Doubting Doubt
(Table of Contents - Click This Link)
Update
The reason that the
subtitle of the essay is ‘A Journal’
is because the essay is more about my account of the process I undertook to do
a research project than it is about the subject I started out to research. If that sounds confusing, I will say that the
subject of the research project turned out not to be the key point of the
essay. For me to write the essay in that
way was not an attempt to “pull a fast one” or to mislead the reader. In fact, I state right at the beginning that
the research taught me “something much more important than the subject I
started with.”
By
way of additional pertinent background, I will say that the essay essentially
concluded with two key points. One of
those key points was that there are innumerable things both in our daily lives
and also within Christianity for which we will never be able to provide an
answer to the question “Why?” and that the reason we cannot answer that
question is due to one thing: missing information.
We
may think we have very good reasons for explaining why such and such seems to
be the way it is, but due to missing information, our guesses, however sensible
they may seem to be, are still nothing more than guesses.
I
am not just presuming that that statement is itself a sensible one. In the essay I give reasons to support
it. No matter how reasonable our guesses
seem to be about any given incident, when we are faced with missing information
we would be more prudent to say, “It could
be this or that,” or “It appears that
such and such,” rather than to be so bold as to be arrogant and to say, “It unquestionably is this way.” I appeal to the reader to answer whether that
is not a prudent and sensible way to speak of situations in the face missing
information.
Now I will differentiate the essay Lord,
Why? in its totality from the research project that instigated it. The research project was a study of the story
of John the Baptist’s sending of his two messengers to ask Jesus, “Are you the
one who was to come or should we expect another?” as told in Matthew 11:2-3 and
also in Luke 7:18-19. The research
project proposed a possible alternative to the traditional view that John’s
action in sending the messengers with this question demonstrates that John
doubted. I emphasize that the project proposed a possible alternative, not
that it insisted upon one, though in
my view, the alternative, namely that John actually did not doubt after all, is
more plausible than the traditional view.
Of
course I expected opposition. The
traditional view is the traditional view because everybody believes it
and they have their reasons for doing so.
Whether or not they ever question those reasons (“test all things” - 1
Thess. 5:21) I have yet to see.
Actually, at the time, I believed that my alternative proposal had to be
wrong because nowhere in all of Christendom that I could tell (until I
discovered some comments by Matthew Henry), is there any other explanation for
John’s sending of the messengers to ask Jesus the question they did, than that
John doubted. So what I was researching
was where I was wrong. The research project, from the very first
step, was an appeal to someone and to anyone to provide me with, not just any
answer, but a convincing answer as to
why my alternative explanation was wrong.
I would welcome such an answer. I
had looked for such an answer and I had requested it from many, but the answer
never came.
I
submitted my alternative proposal to a number of persons, asking them, “Where
is this wrong?” No one attempted to show
me where it was wrong. One or two reiterated
to me the brief, pat answers (barely more than sound-bite snippets) routinely
recited in support of the traditional view.
But no one actually came right out and said, “No, your alternative
proposal is wrong, and here’s where it’s wrong.” Neither did anyone affirm that my alternative
might have some credence.
Some I didn’t hear back from at all.
I wondered, “Why did that person not get back to me?” and I imagined all
kinds of reasons. I realized the hazard
of jumping to a conclusion in the face of missing information.
I
tried to guess why those people did not respond to me. Did they not get my correspondence? Were they just ignoring me?
I
knew that just as there were other possible explanations for why John the
Baptist did what he did, there were who-knows-how-many possible explanations
for why those people did not respond to me.
It was another example of missing information.
One of those people was Professor Darrell Bock, author of many books,
including one called Who Is Jesus? Linking the Historical Jesus with the Christ
of Faith. In the book, Bock uses
John the Baptist’s doubt as a factor in determining the historicity of
Jesus. It seemed to me that if John the
Baptist did not doubt, then that factor did not qualify for Bock’s intended
purpose. Bock, among other things, is
the Executive Director of Cultural Engagement and the Senior Research Professor
of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.
At
last, I am genuinely getting to my update.
