Jesus Doesn’t Always Pay Attention to You

When I said Good morning to Jesus today per my usual practice, something unusual happened: I saw an image of him looking the other way. Without thinking twice I raised my voice and tried to get his attention. Then when I took the time to think twice I wondered if it was a biblical idea for Jesus to not pay attention to me when I address him. Then a Scripture came to mind that told me it was biblical.

In Mark 6, the disciples are in a boat during a storm and Jesus is seen walking on the water. Verse 48 says, “he was about to pass by them.” But the disciples cried out in fear and at that moment Jesus spoke to them and climbed into the boat. The interesting thing about this story is that Jesus knew the disciples were struggling to get the boat to shore. The reason he walked on the water was to get their attention. Yet he would not do anything to help them until they got his attention.

Jesus is the answer to all our problems and he is always present to help in our times of need, but sometimes I think we take him for granted and simply assume that he is automatically going to step in and help. But sometimes we need to do something to get his attention. Sometimes it is not enough to just utter a quiet prayer. Sometimes we need to cry out to him or do something unusual that catches his attention.

Do you remember the persistent widow? In this parable the woman asked for justice against her adversary, but the judge paid no attention to her request. She did not give up. Instead, she kept pleading her case. This caught the judge’s attention and he eventually gave in and granted her request (Lk 18:2-5). Or what about the man who had an unexpected visitor and knocked on his friend’s door asking for bread? The friend had no desire to help him, but because he kept knocking, the friend got up and gave him bread.

The judge said the widow was bothering him (Lk 18:5). The friend said, “Don’t bother me” (Lk 11:7). Yet both of these people got what they wanted because they bothered to keep asking and refused to give up. You are never a bother to God, but even if you were, the Scripture tells us to keep bothering him until he responds and grants you your request, because persistence catches God’s attention.

Does God seem to be ignoring you when you pray? Do you sometimes think he is not paying attention to your needs? Perhaps this is a divine set-up designed to test your persistence. Are you willing to cry out as the disciples did? They feared they were about to die. Have you ever cried out like that? The lesson Jesus gives about the persistent widow is that when God’s people “cry out to him day and night, he will not “keep putting them off” (Lk 18:7). He will grant them their righteous requests. Are you willing to be persistent enough to catch God’s attention?

Have you cried out to God day and night for anything? Is your need great enough to be this persistent? I believe God’s delay in responding to us is sometimes a tactic to draw out of us a greater sense of desperation and a greater dependence upon him. When we put our whole heart into seeking him, then and only then do we find him (Jer 29:13).

When we cry out to God we tell him how desperate we are for him and that our whole trust is in him to deliver us, We don’t trust in man we don’t trust in our selves. God is our only hope. The disciples did not even know it was Jesus they were seeing on the water. They thought it was a ghost, which, according to “urban legend” of the day, meant they were about to die. They cried out in fear, not in faith, and Jesus, though mistaken for a ghost, still responded and entered their boat and rescued them. How much more will God respond to you, who are knowingly crying out to your God, and who are crying out in faith, knowing he is the only one who can save you?

Don’t give up. Keep seeking God. Whatever it is you want from him, keep asking and never give up, and he will grant you your request. That is his promise. I believe God is telling his church today to pursue Jesus with reckless abandon. To pursue with the intent of never giving up until we obtain the prize. I believe this is the attitude God wants us to have as we pursue revival and ask God for a Great Awakening in our country. It matters not how long we cry out to God, we will not cease, day or night, until we see God move in our midst like never before. Will you join me in persistently praying for an awakening in America until we catch God’s attention and he responds? It is not too late, but the need it urgent. Don’t give up on America. Let’s be persistent and see what God will do.

Characteristics of the Kingdom Part 2: Bloodless Revolution continued

In my previous article I explained how the kingdom of God must be established in peace and promoted through peaceful means. Any use of violence to advance the cause will only produce a violent kingdom, but Jesus brings a kingdom of peace. But is this really true of the kingdom of God? Didn’t Joshua use violence to establish the kingdom in the Promised Land? And isn’t Jesus coming with a sword to massacre the millions who oppose him on the day of his return?

These two events stand out in apparent contradiction to the principle that God’s kingdom must be established apart from the use of violence. But in neither of these cases is violence used to establish or to advance the kingdom. Rather, these are instances of the judgment of God being poured out against a sinful, rebellious people. This is an exception to the rule of nonviolence in a righteous kingdom.

Few people today would deny the right of a government to use violence to punish evil or to protect innocent civilians. That is why the police carry guns. Those guns represent the policeman’s right to defend himself against a violent criminal, to defend innocent victims from those criminals, and occasionally to shoot criminals who are threatening or carrying out violent activity. In this way violence is shown to be acceptable when used by security officers as a means of preventing worse violence form happening.

Further, few people would defend nonviolence even when carried out by ordinary citizens in certain situations. When a mass murderer pulls out semi-automatic weapons in a full schoolhouse, almost anyone would wish someone had a firearm to shoot that person before he kills innocent children. If anyone aboard the planes that flew into the World Trade Center on 9/11 had a gun, I believe almost all Americans would support his right, even his duty, to use it to prevent that act of terrorism from taking place.

