting that four of the major passages in the New Testament that discuss worship describe what worship is not, as well as what worship is.

In John 4, when Jesus presented Himself to a Samaritan woman He had met at the well, she seemed to be trying to escape His claims by pointing out the difference in their two “denominations” – a difference in the place of worship. “Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship” (verse 20).

Jesus said to her, “Women, believe Me, and hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (verses 21-24).

Amazingly, in this brief dialogue, Jesus tells this woman two things that worship is not: It is not confined to a particular location and it is not to be done in ignorance.

And He tells her some positives: It is to be done in spirit and truth. In spirit because God Himself is Spirit. It is a communion between the spiritual aspect of our nature, that “God-conscious” aspect of our being, and God. But this does not mean our minds are to be disconnected. The word truth implies that our worship must be conformed to reality. Elsewhere (John 17:17) Jesus identifies truth with the Word of God.

But the most beautiful thing about this passage is the wonderful fact that the Father is seeking such people to be His worshipers. He desires our worship!

In Acts 17, where Paul was going head-to-head with the philosophers at Athens, he begins with the Athenian altar “to an Unknown God” and explains to them who this God is. “ … what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you” (verse 23).

“The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things” (verses 24, 25).

He explains what worship is not: It is not to be done in ignorance; it is not confined to man-made location, it is not a tangible, that is, not a matter of touch -- not something done with our hands. We do not fulfill a need of God’s by our worship – He has no needs!

Verse 29: “Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.” God is not the product of our design and craftsmanship. It is the other way around. Therefore, we are not to worship Him through representational art. But positively: “And He made from one man every nation of mankind … that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us” (verses 26, 27). He has revealed enough of Himself that He expects to be sought (cf. Romans 1:18-21 – the purpose of natural revelation).

And it is only through Christ that He can be found and worshiped. “ … God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead” (verses 30, 31).

In Philippians 3:2, 3, Paul warns his readers of the dangers of falling into the Old Testament rituals advocated by his adversaries. “Beware of the dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilators; for we are the (true) circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and do not put confidence in the flesh.”

Worship is not a ritual of the flesh in which we can take confidence, in this case, circumcision.

Worship is rather conducted in God’s Spirit (cf. John 4:23, 24). It is a glorying (literally “boasting”) in Christ.

I believe he is telling his readers that genuine worship cannot be tied to any mechanical ritual, but must be a communion between His Spirit and ours.

The glorying may well speak of outward verbal expression.

In Hebrews 12:18-28, the anonymous author devotes much material to telling his readers what worship is not.

The readers of this book were apparently Hebrew Christians who because of persecution were tempted to turn back to Old Testament rituals where they apparently felt safer. The book is full of exhortations and warnings based on the fact that in Christ we have something better.

In verses 18-21, he tells them: “For you have not come to … “ and describes the fearfulness of Mount Sinai and the giving of the Old Testament Law.

In verses 22-24, he tells them what they have come to: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.” They were no longer to be tied to a fearful religion – that of the Law; rather they belong to a religion of freedom and salvation through the work of Christ.

After some serious warnings in verses 25-27, he tells them: “Therefore since we are receiving an unshakeable Kingdom, let us have grace by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe.”

All of the above passages point us to the fact that externals of style or location, even of ritual are relatively unimportant. Worship is an interaction with the Triune God and its starting point is the spirit. It is obviously expressed outwardly and verbally and is to be done to His honor and glory. It is for His satisfaction, not ours. He doesn’t need it, but might I say, we do!

Bill Ball
9/15/2008

A BELIEVER WHO COULDN’T BE TRUSTED

There are many passages in the Scripture that are difficult to understand.  And some of these, even though they seem clear, just don’t “fit.”  Even after following all the rules of biblical interpretation – taking into account context, definitions, grammar, etc. – they just don’t fit into our understanding – our theology.

One such passage is John 2:23-25:  “Now when He (Jesus) was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, because they were observing the signs that He was doing.  But Jesus Himself was not entrusting Himself to them because He knew all, and because He did not have need that anyone should testify concerning a person, for He Himself knew what was in a person.”

The Greek word translated both as "believed" and "entrusting” is pisteuo and is used 99 times in John’s Gospel.  Every translation I know of translates this word consistently as “believe” except for the one time in this passage where it is used of Jesus “trusting” or “entrusting” Himself.

Who are these people who “believed in His name” and yet could not be trusted by Jesus?  The commentaries that I have read are unanimous that these are not really true believers.  Some comments:  “They were superficially impressed”; “There are two levels of believing”; “Not all faith is saving faith”; “Belief without trust”; “The faith which was born of wonder would be likely to cease when the wonder ceased”; “To these believers the miracles were not signs indicative of the true nature of Jesus”; and, blah, blah, blah.

The problem is that none of the commentators presents even one shred of evidence for their dogmatic statements.  In chapter 1, verses 12 and 13 of this same Gospel, John the author equates “those who believe in His name” with those “who were born … of God” and with “as many as received Him.”

