‘Behold, the Lamb
of God’
ide
o amnos tou theou
College Study
72nd teaching
4.21.2013
“The Tetralemma”
Review:
So we’ve recently begun our new section in
theology, Christology, and we began it two weeks ago by raising the question
which Christology aims to answer: Who is Jesus Christ? We followed that up last
week by asking how we got Christology, how this science and study of Christ
sort of developed over time. It occurred to me that I should’ve of course
mentioned that another major step in the development of Christology was the
Protestant Reformation, when correct thinking about Christ sort of progressed
by moving backward, back to what the church used to believe and back to what
the Bible actually teaches, removing all the powerful mysticism and mythos that
had built up over the years around the figure of Christ and the Virgin Mary. So
if you’d like to tag that on to last week’s thoughts, the Reformation also
played an important role in the development of modern Christology.
Thus so far we’ve raised the central question and
we’ve seen how true Christology has developed to answer that question. Last
week we talked about history repeating itself, but how can we expect to escape
the repetition of history? How can learning about Christ keep us from being “tossed to and fro and carried about with
every wind of doctrine”? What does the word orthodox mean? What is the primary source of Christology? What does
it mean to say that the canon of Scripture is closed? When we came to talk
about the historical source of Christology, we addressed two subjects: what
were they? There were four councils which took place during the first 500 years
of Christian history, can anyone remember their names? What were the names of
the four heretics they denounced? What were the four heresies involved? Who was
the monk who developed the first organized and systematic Christology? What was
Thomas Aquinas’ approach to Christology, High or Low Christology? Why did
Aquinas never finished his final work, the Summa Theologica? And we finished
off by saying that we should deal as quickly and as ruthlessly with the sin in
our own lives as the councils dealt with the heretics in their church.
End Review
Tonight
I feel we’re still of setting up the board for Christology. We’ve got our
central question: “Who is Jesus Christ”. We now know in a nutshell how much of
Christology developed in answering that question. Tonight we’re going to dig
deeper into the issue by coming back to the identity of Christ.
How this study is going to work is
we’re going to lay down some foundational ideas, set up the board, for the next
few weeks or so as a kind of over-head view of things and then we’ll change gears and jump into the Life of Christ and begin
to look at the details. So if you feel so far like we haven’t really got to the
nitty-gritty yet, don’t worry it is coming. We’re just laying down the
groundwork for the path ahead of us.
I want to be extraordinarily careful
with this study. I recognize the profound impact both correct and incorrect
thinking about Jesus Christ can have on a person’s life, so we have to get this
right. We’ll take our time, lay down the rules as it were and do our best to
ensure that the Jesus presented before us is the real deal. Because that’s what
we want, that’s what I know I personally want and exactly what I need.
I don’t need some two-dimensional
portrayal of Jesus, some over-cultured reinterpretation, some sissy hippie or
some distant deity, some mythological figure or some merely moral teacher. I
need the real Jesus, the eternal,
living, breathing Word, the Son of God and nothing else. And I’ll bet that’s
exactly who you need too. We don’t want and don’t need a fake Jesus that we’re
comfortable around, we need the real Jesus to shock us, to draw us to our knees
in worship, to speak His impactful words to us as the real God-Man has done. We
need only the real, the unparalleled, blood-soaked, cross-determined, glorified
Jesus Christ. I want to find Him, to discover the real Jesus.
Let’s look at two passages. The first
one is in Matthew’s gospel and the second in John’s. Turn first to Matthew 11:1 and then to John 10:7.
Matthew
11:1-19 says, “Now it came to pass,
when Jesus finished commanding His twelve disciples, that He departed from
there to teach and to preach in their cities. And when John had heard in prison
about the works of Christ…”
Remember this is John the Baptist, who
had been thrown in prison because he had tried to rebuke Herod. “…[John] sent two of his disciples and said to [Jesus], ‘Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?”
A little surprising that even John the
Baptist had his doubts about Jesus’ identity. People just didn’t know what to
make of Him. No man had ever lived like Jesus lived or said the things that Jesus
said. And though John the Baptist had once proclaimed about Christ “Behold, the
Lamb of God”, it seems that as John sat in prison he began to wonder, “Hey, if
this Jesus is supposed to be the Savior, why isn’t He doing any saving; or
better yet, why isn’t He saving me?” The Jews believed their Messiah would come
to save them from the power of Rome. But they didn’t expect that Jesus had
something far greater in mind: saving them from the power of sin.
