You Were There (3/23/05)
There is a great need to step into Nathanael’s shoes in this passage, because apart from his viewpoint, the whole matter becomes rather incomprehensible. The whole exchange between him and Jesus doesn’t appear to make much sense. Of course, it seems one finds this happening a lot when people converse with the Lord. He tends to take the conversation in unexpected directions. But here, He is initiating the conversation by His comment on Nathanael’s character. That comment is certainly no cause for offense, but it is cause for some confusion on Nathanael’s part. It is especially disconcerting coming from this One his friend has said is the Messiah.
He is doubtless searching his memory, trying to recall where this man might know him from. But, he comes up empty. So, he asks Jesus point blank. He is as much as saying, “should I remember You from somewhere?” Jesus’ answer seems rather mundane. “Oh, I saw you under that tree over there.” To see Nathanael suddenly respond to this with assertions that Jesus truly is the Messiah is utterly remarkable! Why would being seen cause him to mark this man as God?
Now, I have read in other places that this scene depicts Nathanael as having been deeply in prayer, that this was the significance of his being under the fig tree. Indeed, even in the articles about him it is mentioned that the pious Jew sought to be as invisible as possible when he prayed. Now, I’d have to say that runs rather counter to what we read of the Pharisees, the paragons of piety as society saw it, but be that as it may. The fig tree being the symbol of peace and prosperity, it would certainly be a fitting place to be praying for the peace and prosperity of Israel, one supposes.
However, I don’t think it was simply the fact that Jesus saw him that convinced Nathanael. After all, try as we might to blend into the background, there is always the possibility that somebody might see us anyway. This doesn’t make them gods, just observant. No, I think the thing that grabbed Nathanael’s attention was the word Jesus used to explain Himself. “I saw you.” That word saw is eido, bespeaking perception and knowledge. This in itself is not especially exciting, either. After all, this is one of the more common words for seeing. However, I note in the lexical entries on the word that in the particular mood it is found here it can take on the sense of visiting with. Thus, in Nathanael’s ears, I think Jesus’ words become more like, “I was visiting with you there under that tree.”
Now, put those pictures together. There was Nathanael, praying earnestly to God for the nation and the people of Israel, that He might come and save them from their sins and from their oppressors. It was thus occupied that Philip found him. Now, to hear this One saying He was visiting with him in that time, well! Here is the clear answer to those very prayers. Indeed, here is the very reason that Jesus could confidently declare him one devoid of falsehood. He knew full well that Nathanael had been praying not for appearance’ sake, but out of earnest desire. He knew the sincerity of that man’s prayers because He had been there listening to that silent conversation. This was revealing a knowledge of Nathanael that no perceptive sense common to man could possibly have discerned. Seeing him would not have revealed the content of his thoughts. Listening to him would not have revealed the words of his prayers, for they were a silent communion with God, and being a silent communion with God, God alone could possibly have known his heart and mind in that moment.
Here is one more argument for this interpretation of events. It is noted in a few of the articles about Nathanael that he was perhaps more educated in the Scriptures than were these fishermen from Bethsaida. He was the scholar in the crowd. It is argued, for instance, that this was the reason for his comment about Nazareth. Like so many others, he knew that the Scriptures indicated Bethlehem and the lands of Judah as the source for Messiah. Nazareth simply didn’t fit into what was understood. Being the more educated amongst them, he might well have understood the shade of meaning in Jesus’ declaration to him as far more significant than did those others with him.
Indeed, if I were to step into the shoes of those other three for just a moment, I would have to admit to being rather perplexed by Nathanael’s reaction. Of course, John, Andrew, and Peter had been equally abrupt in their conclusions. John and Andrew had the benefit of the Baptist’s words to half convince them before ever they met this Man, but Peter had not had that benefit. He, too, had heard something from Jesus that on the surface was not all that amazing, simply that He knew who Simon’s father was. Yet that had been enough to bring Peter in. I can imagine, though, that Peter turned to his brother in that moment, wondering if perhaps Andrew had told this Man of their family. I can imagine Andrew shaking his head in response. Peter was indeed being told something that this Man had no earthly cause to know.