“But to as many as received Him, He gave the right to become children of God – to those who believe in His name, who were born not from bloods, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of a man, but of God.”

The same expression is used in 3:18, where it is used to separate those who are “not judged” from those who are “already judged.”  In John’s First Epistle, he tells his readers:  “I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life!”

Another protest is that these people merely believed because they “saw the signs that He was doing.”  (“Signs” is John’s word for miracles.)  This is supposed to tell us that they had some lesser type of faith.  But again, neither Jesus nor John makes any distinction.  In fact, John tells us in 20:30, 31 that he recorded these signs so that people would believe!

“Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples which have not been written in this book.  But these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God so that by believing you may have life in His name.”

There is no other qualifier or disqualifier here.  Reading the above definition into 2:23-25 tells us that these were “saved people” – “born again” – “they have eternal life.”

So if these are genuine “born again believers,” the next question is, what does it mean that Jesus wasn’t “trusting Himself to them”?  And why didn’t He?  There doesn’t seem to be an immediate answer, but there is, I believe, a specific example.

The chapter divisions in our Bible are not part of the inspired text, but were added later.  And sometimes they break up the thought in a confused fashion.  The division between chapters 2 and 3 of John’s Gospel is one such incident.  If we ignore the chapter division here, we have (2:25b-3:1a):  “… He did not have need that anyone should testify concerning a person, for He Himself knew what was in a person.  Now there was a person …”  (The word translated “person” is anthropos; though it is usually translated “man,” it has the meaning of “human being” – “man” as a class or race, as distinct from animals.)  So this person named Nicodemus is John’s illustration of a truster who couldn’t be trusted.  The dialog in John 3:1ff seems to bring this out. 

Nicodemus, we are told was “of the Pharisees” and a “ruler of the Jews” (3:1), which undoubtedly means that he was a member of the Sanhedrin, the official Jewish council on religious and governmental matters.  Later Jesus refers to him as “the teacher of the Jews” (The definite article is used in the Greek text) and chides him for his ignorance of certain matters (3:10).

He comes to Jesus by night (3:2), which may simply be because it is the only convenient time he had, or more likely it suggests that this was a clandestine meeting.  John’s other uses of the word “night” seem to suggest something a bit sinister (9:4; 11:10; 13:30; 19:39; even 21:3).  Jesus carries on what appears a rather cryptic conversation regarding the New Birth and faith in Himself (3:3-21, although it’s not quite clear where Jesus’ words end and those of John, the author begin).

The story has no nice clear resolution.  We are left wondering what happened to Nicodemus.  Did he come to faith in Christ?  Was he “born again”?  Yes.  Though there is no neat ending, we can conclude from 2:23 that he was one of the many who “believed in His name.”  And I believe that his later actions show why Jesus didn’t trust Himself to him.

The next time we meet Nicodemus is in chapter 7.  The council has determined to arrest Jesus and sent officers to arrest Him, but the officers return empty handed.  They have been totally disarmed by Jesus’ teaching (7:32, 45, 46).  While the council members are raging (verses 47-49), Nicodemus (cautiously?) speaks up.

“Nicodemus (the one who came to Him before, being one of them) says to them, ‘Our Law doesn’t judge a person unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?’”  (Verses 50 and 51) bringing down a rebuke from the others (verse 52).  Again we are left to wonder, was that all he said?  Did he clam up out of fear and let the council go on with their scheming?  I know this is an argument from silence, but it would seem so.

The last thing we read about Nicodemus is in chapter 19:38-42.  Jesus has been crucified and a man named Joseph of Arimathea asks Pilate for Jesus’ body, takes it, wraps it in linen with spices and buries it.  Joseph is mentioned in all four Gospels (Matthew 27:57-60; Mark 15:43-36; Luke 23:50-53).  The other Gospels tell us that Joseph was a member of the council.  John tells us that he was “a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because of fear of the Jews” (verse 38).  John also tells us that Nicodemus also was there contributing the spices and that “they took the body of Jesus,” wrapped it and buried it (verses 39-42).

So we may conclude that Nicodemus was, like his friend Joseph, a secret disciple (as were many others. 12:42, 43).  As a prominent member of the Sanhedrin, he could attempt to add a voice of reason, but to openly confess his faith in Christ would have cost him his position and probably much more.  He didn’t openly betray or deny Christ, but like many today, he kept his faith to himself.  But when the chips were down, when all but one of the original 12 had fled-- one had betrayed Christ-- one had denied Him--, Nicodemus’ faith came out clearly into the open.

Are there believers today like those in John 2:23-25, like Nicodemus, like Joseph?  People who have genuinely believed in Christ, but are fearful of confessing Him publicly?  People whom Jesus cannot trust Himself to?  Yes, I believe there are.  I’ve been one myself at times.