They were expecting a political
authority figure in their Messiah, but Jesus had come as a deliverer not of
cities and states but of souls.
v.4,
“Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Go and
tell John the things which you hear and see: the blind see and the lame walk;
the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor
have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he who is not offended because
of Me.’”
Sitting in the prison, John might have
begun to become offended at Jesus since it didn’t seem like Jesus was planning
any kind of prison break for John. Jesus seemed content to go about an
itinerant ministry of healing and preaching. But Jesus reminds John of what
John once believed. Jesus knew that He wasn’t meeting the common expectations
of the people, including John, about what the Savior would be but He is saying
there is a blessing in not being offended at that, and in seeing that He
doesn’t have to meet those common expectations. He is doing something greater,
meeting personal rather than national, spiritual rather than political needs.
v.7,
“As they departed, Jesus began to say to
the multitudes concerning John: ‘What did you go out into the wilderness to
see? A reed shaken by the wind? But what did you go out to see? A man clothed
in soft garments? Indeed, those who wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses.
But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I say to you, and more than a
prophet. For this is he of whom it is written: Behold, I send My messenger
before Your face, who will prepare Your way before You. Assuredly, I say to
you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the
Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. And
from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers
violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law
prophesied until John. And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who
is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”
There is a lot to unwrap there in the
words of Christ, but consider what He says next as the key for our subject
tonight: “But to what shall I liken this
generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to
their companions, and saying: ‘We played the flute for you, and you did not
dance; we mourned to you, and you did not lament.’
“For John came neither eating nor drinking,
and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and
they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and
sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children.”
It is a matter of response. Jesus is
saying that the generation in His time did not respond to John the right way,
seeing he didn’t come rejoicing and feasting, nor did they respond Jesus
Himself the right way, seeing He came eating with sinners and hanging out with
the lost. John came lamenting and they did not lament. Jesus came playing the
flute and nobody danced. The one called men to strict repentance and they said
“you’re demon-possessed!” The other came seeking the lost and eating with them
and they said “you’re a glutton and drunkard”, perhaps by implication an
insincere charlatan, a false prophet and a phony looking for the next meal
rather than looking to help the nation.
We find the same problem of response
in John 10:7-21, “Then Jesus said to them again, ‘Most
assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who ever came before
Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door. If
anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.
The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have
come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly. I am
the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. But a hired
man, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf
coming and leaves the sheep and scatters them. The hired man flees because he
is a hired man and does not care about the sheep. I am the good shepherd; and I
know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know
the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which
are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and
there will be one flock and one shepherd. Therefore My Father loves Me, because
I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay
it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it
again. This command I have received from My Father.’
“Therefore there was a division again among
the Jews because of these sayings. And many of them said, ‘He has a demon and is insane. Why do you
listen to Him?’ Others said, ‘These are not the words of one who has a demon.
Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?”
The same accusation leveled against
John, they brought to bear upon the Son of God, claiming that the holiest Man
who ever lived was demon-possessed. In the cases of both passages, it was a
question of the identity of Christ, who He was and who the generation of His
time perceived Him to be.
Tonight’s study on the identity of
Christ is entitled: “The Tetralemma”.
We have a few points ahead of us:
1. What is the Tetralemma?
2. Was Jesus a fibber?
3. Was Jesus insane?
4. Evoking a Response
1.
What is the Tetralemma?
Let me first tell you the meaning of
the word. You can probably guess at it. You all know what a dilemma is, a
problem with between two choices. Sometimes you face a dilemma in decision
making, choosing between two things, but a dilemma always deals with at least
two.
Now what about a trilemma? Well, a
trilemma is a problem dealing with three possible alternatives. When playing
soccer, should I run at Ms. Martinez and risk getting kicked in the face with
the ball? Or should I hang back and risk losing the game? Or should I let my
teammates do all the hard work and risk looking like a jerk? Those of you that
know me may have already guessed which choice I make.
But when we come to a tetralemma,
we’re talking about a step further: a logical problem with four possible
alternatives. Now our concern tonight, as mentioned, is the identity of Christ.
