|
THE NORTHERN KENTUCKY SEARCHER VOLUME 6, NUMBER 36, SEPTEMBER 10, 2006 IT DEPENDS ON WHO IS RIGHT The way we describe the dispositions and deeds of others has to do with our angle of perspective. Whether we commend or condemn indicates whether or not we think something is right or wrong in some sense. There are words that we use that make precise distinctions between what would otherwise seem to be acts of the same sort. And at times these distinctions between deeds done and the distinctions between the way that they are perceived are enormously important. Who is stubborn and who is steadfast? Likely all of us have viewed someone else as being stubborn. We viewed him that way because he would not listen or could not understand information that would have led him to change his view. Perhaps he was dishonest and disallowed himself to even consider certain information that would have, upon his careful examination, caused him to change his mind. For one of the meanings of the word “stubborn,” Webster gives “obstinate.” And one of the meanings of “obstinate” is “pertinaciously adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion” (Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 583). So, the word “stubborn” connotes something that we do not commend or admire. We choose not to think of ourselves as being stubborn, and hopefully, we are not. But we must be fair in our own evaluation of ourselves as to whether or not we are fair with evidence. Interestingly, the Bible encourages a certain inflexibility once one has discovered the truth. This inflexibility is not due to being unreasonable, however. Turning loose of the truth of the gospel is viewed as unreasonable. Paul wrote, “Wherefore, my beloved, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not vain in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58 ). The word “steadfast” is hedraioi from hedraios, which means in the context “settled, steady, firm, steadfast, constant” (Harper, p. 115). Vine points out that the word hedraios come from hedra, which means “a seat.” So, the word primarily refers to being seated. One has taken his seat. He has sat down. Vine says that metaphorically, the word refers to “moral fixity.” The word “unmovable” is ametakinetoi from ametakinetos, which means, “…not capable of being moved from its place” (Linguistic Key to The Greek New Testament, p. 445). One is always to be open to reason (1 Thess. 5:21 ), but it is never reasonable to reject the gospel (2 Thess. 3:2) or to move away from it (cf. Gal. 1:6-10). Who is sowing discord and who is opposing discord? Solomon once wrote, “These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren” (Proverbs 6:16-19). On one occasion God sent the great prophet, Elijah, to confront the wicked king, Ahab. We read, “And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel? And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim” (1 Kings 18:17 -18). Obviously, two different views were expressed as to who was the actual troublemaker. Israel was in the midst of an awful drought initiated by Elijah’s prayer (Jas. 5:17,18; 1 Kings 17:1). But Elijah’s prayer came about because of the iniquity of Ahab and his family. Ahab outdistanced all other kings before him in the committing of iniquity (1 Kings 16:30). He followed the horrible course laid down by Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and he married a wicked daughter of the king of the Zidonians and followed her into Baal worship (1 Kings 16:30,31). Indeed, Elijah was certainly involved in the controversy, but Ahab and his family were the troublemakers. The greatest “discord” is that between man and God. So if a person comes along and helps restore harmony, how can he be rightly called a troublemaker? We can certainly see that from one perspective, Paul would seem “a mover of insurrections among all the Jews throughout the world” (Acts 24:5), but the evaluation was misguided. Though he was often treated as a troublemaker, perhaps there has never been a Christian on earth who has done more from spiritual peace than has he, doing what he could to turn men back to God (1 Cor. 9:20-22; cf. 1 Cor. 15:10). From one perspective, one can certainly see how that the Lord himself was viewed as a troublemaker. He came and stirred things. He exposed ignorance and hypocrisy. He seemed to be a newcomer upsetting entrenched view and undermining certain religious power that had gone wild. And at times some wielders of religious power seem to be about as reluctant to give up that political power or influence as much as the most entrenched secular and seated politician is willing to give up his government power to an opponent. Did the fact that old ways were long in place before Jesus arrived make Jesus the troublemaker? Is it simply a matter of who or what was in place first (as far as a given generation is concerned?) Is the latecomer the obvious creator of difficulty if tension develops? One can only decide as to who is the troublemaker by deciding who is in the right. Some are actual false teachers; some are falsely charged as being false teachers. Some people are stubborn; some are steadfast. Some sow discord; some expose discord and fight for harmony between man and God and man and man. Here is the real peacemaker (cf. Matt. 5:9). So, who is stubborn and who is steadfast? Who is reasonable and who is unreasonable? Who is a troublemaker and who is a peacemaker? It depends on who is right.
Max Deaver, Biblical Notes Quarterly, Vol. IV, #2
|