Nathanael, though, this was something else altogether! He was not being identified as to his family. There was nothing particularly revealing in Jesus’ declarations to him, just that He had seen the man sitting under a tree. What’s so impressive about that? Yet, here Nathanael immediately sets aside his doubts about Philip’s assessment and kneels to this One as the rightful King of Israel, calls Him the Son of God! Well! If this educated friend of theirs is convinced, how that must have reassured them! It wasn’t just the excitement of being at this camp meeting. It wasn’t just emotions and hope excited to the point of finding an answer for themselves. No! It was real! Their very rational friend was as convinced as they!
What glad news it is that Jesus does not constrain Himself to the ignorant, nor to the wise, but reveals Himself to all who have eyes to see Him! No, faith is not reserved for the mindless masses. It is not a sign of foolishness, it is a reasonable and rational reaction to the data of life, the data that God has provided. Nathanael’s faith was not an emotional response, it was a reasonable and reasoned reaction to what he was experiencing. If one comes with knowledge of our unspoken thoughts, comes claiming for all intents and purposes to have been listening in on our thoughts, is it really unreasonable to recognize Him for who He is?
New Thoughts (3/25/05-3/29/05)
This passage opens with the statement that Jesus wished to head back to Galilee. Reading this, we need to remain aware of the geography involved in that desire. This was not simply taking the ferry back across the Jordan from where John was baptizing. It was a journey that would quite probably take a few days, as He went around Samaria by way of Perea and the Decapolis. This was some fifty miles or so of linear travel, and the terrain would doubtless add many a mile to that. The point to be recognized here is that Jesus wasn’t talking a mere day trip, or a momentary departure from John’s locale. This was separation.
Contrasted to this, consider where these whom Jesus has called are from. The majority of them, all save Nathanael, are from Bethsaida on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus Himself is from Nazareth, a town some twenty five miles to the west. Nathanael’s locale is unknown, but may well have been in Cana, located about midway between these other two places. We can add to this that Peter’s family connections appear to include at least one member in Capernaum, just along the shore from Bethsaida. What strikes me is that these towns are far enough apart that we have no particular reason to expect these men to know one another.
Admittedly, here in the wilds of Judea they might feel as close to one another as family, for they are to a man far from home. However, the degree of familiarity shown here requires some explanation. I am thinking particularly of the connection between Philip and these men from the mountains. It seems clear that he and Nathanael were familiar with one another, although that could possibly be a friendship established only since they had met under John’s ministry. That might suffice to explain their connection, although if we follow the view that Nathanael and Bartholomew are one and the same, then the continuing association between these two men still suggests a longer standing relationship.
More striking still, however, is the familiarity shown regarding Jesus. If Philip had spoken of Him simply as Jesus of Nazareth, there would be no real cause for surprise here. He could have learned that much about Jesus in short order, and his identifying our Lord as such in talking to Nathanael would not be particularly interesting. But, he includes the fact that Jesus was the son of Joseph. Is that something Jesus was likely to have mentioned in introducing Himself? I see no reason to think so. There is nothing elsewhere in Scripture to suggest that He held to any strong association with Joseph as His father. For Nathanael to know of the family might not be too surprising, assuming he is from Cana, for that town is not far distant from Nazareth and one could easily imagine regular commerce between these two mountain villages. However, it’s Philip that speaks of Joseph, Philip from the fishing town of Bethsaida.
Was Joseph, then, so noteworthy in the regions of Galilee that his services would be called for from such a distance? Other recognitions of Jesus’ parentage suggest he may very well have been known in that region. Perhaps he was a particularly accomplished carpenter, and therefore his services were sought after by those with sufficient income to afford him. Perhaps it was merely that the scandal surrounding his marriage to Mary had made sufficient stir to travel the vines of gossip from the mountains on down to Bethsaida. Yet, if that had been the case, it would hardly recommend Him to these young men as a likely candidate for Messiah. No, I would have to conclude that Joseph’s capabilities as a carpenter were of a sort to make him known to the surrounding towns.
