The Nature of Faith

I meet with a group of men from the congregation I attend most Friday mornings from 6:30 to 7:30 a.m. Calling ourselves "A Bank of Brothers," we read and discuss a chapter from a book and pray together. This past Friday we began the book The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel by talking about the nature of faith. How do you define "faith"?

The writer of Hebrews called faith "the evidence of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." He then continues with the concrete examples of faithful people from the Old Testament (see Hebrews 11).

Many books have been written about the evidences for the Christian faith, such as The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, which the Band of Brothers went through last year. Yet with all the evidences and arguments for Jesus of Nazareth being the Son of God, I can't call them absolute. The American popular legal standard is "beyond a doubt." Christian evidences do not meet that high standard in my opinion. Yet I believe with all my heart and have staked my (and my family's) eternity on it.

My faith is not unreasoned, just not beyond a shadow of a doubt. I admit there is a possibility I could be wrong. But I am not. All the evidences of the world would still fall short, just like all the good works of the world cannot earn a place in heaven. The gap between the undeniable evidences, such as they are, and the conclusion Jesus is the Son of God, is bridged by "faith".

One man goes into a period of trial and doubting, emerging on the other side as an agnostic. Another goes into the same period of trial and doubting, emerging as a man of unshakable faith. Why the difference? I submit they are different because they made different decisions. A person of faith must decide they want to believe. At its nature, faith, like love, is not an emotion. It is a decision. I have decided to follow Jesus.

What happened to Lazarus?

Whatever happened to Lazarus of Bethany after his resurrection? Were the Pharisees and chief priests successful in their desire to put him to death (again)? Did he escape their evil plots? Was he among the disciples in Acts?

Did he remember anything from his time in Sheol? What did he tell others about "the other side"?

The short, precise answer is we don't know. He is never mentioned again in Scripture. And from what I can find in a quick search, almost nothing is recorded about him by the early Christians. The International Bible Encyclopedia reports a reference stating Lazarus lived approximately 30 years after Jesus' crucifixion and died, being about 60 years old. Nothing is reported about what he remembered from his time in the tomb, if he remembered anything at all. Like most of the apostles, he came into the limelight for a short while, and then went offstage; never to be heard or seen again.

The Lazarus Connection

In all the recorded stories Jesus told, only one names a character in the tale. We refer to it as "Lazarus and the Rich Man." You probably already know the story recorded in Luke 16:19-31, remember sermons and lessons taught from it, maybe even know scholars debate its place as a parable or an actual event, because it is the only story where a character has a name. Please put all that aside for a minute and ask yourself this question: Why a name in this story? What makes this story significant? While it gives the clearest picture of life after death, is it a vision of reality or an illustration? Is that its significance? And if so, why does that require a name? Why "Lazarus"? Jesus told stories to teach lessons. The story was prompted by the Pharisees sneering in Luke 16:14. Jesus told them "What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight." Lazarus and the Rich Man illustrates that point. The wealth we tend to value here is useless to us in the next life. But why does that point require the name "Lazarus"?

Perhaps we should look at the name's meaning. The Greek name Lazarus equates with the Hebrew name Eleazar and Eleazaros (according to The International Bible Encyclopedia). They mean "God has helped". God does indeed help, but does that add huge significance to the lesson? Would the Pharisees and disciples (Jesus' audience here) catch that significance from this common name?

Jesus ends the story with a second significant point. He makes the point you either believe God or you don't. Faith has a deeper reality than what you do and say. Faith has an integrity between what you are and what you do. Jesus has been teaching all along the mouth speaks from the abundance of the heart. The Pharisees asked for a miracle, a sign; but denied the greatest sign in their lives, Moses and the Prophets. (Admit it; you thought I was going to say Jesus, didn't you. Moses and the Prophets told about Jesus. The Pharisees spent their lives studying Moses and the Prophets. They learned the words, but never got the message.) Jesus told the Pharisees if you don't listen to Moses and the Prophets, you wouldn't listen to someone risen from the dead, either (Luke 16:31). But does that explain the use of the name? Why "Lazarus"?

