An Interpretation of the English Bible
THE FOUR GOSPELS
by B. H. CARROLL
Late President of Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas
Edited by
J. B. Cranfill
Grand Rapids, Michigan
New and complete edition
Copyright 1948, Broadman
Press
Reprinted by Baker Book
House
Broadman Press
ISBN: 0-8010-2344-0
First Printing, September
1973
Second Printing, September
1976
PHOTOLITHOPRINTED BY GUSHING
- MALLOY, INC
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN, UNITES
STATES OF AMERICA
1976
I Season of
Retirement, Part I (Matthew 14:13-16:12;
Mark 6:30-8:26; Luke 9:10-17;
John 6:1-7:1)
II Season
of Retirement, Part II (Matthew 16:13-28;
Mark 8:27-9:1; Luke 9:18-27)
III Season
of Retirement, Part III (Matthew 17:1-13; Mark 9; 2:13;
Luke 9:28-36; John 1:14; 2
Peter 1:14-18)
IV Season of
Retirement, Part IV (Matthew 17:14-18:35; 8:19-22;
Mark 9:9-50; Luke 9:37-62;
John 7:2-10)
V Christs
Discourse at the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:11-10:21)
VI The
Sending Out of the Seventy (Luke 10:1-24)
VII Parable
of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-42)
VIII Discourse
with the Pharisees (Luke 11:1-13; 59)
IX Are there
Few that Be Saved? (Luke 13:1-14, 22-25; John 10:22-42)
X Five
Parables (Luke 15:1-17:10)
XI The
Raising of Lazarus and its Results (John 11:1-54)
XII The When
and Where of the Kingdom (Luke 17:11-18:8)
XIII The
Pharisee and the publican, Marriage and Divorce, etc.
(Luke 18:9-17; Matthew 19:1-15;
Mark 10:1-16)
XIV The Rich
Young Ruler (Matthew 19:16-20:28; Mark 10:17-45; Luke 18:18-34)
XV Bartimeus
Healed; Zaccheus Saved (Matthew 20:29-34;
Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-19:28)
XVI The Crisis
of the World (Matthew 2I:1-22; Mark 11:1-18;
Luke 19:29-48; John 11:55 to
12:50)
XVII Three
Questions Answered (Matthew 21:23-22:33;
Mark 11:27-12:27; Luke
20:1-40)
XVIII The Last
Public Discourse (Matthew 22:34-23:39;
Mark 12:38-44; Luke 20:41-21:4)
XIX Our Lords
Great Prophecy (Matthew 24:1-51;
Mark 13:1-37; Luke 21:5-36)
XX Christs
Second Coming (Matthew 24:1-25:46;
Mark 13:1-37; Luke 21:8-36)
XXI Christs
Second Coming (Conclusion)
(Matthew 64:1-25:46; Mark
13:1-37; Luke 21:5-36)
XXII The
Bethany Supper (Matthew
26:1-25, 31-35; Mark 14:1-8, 27-31;
Luke
22:1-16, 21-38, John 12:2-8, 13:1-38)
XXIII The
Lords Supper (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25;
Luke 22:17-20; 1 Corinthians
11:23-26)
XXIV The Book of
Comfort (John 14-17)
XXV Jesus in
Gethsemane (Matthew 26:30; 36-48; Mark 14:26; 32-42;
Luke 22:39-46; John 18:1;
Hebrews 5:7-8)
XXVI Arrest and
Trial of Jesus (Matthew 26:47-87, 59-75; 27:1-2;
Mark 14:48-15:1; Luke 22:47
to 23:1; John 18:2-28)
XXVII Christ
Before Pilate and Herod (Matthew 27:3-30; Acts 1:18-19;
Mark 15:2-19; Luke 23:2-25;
John 18:28-19:16)
XXVIII Crucifixion
of Christ (Matthew 27:31-44; Mark 15:20-22;
Luke 23:26-43; John 19:16-27)
XXX Our Lords
Resurrection (Matthew 27:57-66; Mark 15:42-47;
Luke 23:50-56; John 19:31-42)
XXXI Appearances
and Commissions (Matthew
28:1-15; Mark 16: 1-18;
Luke
24:1-43; John 20:1-21:25; 1 Corinthians 15:5)
XXXII Appearances
and Commissions (Continued) (Matthew 28:16-20;
Mark 16:15-18; Luke 24:44-53;
Acts 1:3-12; 1 Corinthians 15:7)
XXXIII A Harmony
of Peter
SEASON OF RETIREMENT
PART I
Harmony,
pages 76-89 and Matthew 14:13 to 16:12; Mark 6:30 to 8:26; Luke 9:10-17; John
6:1 to 7:1.