This makes it all the more surprising to me that when we come to the end of the Gospels, as Jesus is looking down upon His mother from the cross, He does not instruct her to return to Joseph, but commends her instead into John’s care. What happened to Joseph? Was he still alive to see this son of his begin His ministry? If so, is it not a little bit odd that none of Jesus’ disciples note his passing? I suppose it need not be so, for the record they lay out is concerned primarily, almost exclusively with Jesus, and what does not relate most immediately with Him and with His ministry is not brought into the record. Yet, I would still expect Luke, who is so careful to note people and events that anchor his text in history, would have made mention of Joseph’s death, had it occurred during the course of the ministry.
An alternative theory might be that Joseph had passed away already before ever Jesus stood in the waters of the Jordan for baptism. It’s possible, one supposes, that the circumstances of his death played some part in his apparent notoriety in the region. Perhaps he had been fatally injured in the pursuit of his craft. Perhaps, as a carpenter, he was serving on some construction project, and an injury sustained on that job had cost him his life. It certainly happens often enough in construction work today, and things weren’t exactly safer then. Of course, this is a mystery we cannot hope to solve conclusively this side of heaven, yet it remains intriguing.
It remains intriguing particularly because in the events John describes here Nathanael is quite unfamiliar with Jesus, yet Jesus’ father is apparently recognized. Again, there are other records of this recognition of Jesus as being Joseph’s son. Perhaps this need not surprise us. I suppose if Joseph were known for his craft, it was likely known as well that he had a son. Perhaps his customers took comfort in this knowledge for the son would doubtless take up the craft of the father. Perhaps, if Joseph has indeed passed away by this point, these prior customers of his are anxious to see his son take up the trade, waiting to see if he will prove to be as talented as his father was.
For the present, I suppose it must remain a mystery, worth noting, but not worth further speculation. It must suffice to recognize that by whatever means it may have occurred, these men were known to one another, and sufficiently so that they would seek each other out with news such as this. News such as this? Why, it was news of Messiah! Surely, those who sought Him so desperately would be swift to relay the news when He was found! Remember Anna at the Temple. So soon as she had seen this Babe brought in, she had rushed on to tell every person she knew to be awaiting the Savior that He was here!
Perhaps it needed no more connection between these men than that: that they were to a man eagerly seeking Messiah’s arrival, fervently praying that He might come soon. Could it be that they had heard not only of the events surrounding John’s birth, but also of the events in Jerusalem? Recall that the magi likely came through Nazareth when they sought the Babe. Surely, that would make a bit of a stir in these country regions! Indeed, is it not likely that their visit to the humble home of Joseph and Mary was not missed by their neighbors? Could it be that this event really established Joseph as a carpenter of note? Again, it can only be supposition, but it’s interesting to think about what was happening between the lines of the Gospel. God is, after all, in the details of daily life as much as He is in those great spiritual moments we may experience.
Father, I am so glad to know that You are truly there in the details of life. While I may never know all the things You have done, all the background efforts that You have undertaken in pursuit of my purpose, Your purpose, I can take great comfort in knowing that You have done so, and You continue to do so. Holy Spirit, I am overjoyed to know that You continue to shine Your light upon my every step, to show me moment by moment where it is I am to go, what it is I am to do. I must confess, though, that of late I have not felt as if I know the least bit about my direction. You know.
I feel there is a change, yet I don’t understand exactly what that change is that You have in store. I know, it’s not my place to insist that You reveal Your plans to me, but I would ask that You reveal at least enough, Lord, to restore my peace. Oh, You are my peace. Yes, I know that. Help me to live it. God, there is such anxiousness in me, such stress. This ought not to be. My trust is in You, and yet… I have fallen into the trap of trying to see to everything myself, haven’t I? Oh, God, restore me to that place where I lean wholly upon You. You, Lord, are my strong tower of defense. You are my most perfect provider. You are my strength when I am weak. You are the lifter of my head. God! Let my heart and mind recall, through all that is happening just now, and all that isn’t, that You and You alone are my refuge, my sure hope, my firm foundation. You are my Lord and my King, and You have never lost a one who has been entrusted to Your hands!