A more controversial situation is that of enforcing capital punishment. There are many on both sides of this issue, but even some of those who oppose capital punishment would admit that they might make exceptions in some cases, such as Adolph Hitler or Timothy McVeigh. However, whether capital punishment is wrong in America today is not the same as whether it is always wrong in every society. It is indisputable that God supported and even demanded capital punishment for many offenses in the theocracy of ancient Israel. That is enough to demonstrate that for those who believe in the Bible, capital punishment is at least sometimes right, even if they do not believe it is right in our society today. So if God chooses to use violence to prevent worse violence from happening, to protect innocent lives, or to execute the death penalty upon those he declares guilty of a capital offense, then those acts of violence should be considered acceptable, even to a society that is nonviolent.

In fact, it could be argued that because it is a nonviolent society, it supports these exceptional uses of violence. It is reminiscent of the true story of Sergeant York, who, as a pacifist, was forced to enlist in the army and fight in World War I. After almost single-handedly seizing 32 machine guns and killing 28 Germans in a battle, he was presented with the Medal of Honor. In the popular movie that tells his story, one of his commanding officers asks how he, a pacifist, could kill so many people. York’s response was that when he saw how many people these Germans were killing, he felt compelled to do whatever he could to stop the killing. Thus it was because he was a pacifist and an advocate of nonviolence that he felt compelled to use violence.

But again, this is the use of violence to prevent worse violence, not to advance the cause of the war. York did not kill to defend American freedom or capitalism; he did it to prevent the deaths of hundreds of his fellow soldiers. So the use of violence to advance one’s ideology or political agenda is not supported by this example. But what about God using Joshua or sending Jesus to spill the blood of his enemies?

God sent Joshua to defeat all the inhabitants of the land he promised to Abraham. But he did not do this as a means of advancing the cause of the Israelites or to clear the land for them to live in, though this act certainly resulted in those things. Had the inhabitants of this land been righteous, the Israelites could have dwelled among them. There was enough land for everyone. But it is because the inhabitants were evil and ripe for judgment that the conquest took place a the point of a sword. The foreshadow of this act of judgment can be seen as far back as Genesis 9.

After the flood, Noah’s son Ham and grandson Canaan were involved in an indecent act concerning Noah. As a result, Noah cursed Canaan, the son of Ham (Gen 9:25). Then he praised Shem and Japheth for responding in righteousness when they became aware of what happened. Noah declares: “May Canaan be the slave of Shem” (Gen 9:26).

When men’s names are used like this, the reference is not merely to the individuals, but to their descendants. The descendants of Shem are the Semites, the Israelites who became the people of God through God’s covenant with Abraham, who was a direct descendant of Shem. The Canaanites are the people whom Joshua defeated in the conquest. Interestingly, this prophecy was uttered in the same chapter of the Bible where capital punishment is first permitted by God. In Genesis 9:6 God says: “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed.”

This subject is complex and my treatment of it cursory, but this should be sufficient to demonstrate the validity of interpreting the conquest as a prophecy fulfilling act of judgment on a sinful people, and not as a genocide to clear room for Israelite imperialism. That is why God says: “It is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is going to drive them out before you” (Deut 9:4). God as judge declared the inhabitants of the land guilty and gave them the death penalty. Since he also declared, “by humans shall their blood be shed,” God used the Israelites to carry out his death penalty. Just because God did not use the same means that we do today – courts and trials and appeals – does not mean his judgment was not just. God does not have to submit to the modern Western system of justice.

Similarly, in Revelation 19:11-21, Jesus comes in judgment on the wicked as well as in salvation of the righteous. Verse 9 says, “With justice he judges and makes war.” His actions toward the wicked on the day of the Second Coming are acts of judgment, not military expansion. What about the part about making war? Verse 19 says the beast and his earthly armies “wage war against the rider on the horse (Jesus).” That is why Jesus comes to judge and wage war. Because a war has been declared by God’s enemies, through war will the judgment be delivered, just as it was in the conquest. The most important point is that Jesus does this “with justice.” Justice is a legal term denoting a verdict and, if guilty, a sentence will be delivered.

Again, Jesus did not need to kill millions of people to establish his kingdom on earth. He did so because the day of his coming is both the day of judgment on unbelievers and the day of salvation of the righteous and the establishment of his kingdom on earth. Both events happen on the same day, but they are still separate events.

Whether it is in its shadowy prefigured form in Joshua, in its incipient prescient form under David and Solomon, or in its final, fulfilled form at the Second coming, the kingdom of God is established on earth in peace and by peace. In each of the manifestations of the kingdom violence is seen, but in none of these instances is the violence used to establish or advance the kingdom. This established the principle that the kingdom of God is not to be advanced through the use of violence. Even in a violent world, there is no justification for the use of violence to advance one’s own political agenda, even if that one is Jesus himself. Let us follow in the footsteps of Jesus and execute justice, not people.