We now take up Part V of the Harmony, the general theme of which is
"Season of Retirement into Districts Around Galilee." The time is six
months, i.e., from just before the Passover (John 6:4) to the Feast of
Tabernacles. There are four of these retirements, found in sections 57, 61, 62,
63-67, respectively. The occasion of the first was twofold, (1) the hearing of
the death of John the Baptist, and (2) the return of the twelve apostles for
rest. The place of this retirement was Bethsaida Julias, which is referred to
by Luke, as over against the Bethsaida mentioned by Mark, which was near
Capernaum. The occasion of the second retirement was also twofold, (1) the
fanaticism of the disciples in trying to make him king (John 6:15), and (2) the
hostility of the Jewish rulers (Matt. 15:1). The place of the second retirement
was Phoenicia, about Tyre and Sidon. The occasion of the third retirement was
the suspicion of Herod Antipas, who was a very wicked man and had much fear
respecting Jesus and his great works. The place of this retirement was
Decapolis. The occasion of the fourth retirement was continued Jewish
hostilities, and the place was Caesarea Philippi, in the extreme northern part
of Palestine on the east side of the Jordan. In every case he avoided Herod's
jurisdiction.
The first outstanding event of these retirements is the feeding of the five
thousand, the account of which is prefaced by the report of the twelve
apostles, who had just returned from their first missionary tour. This is a
glowing account of their work and their teaching. The latter item of this
report is unusual in a missionary report. Matthew says that Jesus withdrew to a
desert place apart when he heard of the death of John the Baptist. In this
desert place the multitudes thronged from the cities, and this excited the
tender compassion of Jesus because they were like sheep without a shepherd.
Mark says that he taught them many things. His work here continued until the
day was far spent, upon which the disciples besought him to send the multitudes
away to buy food. Here begins the beautiful story of "Feeding the Five
Thousand," which is told by all four of the evangelists and does not need
to be repeated in this expression, but there are certain facts and lessons here
that need to be emphasized. First, there is the test of his disciples as to
what they were willing to undertake. Second, this furnished the occasion for
the great discourse of John 6 on the Bread of Life. Third, it was the occasion
of sloughing off unworthy disciples. Fourth, it supplied the physical wants of
the people. Fifth, there is here a most excellent lesson on order in doing
things. Sixth, Christ is presented here as the great wonder-worker in supplying
the needs of his people.
Following this miracle is the incident of Jesus walking on the sea. After
feeding the five thousand Jesus retired to the mountain to pray and sent the
disciples back across the sea in a boat. A storm arose and they were
distressed, but on the troubled sea they saw Jesus walking and they were afraid.
Out from the storm of their distress came the voice of Jesus: "It is 1; be
not afraid." What a lesson for us! Jesus walks on the troubled sea. But
Peter, impulsive Peter, must put the matter to a test and he receives the
command to try his strength in walking on the sea, but the wind and the waves
disturb his faith and he sinks, only to be rescued by the hand divine. Our Lord
rebukes his little faith, as he does the "little faith" of others
in two other instances in this division of the Harmony, (viz., on pp. 88, 95).
This incident made a profound impression on the disciples. Matthew says,
"They that were in the boat worshiped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the
Son of God." Mark says, "They were sore amazed in themselves; for
they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened."
John says, "They were willing therefore to receive him into the
boat." There seems, at first sight, to be some discrepancy here, but these
evangelists are speaking from different standpoints. Matthew seems to look at
it from the standpoint of the effect in strengthening their faith in his
divinity; John, from the standpoint of their scare when they first saw him, and
Mark, from the standpoint of the preceding incident of "Feeding the Five
Thousand." Broadus says, "Mark (6:52) censures their astonishment at
this miracle, for which the miracle of the loaves would have prepared them if
their minds had not been stupid and dull. This language of Mark does not
necessarily forbid the supposition that they were now convinced Jesus was
divine; but it best falls in with the idea that they were at a lower
standpoint." They straightway landed at Gennesaret, according to Matthew
and John, where the people came in great numbers to touch his garment that they
might be healed. Mark's description of this healing work of our Lord is most
vivid, closing with the words, "as many as touched him were made
whole."