I had thought, in looking into Philip, that there was a small possibility that Philip who drew Nathanael to Jesus was the same Philip mentioned towards the end of Acts as having hosted Paul. However, a bit of checking with the commentaries suggests that this was a different Philip, one of the seven chosen to serve tables when the apostles began to be overwhelmed by the duties of the Jerusalem church. Furthermore, these same texts seem to agree that it was this Philip who baptized the eunuch and not Philip the apostle. What am I to make of this? It is clear enough that Philip was still among the apostles in the upper room after Jesus had ascended to heaven. On what basis, then, do these commentaries choose to assign the deeds of Philip in the book of Acts to the deacon rather than the apostle? I cannot see that there is any strong reason to reach such a conclusion.
Then, I return to this Philip mentioned at the end of Acts, who is spoken of as being one of the seven. Should he be identified with the deacon Philip? While there were seven deacons named, I am not at all certain this is what Luke is referring to. After all, one thing we know of the Jerusalem church is that all who were there ‘had everything in common [] selling their property and possessions, and sharing them with all, as anyone might have need’ (Ac 2:44-45). Is it really likely that a deacon in charge of distributing this common wealth retained a house in a distant community? That just doesn’t sound right to me.
On the other hand, the seven I had in mind are the seven apostles who were together fishing when Jesus appeared to them (Jn 21:6). This is not an event mentioned in any other Gospel but John’s. Given that, how well known was the event? Sufficiently so that Luke would be likely to refer to it? I tend to think not, especially as Luke’s accounts most likely were written well before John’s. I begin to think, then, that this Philip in Caesarea was a third Philip, not the apostle and not the deacon. This might also explain why he is referred to as Philip the evangelist. It keeps him distinct from those we have met before in the course of the Gospel record.
As I will be considering Nathanael more fully at the end of this study, I’ll skip over him for the moment, except to look at his proclamation regarding this Jesus he had just met. He declares Jesus to be Rabbi, to be the Son of God, an to be the King of Israel. It would not require a great deal of stretching, I think, to find the three offices of the Messiah in that declaration. He opens by addressing Jesus as Rabbi. One major implication of that title is the role of teacher, and in matters of faith, who is the teacher but the priest? This was the order in Israel, and in fact was the order through much of western culture during the high Christian era. It was so even in the early years of America. The priest, the pastor, the reverend, call him what you will, was also the primary source of learning. Inasmuch as he taught on matters of God and godliness, he was teaching in a priestly manner.
That Jesus’ role as King is declared by Nathanael is patently obvious. He says it quite directly. “You are the King!” This was the aspect of Messiah that the nation was most anxious to see. Indeed, it was because He didn’t fit their concept of what the King ought to be like that so many rejected Him. Perhaps their teachers should have done a better job in treating of the story of David. Had God not set him as an example? Indeed, when Samuel was sent to anoint this one, he was surprised to find David was God’s choice, for he was the least in stature among his brothers. But, God declared to Samuel that He looked not on the appearance, but on the heart. It is a touchstone of our faith and belief, a foundational understanding of Christianity. Surely, it ought also to have been so for the Jewish faith! God had shown them Saul, the king of their choosing, and He had shown them David, the king of His choosing. Now, it seems they had forgotten the lesson laid at the foundation of their nation, and sought once again a king of their own choosing, one who fit their worldly images of what a hero should look like. God was not interested in their opinions. He sent the Hero of His own choosing. So few recognized Him, though it was clear to Nathanael who He was.
This leaves one further office, that of the prophet. For Jesus, the Messiah, stands as Prophet, Priest, and King over His people, the people of God. I think we can find that office in the declaration of Jesus as Son of God. The prophets were, after all, God’s spokesmen on the earth. Who better to speak for the Father than His own Son? Is that not the fulfillment of the prophetic type, to be the ultimate representative of God’s interests? Who better to present those interests than He who must inherit all?
