7-4 Patient Teaching And Preaching
Patient Leading
These examples surely mean that we must look at the positive in our brethren,
without being naïve. God Himself was very patient with the Jewish
difficulty in accepting the Law had ended on the cross. He inspired
Paul to write that the law is being done away, even at the time
he wrote to the Corinthians, many years after Calvary (2 Cor. 3:11,13
RV). God and Paul could have taken a hard line: the Law is finished.
This is why Jesus bled and lived as He did. But they are so sensitive
to the difficulty of others
in accepting what we know to be concrete truth. And we must take
our lesson. In our witness to the world, we mustn’t give up at the
first sign of wrong doctrine or inability to accept our message.
See what is positive and work on it. And when you see weakness in
your brethren, if you observe someone asking visiting brethren for
more money than they need, somebody exaggerating their situation
to get sympathy, someone distorting things to reflect badly on someone
else, a brother with alcohol on his breath…don’t let your mind get
filled with the injustice of it all. And don’t think, either, that
some senior brethren are simply naïve. They may be showing a mature
love, living the life of grace, by knowingly overlooking something
and pressing onwards in showing the ever outgoing love of Christ
to brethren who may appear somehow dubious. Don’t think that just
because a brother says something which you think isn’t the right
interpretation of a passage that you must jump up and make
a big scene with him, because truth is at stake.
The Lord, in the examples
given above, didn’t act like that. He spoke the word to men “as
they were able to hear it”, not as He
was able to expound it. He didn’t always relay to men the
maximum level of understanding which He Himself possessed . There
is a tendency amongst some personality types to turn every disagreement
over interpretation of Scripture into a right : wrong, truth : error
scenario. Matters relating to basic doctrine are capable of being
dealt with like this. But to turn the interpretation of every Bible
verse into a conflict area is a recipe for ecclesial disaster. So
often the debate becomes personal, with a brother sure that he
is right and the other wrong, and the other must be shown to be
wrong. This leads inevitably to pride, and there is the possibility
that the other party is degraded and feels abused by the other.
We simply have to accept that much of Scripture is open to various
levels of interpretation, which if placed side by side would appear
to be contradictory. Consider, for example, how many different applications
the NT gives to Psalms 2 and 110.
This is perhaps why
the Lord seems to have let some issues go without immediate comment-
His use of the language of demons is a major example. He lost a
battle to win the war- of showing men that the power of God was
so great that there was no room for belief in the existence of demons.
Yet on the way to that end, He commanded ‘unclean spirits’ to leave
men, with the result that observers marvelled that ‘even unclean
spirits obey him!’. He didn’t on that occasion challenge the wrong
belief directly, even though this meant that in the short term the
wrong belief was perpetuated. But over time in His ministry, and
in the whole NT, reference to demons becomes less and less, as His
preaching of Truth by example and miracle made the point that these
things really don’t exist. Likewise the gods of Egypt were not specifically
stated to not exist: but through the miracles at the Exodus, it
was evident that Yahweh was unrivalled amongst all such ‘gods’,
to the point of showing their non-existence (Ex. 15:11; 18:11).
When accused of being in league with ‘satan’, the Lord didn’t read
them a charge of blasphemy. He reasoned instead that a thief cannot
bind a strong man; and likewise He couldn’t bind ‘satan’ unless
He were stronger than satan (Mk. 3:23-27). He doesn’t take the tack
that ‘satan / Beelzebub / demons’ don’t exist; He showed instead
that He was evidently stronger than any such being or force, to
the point that belief in such a concept was meaningless. Faith must
rather be in Him alone.
We must speak the word
as others are able to hear it, expressing the Truths of Christ in
language and terms which will reach them. There are some differences
within the Gospels in the records of the parables. It could be that
the different writers, under inspiration, were rendering the Lord's
Aramaic words into Greek in different styles of translation. Also,
we must bear in mind the different audiences. Mark speaks of the
four watches of the night which would have been familiar to Romans
(Mk. 13:35 cp. 6:48), whereas Lk. 12:38 speaks of the Jewish division
of the night into three watches (cp. Jud. 7:19). Yet Luke seems
to translate the Palestinian style of things into terms which were
understandable by a Roman audience. Thus Lk. 6:47; 11:33 speak of
houses with cellars, which were uncommon in Palestine; and in Lk.