After several months I received a response from Professor Bock. Why had he not responded to me earlier? Had he been too busy? For a seminary professor that would be a very
possible and even likely explanation.
But no, my communication to him had just been temporarily misplaced,
that’s all. That’s perfectly
understandable.
I
am very grateful to Professor Bock for taking the time to courteously reply to
me. It was very generous of him to do
that, especially to me, a mere person on the street, so to speak. Do not think I am unappreciative. Yet, as he is a distinguished seminary
professor, I found his answers to be somewhat less than persuasive, not the
convincing answers I was looking for.
He
did not agree with my alternative possible explanation, but I already expected
that. Where was my alternative proposal
in error, according to Professor Bock?
One thing was –
He
cited the incident of Peter’s denial of Jesus in contrast to his Pentecost
speech of Acts 2 as an example of how faith can waver but recover.
I
am a nobody. I am only a student of the
Bible, though a very diligent one, if I do say so myself. Yet this answer has some glaring issues
obvious even to me:
(1) I do not question that faith can
waver; I question that that amounts to proof that John’s faith did waver. I am inclined to think that it does not,
especially when I think of martyrs such as Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer who
were burned at the stake. One of them,
because the wood wasn’t catching, is even recorded to have said, “Bring more
wood!” That would have been a convenient
time for their faith to waver.
Is
it really conceivable that John the Baptist had less faith than they? Was John unable to maintain his faith, even
though people centuries later, people who hadn’t nearly the credentials of John
the Baptist, were able to maintain theirs?
Is it really conceivable in the face of all that we know about John the
Baptist? The Bible actually gives us
quite a bit of information about him.
Look at his boldness in challenging the frightfully formidable King
Herod. Such boldness is an indication of
someone who is not unsure of himself in the slightest.
(2) Peter’s denial of Jesus had nothing at all whatsoever to do with his
faith or lack of it. Peter’s denial of
Jesus was due to Peter’s pride. In fact,
Peter was at least loyal and devoted enough to think that he could sneak in up
close and get away with it. Jesus had
already told Peter that he would deny Him, but Peter didn’t believe it. Peter thought he could do what he wanted and
get away with it. That has to do with
pride and not with faith.
(3) Peter and John the Baptist were two entirely different sorts of
persons. I don’t even need to describe
all the ways that they were different.
Just go through your mind over how they were different.
I
can’t believe a distinguished seminary professor would offer what he did and
consider it to be a suitable answer, let alone a convincing one.
Also Bock made a reference to what Jesus said in reply for the
messengers to take back to John:
Blessed
is anyone who does not stumble (or ‘is not offended’) on account of me. (Matthew 11:6, Luke
7:23)
With this Bock made the point that it confirms that John must have
doubted or else it makes no sense that Jesus would tell John’s messengers to
relay that back to John. In other words,
Bock is expressing what many people believe, namely, that Jesus was taking a
backward way of rebuking John the Baptist for doubting.
What I want to bring attention to is the exact wording Professor Bock
used to make this point. In his reply to
me, Bock said,
Jesus’ reply about blessed
are those not offended by him is
a response to John through his messengers calling him not to doubt … (underlined emphasis mine)
To
say that something “is” such
and such is explicit; in fact it is dogmatic.
I
answered that his reading of Jesus’ reply was a possibility. But it does not necessarily have to be read
that way. If John did not doubt,
it could also be read as an approbation of John’s steadfastness, in the sense
of:
John, because you did not
stumble on account of me, blessed are you.
It
would still make perfect sense if it was read that way.
Not only that, but either way one chooses to read the verse is to insist
that that verse, that particular part of Jesus’ reply, was intended for John
alone. To insist that it was intended
for John alone, or even that it was intended for John at all, may not
necessarily be the case. I’ll get back
to this shortly.
Bock replied that such a take on Jesus’ response
“… is surely not what he was
saying back.”
Notice again his use of the dogmatic: “it is surely not …,” when Bock
might have said, “it is probably not.”
But Bock said what he said. I did
not say this to Bock by way of reply because Bock told me that he wanted
nothing more to do with me, but I say it now and he is welcome to read this if
he wishes: You declare that the
alternative reading of Jesus’ response “is surely not what he was saying
back.” Back that up with some evidence.