There are two questions we need to ask ourselves.  The first is, am I a genuine believer in Jesus Christ as my Savior? If the answer to the first is yes, then the second question is, am I a person who can be trusted by my Savior, or am I a “secret disciple” to most of my friends and neighbors?

Bill Ball

12/1/2009
Revised  9/16/2017

A LIFE LOST

Last night, I received word that one of my students had taken his own life. Though I have been close to many who have died, this is different. Both of my parents and both of Uni’s parents have passed on. As a pastor and a hospital chaplain, I’ve spent time with many dying people.

It seems so senseless. I know and have known of many wasted lives. But I’ve also seen many of these lives saved. And while they are still alive there’s always hope. But death is final. There is no further opportunity for him to be saved.

I had talked to him just a little over a week earlier, and though he said he was angry with God and hated Christians, he had trusted Christ as his Savior.

Is he “saved”? In the sense of, “Is he in heaven?”, I believe he is. “Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? … For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, … nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:33-39).

He will stand before the judgment seat of Christ “saved, yet so as through fire” (1 Corinthians 3:15). I hope to see him one day.

But this life was wasted.

Some further thoughts:

The Bible never uses the word “suicide” and it says little, if anything directly regarding suicide as a moral issue. The Mosaic Law is silent regarding suicide, as is the New Testament.

But the Bible relates a number of suicides, making little comment on them. We should be very careful not to make “prescriptions” out of “descriptions.”

Samson (Judges 16:23-31), as a prisoner of the Philistines, blinded and forced to perform for their entertainment in the temple of their god, found a way to bring the whole building down on himself and his captors. The only comment made was that “the dead whom he killed at his death were more than those whom he killed in his life.” He is listed as a judge of Israel and is included among the heroes of faith of Hebrews 11 (vs. 32). His final act (as most of his acts) is neither commended nor condemned.

Saul (1 Samuel 31). Wounded by the Philistines, Saul took his own life to avoid humiliation by his enemies, as did his armor bearer. Again, his act is neither commended nor condemned, although he is given a sort of hero’s burial. Later, David commends those who heroically rescued Saul’s body from the Philistines (2 Samuel 2:4-7).

Ahithophel (2 Samuel 17:14, 22), David’s counselor, sided with Absalom, David’s son, in his rebellion against David. When Absalom did not follow Ahithophel’s counsel, Ahithophel committed suicide, possibly realizing that his wrong choice would catch up with him. No moral pronouncement is made.

Judas (Matthew 27:3-10; Acts 1:15-20, 25), the betrayer of Jesus, is probably the best known of all biblical suicides. It is notable that although the New Testament speaks condemningly of Judas, it is his act of betrayal, not his suicide, that is condemned.

A biblical perspective

1. The undeserved taking of a human life is a violation of the sanctity of human life (Genesis 9:6) and is to be regarded as a sin. This, it seems, would include suicide.

2. The taking of one’s own life, however, is not an “unpardonable sin.” To die with unconfessed sin would bring shame and loss of reward at the judgment seat of Christ, but the believer who commits suicide would “be saved, yet so as through fire” (1 Corinthians 3:10-15; 1 John 2:28).

3. An exception would be that of giving one’s life for another (John 15:13; Romans 5:7). This is not suicide. Jesus did this for us.

4. We who know Christ need to be aware of those around us – brothers and sisters who are hurting -- and should deal compassionately with those who have these tendencies. We can’t always know what their motives are and what their actions will be. We can’t always save them. But we can show them the love of Christ.

Bill Ball
11/3/2006

YOU ARE WHAT YOU WORSHIP

Well, not exactly -- but as the anonymous Psalmist tells us in beautiful sarcasm, we become like what we worship.  See Psalm 115:
                    2.       Why do the nations say,
                              "Where now is their God?"
                    3.       Our God is in the heavens;
                              All that He pleases, He does!
                    4.       Their idols are silver and gold,
                              The work of men's hands.
                    5.       Mouths they have but they can't speak;
                              Eyes they have but they can't see;
                    6.       Ears they have but they can't hear;
                              Noses they have but they can't smell;
                    7.       Hands they have but they can't feel.
                              Feet they have but they can't walk.
                              They can't make a sound in their throat!
                    8.       Those who make them will become like them --
                              All who thrust in them!

We may imagine that our Psalmist was engaged in a dialog or debate with some idol -- worshipper who questioned the fact that the God of Israel could not be seen, while stating that his own god was clearly visible and more "real."

"Ah yes" answers the Psalmist, "our God is invisible because He is in the heavens."  He is not claiming here that God is distant, but that He is not localized as his friend's god is.

And what's more, the God of the Psalmist is sovereign.  He is the one in control; He is not, as the idol, dependent on human creatures for His very existence.  And not only that, He is active; He does what He pleases, while though the idol has features which might indicate senses and abilities, it is incapable of any of these.   All it can do is sit there.

But then the Psalmist drives home his main attack on idol worship:  the one who made this idol will ultimately become just like it and not only the idol's maker, but anyone who puts his trust in it -- senseless and immobile.

