God’s Ways and Man’s Ways

 

If you were starting a church--not just planting a local congregation--how would you go about it?  Would you use a group of men and women who were philosophers, politicians, prominent businessmen and educators?  After all, world movements should have the most brilliant, the most educated and most influential people available, should they not?  Nobody could expect to succeed in building an international religious movement with a rag-tag group of people who were poor, uneducated and unknown.  Such a religious movement would demand that its adherents have great wealth and power.  Otherwise, it would eventually wind up on the scrap heap of history.

 

What I have just described for you is the very opposite of what occurred with Christianity.  Can you imagine a more motley crew than the one with which Jesus Christ started the church of the living God?  There was not one Ph.D. among the whole lot.  Not one of the apostles, so far as we know, had any political aspirations, not one had any extensive business experience, not one was financially well heeled, contrary to what the health and wealth gospel preachers teach.  We do not know much about the educational backgrounds of the apostles, but it is unlikely that they had access to any form of higher education.  I am aware of Peter’s polished Greek in his first epistle, but we do not know how to explain it.  One of my graduate professors thought Peter’s excellent Greek in 1 Peter might be attributed to Silas, one of Peter’s companions, but that is pure speculation.  What influence did the Holy Spirit have on Peter’s style and grammar?  We do not know and cannot profit by speculating about it.  Incidentally, 2 Peter is rather crude Greek compared to 1 Peter.  The reason for the differences between the two letters had much to do with the content and purpose of the two letters.

 

While we are thinking about the apostle Peter, it should be helpful to think about his attitudes and behavior.  While he had many admirable qualities, he was also impetuous and easily angered.  A few incidents from the life of Peter will give us some insight into his character.  Mark tells of Christ’s going to a solitary place to pray.  Peter and some of his companions followed Jesus.  When they found him, they urged him to become a popular teacher for the multitudes.  They said to him, “All men seek thee” (Mk. 1:35-37).  Peter did not understand the schedule God had in mind for Christ’s work.  He and the men who were with him thought they should determine what Jesus would do and what he would become.

 

The apostle Peter was so excited and thrilled on the occasion of our Lord’s transfiguration.  He foolishly said, “Master, it is good for us to be here:  let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses and one for Elijah.”  Mark comments as follows on Peter’s outburst.  “For he knew not what to say: for they were sore afraid” (Mk. 9:5-6).  If he did not know what to say, why did he have to say anything?  Would he not have been better off to say nothing?  Luke writes a little more tersely of Peter’s behavior.  Peter suggested building tabernacles for Jesus, for Moses and for Elijah, “not knowing what he said” (Lk. 9:33).

 

When the Jewish mob came to the garden to seize Jesus Christ, the apostle Peter drew his sword, struck the high priest’s servant and cut off his right ear.  The servant’s name was Malchus.  Jesus was not happy with Peter’s angry response to the Jewish mob.  He said to Peter, “Put up your sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father has given me, shall I not drink of it” (John 18:10-11)?  Why had Peter failed to learn that Christ’s kingdom was not of this world?  Had Christ’s kingdom been of this world, his soldiers would have prevented the Jews from illegally taking him.  Peter’s conduct demonstrated his impetuosity and anger.  He often spoke when he should have been listening.

 

Of course, Peter’s most inexcusable sin was denying the Lord Jesus Christ.  When our Lord selected Peter to be an apostle, did he know Peter would eventually deny him?  You know he did since Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh.  If he knew Peter would deny him, why did he choose him to be an apostle?  Jesus apparently saw in Peter a remarkable potential for helping to spread the kingdom of God.  In spite of Peter’s weaknesses, he was a great man and became greater because of his association with Christ.  Some religious teachers argue for the primacy of Peter, although the Bible never does so.  Christ surely respected Peter’s faithfulness or he would not have chosen him to preach the first gospel sermon to both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 2 and Acts 10 and 11).

