Can God Heal me? part 1

Over the many years that I have been a pastor dealing with Crohn’s disease (a long term chronic illness of the small intestine), I have never been asked how I feel about divine healing. I suspect that many people have wanted to ask me this question but have not felt quite comfortable enough to do so.  For all those, these next few blogs would be dedicated to talking about divine healing, miracles and praying for healing. 

Adrian Plass is one of my favorite Christian authors. In his book, Jesus: Safe, Tender, Extreme, he discusses his thoughts about divine healing. 

 It may be a bit long but I assure you I have sent some time in each of these phases that he describes.  

Adrian Plass writes:  (I lightly edit some of these for length)

“Phase one: My leg is hurting, so I ask God if he will be kind enough to heal it.  He doesn’t…except by the definition of our holistic friends, who would want to point out that my mind and spirit are okay, and wouldn’t I agree that two out of three isn’t bad? I would point out to them with some asperity that it wasn’t my mind or spirit that I injured.

Phase two: My leg is still hurting but I have remembered a book written back in the sixties by somebody whose name I’ve forgotten, who said that if we praise God loudly for answering our prayers even though he hasn’t yet, then he will.  I go quite a long way to a secluded spot and praise God loudly and at length for healing my leg. I have to get an expensive taxi back from the secluded spot because my leg is in so much pain after walking all the way to the secluded spot.

Phase three: My leg is still hurting. I recall a preacher saying that you have to ‘lay hold’ of promises from the Bible. Good idea. I decide to ‘lay hold’ of promise in that bit about your father not giving you a stone when you ask for a fish. I ask for my leg to be healed and briefly remind God of his promise in case he has forgotten it. He doesn’t give me a stone, but he doesn’t do anything about my leg either. Not even a fish. Not so much as a sardine.

Phase Four:  My leg is still hurting, but I realize how silly I’ve been.  In the gospels Jesus nearly always forgave people’s sin before healing their bodies. Of course he did! On the way up to town to do some shopping, I confess as many sins as I can think of, I end up trailing dismally around the super-market, overwhelmed by the weight of my revealed sins and my shopping not made easier by the fact my leg keeps giving way.

Phase Five:  My leg is still hurting. On the way back from the shops, I realize how spiritually timid I have been in this matter.  For goodness’ sake! What is the matter with me?  I am a child of the Most High, a dweller in the kingdom of God. I decide to take dominion over the pain in my body with all the authority at my disposal. It might have worked except that someone came round the corner just as I was in the middle of shouting commands at my own leg. Absolutely nothing I could say. I lurched home.

Phase Six: My leg is still hurting, but it strikes me that Jesus was always telling people that their faith had made them whole. In his hometown he was able to do very few miracles because the locals lacked belief. I confess my unbelief and pray for increased faith. It occurs to me that I should have mentioned my leg. I decide to give up all this getting healed business.  From now on, I announce to God, I shall just trust that you will give me what I need without complaining that you haven’t given me what I want. I am secretly hoping he will be so pleased by this surrender to his will that he will heal my leg as a reward. He doesn’t.

Phase Seven: My leg is still hurting. I ask God to disregard all previous communications regarding my leg. Let it be as though I never mentioned my leg and that the fact that it hurts. A blank sheet. A clean slate. A fresh approach. A new beginning. A healed leg? Apparently not.

Phase Eight:   My leg really hurts.  All right, I’m getting a bit annoyed now. What do you have to do to get a bit of healing action around here? Nothing I say or don’t say seems to make any difference. I have to assume either that God doesn’t exist after all or that he doesn’t want my leg to be healed. If things soon don’t improve I may have to give in and go the doctor.

He ends with:  “You may think this sound ludicrously exaggerated and childish. Well it is, a bit, but I am afraid that is not a million miles from the truth as far as I am concerned.  How about you?”

Excerpted from Jesus: Safe, Tender, Extreme – Available at House of James or Amazon.ca. 

The Right Attitude to Illness

It has been awhile so I thought I would try to give an update on my health status. On one hand, not much has happened. I continue to wait to see head of surgery at VGH to get a 2nd opinion on whether surgery will be needed/helpful. I was referred to him in December, they are now telling me it may be April till I see him. However, I have had a couple of very good meetings with my Crohn’s Specialist. Sparing you the grisly details (I’m feeling gracious ) she feels there may be a secondary complication that may be causing my problems, and so has started me on a fairly dramatic shift in medications and treatments to see if this might help. It has only been about a month and half, but I have seen some minor improvement, and there is still a long way to go, and I still have no idea when I be well enough to return to ministry. Things are very uncertain still and that is sometimes hard to deal with.
When a person is first diagnosed or told they have a life-changing, serious illness, they are faced with making a decision about how they are going to respond to this decision. Attitudes can often be plotted between two extremes. Denial is at one extreme. Here the person refuses to acknowledge that their illness will affect their life. They do not deny they are sick, but just believe that mind rules over matter, and they refuse to let the illness interfere in their life. So, they often refuse to take medicine, alter diet or lifestyle. The result: further sickness, ER visits and sometimes serious illness.

