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.
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 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.
- Josiah is described as doing what was right in the sight of the Lord- even before he had discovered the book of the Law (2 Kings 22:2).
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.
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.