 

Peter was a staunch Jewish patriot, as were most or all of the apostles, including Paul.  He was not spiritually prepared to go among Gentiles to preach Christ and him crucified.  So the Lord gave him a vision to show Peter that he was not to call any man either common or unclean.  Peter explained to the household of Cornelius: “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he who fears God and works righteousness, is accepted of him” (Acts 10:34-35).  One may be tempted to think that Peter would never doubt his obligation to preach to all human beings--Jew and Gentile, rich and poor, bond and free.  But he made the grievous mistake of discriminating against Gentiles at Antioch.  Paul explains what occurred.  “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.  For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision.  And other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.  But when I saw that they walked not upright according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If you, being a Jew, live after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why do you compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews” (Gal. 2:11-14)?  The word “dissimulation” in these verses means to act the hypocrite.  In fact, our word “hypocrisy” comes from the Greek word rendered “dissimulation” in the King James Version and “hypocrisy” in some modern versions.

 

When we examine the life of Peter, it would be easy to conclude that Jesus made a great blunder when he made Peter an apostle.  He almost certainly was not the kind of man we would choose for such a responsible position.  Our Lord did not choose Peter for what he was but for what he could and would become.  Peter had many weaknesses, but with the guidance and support of the Lord Jesus Christ, Peter became one of the most influential persons who ever lived.  As a preacher of the gospel, I take great courage when I read and meditate on Peter’s words to the Jewish Sanhedrin.  The Sanhedrin asked Peter, “Did we not give you strict orders about preaching in the name of Jesus?  And, behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.”  The apostle Peter answered: “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:28-29).  It was that kind of faith and courage Jesus knew Peter would develop.  I can understand why our Lord Jesus Christ chose Peter as a part of the foundation of the church of the living God (Eph. 2:19-21).

 

Two other outstanding men in the apostolic band were sons of Zebedee.  Their names were James and John.  They were very ambitious men.  On one occasion, these two brothers came to Jesus with a rather arrogant request.  They said, “Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory” (Mk. 10:37).  Jesus seemed not to have been disturbed by their request, but the other apostles were (Mk. 10:41).  Jesus simply asked James and John: “Can you drink of the cup that I drink of?  And be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?”  They assured Jesus they could, but he informed them that sitting on his right hand and on his left would be given to those for whom it was prepared (Mk. 10:38-40).  Although Christ’s rebuke was not harsh, James and John had no difficulty understanding his meaning.

 

Do you remember that these apostles were called Boanerges meaning the “Sons of thunder” (Mk. 3:17)?  Luke may give us some insight into why James and John were given such a name.  Luke tells of our Lord’s determination to go to Jerusalem.  He sent messengers before him to make ready his entrance into a village of the Samaritans.  The Samaritans did not receive him “because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.  And when his disciples, James and John, saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, even as Elijah did” (Lk. 9:52-54)?  Jesus rebuked James and John for their attitudes.  “You know not what manner of spirit you are of.  For the Son of man has not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them” (Luke 9:55-56).

 

Are James and John the kind of men who constitute a solid foundation for the new covenant?  The passages I have cited show James and John to have been inordinately ambitious and potentially violent.  We know very little about James since Herod killed him early in the church’s history.  Luke records: “Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.  And he killed James the brother of John with the sword” (Acts 12:1-2).  We have every reason to believe that James was faithful even unto death.

 

The apostle John made radical changes in his growth in the kingdom.  In spite of the fact that he wanted to call down fire from heaven to consume the Samaritans, he has earned the title, “the apostle of love.”  If you have read his books--John, 1, 2, 3 John and Revelation--you should have no difficulty understanding why he was the apostle whom Jesus loved.  Just a few short passages from John’s epistles will enable us to look into his heart and discern the love that motivated him.  “He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no occasion of stumbling in him” (1 John 2:10).  “For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another...  We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren.  He who loves not his brother abides in death” (1 John 3:11, 14).  “And now I beseech you, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto you, but which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.  And this is love, that we walk after his commandments.  This is the commandment, that, as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in it” (2 John 5-6).

 

Time does not permit a thorough discussion of all the apostles, although we know very little about most of the twelve.  We know that Matthew or Levi belonged to the hated profession of the publicans or tax collectors.  We also know that Thomas raised questions about some of the events recorded in the New Testament.  Andrew was the apostle who said to his brother, Simon Peter: “We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.  And he brought him to Jesus” (John 1:41-42).  The apostle Philip found “Nathanael, and said to him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and in the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph” (John 1:45).

