And making a
difference, having compassion indeed on some. —Jude 22
This
translation by James MacKnight of Jude 22, a difficult passage, is
suggestive of an important rule of interpretation: We
are to recognize the vital distinctions that
appear in Scripture. This means that
we are to "make a difference" between things in the Bible.
We know that Christ is more important than Moses, that the New Testament
is more relevant than the Old Testament, and that Mt. Zion is a greater
symbol of the faith than ML Sinai. And even among the things said by
Christ and his apostles, some things are more important than others. The
"make a difference" rule recognizes that while all truths are
equally true all truths are not equally important. It is true also of
error. There are errors of greater import than other errors. Our Lord not
only referred to weightier matters but to an unpardonable sin. He was
drawing the kind of distinctions that this installment deals with.
The
passage in Jude refers not to interpretation but to reclaiming those who
have fallen into sin. Those who have erred from the faith out of ignorance
and weakness are to be shown compassion, and gentle methods of persuasion
are to be used in reclaiming them. But others, as the following verse
shows, such as ungodly teachers who have erred through corruption of
heart, may have to be roughed up, such as "snatching them out of the
fife" of the wrath of God. One method appeals to love, the other to
fear. People are different and circumstances are different, and so we are
to "make a difference" in the way we treat them. While we are
always to act out of love, love is sometimes tender and sometimes tough.
The same loving hands that apply soothing ointment may sometimes use a scalpel.
Jesus
recognized this principle when he upbraided (implying severe language) the
cities where most of his miracles had been performed. The cities were
Korazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, and it is noteworthy that we know
little about what he did in these cities except that "most" of
his mighty works were done in them. But Jesus knew what he had done there
and he knew how much of heaven's light had been given to them. But in
their unrepentance they rejected him and turned their backs to heaven's
light. He therefore upbraided them with severe denunciation: "Woe to
you, Korazin, Woe to you, Bethsaida, if the miracles that were performed
in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long
ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you 'it will be more bearable for
Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you" (Mt. 11:21-22).
He
was even harder on Capernaum, telling them they will be brought down to
hell, and assuring them that ancient Sodom (of all people!) would have
repented and not been destroyed if they had seen such light as shone upon
Capernaum. Even wicked Sodom, therefore, would fare better in the judgment
than Capernaum. Insofar as we know these cities did not raise a hand
against Jesus and did not cast a single stone his way. They were willfully
negligent and indifferent. They could not have cared less. Is Jesus saying
that this sin is worse than sodomy?
His
attitude toward another city was different still, a mixture of compassion
and judgment: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and
stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children
together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not
willing" (Mt. 23:37). While he goes onto point to the desolation that
will come upon the city, he sees it as one day crying out, "Blessed
is he who comes in the name of the Lord."
Even
though Jerusalem had stoned the prophets and "were not willing,"
he did not judge it as he did the cities of Galilee. Only God sees the
heart and knows why people are not willing. It is much more difficult for
some people to see and accept the truth than for others. Jesus always made
the difference.
This
is the way we are to look at Scripture. We are to make a difference by
recognizing the vital distinctions that are in the Bible, such as exists
between law and grace, in the Old Testament as well as the New.
While
God is always the great lawgiver in Scripture, He is even more the God of
grace and mercy. Jesus was forceful in making this distinction. While he
knew that God had legislated all manner of laws in regard to sacrifice, he
now and again quoted Hosea 6:6, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice,
and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings," to show that it
is grace and mercy that count most with God (see ML 9:13, 12:7).
It
was only when David had grievously sinned and had drunk from the cup of
remorse that he could pray to God: "You do not desire sacrifice, or
else I would give it; You do not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices
of God are a broken spirit, A broken and contrite heart" (Ps.
51:16-17). The prophet Micah learned only in the atmosphere of a court of
law that it was not "thousands of rams or ten thousand rivers of
oil" that the Lord wanted," despite all the laws and ritual in
the Old Testament, but "He has shown you, Oman, what is good; and
what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to
walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8).
That
the God of Scripture is always and foremost a God of love, grace, and
mercy is one of the great truths of the Bible that continues to be
overlooked, one that our Lord sought in vain to teach the Pharisees. Grace
overrules law in the Old Testament and the New alike. Early on in
Scripture God is described as "The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and
gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping
mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no
means clearing the guilty" (Ex. 34:6-7). Human need always transcends
law.
Another
vital distinction in Scripture is seen in the progressive nature of
revelation, which begins rather crudely in the garden of Eden where a
snake is depicted as talking, and ends in Revelation with God speaking
from His throne, declaring He will make all things new. The brazen serpent
on a pole in the Old Testament, to which the people looked for healing,
pointed to the dying Savior on the Cross in the New Testament. The church
of wandering nomads in the Old Testament becomes the Church of Christ in
the New Testament.