According the Genesis 1:26 and 7, God created man -- male and female -- in His own image and likeness.  Whatever else the image of God is, it certainly includes the fact that man, like God and unlike all other earthly creatures, is a spiritual being, even though he shares a material nature with the other creatures.

But man in his idolatry has attempted to bring God down to his own material level.  So man's desire to "be like God" (Genesis 3:4) is fulfilled, except that instead of becoming like the Creator God, he has become like the god of his own creation.

But that was then; this is now.  We in the 21st century America do no worship figures made in our likeness.  We've grown beyond that in our advanced culture.  Or have we?

So, what do we worship?  What do we put our trust in?  I suppose I could list dozens of things that occupy our trust and reverence, all things of our own making, or at least, that of other humans -- things that are not necessarily "idols" in themselves, but things that can serve as gods for us.  And when they do, we as the Psalmist tells us, become like them.

We're told in Paul's letter to the Romans (8:28, 29), that God's purpose for us is to be "conformed to the image of His Son."  And we can't get there without redirecting our trust and worship to Him, or as Paul also tells us in Romans 12:2, "Stop being conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind ..."

If I'm not becoming more like Christ, what am I becoming like?

A HIGHER LOYALTY

"Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides." - Margaret Thatcher (quoted on page 158)

It seems that no one knows how to understand James Comey.  He is castigated by those on both sides of the political divide and by many in between.  Hillary Clinton blames him for her loss of the election; Donald Trump calls him a "slimeball."  And yet when he appears in interviews on TV, (and he's had a lot of them) he seems earnest and sincere.

James Comey is probably best known as the 6'-8" director of the FBI, who was fired in May of 2017 by President Donald Trump.  He was appointed to that position by Barack Obama, and had previously served as Deputy Attorney General under George W. Bush, and before that as assistant U. S. Attorney and U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.  He has had a long history of service, although many only know of him from his appearances on the TV news programs.

After it seemed Comey had receded to the background of the news cycle, he began reappearing, promoting the release of his book, A Higher Loyalty - Truth, Lies and Leadership.  He appeared in interviews by many of the TV newspersons as well as some of the late night comics.  Reactions by the interviewers were mixed, generally relaxed, though some almost sounded prosecutorial and Stephen Colbert's seemed actually congenial.

But many of the critical comments on his book were almost malicious.  It was called "bitchy;" it "torches what's left of his own reputation."  Comey "surrenders the high ground," he "descends to Trump's level" [as if that were possible]; he lets "Trump, once again get the better of him;" he lowers himself to Trump's "sordid level;" "showing that his judgment is flawed."  All these, coming from the print media, both left and right seemed to contradict our early impressions of Comey as reasonable, honest and sincere.

So of course, Uni and I had to read his book.  And we somehow did not come away with the same impressions that the news commentators did.  The book in a sense, defies categorization - it is a memoir; it is an apologetic; it is a treatise on personal ethics; and of course it has much to say about our political situation in America, while attempting to be apolitical.  It is a book, as the author lets us know, about ­truth.  Comey lets us know the inadequacy he feels in writing a book about "ethical leadership," but feels that truth is under fire in America today and that this is "a time when examination of ethical leadership would be useful."  He tells us "... there is a higher loyalty in all of our lives...The higher loyalty is to lasting values, most important the truth."

The early chapters are well-written, fascinating reading.  Comey relates many details of his childhood, youth and college experiences that he apparently believes have brought him to where he is today.  Bullied as a child (he was not an early bloomer), threatened with a gun by a burglar; taking part in bullying himself in college; all these actions making an impression that would last.  He tells of those who mentored or had an early influence on him.  One who apparently made an impact on him was a grocer named Harry Howell, of whom he said, "Looking back, even after working for presidents and other prominent leaders in and outside government, I still think Harry Howell was one of the finest bosses I have ever had." (page 34).  Quite a statement considering the many other well known figures mentioned.

While the book is filled with many examples of positive leadership style, there are also a few who serve as bad examples.  The mafia leaders he dealt with as Assistant U. S. Attorney, whose leadership style was based on personal loyalty, the mafia killers whom he dealt with who could justify their actions and appear to be otherwise normal people, of whom he commented, "Evil has an ordinary face.  It laughs, it cries, it deflects, it rationalizes, it makes great pasta." (page 27).

Then there was the influence of his wife.  "But the person who taught me the most about leadership is my wife, Patrice." (page 43).  He tells of their struggles with the early death of their son and of Patrice's campaign for early testing for Group B streptococcus which had killed him, and of the wisdom in dealing with God and suffering that she had taught James.

Which brought up to us James Comey's faith.  Uni said, "He must be a Christian ... or at least he talks and acts like a Christian ought to."  We spent much time and conversation on this topic.  Religion was his second major as a college undergraduate.  He quotes Reinhold Niebuhr and Martin Luther.  The paragraph on "God's role in human history" on page 47 reflects deep thought on God.