I
am ready to say, and have been saying all along, that with convincing evidence
I will be satisfied with the traditional view.
I have hunted for convincing evidence and not found it. I have requested it and have not been
furnished with it. I have endeavored to
analyze Matthew 11:6 (“Blessed is he …” etc.) for its Greek sentence structure
and have not been able to turn up anything conclusive one way or the other.
Evidence makes all the difference.
Otherwise you are just making a groundless assertion.
On
the other hand, as I discovered before and mentioned elsewhere in the essay Doubting Doubt, I see that during the
days in which Bible commentator Matthew Henry lived, some 300 years ago, people
were not so inflexible. They were
willing to propose and entertain other alternatives, a willingness which seems
to be totally absent today. See what
Matthew Henry wrote concerning Matthew 11:6:
Some think that John sent
this inquiry for his own satisfaction.
Where there is true faith, yet there may be a mixture of unbelief. The remaining unbelief of good men may sometimes,
in an hour of temptation, call in question the most important truths. But
we hope that John’s faith did not fail in this matter, and that he only
desired to have it strengthened and confirmed. (underlined
emphasis mine)[1]
Not only is it clear that Matthew Henry saw that such a case could be a
possibility, it even sounds as if he thought it was likely. He went on to write
Others think that John sent his disciples to
Christ for their satisfaction.[2]
This is exactly the position I took in my essay. I can even modify that position one step
further. Follow me here:
The complete message that Jesus told John’s disciples can be read in
Matthew 11:4-6 and also in Luke 7:22-23.
The two are identical. Incidentally,
more could be said about the first part of the message. It is taken from Isaiah 35:5-6 –
5Then the eyes of
the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.
6aThen shall the
lame man leap as an hart, and the tongues of the dumb sing. (KJV)
Simply by the recitation of these lines, which would have been familiar
to Jews, if not perfectly memorized, Jesus was identifying Himself.
Therefore, consider the possibility, if not the probability, that the
first part of Jesus’ message (the part quoted from Isaiah 35:5-6) was for the
benefit of John the Baptist or for both John and his disciples, and the last statement (“Blessed is he who does
not stumble on account of me”) was for the benefit of the disciples alone. In other words, with the first part of Jesus’
message He was confirming His identity to John and with the last part Jesus
indeed was giving an admonition – but
to John’s disciples, not to John.
I
haven’t been able to confirm this alternative.
But until I am able to confirm anything conclusively, I must press the
need for us to be open to alternatives rather than to be completely and
stubbornly immovable and say dogmatically that John doubted and there are no
other possible explanations.
Why is that so important?
According to Professor Bock, my alternative reading is
… less likely than reading
John or Mary having the moments of doubt these texts more naturally point
toward.
The very thing I am challenging is what the “texts more naturally point
toward.” From my research, at least one
possible alternative explanation is far more probable and far less contrived than
the traditional explanation. I explain
that in detail in the essay Doubting
Doubt.
Here is another way Professor Bock answered my alternative proposal -
He
cited Luke 3:16-17 (he emphasized especially verse 17) which says
16 John answered them all, “I baptize you with
water. But one who is more powerful than
I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and
with fire. 17 His winnowing
fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into
his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
So, according to Bock, since John wasn’t seeing these things happen, he
doubted. This is exactly what I had said
in my essay, though I did not cite Luke 3:16-17 to do it. What I had said was
But Jesus was not the kind
of king they had in mind. They were
thinking something along the lines of a military king. It was that sort of king that they thought
they needed to throw out the Romans. But
despite all of the amazing things that Jesus was doing and saying, He didn’t
seem to be that sort of king at all.
So in spite of John the Baptist’s divine
appointment, what he saw was that things were going from bad to worse. He (John) was in prison and Jesus wasn’t a general. That’s a pretty good explanation for John’s
doubt.[3]
Bock had read what I wrote. He
read that I was questioning the preference of that explanation over an
alternative explanation. Yet he wrote me
back with the exact same explanation as I had already said I was challenging,
only he was using Luke 3:16-17 to do it.