 

One other apostle--not of the twelve--must be mentioned briefly.  Of course, I am speaking of Saul of Tarsus who became the apostle Paul--the greatest missionary of all time.  If you were choosing a man to become one of the pillars of a worldwide religious movement, would you even consider Saul of Tarsus.  The book of Acts makes it plain that Saul despised Jesus Christ and the church of the living God.  Luke writes: And Saul was consenting unto his death (that is, the death of Stephen, the first Christian martyr).  And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were scattered abroad throughout all the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles” (Acts 8:1).  In his defense before king Agrippa, Paul explained: “I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.  Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.  And I punished them often in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities”  (Acts 26:9-11).  The bitter persecution that Saul directed against the Lord and his people led Jesus to ask Saul: “Why are you persecuting me” (Acts 9:9)?  I shall not deal with Saul’s conversion in our study today, but you can read about it in three chapters in the book of Acts--9, 22, and 26.

 

If you were selecting a group of men to aid you in the founding of a worldwide religion, it is unlikely you would choose Peter, James, John, Thomas, Matthew or Saul of Tarsus.  Except for Saul, none of these men seem to have had the necessary qualifications to become a world leader in New Testament Christianity.  I am not implying that all of these men were evil, although Matthew may have been and Saul certainly was.  But they just do not meet modern qualifications for starting a new religion.  But Jesus Christ the all-wise Son of God demonstrated his wisdom by choosing the men who would serve God in the new kingdom.  But what about Judas Iscariot--did Jesus know Judas would eventually betray him to the Jewish mob?  My friends, there is not even the slightest doubt about it.  But even in choosing Judas Iscariot, Jesus was following the plan of almighty God.  The Old Testament had predicted that one of Christ’s own would betray him.  I would like to say more about Judas, but time will not allow it today.

 

I am not telling you or even inferring that I know the reasons Jesus chose such an unusual group of men as his apostles.  But his decisions regarding the apostles and other aspects of Christianity illustrate a passage from the prophecy of Isaiah.  The statesman prophet wrote: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways than your ways, and my thoughts your thoughts"”(Isa. 55:8-9).  When God reveals his thoughts and his ways, we are free to examine what he reveals in his word.  But when he keeps his thoughts and his ways hidden from men, we have no right to speculate about them.  Moses expressed those very thoughts almost thirty-five hundred years ago.  “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Dt. 29:29).

 

I have one question I would like to use in concluding our study today.  What terms of membership would you require to be part of a new religious movement?  Would you demand that new members perform some magnificent deed, such as, building a great monument to the leader’s honor?  If you made such requirements, you would automatically exclude hundreds of millions of people.  If you wanted all people--rich and poor, black and white, male and female--you would want to make entrance into the movement reasonable, fair and strict.  If no sacrifices were required to become citizens of the new kingdom, there would be no real reason for becoming a part of the movement or for remaining in it.

 

What does God demand of those who would become members of the body of Jesus Christ?  What the sciptures teach on that topic and what some religious organizations demand may be poles apart.  My concern and I hope your is to examine what the Bible teaches about conversion to Christ.  Will you think briefly about the conversion of the Corinthians?

 

In every case of conversion--whether of the Corinthians or of the Philippians or of any other group or person--there must always be the preaching of the word.  Incidentally, if salvation were by grace alone, there would be no necessity for preaching.  God would simply save people without any response on their part.  Is that not what salvation by grace alone means?

 

Luke records that Paul went into the synagogue at Corinth and “persuaded both Jews and Greeks.  And when Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ”(Acts 18:4-5).  Some of the Corinthians vigorously opposed Paul’s preaching and even blasphemed the name of almighty God.  “But Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8).

 

Some of the steps one must take to become a Christian are not mentioned in these verses, but does anyone imagine that the Corinthians did not have to repent and confess their faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God?  Luke says the Corinthians heard the word, believed it and were baptized.  Is that not what Jesus taught in the Great Commission according to Mark?  “Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe shall be condemned” (Mk. 16:15-16).  I have two final questions for you.  Is the plan I have just outlined God’s way or man’s way?  If it is God’s way--and you know it is--have you obeyed it from the heart?

 

Winford Claiborne

The International Gospel Hour

P.O. Box 118

Fayetteville, TN 37334

 

Back to Home Page

Back to Transcripts Titles