One could read this book superficially, simply as a series of episodes of adventure in the crime fighting profession.  We like the casual "name-dropping" and the roles he played in many national political crises.  His clash with some of President Bush's people, even his confrontation with the President himself, where he quoted Martin Luther, "Here I stand.  I can do no other." (page 96).

Yet James Comey did his best to avoid politics.  His concern was always "to do the right thing."  He speaks as one totally committed to truth and justice.  "I don't care about politics.  I don't care about expediency.  I don't care about friendship.  I care about doing the right thing.  And I would never be part of something that I believe to be fundamentally wrong.  I mean, obviously we all make policy judgments where people disagree, but I will do the right thing." (page 94), an excerpt from his confirmation hearing was taped by his wife to the refrigerator door.

We also get the idea that he had a great amount of respect for both President Bush, under whom he served as Deputy Attorney General and President Obama,.who appointed him as FBI Director.  He seemed to actually like them both and wanted them to succeed, while at the same time avoiding politics.

Of course, nearly the entire second half of the volume is taken up with matters that are still discussed in the daily news:  Hillary Clinton's e-mail investigation, the Russian influence on the 2016 election and of course his relations with, and firing by Donald Trump.  I suppose that this was the main reason many purchased this book.  The pundits of course homed in on this part of Comey's story and then criticized as mentioned above, also complaing that the book adds nothing to our knowledge of the current soap opera in Washington.

However, as for Uni and me, our motives for reading were not those of the pundits.  We both felt that here was a man with whom we could empathize, a man who sought to always "do the right thing" even at personal cost.  We felt that with all the lies and self-serving that accompany the current series of scandals, here was one man who stood above the crowd (and not just physically).

Yes, his remarks about Donald Trump are harsh, but nowhere do they descend to the level of that man.  His warnings to America are not sour-grapes or the angry reactions of his firing.  We agree with him that "Donald Trump's presidency threatens much of what is good in this nation," and that the adulation of "so-called conservative commentators, including some faith leaders ... strikes me (and us) as both hypocritical and morally wrong."  (page 25).

We believe that one reason there is so much criticism of James Comey is that very few of his critics, right or left, have ever met a man who is totally committed to "do the right thing," who believes in **a "higher loyalty."  And so they attack his person, and even worse, his motives.  Attacking a person's motives rather than his actions is wrong  headed and seems to us to show that there are no greater criticisms to levy.

We're not saying that James Comey is beyond criticism.  He may do something in the future to greatly disappoint.  But this book presents a man who is exemplary in both his motives and behavior, a man who is humble enough to examine himself - and he is much more honest in his self-evaluation than his critics.

JOB, GOD AND SUFFERING, 4

How to be a Miserable Comforter

What do we do when confronted with grief? When a friend or acquaintance or a total stranger lets go with apparently uncontrollable outbursts of tears, screams, complaints, rage, sometimes even tirades against God?

Don’t you feel you’ve just got to say something?
“It’s God’s will.”
“The Lord moves in mysterious ways.”
“There’s a reason.”
“Whom the Lord loves, He chastens.”
“You’ve got to be strong.”
“Don’t cry.”
Or perhaps quote some Bible verse that has the answer.

Here are a few things that I have actually been told, when I was going through “the slough of despond:
“You’re too negative. You’ve got to change your attitude!”
“When are you going to learn what God is trying to teach you, so that He can let up?”
“Perhaps you could tell us what you did wrong so that we can learn from your failures.”

Job’s friends were like that, it seems. They sat quietly with him until he spilled his guts. Then they felt they had to speak! The greater part of the material in the book of Job is in the form of a dialog of sorts – perhaps it could be called a debate – between Job and his three friends. It’s not clear whether the speeches were totally extemporaneous; some think they may have been previously prepared, even written down. The speakers often seem to ignore things previously said by the others, thought sometimes they do respond, even quoting (or misquoting). Perhaps we could say that each speaker had an idea of what he wanted to say before he arrived, then modified his speech as he perceived the need.

It seems reasonable to assume that whatever amount of previous preparation went into the friends’ speeches, they had some agenda agreed on before they arrived. They knew before they arrived what the problem was. Job’s rant in chapter 3 only confirmed their views. Job had sinned! That’s all there was to it! There could be no other explanation for his horrible sufferings. At least none that meshed with their theology. Perhaps we could state the views of Eliphaz and the other two in the form of a syllogism:
God only punishes sinners.
God is punishing Job.
Therefore: Job is a sinner.

Of course, we the readers, who have been let in on the heavenly bet, know better. We know that the minor premise is false, which leads to a false conclusion. However, we may attempt to explain Job’s suffering, God is not punishing Job.

Eliphaz, probably the oldest and apparently the wisest of the three, was the principle speaker, with three long (winded) speeches. Bildad also had three, Zophar only two. Between each of the friends’ speeches was Job’s reply.