8:16; 11:33 of houses with an entrance passage from which the light
shines out. The synagogue official of Mt. 5:25 becomes the "
bailiff" in Lk. 12:58. In Palestine, the cultivation of mustard
in garden beds was forbidden, whereas Lk. 13:19 speaks of mustard
sown in a garden, which would have been understandable only to a
Roman audience. It seems in these cases that inspiration caused
Luke to dynamically translate the essence of the Lord's teaching
into terms understandable to a non-Palestinian audience. Even in
Mt. 5:25 we read of going to prison for non-payment of debts, which
was not the standard Jewish practice. Imprisonment was unknown in
Jewish law. The point of all this is to show that we must match
our terms and language to our audience.
Patient Teaching
In our preaching of
the word to others or in dialogue with our brethren, there’s no
point in seeking to address every area of deviation from God’s Truth
at the same time. We must address them, but I am talking
about how we do it. You won’t get far with converting a
Pentecostal if you tell him in the same sentence that you
think the trinity is blasphemous, their claims to Spirit gift possession
are a joke, there’s no devil, and we don’t go to Heaven…far better
to take just one subject and concentrate on it, ignoring (for the
moment) whatever he may say about the other areas. I’m not saying
‘Do nothing about misbehaviour or conduct unworthy of the name of
Christ or wrong doctrine’. We must reprove and rebuke, from the
inspired word, considering ourselves whilst doing so, and disfellowship
clear false teachers. But I’m not talking about these cases. It
has been observed of Paul: “In Phil. 3 he concludes a fundamental
statement of his own Christian conviction by commending his opinion:
‘So let those of us who are mature think in this way. And if in
any way you think differently, this too will God reveal to you.
Only we must stand by that conclusion which we have already reached’
(3:15,16). That is: I am sure that mine is a correct, mature, Christian
view, and I believe that in God’s time, you will in the end share
it. But what matters is that you honestly maintain and live by the
position you have at present reached”(1).
This wisdom, I emphasize, does not and cannot apply to matters of
fundamental doctrine; but it could well be applied to many of our
squabbles .
Forbearance and tolerance
are to be characteristic of our attitude to others (Eph. 4:2; Phil.
4:5). Paul was aware that on some matters, brethren can quite honestly
hold different points of view (Rom. 14:5,6). But there is a difference
between tolerance and indifference. The tolerance which is the fruit
of the spirit is something hard to cultivate, and it can only spring
from love. It's not that we think something doesn't matter...but
rather than in sympathy with the other person, we seek to understand
why the other person is thinking and behaving as they do. There
is some truth in the saying that to know all is to forgive all.
And when false doctrine does have to be challenged, the truth must
be spoken in love (Eph. 4:15). Opponents are to be corrected
" with gentleness" (2 Tim. 2:23-25; 1 Pet. 3:15). It is
all too easy, knowing the truth as we do, to win the argument but
lose the person. And so often I have been guilty of this.
Tolerance
The Lord condemned how
the Pharisees “devoured widow’s houses”- and then straight away
we read of Him commending the widow who threw in her whole living
to the coffers of the Pharisees. It wasn’t important that the widow
saw through the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and didn’t ‘waste’ her
few pennies; her generosity was accepted for what it was, even though
it didn’t achieve what it might have done, indeed, it only abetted
the work of evil men. We read that a whole crowd "with one
accord" believed Philip's preaching of the gospel (Acts 8:6).
There was evidently a crowd mentality- every person in the crowd
had the same mindset towards Philip's preaching at that moment.