I am put in mind, this Resurrection Sunday, that John, moreso than the other evangelists, seeks to make it clear what Jesus was about, what His being meant. How fitting, then, that he includes this announcement of Nathanael’s. It gives credence, as well, to the idea that John was that other disciple who had heard the Baptist’s declaration about Jesus. Thus, he was present at this moment to hear what Nathanael said, and what was said served to affirm the belief he already had.
The clearest of Nathanael’s declarations was, as I said, that Jesus was King of Israel. Of course, this stood quite contrary to the facts of the day, yet it remained the reason He was born, as He would later tell Pilate. What interests me in this context, though, is the word king. The Greek for this word shares its root with the English word basis. Both speak of foundation. The basis for a belief consists of the facts and experience that have led to that belief. The basis for a people, for a nation, consists of that nation’s king. This connotation is specific to the Greek. The Hebrew does not seem to hold the same sense. What makes this of interest to me is its connection with Jesus’ response. He concludes that response by declaring that these men would witness angels ascending and descending on the Son. It is that little word ‘on’ that makes the connection for us. See, ‘on’ indicates that upon which something rests as its basis, as Thayer’s has it.
That which something is on is that which upholds it and sustains it. It is the foundation, the reason, and the standard. As King of Israel, and indeed the King of all kings, Jesus stands as the foundation, the source that upholds and sustains all humanity. Shortly, He would proclaim to the Nazareth synagogue that this was the favorable year of the Lord (Lk 4:16-19). This was represented by the fact that He had been sent to preach good news to the poor, to release captivity, to bring sight to the spiritually blinded, and the put the downtrodden at liberty. He came to provide the foundation for the nations, to be the Foundation for the nations. When we acknowledge Jesus as Lord and King, we declare this for ourselves, that He is our foundation, the Strength that upholds us, and the Breath that sustains us. He is our reason, and He is our standard. His purpose, His command, is our standard. As He declares we should live, so should we live.
Now comes Jesus’ reply to Nathanael. There He declares that He is also the basis for the angels. It is on the basis of Jesus that they ascend to God. As one text put it, they first ascend to heaven because they proceed from the Son. They later descend back to Him because they serve Him as their King. It is His command that motivates them, and they return to that place of rest upon Him until His command sends them forth once more. Truly, He is the Lord of heaven and earth. All Creation shall worship Him whether it be worship offered by choice or the forced recognition of the unrepentant, all will worship Him in that final day. All will recognize that He truly is the standard of God, the rule by which all shall be measured.
One last consideration in this regard: Angels ascend from the Son into heaven, and they return to Him to await further orders. This remained true on that day of God’s wrath, when He was so horribly humiliated. Men from every nation poured out their spite upon Him, sorely abused Him, and hungered for His death. It was precisely because they sensed that He was the measure that they did so. Sin cannot bear righteousness any more than righteousness can behold sin. As John would put it, darkness rejected the Light of life. Consider Jesus’ words to Pilate in the face of that pain and shame. “If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting” (Jn 18:36). All those angels which were at His command were present and awaiting His orders.
It would have taken the briefest of thoughts to send them into action, and that action would most assuredly been decisive. But the decision of that action would not have served the purpose of the Father, though it saved His Son. Therefore, His Son would by no means order or even consider ordering that assault that was His to command. No. He is the King of all kings, and He would set the standard for His kingdom. Ever the great leader, He demands nothing of His people that He would not willingly do Himself. That remains the mark of true leadership today, and He displayed it in full!
What utter devotion to the Father He displayed on that day. Truly, no man took His life from Him, but He laid it down of His own accord. I must believe that even as He hung dying on the cross, His body sorely tried, tormented by every torment known to man, and worse, His spirit suffering those moments of separation from Holy Communion with the Father; even then all the angelic host of heaven were at His command, doubtless anxiously awaiting His slightest nod that they might sally forth to avenge His mistreatment. But He would not. He would submit Himself fully to the Father’s plan, suffer the most incredible agonies that the plan established before ever there was man, angel, or universe would be fulfilled in perfection. Even in His death throes upon that cross He was ruled by His spirit, not His flesh. Flesh would have weakened, would have called down the angels to avenge and to save. The Spirit, though, knew the purpose of God and would not falter. The Spirit saw God’s goal laid out before Him and He persevered. Like no other, He won the race, and the victory He achieved in His agony resounds through the ages. The power of His obedience continues to save to this day!
