Rest and the Story: Submission When I Don't Know

For it is superfluous for me to write to you about this ministry to the saints; for I know your readiness, of which I boast about you to the Macedonians, namely, that Achaia has been prepared since last year, and your zeal has stirred up most of them. But I have sent the brethren, in order that our boasting about you may not be made empty in this case, so that, as I was saying, you may be prepared; otherwise if any Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we—not to speak of you—will be put to shame by this confidence. (2 Corinthians 9:1-4 NASB)

 In Acts 20, Paul again tours Macedonia and Greece, winding up in Corinth.  It happens within 2 verses, and his stay of 3 months is in the third.  It sounds like a whirlwind tour, but there is evidence that it may not have been.  In the letters to the Corinthians, Paul writes of a collection being taken up for the church in Jerusalem, where he happens to be headed.  In 1 Corinthians 16 and 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, Paul writes to them about being ready to send the collection to Jerusalem once he arrives (he's including letters of introduction for the couriers).  But he also indicates that this collection is being taken all over Macedonia as well as Galatia.  So Paul's trek back even makes more sense (his route is never really explained by Luke).

So this collection provides some back-story to the events of this Chapter, and parts of Acts 19 as well.  A few questions immediately come to mind, such as why did Luke leave this collection out of his account?  It's also clear from the letters to Corinth that there were other issues with which the church was struggling.  It's possible that any of them could help flesh out Paul's stay of 3 months in Corinth.  None of them made it into Acts.  Instead detail after detail of where Paul went, how he got there, and so on until he speaks to the elders of Ephesus when they visit him in the port of Miletus.  There Luke spends over half the chapter, just on Paul's good bye to Ephesus.

It's curious to look at the two letters, and then Luke's account in Acts, and wonder about the differences.  It seems clear that there are enough points of correspondence between Acts 19 and 1 Corinthians 16 to make it clear that Paul writes during the events of Chapter 19, perhaps as the silversmith riot is brewing.  The elements in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 are clearly additional inspiration on the same topic.  This seems to be a big issue for Paul, why not Luke?  I don't know for sure, but I suspect it has to do with an element to Luke's writing that often gets ignored.  Luke has a point, a goal, in writing his account we refer to as Acts.

The problem is that we have framed Acts as a historical record of the church in Jerusalem and Paul's work outside of Palestine.  It is, but this historical record has been written for a purpose.  There is a goal in mind for Luke, partly revealed in how he begins, writing to a person, Theophilus (friend of God).  Here he also says that this account continues the work of Jesus.  So, the purpose here is also tied to the purpose of Luke's account of the life of Jesus.  A lot of that purpose is tied to the word, "taught" or "instructed" in Luke 1:4.  But this word can also mean "inform" or "heard".  If it is the latter, then this friend of God could be one to whom Luke makes an appeal on behalf of Paul.  Considering how Acts ends, this is not outside the realm of possibility.  A "friend of God" may be found in many places among Roman society, and in hoping to either enlist the help of a representative or even a powerful official, these accounts may have been of use in providing "back story" to why Paul was so vilified by the Jews.  It's a possibility, and no where close to a certainty.  It's also very likely that Luke wrote to help a young, possibly influential or remote, believer better understand what he has chosen to believe.  I doubt it due to elements in the way Acts moves, especially in the end, but a very good case can be made that way.

So what's my point?  Sure, Luke had a point, and in reaching for that point left some stuff out.  So what?  I suppose that my real point in this is that I don't always get to know the whole story.  And I need to be okay with that.  I want to know why, about most everything.  I want to know why my company makes what I see as dumb decisions.  I want to know why my government is so convoluted that anything resembling truth is impossible to hear.  I want to know why both sides of every issue seem to so clearly share only what facts help their case.  Who shares all they know so "educated choices" can be made.  Why vilify people, even powerful ones, when there are facts on both sides of an issue that reveal it to be much more complicated than is ever presented?

I will never know why.  I will always be like everyone else, having to dig to disentangle fact and fiction, or facts underlying and beside the fiction.  I will constantly have to think through the smoke and haze I'm being shown to get at whatever substance lies behind it.  But I will also have to be content to with not being able to discover the substance.  Most of the time it is imperceptible, regardless of how much I look.  This is why I get lazy and don't look into much of the political hype on both sides of issues.  I know that I won't always be able to get to the root of things.  I will always be dependent on who is presenting facts, and how they present them.  I hate that.  I simply don't trust people who are telling me whatever because I am being kept from the facts that led whoever to whatever they are saying.  It's a pride issue really.

It's not like I can say to my Master, "Wait, how did you make stars?" before believing that He did and still does.  It's not like I can say to my Master, "show me" before believing.  This problem I face impacts my relationship with my Master directly.  It is a pride issue, and it interferes with my submission to Him.  I don't need to know why.  Even the things I can comprehend I do not need to know.  I haven't earned the right to the information, nor have I done the necessary work to discover the information, nor have I even made a decent argument why I ought to be given the information.  I just want to know, as if I'm somebody to whom my Master answers.  He didn't tell Job, so why should He tell me?  All my Master told Job were the things Job knew, the amazing things that make my Master truly Master of the universe.  Who am I if Job were not one to whom my Master was answerable?

So, while I should dig for facts and truth, I should also be content in faith that my Master is always Master over everything, even the unknowable.  Dig, but not in pride.  Dig in submission, seeking the truth my Master has hidden for me to find.  The truth He hides will, in discovering, enlighten my soul and deepen my relationship with my Master.  That's what I should pursue.  Some of that is found in pushing through political haze, some is found in wading through relational haze, and some is found in digging through personal baggage.  But it is mostly found in Scripture.  So, I'll continue to spend most of my time digging there.