All this prepared the way for the great discourse of our Lord on the Bread of
Life in John 6 (Harmony, pp. 81-82). This is a marvelously strong discourse on
the spirituality of his kingdom. The introduction (John 6:22-25) explains the
connection of this discourse with the miracle of the loaves and how the
multitudes found Jesus after that event in Capernaum. In v. 26-40 we have the
first dialogue between them and Jesus in which Jesus reveals their purposes and
exhorts them to seek the Bread of Life. Then they ask, "How?" and he
explains that it is by accepting him whom the Father sent. Then they demand a
sign, referring to the sign of the manna to the Israelites in the wilderness,
upon which Jesus showed them the typical and spiritual import of the manna,
explaining that it referred to him. In v. 41-51 we have the second dialogue
arising from their murmuring at his teaching, that he came down from heaven.
Here he announced the great doctrine of God's drawing in order to salvation,
his relation to the Father and the nature of the salvation he brought as
eternal, over against the perishable manna which their fathers ate in the wilderness.
In verses 52-59 we have the third dialogue arising from their strife among
themselves about his teaching, in which Jesus shows them their utter
hopelessness apart from him and his sacrifice. In v. 60-65 we have the fourth
dialogue, which was between Jesus and his disciples, growing out of their
murmuring at his hard doctrine. Here he explains that the words which he had
spoken were spiritual and life-giving, and then revealed the fact that one
among them was an unbeliever. This he knew, says John, from the beginning. In
v. 66-71 we have the final effect of his discourse upon them, driving many of
his disciples back, but confirming his immediate disciples in his divine
mission as voiced by this first great confession of Peter: "We believe and
know that thou art the Holy One of God." But Jesus let them know that one
of them was a devil. Note that this revelation of the betrayer was nearly a
year before the revelation of Judas at the Passover supper (John 13), and shows
that Jesus knew all the time that Judas would betray him. Note also that this
discourse is progressive. Each dialogue brings a new revelation and the effect
of this progress upon his audience is marked, finally driving them away from
our Lord to walk with him no more, while the severity of the test brought forth
from his disciples their strongest expression of faith in his divinity up to
this time.
In section 60 we have the account of another issue between Christ and the
Pharisees at Capernaum. They sent an embassy to him from Jerusalem and asked
why his disciples did not keep the tradition of the elders with regard to the
washing of their hands, the full explanation of which is given by Mark and
needs only a careful reading to be understood. To this Jesus responded with a
charge of hypocrisy and quotes a prophecy of Isaiah which he applies to them.
This prophecy has in it a double charge, (1) of emptiness, of heartlessness, in
their service and (2) that they taught the doctrines and precepts of men. This
applied to all their traditions, what a comment on the whole of the Jewish
Talmud! Then he goes further and charges them with transgressing the
commandment of God because of their tradition in respect to honoring parents.
If they should say that their property was "Corban," i.e., given to
God, that exempted them, according to the Jewish tradition, which made void the
word of God. Then he explained the fallacy of their tradition by showing that
it was not what goes into a man that defiles him, but that defilement was an
issue of the heart. But this offended the Pharisees, to which he replied to his
disciples with the parable of the blind guides, which the disciples did not
understand, as it applied to the matter under consideration. This called for a
more elaborate explanation, that the heart and stomach of a man were vastly
different and that sin issuing from the heart was the only true defilement of
the man. Mark gives thirteen items in his list of sins coming out of the heart,
and Matthew seven, but these are but illustrations of the principle that all
sin issues from the heart.
Immediately following this issue with the authorities at Jerusalem, Jesus
retired to the region of Tyre and Sidon, in the territory of Phoenicia, which
is outside of the land of Israel. This retirement, as already explained, was
caused by the fanaticism of his disciples in trying to make him king, and the
hostility of the Jewish rulers. Phoenicia (see map) was located northwest of
Palestine and contained two cities of importance Tyre and Sidon. It was in
this territory and while on this retirement that Jesus healed the
Syrophoenician, or Canaanitish woman's daughter. The term
"Canaanitish," as used by Matthew, refers back to the time when the
inhabitants of this section were called Canaanites. It is probable that the
Jews continued to apply this name to the inhabitants of Phoenicia, though the
after inhabitants may have been of later origin. To Matthew's Jewish readers
this word would show that she was a Gentile. (Broadus' Commentary). But Mark
says that she was a Greek, meaning a Gentile, and a Syrophoenician, meaning an
inhabitant of the united countries of Syria and Phoenicia, a term used to
distinguish this country from Libyphoenicia, or the Carthaginians. To Mark's
Gentile readers this name also would mean a Gentile. This country of Syria
extended from the northern part of Palestine all the way up the Mediterranean
coast to the headwaters of the Euphrates, following that river east to the
great Syrian Desert, and thence south to the headwaters of the Jordan,
including Antioch and Damascus, two cities well known to Bible history. This
country has a vital connection with the Greeks. It was conquered by Alexander
the Great, allotted to the Seleucids after his death, who built Antioch and
ruled this country till it was taken by the Romans. This was in the fourth,
third, and second centuries before Christ.