Now it seems to me that we would likely judge such momentary, mass
response as mere passing emotion. But God is more positive- the
record which He inspired counts it to them as real belief, just
as the "crowd" who followed the Lord are credited with
faith, even though soon afterwards they were doubting Him. That
indicates to me not only the hopefulness of God for human response
to His grace, but also His willingness to accept people. Or think
of the song of Zacharias in Luke 1. Clearly he understood Messiah
as the One who would bring immediate relief from the Roman occupation.
He'd misread, as many Jews do today, the Old Testament prophecies
and types which involve two comings of Messiah, and the need for
Him to firstly die the death of rejection. But all the same, we
find no hint of condemnation, but rather of commendation, for this
Godly man.
1 Cor. 1:2 can be read
several ways: “them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called
to be saints, with all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ in every place, both theirs and ours”. Paul could be saying
that Jesus Christ is Lord both of ‘us’ and also of all the congregations
of believers. But he could also mean (and the Greek rather suggests
this) that the same Jesus understood and interpreted somewhat
differently amongst the various believers “in every place”
was in fact Lord of them all. For your interpretation of the Lord
Jesus and mine will inevitably differ in some points. Now this must
of course be balanced against John’s clear teaching that those who
deny Jesus came in the flesh are in fact antiChrist.
The fact that the majority
of early Christians were illiterate surely means that their understanding
of the Lord Jesus depended to some extent upon their personal meditation
and recollections of the words about Jesus which they had heard
preached from inspired men. Yet within such an oral culture, there
would have been ample opportunity to misunderstand a few things
around the edges. It’s highly unlikely that illiterate people would
have had any comprehension of the detailed statements of faith which
exist today- and yet they were in fellowship with the Father and
Son, standing with us in Hope of the glory of God. Therefore, how
can we treat others who may differ from us over some details as
not in fellowship?
Eph. 4:12,13 speaks of how the body of Christ is built up until
we come to "the unity [or, unanimity] of the faith, and of
the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure
of the stature of the fullness of Christ". I understand this
to be describing how the body of believers is progressively educated,
matured, built up, until finally at the Lord's return we are all
brought to be like Christ, to know Him fully, and to "the unity
of the faith". The implication would therefore be that there
will never be total understanding of "the faith" in its
fullness, nor will there be "unaninimity" amongst us on
every point as a body, until the Lord is back.
The Tolerance Of
Jesus
Jn. 8:31 credits some
of the Jews with believing on Jesus- and yet the Lord goes on to
show how they didn’t ‘continue in His word’, weren’t truly confirmed
as His disciples, and were still not true children of Abraham. Yet
it would appear God is so eager to recognize any level of faith
in His Son that they are credited with being ‘believers’ when they
still had a very long way to go. The Lord condemned how the Pharisees
“devoured widow’s houses”- and then straight away we read of Him
commending the widow who threw in her whole living to the coffers
of the Pharisees. It wasn’t important that the widow saw through
the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and didn’t ‘waste’ her few pennies;
her generosity was accepted for what it was, even though it didn’t
achieve what it might have done, indeed, it only abetted the work
of evil men. The Lord was criticized for “receiving sinners” and
eating with them (Lk. 15:2). Instead of the usual and expected Greek
word dechomai, we find here the Greek prosdechomai-
He welcomed them into fellowship, symbolizing this by eating
with them. This was an act which had religious overtones
in 1st century Palestine. Notice that prosdechomai
is used by Paul to describe welcoming a brother / sister in spiritual
fellowship (Rom. 16:2; Phil. 2:29). The Lord fellowshipped people
in the belief that this would lead them to repentance, following
His Father’s pattern of using grace in order to lead people to repentance
(Rom. 2:4). He didn’t wait for people to get everything right and
repented of and only then fellowship them, as a sign that
they were up to His standards.
The Lord criticized
the people for their refusal to believe apart from by seeing signs
and wonders (Jn. 4:48). In line with this, the Lord attacks Nicodemus’
belief on the basis of the miracles, saying that instead, a man
must be born again if he wishes to see the Kingdom (Jn. 3:2,3).