A Scottish preacher once said, as a
trilemma about the person of Christ: “Christ either deceived mankind by
conscious fraud, or He was Himself deluded and self-deceived, or He was Divine.
There is no getting out of this trilemma. It is inexorable.” That is
inescapable, inevitable, unstoppable.
But it was C.S. Lewis who popularized this three-part problem
about Jesus Christ, known as Lewis’ trilemma, also known by the phrase “Lord,
Lunatic or Liar”. It’s his argument attempting to prove that Jesus Christ is
God. Here is his own characteristically eloquent English out of Mere Christianity: “I am trying here to
prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him:
I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his
claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a
man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.
He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a
poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice.
Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something
worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a
demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not
come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He
has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
So assuming that we have an accurate
historical record of Jesus and His words in the gospels, and assuming that we
can interpret His words as in fact claims to be God Himself, we have the
structure of a trilemma: an argument which attempts to force you to pick an
alternative without accepting some of what Jesus said. Either He was God or He
was not.
Thus if Jesus claimed to be God and
the claim was false and He knew it was false, then He was a Liar. We cannot
trust anything He ever said to us, then. Contrary to His claim to be the Way,
the Truth and the Life, His words
would be peppered with untruths and deceptions. He would be a man masquerading
as a man of God, a swindler, a cheat and a crook, preying upon the defenseless
for His own gain. In this case, whether He was playing around with witchcraft
or alchemy or whatever tricks available, He would be anything but God. Think
more along the lines of a cunning and crafty villain. In this case, He would be
worthy of being rejected and scorned, and we should look for a real hero to
save the day.
Or… if Jesus claimed to be God and the
claim was false and He didn’t know or realize that what He was saying was
false, then He would just be speaking nonsense. And people who consistently
utter nonsense are crazy. He would be deluded as to His own nature. He wouldn’t
know who He was. He would be a Lunatic. He would deserve nothing more than to
be in a padded cell forever. In this case, any of the claims He made could be
waved off as simple madness. You certainly couldn’t call Him a moral teacher,
something which many unbelievers even recognize about Jesus, that He taught
some good morals. But how could you call a man moral if He was veritably insane
and spouting crazy-talk? He Himself would need a cure rather than being the
cure for humanity.
Or… if Jesus claimed to be God and the
claim was actually true, then you’ve got a bigger problem on your hands. You’ve
got a living breathing God to whom you must give account and by whose standards
you must live by. It is easy to dismiss a liar or a lunatic who has been dead
for many hundreds of years, but God who became a man and is still in fact out
there? That’s something else altogether.
Now we’re adopting one more
alternative and turning the trilemma into a tetralemma, and the option we’re
adding is Legend. Jesus Christ could have been either Lord, Liar, Lunatic or
Legend. It might just be that this whole Jesus-thing is merely something that
the church invented, a myth, a fairy tale just like all the folktales, the deities,
the legends of all the other religions before Christianity and since
Christianity. Jesus would then be in the same company as Hercules and Robin
Hood and Super Mario, a hero of fiction. In this case, Jesus never made any
claims to be God, since He never existed. He merely represents mankind’s
wishful thinking for a Savior, a kind of superhuman ideal of morality and
servanthood and humility, a literary archetype, but not a real Man.
There are other options some have
attempted to add, such as Guru. But Jesus could not be just a mere teacher, a
Guru, again if He claimed what He claimed and the claims were untrue He would
just be a plain Liar, teaching morals but not living up to them. So we’ll stick
with the four options, the Tetralemma, as representing the four main views
about the identity of Christ. Was He making it up? Was He a myth? Was He a
madman? Or was He the Messiah?
Obviously, we know the answer. But I
want to know why we know it, and I hope you do too. I hope you don’t believe
things just because, just because of some church, or some pastor, or some
parent told you to believe it. You’ve got to discover these things for
yourself. You might know the answer but you’ve got to know why you know it. You
have a moral obligation to believe intelligently. Otherwise, it’s just “blind
faith” and that is what can be tossed to and fro with every wind of new
doctrine.
So hopefully when we conclude this we
can say with Lewis: “…It seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor
a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may
seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.”
But this idea of Jesus as Legend I
think is perhaps the most important part of the argument, because in recent
years there has been a lot of debate about whether Jesus actually existed or
not. So here’s what we’re going to do; here’s the plan for the next few weeks.