The other use of "Lazarus" in the New Testament identifies a real person. He was a friend of Jesus, brother to Martha and Mary, and lived in Bethany outside Jerusalem. He apparently was well-to-do, and often entertained Jesus and the disciples. Without going into the very significant story and details recorded in John 11 and 12, let me remind you he died of a rather sudden illness. After being dead and buried for 4 days, Jesus raised him to life again with the words, "Lazarus, come forth!"

Do you remember how the Pharisees and chief priests responded to this incredible miracle? They decided it was time to put Jesus to death (John 11:53). And what about Lazarus? Did they listen to one risen from the dead? They decided they would execute Lazarus as well, because people saw him, heard his story, and believed in Jesus as the Messiah (John 12:9-11). Does this explain the name in Jesus' story? Does this explain "Why "Lazarus"? It does to me.

I had always connected Jesus' point about rising from the dead in "Lazarus and the Rich Man" to Jesus. And there is a connection there. But I have come to think the connection is stronger with Lazarus of Bethany. The Pharisees never saw the resurrected Jesus, but they did see the resurrected Lazarus. They didn't believe him, because they didn't believe Moses and the Prophets.

This finally brings me to this question. While you may know what they said, do you believe Moses and the Prophets?

Which "this"?

OK, so we blogged for a while, and we all quit. But I still want to practice. So here is a random question I haven't had time to research.

John 4:1-3 reads, "The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples. When the Lord learned of this, he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee." (New International Version)

Which "this" did Jesus learn?

1. Jesus was becoming more popular than John.
2. The Pharisees heard Jesus was becoming more popular than John.
3. Jesus' disciples were baptizing people.

Depending on which "this" you take as the antecedant, you get a different picture of Jesus' possible motivation for going back to Galilee. Was it too early to be that popular in Judea? Was it to avoid confrontation with the Pharisees? Was it to keep His disciples from baptizing others?

The original Greek text may answer this, or may be as wide open as the English; I just haven't taken the time to look into it.

A mile east of my house, I noticed an arrangement of businesses that struck me as humorous. North of Parker Avenue at Alma you will find a 24 Hour Fitness Center. South of Parker Avenue at Alma you will find a Bally's Fitness Center. Between the two, you will find a 7-Eleven, Shipley's Donuts, Chubby's Restaurant, a Chinese restaurant (I don't remember the name), and a Pancho's All-You-Can-Eat Mexican Food Buffet. Location, location, location.

Family by Choice

"A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother." (Proverbs 18:24, New International Version)

I learned from the example of my family growing up that "blood is thicker than water." I was taught you take care of your family first, no matter what, even if you didn't like them. So when I ran across the verse above, I didn't know what to make of it. It didn't fit. So I interpreted it in a way to fit what I had been taught. I had best friends, but none of them were closer than what a brother would be. Since no one was closer than family, this verse must have been referring to Jesus.

Then in 1976 a met a man my own age in San Antonio. We became friends, co-workers in church activities, confidants and business partners. He has taught me many things through the years, but none more precious than this: "There is a friend who sticks closer than a brother." Thanks, Stormy.

Passing Along a Question

About 28 years ago (roughly 1978), I was heading out of my office at the MacArthur Park Church of Christ and stopped to visit briefly with the Educational Secretary, Betty. She is one of several extremely intuitive people God has brought into my life. She told me she came across a passage of Scripture in her daily reading and wasn't sure how to follow it. She wanted to ask me a question, but wasn't wanting me to answer.

Betty opened her Bible to the last verse of II Peter and read, "But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Betty then said, "I know what knowledge is, and I know how to grow in knowledge. I know what grace is, but . . . how do you grow in grace?"

I have asked myself that question many times over the years, always remembering Betty. I don't have a good, clear answer even now. However, I do have a good, clear hunger to grow in the grace of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Tomorrow, I get to pass her comments and question along to the Bible class I teach at the church of Christ on McDermott Road.

Thank you, Betty, for the question and the example.