Eliphaz tears into Job first. He says a few kind words, then dives into his thesis (4:7, 8).
“Remember now, what innocent man ever perished?
Or where were the upright destroyed?
As I have seen, those who plow iniquity
And those who sow evil, harvest it!”

He continues by telling Job that man can’t be right with God (4:17), that the fool and his family are cursed (5:2-4). This must have been extremely painful to a man who had just lost 10 children. Then he advises Job to submit to God.

The irony is that Job is right with God, that he has been in submission to Him – at least till these three came along!

In his second and third speeches, after Job has made some radically audacious statements, Eliphaz directly accuses Job of all sorts of sins, none of which he has any evidence for.
“Is not your wickedness great?
And is there no end to your iniquities?
You take pledges from your brothers with no reason
And take clothes from the naked.
You’ve refused water to the thirsty
And deny bread to the hungry
You’ve sent widows away empty
And broken the arms of orphans” (22:5-7, 9).

Though the whole book is filled with irony, probably the greatest irony is in Eliphaz’ third speech where he barrages Job with a series of sarcastic rhetorical questions, each of which in Eliphaz’ mind, would have a negative answer (22:2-4).
“Can a man be of use to God?
Or a wise man benefit Him?
Is there pleasure to the Almighty if you are righteous?
Or does He profit if your way is blameless?
Is it because of your piety (fear) that He arraigns you?
That He enters into judgment with you?”

We, the readers, know that the answer to all of the above is yes; God does take pleasure in Job’s righteousness. It is because of Job’s piety that he is suffering. Job’s blamelessness is a benefit to God (God wins the bet!). Eliphaz, of course, could never concede, even comprehend this because his view of God is too small. Is Job beginning to understand?

There is, of course, some truth in Eliphaz’ speeches: sometimes suffering is due to a simple cause/effect sequence which is recognizable to all. Most times it is not! And usually we can’t tell the difference. We’d like to. We like to categorize matters – put them in little boxes or baby food jars so that they are easily located. But human experiences and emotions are not like that.

In John 9:1, 2, Jesus and His disciples see a man who was blind from birth. They ask Jesus what appear to be valid questions, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

But Jesus’ answer in verse 3 throws a wrench into all speculations – theirs and ours-- “Neither this man sinned or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him!”

We just don’t know. But Jesus does. And He cares. The requirement for us is to “weep with those who weep” whatever the cause of their sufferings.

Bill Ball
1/26/2010

THE DOUBTING BAPTIST

He appeared suddenly in the desert -- a wild looking preacher who probably looked as out of place in his day as he would in ours -- his hair and beard uncut, his clothing nothing but the fur of a camel, tied with a leather belt, his diet consisting of nothing more than locusts and wild honey.  He preached a message that would probably not be too palatable to our generation and it would seem not to be too palatable to his own.  And yet people flocked to hear him in great numbers.  His ministry would undoubtedly be regarded as successful were he preaching today, with our regard for numbers as a measure.

John the Baptist is one of the most fascinating characters in the New Testament.  Luke alone in his gospel tells us the story of his miraculous birth to parents who were way beyond child bearing years, that he was a distant relative of Jesus, that he was in some way a fulfillment of prophecy and that he was "filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb" (Luke 1:15).  It is also only in Luke that we read of John's childhood and youth spent in the desert -- just one verse (1:80).

But all 4 Gospels tell us of his public ministry.  John was sent as a forerunner to prepare the way for the coming of Jesus, the Messiah, by preaching to the nation of Israel their need to repent and return to the LORD, demonstrating their repentance through baptism.  John even baptized Jesus , witnessed the Spirit's descent on Him, heard the Father's voice from heaven and testified that Jesus was "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).

But then John "quit preachin' and went to meddlin'" as the old saying goes.  He accused Herod Antipas the Tetrarch, who claimed Jewish ancestry, of violating the Mosaic Law by taking his brother's wife.  John was imprisoned by Herod, later to be beheaded.  And as John languished in prison, the man chosen by God, this bold preacher, this forerunner to the Messiah, began to have his doubts.  He began to question whether Jesus really was the one who John thought He was.

The story of John's doubts is told briefly by both Matthew and Luke in their Gospels -- just two verses in each.  Luke's version reads as follows:  "And John's disciples reported to him all these things.  And John summoned two of his disciples and sent them to the Lord saying, 'Are you the Coming One or should we expect another?'" (Luke 7:18, 19)

Neither Gospel writer gives us any more than that.  The story moves on.  But we want to stop here and ask what's going on?  What happened to John?  After all he said, after all he witnessed, after hearing these glowing reports which seemingly confirm his message, what is it that causes him to question whether Jesus is really the Coming One?

But as it so often is, the Bible is silent where we'd like it to speak.  We can only conjecture.  We can go to the commentaries, but the scholars seem as befuddled as we are.  There are many possible explanations suggested.