But later He says that the disciples were being given miraculous
signs greater than even healing to help them believe (Jn. 11:15);
He bids people believe because they saw signs, even if they were
unimpressed by Him personally (Jn. 5:20; 10:37; 14:11). Clearly
enough, the Lord was desperate for people to believe, to come to
some sort of faith- even if the basis of that faith wasn’t
what He ideally wished. And it’s possible that His initial
high demand for people to believe not because they saw miracles
was relaxed as His ministry proceeded; for the statements that faith
was not to be based upon His miracles is found in Jn. 3 and 4, whereas
the invitations to believe because of His miracles is to be found
later in John.
Paul’s Tolerance
1 Cor. 1:2 can be
read several ways: “them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called
to be saints, with all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ in every place, both theirs and ours”. Paul could be saying
that Jesus Christ is Lord both of ‘us’ and also of all the congregations
of believers. But he could also mean (and the Greek rather suggests
this) that the same Jesus understood and interpreted somewhat
differently amongst the various believers “in every place” was
in fact Lord of them all. For your interpretation of the Lord Jesus
and mine will inevitably differ in some points. Now this must of
course be balanced against John’s clear teaching that those who
deny Jesus came in the flesh are in fact antiChrist. The fact that
the majority of early Christians were illiterate surely means that
their understanding of the Lord Jesus depended to some extent upon
their personal meditation and recollections of the words about Jesus
which they had heard preached from inspired men. Yet within such
an oral culture, there would have been ample opportunity to misunderstand
a few things around the edges. It’s highly unlikely that illiterate
people would have had any comprehension of the detailed statements
of faith which exist today- and yet they were in fellowship with
the Father and Son, standing with us in Hope of the glory of God.
Therefore, how can we treat others who may differ from us over some
details as not in fellowship?
The issue of meat
offered to idols gives a valuable window into the extent of Divine
tolerance. Paul bases his position upon a Scripture, Ps. 24:1, “the
earth and its fullness are the Lord’s” (1 Cor. 10:25,26).
On that basis, he argues that all food is acceptable to eat. But-
and this is the significant bit- he accepts that despite that clear
Biblical support for his inspired position, some Christians just
can’t handle it. And he’s prepared to accept that. And
it appears that different advice was given to different churches
on the matter; for the Lord Jesus Himself condemns eating meat offered
to idols in his letters to the churches in Rev. 2:14,15,20-25. But
Paul says to other churches that in fact it is OK to eat such meat,
if you understand that idols are nothing in the world. The advice
doesn’t contradict; rather does it reflect a sensitivity to
different Christian consciences in different areas. Both the Lord
and Paul could’ve just laid a law down from Scripture; but
there is a tolerance of the fact that despite clear Biblical support,
not all believers are mature enough to accept it.
Old Testament
Examples
- Jephthah, as I
read the record, appears to have actually offered his daughter in
sacrifice. What he did was from a misunderstanding of God, as well
as His word [for according to the Mosaic law, he could have offered
a sacrifice or made a gift to redeem her]. And yet this faithfulness
to a misconception doesn’t exclude him from being listed amongst
the faithful in Hebrews 11.
- The promises to
David about the future seed and house which he would have were misinterpreted
by him, perhaps wilfully, to refer to his son Solomon. The New Testament
very clearly applies the promises to the Lord Jesus. But God is
so eager to work with men that He accepted David’s misinterpretation,
and worked along with this. David seems to have held the idea that
Yahweh could only be worshipped in the land of Israel- hence be
blames Saul for driving him out of the land and thus making acceptable
worship impossible for him (1 Sam. 26:19). This was the same misunderstanding
as held by the exiles in Babylon and also Jonah; and yet for all
that misunderstanding, David was still a man after God's own heart.
