There’s an old story about a minister in a small town. This is one of those towns where everybody knows everybody, even to the point of you know when somebody misses church, even if they don’t go to the same church you do. Anyway, this minister was out picking up some things at a store on a Friday night, and a man came stumbling by the store, extremely inebriated. Now the clerk in the store didn’t attend church at all, but knew that the drunk out on the sidewalk attended the church where this minister was the pastor. “Gee, preacher, isn’t that one of your disciples?” The pastor let out a sigh, and said, “He must be one of my disciples, ‘cause he sure isn’t one of the Lord’s”
Two important points to the story: One is that the reverend didn’t distance himself from his congregant just because the parishioner had fallen off the wagon; of course, he didn’t try to justify it, either. The other is that there will always be people that try to find fault with Christians, with Christianity in general, and with the Bible. It’s kind of funny, isn’t it? William Shakespeare wrote a number of plays around the time that King James had the Bible translated into English. All of Shakespeare’s works continue to be performed and published using the same words that the Bard wrote, even though some of those words have changed meaning. As far as I know, no person has even suggested that we should try to update Shakespeare to make his works easier to understand. There is one version of the works of William Shakespeare, and there have been no changes made (a little editorializing here and there, but the words themselves have not change). No one tries to edit Shakespeare, but many people try to edit God.
I have heard some criticism of the Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 53:7, which states, “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.” The problem is that, although Isaiah prophesied (twice in one verse) that Jesus would be oppressed and afflicted, that He would not open His mouth. Yet we know that Jesus did have a conversation with Pontius Pilate at His trial, so, the question is, how did Jesus have a conversation with Pilate without opening His mouth?
Let me start by saying that maybe Jesus’ trial before Pilate was not what Isaiah was referring to. We also know that Pilate initially refused to try Jesus, and sent Him instead to Herod. Herod attempted to try Jesus, and, quite frankly, he was much more amenable to Christ than Pilate was (even after Pilate’s wife said to leave “that just man” alone). When Jesus was taken before Herod, He refused to speak to Herod at all. In the natural, that seems pretty stupid. If Jesus were just a flesh and blood con artist, he probably could have come up with some trick, some illusion, some argument to convince Herod to let him go, but He refused to even talk to Herod. Before Herod, where Jesus had the best chance of walking away from this alive, He opened not His mouth. Perhaps that’s all Isaiah meant.
I have to consider something else, though: Isaiah compares the Messiah to a lamb brought to the slaughter, or a sheep taken to be shorn, and says that He didn’t speak any more than they would. Does anyone believe that a lamb or a sheep wouldn’t bleat under those circumstances? Wouldn’t the animal have to open its mouth to bleat? Perhaps Isaiah is simply using an expression that has been lost to us in the intervening years. It doesn’t seem feasible that Isaiah intended to be taken literally, the comparison doesn’t make any sense. If Isaiah simply meant that, just as there is not going to be anything to come out of the mouth of a sheep led to slaughter that will change its fate, so, too, Jesus wasn’t going to let anything come out of His mouth that would alter the outcome of His trial, either. He had something important to do, and He was going to do it.
The real problem is that some people read the Bible out of contention, and some people read the Bible to learn from it. If you read it just to find fault with it, you will; if you read to learn from it, then you will, also. If you have trouble understanding some part of it, seek God about it.
Two important points to the story: One is that the reverend didn’t distance himself from his congregant just because the parishioner had fallen off the wagon; of course, he didn’t try to justify it, either. The other is that there will always be people that try to find fault with Christians, with Christianity in general, and with the Bible. It’s kind of funny, isn’t it? William Shakespeare wrote a number of plays around the time that King James had the Bible translated into English. All of Shakespeare’s works continue to be performed and published using the same words that the Bard wrote, even though some of those words have changed meaning. As far as I know, no person has even suggested that we should try to update Shakespeare to make his works easier to understand. There is one version of the works of William Shakespeare, and there have been no changes made (a little editorializing here and there, but the words themselves have not change). No one tries to edit Shakespeare, but many people try to edit God.
I have heard some criticism of the Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 53:7, which states, “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.” The problem is that, although Isaiah prophesied (twice in one verse) that Jesus would be oppressed and afflicted, that He would not open His mouth. Yet we know that Jesus did have a conversation with Pontius Pilate at His trial, so, the question is, how did Jesus have a conversation with Pilate without opening His mouth?
Let me start by saying that maybe Jesus’ trial before Pilate was not what Isaiah was referring to. We also know that Pilate initially refused to try Jesus, and sent Him instead to Herod. Herod attempted to try Jesus, and, quite frankly, he was much more amenable to Christ than Pilate was (even after Pilate’s wife said to leave “that just man” alone). When Jesus was taken before Herod, He refused to speak to Herod at all. In the natural, that seems pretty stupid. If Jesus were just a flesh and blood con artist, he probably could have come up with some trick, some illusion, some argument to convince Herod to let him go, but He refused to even talk to Herod. Before Herod, where Jesus had the best chance of walking away from this alive, He opened not His mouth. Perhaps that’s all Isaiah meant.
I have to consider something else, though: Isaiah compares the Messiah to a lamb brought to the slaughter, or a sheep taken to be shorn, and says that He didn’t speak any more than they would. Does anyone believe that a lamb or a sheep wouldn’t bleat under those circumstances? Wouldn’t the animal have to open its mouth to bleat? Perhaps Isaiah is simply using an expression that has been lost to us in the intervening years. It doesn’t seem feasible that Isaiah intended to be taken literally, the comparison doesn’t make any sense. If Isaiah simply meant that, just as there is not going to be anything to come out of the mouth of a sheep led to slaughter that will change its fate, so, too, Jesus wasn’t going to let anything come out of His mouth that would alter the outcome of His trial, either. He had something important to do, and He was going to do it.
The real problem is that some people read the Bible out of contention, and some people read the Bible to learn from it. If you read it just to find fault with it, you will; if you read to learn from it, then you will, also. If you have trouble understanding some part of it, seek God about it.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment