Chess Master

Let's pretend you are a Chess Master, the greatest in the world. You enjoy a relationship with other chess players. You also enjoy their respect and admiration. You create a beautiful chess club for them and it is your hope through following your example, listening to what you teach and following your guidelines, they will develop as close as possible to your skill level. You often sit down and play the game with one of them and you bask in the praise they give you, in fact you expect it.   It is not that you need it or that you have an inflated ego. It is that you deserve it because of what you have accomplished and what you have provided to others to allow them to enjoy the game.

You know that new converts to the game don't always understand the subtleties and complexities of Chess. Many start out only knowing the moves of each piece and wouldn't know castling from taking en-passant. It doesn't matter, you hope by their constant playing by the rules, they will learn, and as long as they listen to you and trust the knowledge you have written in your Chess Manual, they will get better. 

When you sit down to play you have a purpose and a plan. Unlike many of your opponents who only have the purpose of winning, you know all the different named strategies and defenses of the game. Your purpose is to capture their King and your strategy is to control the center of the board while at the same time building a strong defense around your own King. Your plan is already many moves ahead of your opponent even before the first piece is moved.

Because you are the greatest Chess Master in the world, you easily can anticipate what your opponent will do and as the game progresses, your plan is working flawlessly. There is never a doubt you will win the game against this opponent. 

But then the opponent makes a move out of the expected. Perhaps it was simply a fortuitous accident, or perhaps the person made their move consciously and independently of anything you ever said in your manual. It may not be the move you would have made, may in fact be a poor move, but you don't interfere and force them to make the move you would have. They have a mind of their own.

You may have to alter your next move from the scheme you had in your head, but it still doesn't alter your plan. You can see ahead enough to know three or four moves will put you right back where you planned to be and the game still remains your certain win.

Now your opponent notices that your Queen is one move away from being helplessly exposed to their Bishop. They quickly, almost salivating, move their Bishop into position, seeing now a direct line to her and that she is cornered and no piece of yours can be positioned to block the Bishop. So they release their hand from the piece and sit back, stifling a self-satisfied smile, when they suddenly become aware this has put their own King into checkmate. They quickly grab the Bishop and move the piece back to its original position.

What do you do now?

They have broken a rule. When they released the piece, that became their move and they had no right to reset the Bishop and play another piece. You could reach out and move their Bishop back and say this is the rule, you must keep it no matter what and then go ahead and take their King.

You didn't make them make a bad move. You didn't make them break the rules. They did all that independently on their own.  But now you have intervened and enforced the rule and placed their King in jeopardy. You had every right to do so.  They did independently break the rules. They did independently make a bad move.  Now they will suffer the consequences of you taking their king. They are totally dependent on what you do.

You could do many things, whatever is in your will to do.  You could ignore the action and allow the move to stand, knowing it was a neophyte mistake and also knowing it will not prevent you winning the game. You can see the moves to make to quickly take their King, even if they do now capture your Queen. You may even see from their body language they have learned and won't make such a mistake again, so you show grace and allow it and forgive it.

On the other hand, you could point out they broke a rule and allow them an opportunity to independently decide to correct it, expecting they will repent of the breach and learn from it. If they choose not to do so, you might break the relationship and not play them again.  You could even banish them from the club. They are completely dependent on you for such results.

You could also point out to them they broke a rule, but tell them you will allow it this time because they have played the rest of the game well and you really do want their company and to share Chess with them.

Or let's consider something else, which could happen and compare it to prayer. Suppose after the opponent realized their poor judgment in making the Bishop move, they asked you if they could please replay the move. You could refuse their request and allow them to suffer the consequence of losing their King. This would not be wrong. It would be what they deserve and would be just and fair. Or you could allow their request seeing they understood both their error and the rules, but wished to be forgiven. This is showing mercy and granting Grace. They got into the situation independent of your actions, but are now dependent upon you for the results.

You know, the Pharisees and Sadducee continually played a kind of mental Chess with Jesus, trying to trap him and throw him off his game plan. There are many instances of this, but consider this one from John 8:1-11:

But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

   But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

"No one, sir," she said.

"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

 These "Teachers of the Law" had independently decided this woman was guilty of adultery and they knew the Law. They confronted Jesus, not because they respected Him, but because they thought they had found a way to destroy his standing with the people or with God. Jesus did not answer their question. He knew the woman was guilty, but they were not acting in the spirit of the Law, but were acting independently of what God intended.

But Jesus, God, did not interfere with them. Nor in a sense, did he make the woman dependent on Him (Jesus-God).  Jesus said, go ahead and stone her, but let the sinless one cast the first stone. Each man decided independently to walk away, Jesus-God didn't make them drop the stones by Divine power or force them to go away. But He knew they would do this, he just didn't make them do it.

Jesus-God may have influenced their thought by his statement, but he did not hypnotize them or threaten them or cause them in anyway to spare the women. They had condemned her independently and they spared her independently. He could have chosen to make the outcome totally dependent upon Himself if he had wished. He could have "slipped" away with the woman, just as he had slipped away that time when people were about to throw him off a cliff.

Jesus then showed mercy to the woman. He certainly judged her sin was real and could have condemned her, but he did not. He said, "Go now and leave your life of sin."  This shows what? It shows indeed she was living a life of sin and was guilty. It shows he forgave her the sin. It shows he showed mercy. And it shows he left her to independently choose to leave her life of sin. He did not say, "Go now, for you will never be able to live a life of sin because all your future actions are totally dependent upon me."

In the story of Job, we can see Job was entirely dependent upon God for what he had. God allowed Satan to whisk all Job had away in an instant. Job had no input in the matter. Yet, when Job had originally gained his riches and built his family, he had done so by making independent decisions and by independent action. We are dependent on God for everything we have, but we are independent on how we get it. We are totally dependent on God for our salvation, but we independently brought on our condemnation.


Photo is me playing myself, which is why I never lost,  and I took it sometimes in the 1970s when I still had hair.