The second extreme is to think this illness now defines and rules your wholelife, and patient begins to take on a victim mentality. Here, the illness rules their life. With patients afraid to travel, to leave the house, to take on a job, because anything and everything will affect their recovery.

I think the best decision is somewhere in the middle, where one acknowledges the illness and to take appropriate measures to maintain health but at the same time seeking to keep life going on in a normal pattern. It’s funny, but I clearly remembering making this decision the moment I was first diagnosed with Crohn’s. I don’t know why but I instantly felt that, ‘yes,

I was sick, and would need to eat right, take meds, get rest and not over do things.’ On the other hand, never felt sickness would rule my life and I would still do whatever I wanted to do unless illness totally prevented it. So I’ve been able to play much softball over those years, do lots of

hikes (one I had to bail on because of illness) and all kinds of things. The problem with this theory is finding that balance can be difficult, especially when you are already sick. I remember the time I thought that it was a smart idea to go out and play roller hockey after I had been sick for months and my weight was down to 124 lbs. That didn’t end well and a hospital visit followed about a week later, with weight down to 117 lbs.
With this period of illness I have really struggled to find this balance. This is partially because the symptoms and rules that guide my illness seem to have all changed – and that makes trying to predict things very hard. So, many times I or my family has made plans to do things, go out to events, or meet with friends, and we’ve had to cancel because I got sick. It has slowly undermined all my instincts and leaves me uncertain on a daily basis. I hesitate to plan events because of likelihood of not feeling well enough to carry it out. Even my daily routine is uncertain. If I am tired should I rest, even if that means not getting out of bed until noon o

r do I need to build some discipline into my life to get better? Should I go for a walk because it is good for me, or will it wear me out? Can I drive my family into Vancouver to an event or will that tire me out too much? At times, I can’t figure out what wears we me out and what doesn’t. Sometimes physical things like walking or doing yardwork feel good, but trying to read a book, take a longer drive or try to write in this blog are more than I can handle. Thinking and writing are actually the most difficult things to do. (I am only able to write this because my insomnia is so bad that I can’t sleep).

Uncertainty also enters the bigger picture; and perhaps in my next post I will get to that. But hopefully know you know some of the things a person who is chronically ill has to deal with every day.
Pastor Warren

Me at the Richmond Sleep Lab.

Reboot of Warren's Wanderings

Hello, everyone! As most of you know, I have been away on medical sickness since June of last year. Since then it has been hard to muster up the energy to keep up on this blob. Many times the first question people ask me is how I am doing, (which I find hard to answer because when they ask I can the hope in their voices and I don't want to dash it by saying; it stinks!) but often the second, even more difficult question, is what you do with all your time? Understandable, because I do have lots of time. But, when you are suffering from chronic pain and fatigue, everything takes more time, and time often just seems to slip away from you. Till, you get to the end of the day realize you haven't really done anything. And by "anything" I mean "anything". No wasting time reading a novel, or watching DVD or playing computer games; it's just gone, and you don't know where any of it went. Also, while on that topic, my image of an ideal day off used to be sleeping in late, get up, move to the couch and watch 3 football games and 2 hockey games in one day. Now, I have found when it is no longer a choice to do this, but do it because all you can do it isn't nearly as much one.

topics

For the next little while this blog may be about a wide variety of things; could be biblical/theological (resting in bed has given me much to think about things) could be about the spiritual side of this journey into illness, it may be reviews of books I've read or films I've seen or editorials on some news item. Or just about anything!

So if you would like to continue to receive updates on this blog let me know or sign up for the RSS feed, or I will often put it a link to it on Facebook or on my twitter account (beekerbc).

Hope you'll find things that are interesting and make you think just a little bit!

Warren Schatz

My Least Favorite Christian Song...