Alexander
Campbell illustrated this distinction by reference to varying degrees of
light. He described the Patriarchal Age as the starlight age, for while
the revelation it received through the heads of clans was limited there
was nonetheless some light. And so Enoch walked with God and Abraham was
called the friend of God. Then came the Mosaic Dispensation or the Age of
the Prophets, which Campbell called the moonlight age, in which there was
much more light, so much that Isaiah can be referred to as "the
evangelical prophet."
At
the close of the moonlight age, on the very last page of the Old
Testament, Malachi refers to "the Sun of Righteousness" that was
soon to come, introducing what Campbell called the sunlight age, which
brought the full measure of God's revelation to man through Jesus Christ.
Since Malachi also referred to the Elijah that was to come, preparing the
way for the Messiah, Campbell saw the short dispensation of John the
Baptist as the dawn or the twilight age of God's revelation. God sends
more light as mankind is prepared to accept it - from starlight to
moonlight to the dawning of the perfect day, and at last the Sun of
Righteousness.
This
is not only beautiful imagery, but it points to a crucial distinction made
in Scripture. We are to interpret events in the Bible in reference to the
dispensation in which they occurred and by the measure of light there was
to guide the people. Moses, Abraham, and David were not always exemplary
in their behavior, but we are to judge them in the light of the age in
which they lived and not by the greater light of Christian morality. They
did not have Christ to look to as we have, and what a difference he makes!
The writer of Hebrews was very conscious of this vital distinction, for he
referred to the worthy saints of past ages as not having received
"the promise," and then adds, "God having provided
something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from
us" (14eb. 11:40). But he also makes the point that as we have
greater light we have greater responsibility!
We
interpret the Bible more responsibly when we recognize the many
distinctions it makes, such as between unbelief and disbelief, though the
English translation may not always make this distinction immediately
apparent. Unbelief is the result of having never heard, while disbelief is
having heard and rejected the message. It is always the disbeliever that
is condemned in Scripture, not the unbeliever.
The
distinction between the teaching or doctrine of the apostles and the
preaching of the gospel is another vital distinction that the Scriptures
always make. The gospel is the good news of what God has done through
Christ, which, when believed and obeyed, makes us Christians and brings us
into fellowship with God and with each other. Once we are Christians we
are enrolled in the school of Christ, to use Biblical imagery, in which we
are taught the apostolic curriculum or the apostles' doctrine. We thus
enter into fellowship by means of the gospel; we are educated and
strengthened in the fellowship by means of doctrine. We ignore this
distinction and invite grievous errors when we suppose that everything in
the New Testament is the gospel.
We
should also recognize the distinction between a covenant and the writings
of a covenant people. The old covenant is not what we call the Old
Testament, but the law that God gave to Moses on Mt. Sinai, the Ten
Commandments. The Old Testament is really the Old Covenant Scriptures, or
the Scriptures of a covenant people. Likewise the New Covenant is the
agreement we have with Jesus Christ, entered into upon baptism; it is
being a member of his Body, the church. The church eventually produced
writings that became part of the Holy Scriptures. We may call these the
New Testament, but they are really the New Covenant Scriptures. This means
that the New Testament (Covenant) became a reality at Pentecost, long
before there were any such writings that we call the New Testament.
This
is a most crucial distinction, for if we are to be a covenant people we
must realize that our covenantal relationship is with a Person, not a
book. That covenantal relationship with a Person produced a book, not the
other way around! This is why unity and fellowship are based upon a
covenantal relationship with Christ and with each other, not upon
conformity of agreement upon everything in what we call "the New
Testament."
We
could also have been spared lots of grief over the "marriage,
divorce, and remarriage" controversy if we had honored the
distinctions inherent in the verses used as prooftexts, such as M119:9,
which reads "Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,
and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is
divorced commits adultery." The context makes it clear that Jesus is
answering a question as to whether it is right for a man to divorce his
wife for just any reason, which he answers in the negative. It is not a
question about divorce and remarriage. Jesus' reply shows that he is
against divorce for married people, not against marriage for divorced
people. And yet the whole controversy has centered around the right of
divorced people to marry, a thing Jesus never questioned. The Bible never
questions the right of unmarried people to marry, and that is what divorce
means, that people who were once married are no longer married.
We may also err in making distinctions that the
Bible does not make, such as carving a professional clergy out of the
priesthood of all
believers, or discriminating against women when the
Scriptures insist that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Or
allowing race and color to make a difference. But that is another subject.
— the Editor.