Oh, I am so thankful today that He is risen! I am more thankful still that He had cause to arise. That resurrection that we celebrate confirmed that His sacrifice had been accepted in the courts of heaven. Our sins were finally, once and for all, atoned for. The death penalty writ against us had been paid, and we were free to go. But, had He not died, there would be no resurrection. Had He not made that sacrifice, had He instead chosen to battle His way out, our sins would remain. There would be nothing for the heavenly courts to accept on our behalf, and we would remain in our doom.
Oh, glorious King! That You should suffer so on behalf of Your kingdom. Who can even begin to fathom it? Jesus! Truly You have established Yourself as our foundation, our Rock and our Refuge. Truly You have shown Yourself a leader without peer, a Shepherd in whom we can trust without the least shadow of doubt. The leaders of men may be suspect, but You, oh Lord, are not. The best of men will fail us, Lord, but You will not. When I see Your return, when I see You upon the white horse of battle, that name by which You are known, “Righteous and True”, will long since have been proved to Your sons and daughters. All glory and honor be unto You, Lord, as indeed they must be! Thank You for upholding the Standard! Thank You for establishing Yourself as our Standard.
Before I move on to considering Nathanael I just want to note one other thing. When Jesus presents Himself to those who are seeking Him, recognition is an instant thing. Whether they be seeking Him as He is manifest or not, if they truly seek Him then they know Him for who He is when they find Him. Now, I doubt that there were many at all that were seeking the Messiah as He came. To be sure, the most earnest and devout of men still had misconceptions as to who He would be and how He would come. Such is the nature of prophecy, after all, that we can never be entirely sure how the fulfillment will appear. Yet there were also those who awaited not the Messiah of Scripture, but a Messiah of their own making. This was a different matter altogether, and those who sought such a Messiah were wholly unprepared to accept Jesus when He came.
This situation has its reflection in the Church today. I sincerely doubt that there is yet a church on earth that holds to a perfect conception of God and Christ. I have no doubt at all but that every last one of us has a degree of error in our beliefs, for He who is all, over all, and in all is yet beyond our ability to wholly apprehend. That said, there are many churches whose errors are but a byproduct of our human limitations, not of any evil intent. Try though we do to ascertain the true doctrines, yet we find that the most earnest amongst us will come to differing conclusions as to what true doctrine is, though we study the same Scriptures. So long as we continue to hold that Scripture has the right of correction over our opinions, I think there is little harm in this, and the wise amongst us must needs recognize that we might be wrong. From this, we must surely recognize that denominational differences do not in themselves suffice to require that we part company one from another. The Church, the true Church, the invisible Church within the Church, remains holy and catholic as it has been from the start. Though we divide over our opinions and understanding, yet we are united by One Spirit and One Christ.
There are, however, those who go forth in the clothing of the Church but who use those clothes to disguise a pursuit of a god made in their own image, crafted to their own specifications. They continue to call this idol ‘Jesus’ but it is an idol they bow down to. The image they have created is not of the Christ revealed in Scripture, but of a Christ imagined in their own minds. The Jesus who is all love and no vengeance, who is he? He is not the Jesus found in Scripture. Those who pursue such an image seek not the Christ, but a religion devoid of consequence for sin. They will have nothing to do with God’s justice, thank you very much, it might require some change in themselves. Those who insist that the god they serve wishes for all to serve as his priests, whatever their ongoing sins may be have in so confessing confessed that they do not serve the God revealed in the pages of Holy Scripture. He has made it abundantly clear that those who serve in His house must be pure and holy as He is pure and holy. Indeed, mere physical deformities were sufficient cause to bar one from the priesthood. How much moreso the spiritual deformity evident in a lifestyle of sexual perversions?