It was in this country Jesus sought retirement and rest for himself and
disciples, but this rest was broken by the coming of the Syrophoenician woman
to Jesus in behalf of her daughter. Jesus could not be hid because of his fame
and his approachableness by those who were in distress. We find that, in every
effort which he made at retirement, the people found him. So, this Canaanitish,
Greek, Syrophoenician woman found him when he came into those parts. The facts
of this case are as follows: This Syrophoenician woman had a little daughter
who was grievsouly demonized. She heard of the presence of Jesus in those
parts, came and besought him to cast forth the demon out of her. He made no
answer. Then the disciples intervened and asked him to send her away, but he
answered that he was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
The woman personally renews her petition and begs for help, but Jesus tells her
that it is not meet to give the children's bread to the dogs. She answered that
she would be satisfied with the crumbs, and this brought forth from the Saviour
the highest commendation of her faith.
Now let us look at this picture again and see if we can find in it the lessons
intended for us. First, let us look for the proofs of this woman's faith. There
are four of these: (1) Her address in which she calls him the Son of David; (2)
she worshiped him; (3) she recognized Jewish priority; (4) her humility and
importunity.
This scene was, perhaps, on the road and not in the house, which helps us to
understand better some of the points in the story. The seeming indifference of
Jesus was only to test and develop her faith. The intervention of the disciples
was not to ask that she be dismissed without help, but, rather, to give her the
blessing and let her go. Evidently the woman did not hear Christ's reply to the
disciples. Being in advance of the woman on the road, this conversation was not
understood by her, which explains the next statement that "she came and
worshiped him." The statement of Jesus to the disciples that he was not
sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel meant that he was unwilling
to carry on a general ministry in Phoenicia, because his mission was to the
Jews. The "crumb" idea here introduced by the woman and acted upon by
Christ does not conflict with this idea of avoiding a general ministry in
Phoenicia. This referred to the smaller blessing to a Gentile dog which would
not take any of the children's bread. She seems here to argue that Jesus is now
away from the Jews and not feeding them. So a blessing in this isolated case
would not interfere with the blessings for the Jews. The dogs here referred to
were little dogs. The word in the Greek is diminutive and means the little
house dogs allowed to run around in the house and under their master's table.
The woman was willing not only to be called a dog, but to be called a little
dog and to have a little dog's share of food. This incident is also an
illustration of the scriptural teaching that we should pray for the salvation
of others who are not even interested.
After the incident of the Syrophoenician woman Jesus hastened to return to the land
of Israel. Going from the borders of Tyre and Sidon he passed through Sidon,
thence across to the east side of the Jordan and down on the east side of the
Sea of Galilee through the borders of Decapolis. This was intentional, to avoid
the territory of Herod, who was suspicious of Jesus. As soon as he arrived they
brought him a deaf and dumb man whom he healed, and charged not to tell it, but
he published it the more, which resulted in their bringing the multitudes of
the unfortunate to him for a blessing. He healed all of these and then fed four
thousand, the circumstances and particulars of which are similar to the feeding
of the five thousand.
Then, sending away the multitudes, he crossed over the Sea of Galilee to the
borders of Magadan, where he was met again by the Pharisees demanding a sign,
but sighing deeply in his spirit he rebuked them and left them, never to return
to this part again to teach. This text illustrates the grieving of the Holy
Spirit. On leaving here he went across the Sea of Galilee to Bethsaida, where
he tarried a short time on his way to Caesarea Philippi. When they arrived at
Bethsaida the disciples were reminded by a little parable of Jesus that they
had forgotten to take bread with them. This parable referred to the leaven of
the Pharisees and Sadducees, which was their doctrine, but the disciples did
not understand it and thought that he referred to their forgetting the bread.
Then he issued a sharp rebuke to his disciples. as follows: (1) for hardness of
heart; (2) for dimness of perception; (3) for a torpid memory; (4) for lack of
faith. Then they understood that he referred to the teaching of the Pharisees
and Sadducees. Does teaching, or doctrine, leaven? It seems to have leavened
them. Does it make any difference what we believe? Certainly there is a moral
quality of belief.
