NON-OBSERVATIONS: BORING PROPHETS
“Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them” (Lu.16:9).
“The kingdom of God cometh not with observation” (Lu. 17:20).
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1)
------------------------------------------------------
The rich man would never have denied that Moses and the Prophets were important or that he believed everything they said. The Temple did a brisk business throughout its existence, and “the gospel” was in Moses and the prophets: “For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it” (Heb. 4:2). What would Abraham have done had he had Moses and the Prophet: “for faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the world of God.” That would not do for the six rich brothers. They never took Moses and the Prophets seriously, because (most likely) few others did. Does the (tormented) rich man think his brothers ever think about “being tormented”? Most likely they took refuge in ambiguity (like himself not looking too closely at Moses and the Prophets), only too willing to navigate life with a vague will-o-the-wisp notion of what Moses and the Prophets said--just enough, as Abraham says pointedly (he left the good life for a tent), so as not to ruin the good life. Cain did not think the world needed saving. He enjoyed it as it was. How could anything this good be “vanity of vanity”? God called Israel from the fleshpots of Egypt to live by Moses and the Prophets (“not by bread alone”) “until the saints shall rest from their labors.” And Abraham does not accuse him of being a profligate. He just enjoyed the good life, and assumed God would understand. God does not. The accusation here is that God should do more of “now look here, pay attention, this is serious.” Besides, if no one else took the Bible seriously, why would he? Faith, then cometh by hearing attended by a loud thunderclap to get you to pay attention--Elijah’s fire/wind/earthquake. But God was not in the fire, wind, or earthquake. In fact they preceded the “still small voice” to demonstrate that nothing must be added to “the still small voice” of the word of God. But why is the Good News at such a low volume? Naaman the leper, used to barking orders, assumed that matters of such importance would be attended with considerable rhetorical flourish--and he was willing to pay the customary fee towards “the rewards of divinity.” The lowly cupbearers looked on as the Church glitterati and all their tricks were summarily dismissed and condemned on the Day of Judgment. “Is there not a (real) prophet besides,” asks King Johosaphet, as he watched 400 false prophets outdo one another with their tricks (one showed up with iron horns). “The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked,” and is well versed in the arts of avoiding “mixing faith” to Moses and the Prophets.
Long after Moses, a rich man cries “Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul” (Mic. 6)? To which the prophet replies wearily, “ It hath been told thee, O man, what is good, And what the LORD doth require of thee: Only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.” What would the rich man’s 5 brothers have done if resurrected Lazarus had come preaching that? Later the rich young ruler asks again, “what good thing must I do to have eternal life”? “One thing thou lackest,” Jesus said. Would this man not have walked away sorrowfully if Jesus had given him a dose of “fire, wind, and earthquake”? Elisha’s dealing with Naaman the leper was insultingly underwhelming, and Elisha did not call him back when he left in anger. He demanded “observations” and was willing to pay handsomely for it. He almost went home a leper. The “many lepers” in Israel remained lepers because they lacked faith. What would be their excuse? Would Cain have believed if God had raised Abel from the dead? God Himself strove with men before the Flood while Enoch and Noah preached. How was Noah to convince people that the Ark (on dry land where it had never rained) was to be taken seriously? There were 7000 believers before the fire on Mount Carmel and 7000 after. “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.” Jonah preached with the intent “not to convert” and Ninaveh repented, “for faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” Jonah intended for the Kingdom of God not to come, and it came in an avalanche. So why does God strive with Cain knowing that the Word would fall on “stony ground” where it cannot take root? Was God sincere when he promised to “accept” Cain if he would “do well’? Was Cain free to do well or to not do well? If God, knowing that he was not, then how is He dealing in good faith in “reasoning” with Cain? Why does not God give him “irresistible grace” to make him capable of doing well? Was Cain without the scope of “limited atonement”? But then God’s dealing with him would be beside the point. What would be the point of God “striving with man,” if they were non-elect, and thus unsavable? And now you get to the real perversions: Calvinists wrote libraries of books proving that “all, any, whosoever, world” do not mean “all, any, whosoever, world:” God is not willing that any of the elect should perish, God so loved the world of the elect, etc. At this point, you have destroyed the Bible. John Gill, whose pulpit Spurgeon inherited, saw little point in preaching to the lost, since the elect will be saved no matter what. “God,” he would say, “loved all the elect in different parts of the world, that He gave his only begotten Son….” Imagine what that does to a common person thinking the Bible should be understood as it is read. But he could wax eloquent. His people would have had great need of his books. A canned system answered all the questions in a canned little world. But they open a can of worms. Where did evil come from? Why did God allow evil into the newly created Universe? What did Jesus look like before the Incarnation? Will believers see Three in eternity? This is why Jehovah’s Witnesses and Calvinists can’t read the Bible without running to their books. If you wish to know what good hay is put it in front of sheep. The Bible was written for "common people." When you see sheep stick their nose in hay and draw back in bewilderment you know "there's death in the pot." The rich want high doctrines to hide their sins. The prophet replies, "it hath been told thee...." In all likelihood the rich man would have heard great sermons on Moses and the Prophets, leaving him twice the child of Hell he was before. When people wonder if God indeed is "not willing that Hitler should perish," you know there is death in the pot. They no longer trust the Bible. "Some things are hard to be understood," but "let God be true and every man a liar."
The Calvinist reproaches God with not dealing with full deck here, or practicing sleight of hand: “Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed.” The servants preceding him had doubled their talents--an exercise in futility. If only the elect will be saved anyway, why should he wear himself out trying to accomplish what God will anyway. Why sow when God will reap without sowing? On rainy days, Calvinists used to say, “only ducks and Methodists are out today.” If “God so loves the world” then why does He not save the world, for he can reap where no one sows. If “God is not willing that any should perish''--well. The rich man blamed God for the underwhelming tone of Moses and the Prophets--very unlike the false prophets of old who pranced around with iron horns to show their seriousness. This man begs to differ. It doesn’t matter. God holds all the combinations and options, and never loses. I never lose at computer chess--I just reset until I get my way. And of course, God does not “strive with man,” any more than “God repented that He had made man.” God does not change. He is the Unmoved Mover, who hasn’t moved one centimeter since eternity. God, to the untrained eye, may seem humane (“He is not willing for any to perish”). But in the end, all the atoms will line up according to God’s inexorable decrees. “Here’s your talent back,” he said, “we understand each other, don’t we”? He had God all figured out, and, like Mark Twain, he didn’t like what he saw. Abraham, by this reckoning, should have told the rich man, “Remember, my son, that God is a hard man, and it just so happens that you were not one of the elect,” for “without election it is impossible to please Him.” And there is no “better luck next time.”