- Josiah is described as having done "that which was right
in the sight of the Lord"- even though he was ignorant of part
of God's word and law (2 Kings 22:2,10-13), not knowing all
"that is enjoined us to do" (2 Kings 22:13 RVmg.),
and not knowing all that was in "the book of the covenant"
(2 Kings 23:2). Full knowledge, even of some quite important things,
didn't stop Josiah from being credited with doing what was right
before God and not 'turning aside to the right hand or to the left'
(2 Kings 22:2). He was judged according to how well he responded
to that which he did know. And this may be a helpful window
for us into how we should feel towards those who sincerely seek
to follow the Lord and yet with imperfect knowledge. Time and again
the prophets judged Israel according to their "ways",
rather than according to their theological or academic knowledge
(Ez. 18:30). The Lord Jesus likewise commended the faith of the
Centurion, who believed Jesus could heal his servant, on the basis
that he as a Centurion, also had people under
him, whom he could command to go and come at will (Lk. 7:8). Clearly
enough, the man held the idea that his servant's illness was a result
of demons, which, in doctrinal terms, don't exist. And yet the Lord
saw beyond that misunderstanding; He was pleased with the faith
that the man had, and commends him for it, and responds to it. And
so it all seems to depend on how we deal with what understandings
we genuinely hold. It's why Luke's record paints Zacharias as a
wonderful old believer, despite the fact that he thought that the
coming of Messiah would mean immediate freedom from the Romans and
the Kingdom of God physically there and then. This, actually, was
the very misunderstanding which Jesus so laboured to correct and
deconstruct. But the record still speaks positively of Zacharias'
faith in the Christ, despite that misunderstanding by him.
Intolerance is at
the root of the divisions which tragically wreck the body of Christ.
Division is sometimes necessary- if false doctrine which denies
the truth of Christ enters in. But such occasions are rare. More
often than not, those who are ‘on the same side’ divide from each
over how to deal with individual members who stray to the periphery
of the body, in either practice or doctrinal understanding. John
Robinson incisively observed: “What dismays me is the vehemence-
and at bottom the insecurity- of those who feel that the Faith can
only be defended by branding as enemies within the camp those who
do not (2).
The significant word here is surely “insecurity”. There is indeed
a chronic insecurity in those who mount campaigns to ‘out’ others
from the one Body because of the fear that they may
allow apostasy to enter. For those who are secured in Christ, who
know that the ultimate issues of their personal future are already
decided in Him, there is no such fear nor insecurity on a personal
basis. They know whom they have believed. And no apostasy nor possible
apostasy nor thin ends of any wedges can ever affect that.
There’s of course
a great paradox associated with tolerance. What appears to be weakness,
moral cowardice, is in fact the most mature reflection of humility
and love. It also reflects faith- that God can save whom He wishes
as He wishes, without being bound by our understanding of
truth as He has revealed it to us. Intolerance in any case tends
to drive people more deeply back into their errors which we find
so intolerable. It’s not the way towards saving people nor does
it reflect any value of the individual human person, with whom God
may be uniquely working in a way He does not work with us. And of
course another part of the paradox is that Christ as a person is
the truth; and yet this surpassing fact can easily lead to
a dogmatism which claims to have found truth in its wider sense
rather than ever be seeking it, and a spirit which is not self-critical
but only critical of those who don’t agree with us. As Paul Tournier
observed: “There is no greater obstacle to the truth than the conviction
that one possesses the truth" (3).
I have seen this all too often. A woman sets about to ‘find the
truth’ and she searches everywhere and finds the truth of Christ,
but wraps it up in a system of dogma that then makes her closed-minded,
and quite the opposite to the person she once was. She adopts a
dogmatic system that simplifies and systematizes everything, reducing
everything to simple oppositions, truths and errors, resulting in
her being in bondage rather than being liberated. For the truth,
as Jesus meant it, sets free- rather than enslaves us to endless
arguments about wording and propositions. And the opposite end of
the paradox is true too. A man may be so fearful of appearing intolerant,
cutting an image of the religious bigot with his friends, that he
never expresses nor even feels the solid conviction which comes
from faith, hiding behind vague generalizations when he speaks about
his ‘faith’, careful not to show too much of that ‘religious enthusiasm’
which is so despised in society. Both these extremes can be avoided
if we realize that our tolerance must be rooted in the recognition
of our own weakness; that we so desperately need truth, we whose
very self-talk is so often untruthful and misinformed, whose
own minds are described by the Bible as the ‘devil’, a ‘false accuser’.