We’re going to examine the evidence, in this case the claims of Christ as
recorded in the gospels, and see whether He was a Liar or a Lunatic. We’ll do
that tonight. Next week we’ll search for the Historical Jesus and try to
discover whether He was really a Legend or whether He is the Son of the Living God. And after that, we’ll talk about the
reliability of the gospels as historical accounts of the Life of Christ. That
ought to take us three weeks, including tonight, and then we’ll get into the
details of the Life of Christ as our main subject and be done with this
foundational work. So two parts of the Tetralemma tonight, the third part next
week, and then the records of Christ’s Life the week after that.
So let’s consider…
2.
Was Jesus a Fibber?
This was the accusation of calling
Christ a glutton and a drunkard, a man looking merely to fill his own stomach
and pockets, rather than to help people or teach the truth, in other words a
charlatan, a Liar.
Now the best way to answer this
question would be to read the whole account, all four gospels of the life of
Christ, and in addition, any other extra-biblical information and tid bits that
we could get our hands on. That’s the sort of work you’ve got to put in on your
own time, reading the words of Christ and considering His claims.
Obviously, in a group setting, it
would take far too long to exhaustively recount all of the words of Christ and
all of the accounts that others gave about Him. So we’re going to have to pick
out a few examples from Life to demonstrate that He did not lie. I’m going to
give you five examples.
First, let’s start off with an account
outside of the gospels, outside of
the Bible itself. A Stoic philosopher from the 1st century named
Mara bar-Serapion, considered by scholars to be a monotheistic pagan, mentions
Jesus in a letter dated about 73AD. That’s within one lifetime of the
crucifixion of Jesus. He writes about the deaths of three men: the murder of
Socrates, the burning of Pythagoras and the execution of a third man he
identifies as the wise king of the Jews. His purpose in the letter is to show
that these unjust deaths resulted in future punishment for those responsible.
There are no overt Christian themes in the letter.
Here’s the passage out of the letter
of Mara bar-Serapion: “What else can we say, when the wise are forcibly dragged
off by tyrants, their wisdom is captured by insults, and their minds are oppressed
and without defense? What advantage did the Athenians gain from murdering
Socrates? Famine and plague came upon them as a punishment for their crime.
What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment
their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from
executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished.
God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the
Samians were overwhelmed by the sea and the Jews, desolate and driven from
their own kingdom, live in complete dispersion.”
As far as Mara bar-Serapion was
concerned, the king of the Jews was a wise man, no doubt a reference to the
recent crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth above whose head hung the sign that read
“King of the Jews”. And who could call a man wise and yet deny the claims of
such a man as false?
Second, another reference outside of
the Bible. This one comes from the 1st century historian Flavius
Josephus. In recording the history of the Jews, Josephus writes: “About this
time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For
he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as
accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was
the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us,
Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did
not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the
prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about
him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this
day not disappeared.” You’ll find that there are several scholars who argue
about the total authenticity of this passage, however, it is not denied that
the heart of this writing is essentially authentic. Obviously, Josephus’
writings were not inspired and therefore not supernaturally preserved from
error, but his historical writing represents a clear portrayal of Christ as a
wise teacher of such people as “accept the truth”. In Josephus’ eyes, Jesus was
no liar.
Third, an account in the Bible but not
in the gospels. The apostle Paul was a Jewish Pharisee who had perhaps been in
Jerusalem and actually witnessed the crucifixion himself. Here we are closer
than Josephus, who was born shortly after the crucifixion; Paul was alive
during the event. This is an eyewitness account. Maybe Paul had even been at
Jesus trial. But after Paul’s conversion to Christianity, he wrote this: “Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as
though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be
reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we
might become the righteousness of God in Him” (II Corinthians 5:20-21). Paul, who had a Jewish background, would
have understood sin as breaking the law of God, trespassing. And the Law said
not to bear false witness. No lying. Therefore if Christ knew no sin at all,
then He simply did not lie.
Fourth, we turn to the gospel accounts
themselves. It is a historically verifiable fact that Christianity arose in 1st
century Israel and quickly spread throughout the surrounding region. In fact,
in only 300 years it went from an apparently minor Jewish offshoot of Judaism and
a new and persecuted faith, to the accepted and official religion of the Roman
empire. This immense movement, this vast institution that has so dramatically
affected all of history, and Jesus said He would build it. “And I also say to you that you are Peter,
and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not
prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).