A couple of weeks ago I attended a benefit concert put on by a local men’s chorus here in Abbotsford. While choral music is not really my cup of tea, I found myself enjoying the concert. That is, until the chorus decided to sing what I think is one the worst songs in Christian history. Okay, ‘worst’ may a bit of hyperbole, “Kumbaya” and “Pass It On” still probably share that honour. However, It is a song that I think is unbiblical and even destructive to the future of the church. Three things before I reveal to you this unfortunate song. One, perspective is everything, and it is possible that I have completely misunderstood the point and meaning of this song, and therefore I am open to being corrected. Music is a very subjective experience and what one person relates to can be very different from others. This is just a fancy way of saying this is only my opinion so you are free to completely disagree with me. Two, I suspect some of you will really like this song, so please try not to be too mad at me. Consider this your warning that you may not like or appreciate what I have to say here. Three, it’s okay if you do like this song. I know most of the audience at the concert thoroughly enjoyed this song. I know there are songs that I like that are probably theologically suspect, it doesn’t stop me from liking them. But I would like you to give me the benefit of the doubt and think through what this song is saying, and perhaps more importantly, what it says about how we think.

What is this horrible song that I dislike so much….. that old favourite – “Give Me That Old Time Religion”. The song dates back to 1873 and most likely had its roots in African-American spirituals before it was picked up and made popular during the tent revivals of the late 19^th century and has been a staple of Protestant hymnals ever since. I admit the song has a catchy tune and is fun to sing, and it hardly seems dangerous with its’ call to return to the religion of Peter and Silas, the religion that will “get us all to heaven” and was “tried in the fiery furnace”. But stop and think a moment about the picture and images this song forms. It causes us to take a ‘backwards’ orientation, to look ‘back’ in time to some mythical time when ‘things were better’. It assumes that whatever is happening now in the church and in our world is bad, and that the answer to our problems is found in ‘going back’ to where we were before. And by the way the audience enthusiastically responded to the song I am guessing that many there would heartily share in that. I understand why this may sound attractive. I understand struggling with the pace of change in our culture, our struggle with the dislocation happening in our culture. And there is nothing inherently wrong with a sense of fondness, or even nostalgia for our past. And there is nothing wrong with honouring and learning from our past. But, we must beware of the trap of thinking the way forward is backward. For I do not believe this is the orientation God would want us to have. I believe God is not a ‘look back’ God, but a God who is looking forward. God is always about moving forward, about doing “a new thing” (Is. 42:9; Jeremiah 31:22) God is about transforming our world, about bringing forth a “new heavens and new earth” (Is. 65:17), about creating a new people (1 Pete 2:9,10); and making us into a “new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17).

“Go back” is often the cry of those who are resisting what God wants to do. “Give me that old time religion” is the cry of the people of Israel in the desert who build a golden calf and cry out to go back to Egypt where things were better. “Give me that old time religion” is the cry of the people of Israel who want to return to the worship of Baal and Ashtoreth. “Give me that old time religion” is the cry of the people on their way to Babylon and who weep at the destruction of their temple (Psalm 137:1). “Give me that old time religion” is the cry of the Pharisees who asked why Jesus didn’t obey the law. “Give me that old time religion” is the cry of the Judaizers who tried to convince the Galatians that the way forward lay in going backward to the rituals and rites of Judaism. “Give me that old time religion” was the cry of those who didn’t’ believe God could be up to a new thing among the Gentiles (of all people), and that centre of God’s focus would always be in Jerusalem. “Go back” is dangerous precisely because it blinds us to what God is doing now. And as long as we are yearning to go back, as long as we hold our world in contempt, then we will be unable to see and participate with what God is going to do ‘next’. I believe God wants us to honour our past, to learn from our past, so that we can move forward into what He is doing here and now, and in the future. The bible shows us that our greatest days do not lie behind but ahead. The Bible shows us that we do not need to fear the future or change because our God is already there and is already at work. And He is waiting for us to join Him.

Do We Know What We Are Doing in Libya?

I don’t normally talk about international politics on this blog, but events of the past week have caused me to wonder about a few things. Last Saturday evening as I was preparing my message for the next morning, I was startled to hear that Canadian warplanes had participated in attacks on Libya. My first thought was “why are we at war with Libya?”

Some might respond that we are not really at war with Libya, we are just helping a UN sanctioned international coalition establish a ‘no fly zone’ over Libya. That might be true, but I think if some country or group of countries fired several hundred cruise missiles into our territory, if fighter jets and bombers dropped bombs onto our bases and cities I think we would consider ourselves as being ‘at war.’