One idea that is sometimes put forward is that John isn't really in doubt, he is simply expressing confirmation of his previous opinions, possibly for the sake of his disciples.  I suspect that those who say this, do so because they don't like to see warts.  But the characters in the Bible are as human as we are.

And that to me is the comfort in this passage.  If someone like John can have his doubts and not be condemned, maybe God can deal comfortingly with mine.

Here is a man who felt God's call from his childhood, who had felt himself a fulfillment of prophecy, perhaps even as a child, as his parents related to him the stories of his miraculous birth, of the angelic message, even the Old Testament prophecies.

Here is a man who saw and heard an amazing witness from heaven confirming his thinking about the Messiah.  Here was a man who saw great crowds of his people turning their lives around because of his ministry.

And now here he was, sitting in a cold damp filthy prison cell, perhaps surrounded by real criminals and not knowing when his death might come.  And his disciples come and tell him about Jesus' miracles.

We can imagine that, though John had been sure that Jesus was the coming Messiah, Jesus was not living up to the popular expectation of what the Messiah would do.  And so the doubts creep in.  "Why hasn't Jesus done what is expected of Him?  Why hasn't He taken over and begun His reign?  Why hasn't He delivered His people?  Why am I -- His forerunner still sitting in prison when He could tear down the walls and free me?  I hear reports about His miracles, even His raising the dead; why doesn't He free me?  Could I have been wrong about Him?  Could He simply be just another healer?"

I know I'm just using my imagination but I and (I suspect) many others can to some extent identify with John -- even those of us involved in the ministry.  We feel we've given our lives over to serve and found that our service is not only unappreciated but condemned.  Oh sure, we've kept our heads (at least literally) but we've found ourselves in the slough of despond.  And maybe we've not asked the questions John did, but we have questioned Jesus.

It is interesting to read what happens when John's messengers come to Jesus.  Jesus doesn't give what we'd see as words of comfort.  He simply tells them to go back to John and relate what He's doing.  And He gives what appears to be a rebuke, though not a harsh one.

"And when the men had come to Him they said, 'John the Baptist sent us to you saying, 'Are you the Coming One or should we expect another?''"  (Luke 7:20)

"At that very hour Jesus healed many people of diseases and afflictions and evil spirits, and He gave sight to many blind persons.  And He answered them and said, 'Go report to John the things you've seen and heard:  blind receive sight, lame walk, lepers are cleansed and deaf hear, dead are raised, poor are preached the gospel -- and blessed is the one who does not stumble over Me!'"  (Luke 7:21-23)

But interestingly, though Jesus doesn't send comfort to John, He has nothing but praise for him after John's messengers leave.

"And as the messengers from John were going away, He began to say to the crowds about John.  'What did you go out into the desert to see?  A reed shaken by the wind?  What then did you go out to see?  A man dressed in soft clothing?  Look, those who are  dressed in splendid clothes and live in luxury are in royal palaces.  Well, what did you go out to see?  A prophet?  Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.  This is the one about whom it's written, 'Behold I'm sending my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.'  I tell you that of those born of woman there is no one greater than John -- but the least person in the Kingdom of God is greater than he"' (Luke 7:24-28).

So what do we get from this story?  I'm not sure, but here are a few thoughts.

·       God allows us to have doubts.  He knows our faith is not perfect.

·       We will never receive all the answers to all our questions in this life.

·       Jesus cares, even when He doesn't do for us what we expect Him to do.

THE TWO KINGDOMS

In my previous post I make some assertions concerning the Christian’s responsibilities toward God and toward human government. I feel I need to say more about these two relationships which frequently conflict.

Old Testament on Human Government
At least as early as the Noahic Covenant (Genesis 9:5, 6) man has been given the authority to take the life of another man. Whether we should call this the institution of human government has been debated, although it is the first place we read of God authorizing the use of force in governing. Chapter 10 tells of the division of mankind into nations after the flood and the establishment of at least one kingdom.

It is in the book of Daniel that we find some of the clearest teachings on the establishment of the nations. “His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and His dominion is from generation to generation” (4:3b). “The Most High is Ruler over the kingdom of mankind and bestows it on whom He wishes, and sets over it the lowliest of men” (4:17b, 25b). This book is the story of Hebrew believers living in a Gentile kingdom. It emphasizes over and over that God is sovereign and that all human government has been set up by Him. Even though elsewhere in the book the nations of the world are seen as ravenous beasts, they are still under the sovereign control of God.

There are, of course, many more passages of Scripture which teach this, though I hope these will suffice.

Earlier God had made a covenant with Abraham and promised that He would make him “a great nation,” which, of course, would be Israel (Genesis 12:1-3). Later God established a kingdom in Israel under the rule of David and his descendants (2 Samuel 7:5-17), “ … I will raise up your seed after you … and I will establish his kingdom … I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever” (2 Samuel 7:12, 13).

The “nations” and “peoples” of the earth are, however, in opposition to this established kingdom. “Why are the nations in an uproar and the peoples devising a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the LORD and against His Anointed” (Psalm 2:1, 2).