The total uniqueness and the monumental rise of the church and its lasting
existence even to our modern age is a testament to the truth of Jesus’ claim
that He would build His church. Religions have come and gone. Movements have
started up and ceased. Revolutions have rushed through and rushed off. But
still the church endures. Today’s largest religion, Christianity, is a clear
proof that Jesus was speaking the truth.
Fifth, another historically verifiable
fact: the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. How appropriate shortly
after Easter Sunday! While we don’t have the time now to discuss the proofs for
the Resurrection (that part comes later), we can say for certain that if the Resurrection happened, then it is
a great proof for the veracity of Christ’s claims, since He in fact claimed
that He would rise from the dead. And He made that claim several times. It was
no vague prophecy. Check it out (have volunteers read): Mark 9:30-32, Mark 10:32-34,
Matthew 20:17-19, John 2:18-22 and Matthew 12:38-40.
Again, there’s not enough time to
examine the truth of every claim of
Christ, but look here: if Christ did not lie about rising from the dead, then
that’s a pretty big truth-claim right there.
So was Jesus a fibber? Is this who He
was? We shall have to say “No”. We didn’t just look at the Bible, we considered
a couple of extra-biblical sources, as well as an apostle, an eyewitness, in
addition to the actual gospels themselves. So rest assured, from the claims of
Jesus we can see that He was not a Liar.
Next alternative…
3.
Was Jesus insane?
Remember that they accused Him of
being demon-possessed and of being mad, kooky, out of his mind, insane, a
Lunatic. But while answering the question of whether Jesus was a Liar depended
on His claims, seeing if He was a Lunatic also depends upon His actions. Did
Jesus act like He was crazy? Did He
do the sort of crazy things that psychos do?
Do you ever read about Him foaming at
the mouth? Repeating the same words over and over and over mindlessly? Ranting
and raving about meaningless conspiracies? Rolling around on the floor and
screaming? Simply getting the facts of reality mixed up? Forgetting who He was
and where He was? Attacking people for no good reason? Leaving creepy
voicemails on answering machines?
No, no and no.
In fact, from a young age you read
about Him impressing people in the temple with His understanding. As a little
boy, He already had a perceptive human mind and intelligence enough to talk
with adults about guess what? Theology! (If I might throw in my two cents
there, let me say that if you’re aiming for Christ-likeness, then that includes
intelligent communication; no pretending like you’re stupid, no avoiding
theology that way). Luke 2:46-47
says “Now so it was that after three days
they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both
listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were
astonished at His understanding and answers.”
What’s more, Jesus was a Man who
demonstrated the most incredible self-control. We read about Him letting
Himself be captured, letting Himself be put on trial and everywhere practically
cooperating with the whole business of His own unjust crucifixion. He didn’t
engage in argument. He didn’t claw, bite or fight back. He didn’t scold the
Jews or the Romans, but in fact prayed for them as He hung dying at their
hands. Any lesser man would have pleaded for mercy or debated that He was
innocent. But as a Lamb before the slaughter He was silent. And assuredly any
Lunatic would have responded to the pain and submitted to the agony and would
have cried out, would never have exhibited the kind of self-control that Christ
showed.
Some have claimed that Jesus’
particular insanity may have been megalomania, claiming to be God and the Judge
of the world in the future and rising from the dead. But take a moment to
quickly compare Jesus with the megalomaniacs of history. What sets Jesus apart
is He may have made huge claims about
who He was, but He also acted like a servant. He got down and washed the feet
of His own disciples. What kind of a megalomaniac does that? What kind of a man
over-concerned with their own greatness would clean the dirty feet of His own
subordinates? Jesus was no megalomaniac. Jesus didn’t suffer from some kind of
excessive religious devotion, nor was He somehow mentally addicted to being
worshiped and praised, since He always demonstrated Himself with humility.
Everything it seems, from the way
Jesus spoke, to the way He conducted Himself, to His ability to speak to the
direct issues at hand, to His desire to help others, to His clear understanding
of God and His own mission, and even to His factual knowledge of perceivable
reality, Jesus could not have been insane. The way He acted in no way matches
up with the actions of the mentally unstable. The things He said may be
shocking, but they weren’t outright insanity.