I do understand how this developed. The protests for democracy that had been occurring throughout the Middle East and North Africa swept into Libya and Gadafi responded with his typical brutality and very shortly many people in Libya were at risk of being killed by their own countries armies. Therefore, after an emergency meeting of the UN Security council it was decided that a “No Fly Zone” would be set up to prevent Gadhafi from using planes and helicopters to shoot at protesters. Now this all sounds good (and I would be last one to want innocent protestors to be killed) but I also have serious questions about this whole enterprise.

First, how is it possible that Canada could go to war without it being debated in our parliament? Unless I missed it, I never heard the government explain to us what the issue was, what the UN wanted, and how we were going to help. And who actually okayed our participation in this mission? Did Stephen Harper okay it? Did the Cabinet okay it? Or was it done just through the Department of Defense? I am no constitutional law expert, but is it even legal for the government to make war on another country without the approval of parliament? I realize that in some cases if imminent threat or danger our military would have to act without political input but this hardly seems the case in Libya? Yes, I know it is a UN Sanctioned ‘war’ but since when does that mean we just participate without going to our own people? Again, I may not know all the fact, and maybe the Harper government met with the opposition leaders and they all agreed we needed to participate – fine – but don’t we, the people, have a right to know what our military is up to and why? It could be that this is absolutely the right decision for Canada to make. It could be that without intervention perhaps another Rwanda or Yugoslavia might have developed. But if so, why don’t they tell us that?

Second, I would like to know why Libya? What was it about Libya that made our intervention necessary? These protests have been taking place all across Africa and the Middle East, Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, even Syria and Iran, and I don’t see us taking action in any of those countries. Darfur and the Sudan have been embroiled in civil war for eight years, with hundreds of thousands killed and millions made homeless and we didn’t see the need to get involved there, so what make Libya special? One person suggested that it’s because Libya is only country where government has turned army onto the protesters. I’m not sure that’s true, since I read that the Saudi Arabia military has been involved in ‘attacking’ the protesters in Bahrain. Which, if true, would be quite ironic: the West is using military force to aid protesters while Saudia Arabia is using military force (purchased almost exclusively from us) to kill protesters. I don’t want to be cynical, but I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that Libya is a major oil producer? And, if we are suddenly so concerned about dictators attacking their own people, does this mean we are going to get involved in the Ivory Coast, Somalia, the Congo and countless other places caught up in civil turmoil? Earlier this week, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart took a satirical look at this issue, stating that the West responds to situations like this based on certain factors. For example, since Darfur has not strategic importance, no commercial property (oil) and isn’t controlled by an enemy of the U.S. we only offered ‘encouraging words.’ Egypt is a strategic country with assets but since it’s dictator (Mubarak) was an old ally of the U.S. we again would only offer words, (since it’s not nice to bomb a friend). But Libya is both strategic, controls oil and is an enemy of the U.S. it gets armed intervention. I sure hope that’s not how we think.

Third, do we really know what we are doing? Let’s face it, our history for getting involved in other countries civil problems and trying to make change is not all that good. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that if you get involved without fully understanding what is going on, and how to resolve the situation, you could be in for a lot of trouble. (It’s hard to imagine sometimes that the war in has gone on twice as long as World War II) Do we know what will happen on the ground in Libya if our ‘no fly zone’ is successful? Will it lead to freedom and democracy or to just a different dictator being in charge? Do we know how the various tribal factions will play into this? If nothing else, Iraq and Afghanistan must have taught us that if we don’t take tribalism into account we are going to be in trouble. And what is the end game? Is it to keep violence limited? (Gadhafi can use guns and bombs but not jets or tanks?) Is it to bring about regime change? Is it bring reform? Do we know why we are there? I seriously hope, that someone, somewhere in our government knows the answers to these questions.

For some good looks at what is going on in Libya:

The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/03/intervention_libya?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/takinghumanitarianinterventionseriously

How Hard It is To Think Biblically

Several months ago my son and I went to the movies to see “Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief”. It is an interesting story built on the old Greek mythology (Zeus, Poseidon, Medusa and the gang). At one point in the story, Percy has to head into the underworld to confront Hades to rescue his mother. As Percy boarded the boat to cross the river Styx, my ‘theology’ brain wondered how the filmmakers would portray the ‘underworld’. And, as you might imagine with today’s special effects, the results were quite spectacular. The boat carrying Percy moved out over a vast abyss, filled with towering flames, and filled with millions of crying, suffering, souls. You were left with little doubt that these people were not ‘happy’. And for a moment, part of my mind said, “hey, they didn’t do a bad job of picturing hell.’ But then, later as I reflected more on the scene, I began to wonder: did the filmmakers do a good job of picturing the biblical hell or did they do a good job of picturing what ‘we’ (general public) think hell looks like? And, more importantly, how close might those two pictures be?