And yet just because of that, we need a source of truth outside
ourselves- which we find in the Lord Jesus and the Word of God.
The only way to avoid both self-deception and arrogance is to have
a standard of judgment outside of ourselves- and that, again, is
found alone in the Lord and His word. Our specific fine-tuned interpretations
of the Bible and the policy position of our church aren’t to be
confused with the overall and ultimate truth of Christ and the word
of God. So often I see what I’d call ‘automatic intolerance’- because
someone has a position or interpretation that differs with that
of the group, the church, the home Bible study group etc. to which
a person belongs, therefore that person condemns the other
automatically as ‘not of the truth’. Taking truth from our understanding
of the Word and the spirit of our Lord alone rather than
from any human person or group will help us avoid all this.
Intended Ambiguities
It's hard to avoid the conclusion that God has written His word
in such a way as to leave some things intentionally ambiguous. He
could just have given us a set of brief bullet points, written in
an unambiguous manner. But instead He gave us the Bible. Given that
most of His people over history have been illiterate, they simply
couldn't have been able to understand His word in an academic, dissective,
analytical sense. Take Rom. 5:1- it could read "Let us have
peace" (subjunctive) or "We have peace" (indicative).
The difference is merely the length of a vowel, and this would only
have been apparent in reading it, as the difference wouldn't
have been aurally discernible when the letter was publically read.
Was the "land" meant to be understood as the whole earth,
or just the land of Israel...? God "chose to reveal his son
in " Paul (Gal. 1:16). Grammatically it's unclear-
to him, in his heart, through him, or in Paul's
case? The ambiguous genitive fills the Bible- is "the
love of God", God's love to us, or our love of Him? Is the
"woe!" in Lk. 6:24-26; 11:42-52 an imprecation ['woe to']
or a lament ['alas!']? Paul even had to write and correct the Thessalonians
because they had misunderstood his inspired words about the return
of Christ as meaning they should quit their jobs as the second coming
was imminent. My point is that God could have chosen another
way to communicate with us rather than through language which inevitably
is ambiguous. And why are some of the parables capable of so many
meanings- e.g. that of the unjust steward? I find it hard to avoid
the conclusion that it is the process of our engagement with God's
word, our love of it, our integrity in considering it etc., which
is therefore more important to God than our grasping the final 'truth'
of each clause in a final, Euclidean sense. By saying this I take
nothing away from the fact that "the truth" is "in
Jesus", that there is a wonderful personal reality of salvation
for each of us in Christ, a living personal relationship with Him.
My point is simply that God's intention in giving us His word is
surely not to relay to us a heap of individual specific truths-
for the written word isn't the best way to convey such things to
simple, illiterate folk, nor indeed to computer-assisted students
of our own times. Rather does He seek us to enter into relationship
with Him and His Son, and He uses His word and its ambiguities as
a way of achieving this. The Lord Jesus used language like this-
consider how He uses the word psuche, life, in Mk. 8:34-37.
We are to lose our life in order to find life... and "what
does a man gain by winning the whole world at the cost of his true
self? What can he give to buy that self back?" (NEB). The ambigious
usage of psuche is surely in order to get us thinking about
our relationship with Him. And thus the Lord's parables often end
with questions which have open-ended, ambiguous answers, through
which we reveal and develop our relationship with Jesus- e.g. "What
will the owner of the vineyard do?" (Mk. 12:9- kill them? be
gracious to them? give them yet another chance? keep them as His
people anyway?). I am not saying that correct interpretation of
Scripture doesn't matter; rather am I saying that in some
ways, in some places, in some aspects, interpreting the Lord's words
is designed by Him to be open-ended rather than intended to lead
us all to identical conclusions.
Notes
(1)
C.K. Barrett, Paul (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press,
1994) p. 51.
(2) John
Robinson, Honest To God (London: SCM, 1963) p. 9.
(3) Paul
Tournier, The Person Reborn (New York: Harper & Row,
1975) p. 102.
|
Back
Index