So Jesus was no Liar and He wasn’t a
Lunatic either. Next week, we’ll consider whether He was a Legend. But we have
one final point…
4.
Evoking a Response
Earlier we had read that Jesus
compared the 1st century generation to children who played a kind of
game with each other saying: “We played
the flute for you, and you did not dance; we mourned to you, and you did not
lament.” Again, it was a problem of response.
But, friends, we can suffer from the
same problem as that original audience that audibly heard the voice of Christ
speaking to them. The character, the ministry, the whole flavor of the gospel
is likened to the flute being played, a joyful music, a delight to the ears of
the sinner lost in their sin finding suddenly their Savior. And yet if we’re
not careful, that same joyful sound of the gospel and the words of Christ can
become to us no longer music but a kind of irritating noise, or worse, they can
become to us nothing at all.
Christian ethics through history has
long played around with the idea of cardinal sins or capital vices, the worst
of the worst. But you know I think indifference ought to be considered as one
of those. One of the worst plagues upon the modern Christian life is hearing
the “flute being played”, hearing the words of Christ, and failing to respond
in any way: in other words indifference.
And it may be for any number of
reasons, but regardless of its origins, our lack of affection and devotion to
God, our carelessness toward Him, is not something which He feels indifferent
about. He feels very strongly about our indifference, about our coldness.
Matthew
15:7-8, “Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah
prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and
honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.’”
Listen carefully, I’m not advocating
sheer emotionalism. I’m not calling for us to toss and tumble around the church
in accolades of ecstasy in an attempt to be “spiritual”, but I’m asking you why
your heart may not stir at the voice of your Shepherd. Is your heart far from
the Lord?
There are many terrifying things in
the Bible, and one of the most powerful warnings comes out of Revelation, which is already a book
with some fear attached to it. Rev 4:16,
Jesus says to the Laodicean church: “So
then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out
of My mouth.” Rejected of God, do you want that to describe your life?
In that same chapter Jesus is pictured
as standing at the door and knocking in order to come in. In reading through
church history recently, I think the great tragedy of the church is not just
that it mixed with the world, not just that it compromised, not just that it
became a kind of ruthless institution, not just that it left its first love,
but that it eventually had no more room for its Founder.
Jesus, as we read, said He would build
His church. His Spirit indwelt the first Christian believers. He was everywhere
in the hearts of the early church. But eventually the church itself locked
Jesus out. And He stands not at the heart of the pagan temples, but at the door
of His own church, at the hearts of His own disciples and says “Won’t you let
me into your life?”
Don’t let indifference characterize
your Christianity. You might get everything else down and miss this one thing,
a matter of the heart, and find that you’ve nauseated Almighty God. You might
understand all doctrines, get all the theology, or to borrow a phrase: speak
with the tongues of men and angels but have no love…. and you’d be nothing.
So guys if you’re struggling with
indifference, I’m not sure why it’s there. I’m not even sure why I can be so
indifferent myself. But I know I can’t live like that. Well, in a way I
certainly can. I can get away with a lot by abusing the grace of God and
treating Christ just as carelessly and heartlessly as those who shouted for His
crucifixion and those who drove the nails through His flesh. But if I’m to be a
Christian, I cannot live like that. You and I have got to pray for the mercy
and the grace and the assistance of God to deliver us from the lukewarm heart.
God forgive us.
Look again at the example of Christ
and search out any indifference that He showed. There was none. The black
shadow of the cross stretched against all the happiness, the blessedness, the
joy of His life and ministry. It was His dark destiny lying just ahead and He
went to it with determination, with passion, with the purest love.
John
13:1, “Now before the feast of
the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come that He should depart from
this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved
them to the end.”
He loved them to the end, even the
torment and torturous end of the cross. I wonder if even in some small way,
in the scant time we spend with Him, in the few hours at church or in
fellowship, or even in the secret places of our heart, that we can somehow
reflect that back. I wonder if we can somehow fit it into our easy-going and
comfortable modern-Christianity to somehow love Him “to the end” and strip away
the indifference from our hearts, and respond
to Him.
No comments:
Post a Comment