Now, I’m not diving into controversial theological concepts such as the existence of hell or where it is, or whether hell is eternal or how it works or anything like that. (The twitter and blogosphere world exploded this past week when Michigan pastor Rob Bell sent out a pre-release of his new book on these subjects that hinted that perhaps Hell might not be eternal or that people might get a second chance out of hell. I’m not going there; however if you want some good articles on this controversy and the issues surrounding the theology of hell I would recommend: Mark Galli’s article on Christianity today online: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/marchweb-only/rob-bell-universalism.html and Scott McKnight’s review at http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/03/02/waiting-for-rob-bell/ )

I am thinking of something more basic. What images come to our mind when we think of hell? And how biblical are those images? For most of us, when we think of hell we think of raging fire, despairing souls, and devils (either in the tail and pitchfork variety or more scary movie versions). But how much of those images actually come from the Bible and how much from other sources? As I watched that movie scene I began to wonder: how much of how I picture hell actually comes from Greek mythology (of Hades) or even more strongly, from Dante’s “Inferno”. I suspect that this 14^th century epic poem by Italian author Dante Alighieri has strongly affected our images of hell, even though most of us have probably never read the poem itself or even know that ‘inferno’ is actually only one part of a three part poem that also described purgatory and heaven? This may be an example of how influential a work of art can be – colouring people’s perception for hundreds of years (and no, I haven’t read the original poem either). So what does the Bible say about ‘hell’? what images does it use?

Perhaps the most famous one, is the description in Rev. 20:14,15 where death and hades are thrown into a lake of fire. And other passages also mention fire: Matt. 25:41 warns that those who don’t know Jesus will depart into ‘eternal fire’. Mark 9:43 refers to hell as “unquenchable fire” and the story of Lazarus in Luke 16:22-24 makes reference to being in ‘flame.’ Isaiah 66 refers to it as where “worm will not die and fire not be quenched.’ Most of these New Testament passages use the word “Gehenna” for hell. This referred to the Kidron Valley just outside of Jerusalem. In ancient days, it was likely a place where idols were worshipped, (with fire?) and where children were offered in human sacrifice. Later it became the garbage pit for Jerusalem, including dead animals and criminals. The valley was often full of smoulder fires because of decomposition and to control the refuse. This then became a symbol of what ‘hell’ would be like – place of destruction, decay and death. In the period between the Old Testament and New Testament it became symbolic of the fiery destruction awaiting those who reject God and is the source of many of the ‘fire’ images for hell in the New Testament.

But ‘gehenna’ is not the only source of images for hell. Another Old Testament word is ‘sheol’ which is most often translated as ‘death’ or ‘the grave’ or the ‘pit’. It is closer in meaning to the idea of the underworld, the place of the dead, and those who are ‘cut off’ from God. Sheol was below the surface of the earth (Ezk. 31:15, 17; Ps. 86:13), a place of dust (Jb. 17:16), darkness (Jb. 10:21), silence (Ps. 94:17) and forgetfulness (Ps. 88:12). Other terms associated with sheol are ‘destruction’, ‘pit’ and ‘corruption’. In the New Testament, this concept is usually translated by the Greek “hades” (in Lazarus story in Luke 16). One other biblical word to consider in this context is that of the ‘sea’. It is significant that in Revelation 21 in the description of the New Heavens and New Earth that the text specifically says that “and there was no more sea.” This remind us that in the Bible the ‘sea’ was often seen as the source of chaos and rebellion against God. Hence God’s power is seen in dividing earth and sea (Gen. 1:9, Job 26:12; PS. 18:5;) Jonah’s prayer in Jonah 2 also makes a direct connection between ‘the grave’ and the ‘depths’ and links both to being objects of God’s punishment.

Now, there are commonalities between all these images: separation from God, suffering, bleakness, no relief or rescue – these are likely all different ways to pointing to the reality of hell. My point is not to make any dramatic pronouncements about the nature of hell, as it is to remind us that it can be very easy to absorb concepts, images and ideas from places other than the Bible. And to remind us that if we wish to truly think Biblically we will need to be diligent and careful in our study and reading of God’s word to ensure we use the words and images God gives us and not the images from any 14^th century poet or 21^st century filmmaker.