Characteristics of the Kingdom, Part 1: A Bloodless Revolution

Not long ago, some Marxist revolutionaries, apparently misunderstanding the nature of my Revolutingnow Facebook group, joined the group and began posting Marxist propaganda on the site. While I was in a church service, one of them added over 300 fellow Marxists to the group, and before I deleted them from the group I had a spirited conversation with three of them. They claimed to be Christians, but admitted that they advocated the use of violence to accomplish their goals.

As I embark on a series describing the characteristics of the kingdom of God, I want to begin with an article emphasizing why those who pursue the kingdom must be fully committed to nonviolence. I will also demonstrate why no kingdom that is established through the use of violence can be anything but a violent kingdom.

The New Testament makes it clear that the kingdom of God is not of this world, and that the followers of Jesus must not resist physically the attacks of those who persecute them. John the Revelator tells us that believers actually overcome their enemies by submitting to death rather than submitting to the evil kingdom (Rev 12:11). Resisting is required, but resisting violently is out of the question. That is because God’s kingdom is not of this world, and only after we die do we enter fully into the kingdom and the presence of Jesus. Death is our victory, so we do not count our lives as dear to ourselves (Acts 20:23). We only want to serve the Lord so that Christ will be glorified in our bodies, and it does not matter if that comes by life or by death (Phil 1:20).

The reason for the name of my Facebook group and my blog page is because God has revealed to me and many of my co-laborers in the gospel that he wants to initiate a grass roots awakening in America and around the world that will exceed anything we have ever seen before. America has degenerated so far from God’s will that revival will not restore her to the place God wants her to be. Nothing short of a Jesus revolution will turn America around.

But this is a bloodless revolution, one that is founded upon peace, humility, and submission – quite the opposite of how almost all other revolutions have occurred. The only bloodshed permitted in the kingdom of God is the blood shed willingly by Jesus for the forgiveness of our sins. This principle of peace is so important to God that when he first revealed his plan for the kingdom of God, he made bloodless hands the prerequisite for its establishment. David wanted to build a house for God. Nathan the prophet sensed that this was a worthy cause and told David to do it. But God corrected Nathan and told him to make David stop. Why? Because his hands were stained with blood. Near the end of his life, David told his son Solomon:

This word of the Lord came to me: “You have shed much blood and fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight. But you will have a son who will be a man of peace and rest…He is the one who will build a house for my name” (1 Chr 22:8-10).

When David spoke these words to Solomon, he was referring to the time when God promised him a dynasty, which would be the beginning of the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth (see 2 Sam 7:1-17). At the time God first revealed the concept of his eternal kingdom, he refused to allow David to build the center of worship for the kingdom specifically because he was a man who “shed much blood.” Even though David is the progenitor of the kingdom, he cannot build the worship center. That privilege is reserved for Solomon. Interestingly, Solomon’s name means “peace.”

David was not a bloodthirsty murderer or an ambitious warlord. The blood he shed was only for righteous causes. Yet the mere fact that he killed people was enough to disqualify him from erecting God’s temple. God’s temple will be built by a man of peace in the city of peace (Jerusalem means “city of peace”). That is because the kingdom of God must be founded upon peace, not war and bloodshed, regardless of the justification for such bloodshed. Peace may in fact be the foundational characteristic of the kingdom, as its ruler is called the Prince of Peace.

When I probed the intentions of the Marxists posting on my Facebook page, they tried to sound like peaceful people, but when I pressed them, one of them admitted that “sometimes it is necessary to use violence in order to establish peace” (paraphrased from memory). However, this logic is flawed and self-contradictory. Any kingdom that is established by force and through the shedding of blood is a violent kingdom. To be a kingdom of peace, it must be established in peace. That is why David went to great lengths to absolve himself from the guilt of the deaths of Saul (2 Sam 1:1-27), Abner (2 Sam 3:28-39), and Ish-Bosheth (2 Sam 4:9-12), issuing public laments and mourning over their deaths before all the people. After publicly mourning over Abner, we are told, “So on that day all the people there and all Israel knew that the king had no part in the murder of Abner” (2 Sam 3:37).

David knew that if murder was associated with his ascent to the throne, then bloodshed would be justified within his kingdom for the promotion of one’s political ideals. That is why the use of violence can never be for the promotion of peace. Only two conditions can exist in a kingdom established through violence. Either there is a condition of violence within the kingdom, or there is a temporary peace that sits precariously under the threat of violence. Why? Because peace only exists as long as the people submit to the authorities. If the authorities are willing to use violence to establish the kingdom, they most certainly will use it to protect the kingdom against all threats. This is evidenced by the systematic persecution of Christians under Communist regimes in the 20th century and in China today. Particularly a Marxist, socialistic government cannot withstand Christianity because the government insists on being the final authority, but a Christian’s final authority is always God, not a human dictator. Such a regime will use violence whenever it feels threatened, so even if it is not currently perpetrating violence, it is still violent at heart. The subjects of a kingdom established by violence may not currently be experiencing war, but they will never have peace.

It is commonly argued that in the Old Testament the kingdom was secured through much bloodshed, so this characterization of the kingdom is one-sided and inaccurate. In my next article I will address this charge and demonstrate that God only uses violence to execute judgment, not to advance his kingdom.