These are but the most evident of the idolaters hiding in the pulpits. There are many more, less obvious idolatries committed in and upon the name of Christ daily. It is perhaps the worst aspect of human nature that we so desire to make God conform to our opinions rather than conforming ourselves to His. Yes, there are any number of damnable lies preached from the pulpits in this day and age, and what is worse by far is that so many will prefer to lies to the Truth. While there have been muted cries of outrage over some of the worse violations of God’s rule for His ambassadors, the majority voice has accepted the status quo. Why? How can this be? Surely, when the head of the congregation is shown to be no man of God, the congregation must either eject that man, or depart in whole to safer pasture! Yet, they remain. Whatever excuse might be offered, the sad truth is that they have preferred the lie. They would rather continue worshipping their idols than accept the responsibility of standing firm on God’s Word. They have left the Foundation. They have departed from Strength. Their lips continue to say, ‘Lord, lord,’ but the meaning has gone out of it. They have declared themselves lord, and would require the Maker of heaven and earth to bow down to their demands. Once more, the angels stand at the ready, anxious to hear the command to bring vengeance upon those who demean their Lord. It is only His mercy that restrains them yet, yet His mercy will not abide this disgrace forever. God will not be mocked! The day will come when all such idolatry in the name of Christ will be swept away. Messiah will come yet once more, and those who have been awaiting Him, and not some figment of their own imagining, will know Him in an instant even as His disciples did when first He came.
Now, there is one other thing that I need to recognize in this, and that is that there are those who are seeking. I have commented in the past on the erroneous theology behind songs like, “I found Jesus.” Indeed, some articles felt it necessary to correct Philip in this passage. He ought not to have said “We have found Him,” but rather “We have been found by Him.” Yet, who will say it thus? The fact of the matter, as shown by Nathanael’s prayers beneath the fig tree, as shown by the very fact that these men knew one another, is that they were united by the common cause of seeking Him. There are seekers out there still, looking for a Savior. However, this does not require us to establish some sort of ‘seeker friendly’ church. It requires only that we present them with the real Jesus, as real as we can present Him. It means we must present ourselves as real Christians, not poseurs, not idolaters who have created a god of our own pleasures, but real Christians, really devoted to the real Christ, really doing our utmost to live as He taught us to live.
There was nothing ‘seeker friendly’ about Jesus’ presentation of Himself, yet those who truly sought Him never seemed to have much difficulty finding Him. Indeed, He not only did nothing to make the finding easier, but seemed to go out of His way to make continuing with Him harder. The things He taught His followers were not designed to attract their devotion. The Gospel according to Jesus is not a statement that everything’s going to be just fine now that you’ve found Him. Quite the opposite! He declares quite plainly that pursuing Him is a matter of bearing a cross, of bearing persecutions, of dying daily. This is not doctrine aimed at making the believer comfortable. It is aimed solely at making the believer a believer in Truth and in Spirit. It is a doctrine that must inevitably crush the pride from us, leave us leaning as we ought, wholly upon the strong right arm of God. Would we be seeker friendly? Then let us live in the light of this simple truth: “In Him we live, and move, and have being” (Ac 17:28). When our lives reflect that we really believe this, when our lives reflect that to live is Christ, and our own death is but gain for us (Php 1:21), then we will have achieved that which will stand as a lighthouse for the seeker. No, we might not see phenomenal growth by this approach, we may not build a church that needs multiple services to handle the crowds of the ‘faithful.’ Rather, we will build a church whose works will stand the day of testing, a remnant church, small in stature, yet powerful in the Lord. That is seeker friendly!
What passes for seeker friendly in the world today is more properly world friendly, and insomuch as we are friendly to the world, just so much are we declared enemies of God! Here James on this. “You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (Jas 4:4). Therein is the Scriptural assessment of the seeker friendly church. Let us be found a people who will simply let the Gospel speak, and know that the real seekers will find Him in His Word!
Meeting the People - Nathanael (3/30/05-4/1/05)