Bible Interpretation Rule # 235 - Stick to the Text

One of the great temptations we face when reading the Bible is to ‘read more’ into a text than is really there. Bible scholars often refer to this as “eisogesis”; meaning ‘reading into’ the Bible versus “exegesis” meaning “reading from” the Bible. Often this isn’t something we consciously do, but happens because when we come to a biblical text we come with our own set of values, cultural assumptions and connotations of words. Sometimes it happens because our minds are built in such a way that they naturally seek out patterns and details, and when expected details are missing our brains will happily supply them (which is why we can see shapes in clouds and rock formations, etc.). In order to avoid this ‘reading into’ the text we need to read with discipline in order to not add more to the text than is really there. A great example of this can be found in John 3:10, a passage we examined last week here at Grace Church. This passage records the famous encounter between the Pharisee Nicodemus and Jesus, and has Jesus telling Nicodemus that the pathway to the kingdom of God is to be found in a spiritual re-birth. When Nicodemus fails to understand what Jesus is saying, Jesus responds in verse 10 by saying, “You are Israel’s teacher and you do not understand these things?” (NIV) or “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?” (ESV).

With this reply of Jesus we encounter one of the handicaps of dealing with written text versus face-to-face spoken text. The problem is we know communication is only partially ‘what’ we say and a lot more ‘how’ we say it (tone, eye contact, body language, and so on) and the text doesn’t give us any of these details. We aren’t told exactly ‘how’ Jesus says these words. Did Jesus say them in a condescending tone? In astonishment? In disgust? Did he arch his eyebrows when he said it or roll his eyes? We don’t know. And because of that, when we come to read this text there is a temptation to interpret for ourselves how we think Jesus said these words. When we read the text our brains will be tempted to ‘clarify’ how we think Jesus said these words. We most easily do this by simply, unconsciously, supplying an ‘adverb’ to the words “Jesus said.” And our understanding of Jesus and Nicodemus can be sharply shifted depending on what adverb we supply. Consider how the meaning of the phrase changes if we add (even just in our own minds) one little word: “you are Israel’s teacher’ Jesus said curiously” or “you are Israel’s teacher” Jesus said with disgust… or “You are Israel’s teacher” Jesus said surprised… or “You are Israel’s teacher” Jesus said, crossing his arms…. Or “You are Israel’s teacher? Jesus said with contempt… or “you are Israel’s teacher? Jesus said earnestly…”

It might be a good exercise to look up the verse, read it to yourself out loud and see if by your own tone or expression you aren’t tempted to add one of these words or one like them into the text. The problem with this small ‘addition’ to the text is it could change how you understand Nicodemus and how you interpret what Jesus is doing. If Jesus responds in an earnest or positive way, it may cause us to focus on how Jesus is working to overcome the ignorance of the people. If Jesus responds in a negative way, it may cause us to focus on how Jesus’ is fed up with the attitude of the Pharisees (and by extension to those today who don’t understand his message.)
There are ways to determine what kind of attitude Jesus has here. We can look at the surrounding context, at the rest of the dialogue and so on. But we also have to realize that if the ‘data’ we are looking for isn’t there, it isn’t there for a REASON. It’s not because God or the disciple John forgot to put it in. It’s lack of being there is by itself a signal to us that Jesus’ emotional response to Nicodemus is not the focus of the story. Rather, the point of the interaction is actually explained further in the following verses: that Jesus has come to bring ‘light’ to the ‘darkness’ but it’s not going to be an easy task because those in darkness (Nicodemus comes in darkness) are going to have a hard time understanding what Jesus is all about (hence, the words of verse 12: “I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?”
The rule therefore here is: “stick to the text”. That is, when trying to interpret a passage stick to what is written and try to resist the impulse to add to, clarify or explain what is not written in the text. If something is not there, it is not there for a reason, and then we need to look for interpretation in other things such as context, wording, setting, wordplays, metaphors, etc. In fact, one of the subtle clues to understanding this passage is how John uses “light” and “darkness” as symbols throughout the book but especially in chapter 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. In this sense, Nicodemus becomes a living, representative example of those people who are seeking the light, but will not understand the light, even when they are confronted with it.
In the end, the temptation to add to this passage may not be a huge deal because no matter how we interpret Jesus’ response to Nicodemus the meaning of the exchange is carefully laid out in verses 15-21 and likely more resistant to misinterpretation. But it is a simple example of how easy it can be to fall into the trap of reading into the bible things that are not there, and causing us to misunderstand what God is saying to us. So remember this rule when you are reading the Bible: Am I sticking to the text?