But that’s not the problem with his answer. See again what it says in Luke 3:16-17. John the Baptist is telling people of the
things that Jesus is going to do. He
doesn’t say Jesus is going to do these things this afternoon or in a couple of
weeks or months. He doesn’t even say
Jesus is going to do these things within his (John’s) own lifetime. But Jesus will do everything John predicted;
it is a certainty. (In fact, the element
of certainty, whether near or distant, is a characteristic of statements made
by prophets, as in, “Thus saith the Lord …”)
So
the best we can say is that maybe
since John didn’t see these things happening, he doubted. We can’t say for sure. In fact, it is more accurate to say that Luke
3:16-17 does not support the theory that John doubted in the slightest.
Bock’s answer was that since John had yet to see such a demonstration of
authority as described in Luke 3:16-17, he doubted.
I
say – perhaps! Perhaps
John doubted. Maybe John doubted. It could be that John
doubted. But do you know what? Perhaps not!
We don’t really know for sure, do we?
Sure, the guess seems reasonable.
But it is still just a guess.
There is another possible way to explain what John did (as I described
in my essay) and
·
it
still aligns perfectly with every verse in the Bible that talks about the
incident,
·
it
avoids jumping to conflicting conclusions about someone we know quite a bit
about,
·
it
agrees with what we know about people in that region in that time period and
most of all,
·
it’s
simpler.
Sure – perhaps my alternative explanation is wrong. But isn’t it better, in the face of missing
information to say “It could be,” or “It appears that,” rather than saying, “It
is”?
“But,” as Arlo Guthrie said in Alice’s
Restaurant, “that’s not what I came to talk about.” If you will recall what I said at the
beginning of this supplement, in the background comments I made before
commencing this update, was that defeating Darrell Bock’s defense of the notion
that John the Baptist doubted is not the only point I want to make.
Although I was not persuaded by Bock’s answers, I did appreciate that he
took the time to offer them. They are by
far the best attempts I have received so far to provide answers to my challenge
that John did not doubt. He is not the
only one confident in the truth of the answers that he gave me; far from
it. These answers are typical of those
offered by the traditional view.
Unfortunately, as it so happens, these answers just don’t succeed. They are speculations, speculations that, I
might add, take more than a little effort to contrive.
It
is notable how Professor Bock concluded his correspondence. He said he would not discuss the matter any
further. I can understand that. Isn’t that the quote I gave by Dr. Carl
Trueman in the beginning background comments of this supplement? -
Criticism would be
effectively stymied. Most critics would
lack the stature to present a threat and could thus be safely ignored.
Darrell Bock is a very distinguished seminary professor. He also fits in with Dr. Carl Trueman’s
description of an evangelical leader in the Evangelical Industrial Complex.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: This is a trend. It is real.
It is observable, as Dr. Trueman’s article proves. It can be and is being documented. The trend is pervasive. Church leaders big and small, far and wide,
are maintaining an attitude of “We (the church leaders) know. You (the congregation) do not know.”
This is not good. Indeed, it is really quite troubling. It is a huge step backwards.
I have one final thing to
say in conclusion:
Is it possible that John the Baptist
doubted Jesus’ identity? Yes, it is
possible.
But is it probable? I say that it is not. I am persuaded that John the Baptist did not
doubt Jesus’ identity. Yet, I still am
willing to accept that I could be overlooking something or misunderstanding
something.
So
until I learn where it is that I am wrong, I say this to churches and Christian
teachers:
(1) Either stop teaching that John the
Baptist doubted Jesus’ identity, or
(2) If you are unwilling to do that, at
least teach only that John the Baptist might have doubted, but that there is
also another possible explanation for why he sent his disciples to ask Jesus
the question that he did.
[1] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible (Nashville, TN, Thomas Nelson Inc., 1997), pp. 878-879
[2]
Ibid.
[3]
Monty
Dicksion, essay Lord,
Why? or Doubting Doubt, book After the Loss, Essays that go from here to
Heaven (self-published, 2013), pp. 18-19
No comments:
Post a Comment