So we see something of a paradox in the Old Testament. God has established a particular nation/kingdom as His own, and He had also established every other nation of the world, even those which were in opposition to His nation.

The New Testament has a similar situation except that the follower of Christ does not have an earthly kingdom. He is expecting a future kingdom to be established at the return of Christ. He is both a citizen of that future kingdom and he is presently a member of the body of Christ, the church.

Jesus recognized the tension between the worldly kingdom and the heavenly in His well-known “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God that things that are God’s” (Mark 15:17; Matthew 22:21). Of course, we should be careful to interpret that saying in its context. He had been posed a question designed to trap Him. Is it lawful to pay tribute to Caesar or not?” A “yes” or “no” answer would have gotten Him into trouble, so He asked to see a denarius, the tribute coin. The denarius had Caesar’s image and so it was due him. But man is the image of God, so what is due to God is man himself.

Paul in Romans 13, recognized the fact that God established human government. He tells us that the governing authorities are established by God,” that these governing authorities are “the ordinances of God,” “God’s servants,” “God’s religious servants.”

Both Paul and Peter tell us that governing authorities have responsibilities.

They are to minister “for good” (Romans 13:4); they are to be “an avenger for wrath upon the one who practices evil” (Romans 13:4); they are to promote tranquility (1 Timothy 2:2), which I would assume means a maintaining of order; they are to punish evildoers and commend those who do good (1 Peter 2:14). To sum up: they are to promote and execute justice.

Paul tells us that we also have a responsibility toward government: to submit; to pay to them what is their due: taxes, tribute, fear, honor (Romans 13). Elsewhere he tells us that we have a responsibility to pray for “kings and all in positions of authority” (1 Timothy 2:1, 2). “To submit to rulers, authorities, to be obedient …” (Titus 3:1). Peter says much the same (1 Peter 2:13-17).

But we should be wary of any simplistic legalism which equates the two spheres and makes blind obedience to government equal to obedience to God. The New Testament has much more to say on the subject than the above passages: in fact the picture of human government is pretty negative.

Jesus twice paints a seemingly negative picture of the “leadership style” of the world’s rulers. The first time is when James and John are jostling for front seats in the future kingdom and the other ten disciples become indignant. Jesus calls them to Himself and says, “You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them and their great ones exercise authority over them. It will not be so among you …” (Matthew 20:25, 26; Mark 10:42, 43).

The second time is at the last supper when the disciples were having a dispute over which one was the greatest. Again Jesus uses similar words, “The kings of the nations lord it over them and those who exercise authority are called benefactors. But not so with you … “ (Luke 22:25, 26).

It would seem that Jesus saw the political leaders of His day as serving as negative examples of leadership for His disciples. We should note, however, that while He does not speak favorably of these leaders, neither does He condemn their actions. I believe He is simply stating the difference in leadership “style” within the two spheres. Interestingly, Peter many years later uses the same term (katakurieuō) when he tells church elders, “ … shepherd the flock of God … not as lording it over … “ them (1 Peter 5:2, 3). Apparently he got the message.

When Jesus was on trial before Pilate, He acknowledged two kingdoms. “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would be fighting so that I might not be handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36). Later in the trial when Pilate threatened that he had authority to either release or crucify Him, Jesus reminded him, “You would not have authority over me unless it had been given you from above” (John 19:11).

Paul, writing to the Corinthians believer who were fixated on wisdom, tells them that there are two types of wisdom: “the wisdom of God” and “the wisdom of men,” or “the wisdom of the rulers of this age” (1 Corinthians 2:5-7). “ … we speak God’s wisdom … which none of the rulers of this age understood, for if they had understood, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory” (2:7, 8).

This goes along with the statement in the prayer of the early disciples after persecution had begun. They quoted the second Psalm (see above) as being somehow fulfilled in the crucifixion of Christ. “For truly in this city, there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate along with the nations and the peoples of Israel” (Acts 4:27).

So where am I going with this? If I may summarize:

God, in both Testaments is seen as having established two different and sometimes conflicting entities: human government (the kingdom of man) and the kingdom of God. The believer will always find himself in tension between the two, as he in a sense is a citizen of both kingdoms. Our first allegiance, of course, must always be to the kingdom of God.

The established human government – in our case, the USA – has responsibilities, both towards its citizens and also toward God. It has its laws and has a God-given right and responsibility to enforce them, by physical force, if necessary. They are to hold people accountable for obeying their laws.

But this is not the responsibility of the church or the believers. Our responsibility is to love our neighbors as ourselves. Where we are convinced that the laws of the land are just, we are responsible to obey them.

But where we feel the laws are contrary to the law of God, we are responsible to disobey. For example, there are thousands, even millions of Christians in Muslim and communist dominated lands who regularly break the law by gathering for worship or reading the Bible.

More later.

Bill Ball
10/31/2008