At Bethsaida was brought to him a blind man whom he carried out of the village.
He healed him by the use of means; at least apparently, and gradually, thus
illustrating the gradual perception of conversion. Then he sent him away and
would not even permit him to go into the village. This case is very similar to
the case of the deaf and dumb whom he healed in the borders of Decapolis. In
each case he took the person out and healed him privately. In each case he also
used means, apparently. Why this method in these two cases particularly? On the
point of the "why" here we cannot be dogmatic. Perhaps it was to
prevent excitement as far as possible by making it appear that he used means;
that he was healing more in the natural way and thus avoid the excitement that
usually followed his regular method.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the theme of Part
V of the Harmony?
2. What was the time and
what the time limits of this division?
3. How many retirements in
this period and where are they found in the Harmony?
4. What was the occasion and
place of each?
5. What was the first
outstanding event of this period of retirements and how is it prefaced?
6. What, in order, are the
events which led up to the feeding of the five thousand?
7. Tell the story of the
feeding of the five thousand.
8. What are the lessons of
this incident?
9. Give the story of Jesus
walking on the sea and its lessons.
10. How do you harmonize
Matthew, Mark, and John on this incident?
11. Where did they land and
what incidents there?
12. What was the occasion
and nature of the great discourse in John 6?
13. Give an analysis of this
discourse, showing its introduction, its dialogues, the progress of the thought
in these parts of the discourse, the progress of its effect on the enemy and
its effect on the disciples of Jesus.
14. What issue raised
between Christ and the Pharisees at Capernaum and how did Christ meet it?
13. Give an account of the
progress of this issue and show the final outcome of it.
16. Bid Jesus ever leave the
land of Israel? If so, why?
17. In what country were
Tyre and Sidon?
18. State the geographical
position of Phoenicia.
19. Explain the terms
"Ganaanitiah," "Greek," and "Syrophoenician" as
applied to the woman who approached Christ in these parts.
20. What is the extent of
Syria?
21. What, briefly, was
Syria's connection with the Greeks, and how long since to this incident?
22. Why should Jesus desire
to remain incognito here?
23. How was the rest broken?
24. Why could not Jesus be
hid?
25. What are the facts of
this case in their order?
26. What was the proofs of
this woman's faith?
27. Was this scene in the
house or out doors?
28. Why did Jesus so act in
this case?
29. Did his disciples ask
that she be dismissed without help?
30. Why should Jesus avoid a
general ministry in Phoenicia?
31. Explain how
"crumbs" did not conflict with this idea.
32. What kind of dogs here
referred to and what the import?
33. What is the lesson here
on praying for others not interested?
34. Trace on the map the
journey of Jesus from Tyre to the neighborhood of the Sea of Galilee. Why this
course?
35. What were the events of
his stay in this section?
36. Where did he go from
there and what were the events at the next place?
37. Where then did he go,
and what important lesson did he there teach his disciples and how?
38. What are the items of
his rebuke here and what the importance of doctrine as here indicated?
39. Give the incident of the
healing of the blind man here and its lessons.
SEASON OF RETIREMENT PART II WHO IS JESUS
OF NAZARETH AND WHAT IS HIS MISSION?
Harmony, pages 89-92 and Matthew 16:13-28; Mark 8:27
to 9:1; Luke 9:18-27.
The scene of this discussion is Caesarea Philippi, in the extreme northern part
of Palestine. The historians are Matthew (16:13-28); Mark (8:27-28; 9:1); and
Luke (9:18-27). These records, being presented in parallel columns, sections
64-65, on pages 89-92 of the Harmony of the Gospels, it is quite easy to
observe the peculiarities of each. Note three general observations: First, they
exhibit the most remarkable independent testimony, each supplying entirely some
detail omitted by the others, or adding somewhat to details given by them, not
only without the slightest discrepancy, but so that all that each says may be
incorporated into one perfectly congruous statement. Second, Mark, commonly
called Peter's gospel, modestly omits Christ's high commendation of Peter, but
is particularly careful to record Peter's sin, the public rebuke of it, and the
exhortation based on it; while Luke, commonly called Paul's gospel, omits the
sin of Peter, its rebuke and the connection between it and the exhortation.
Third, Matthew writing for Jews, records particularly and elaborately the
things most needed by them, to wit: the kind of faith necessary to salvation;
the true foundation of the church; its indestructibleness; its high functions
and authority; the necessity of the vicarious passion of Jesus; the certainty
and glory and judgment of the second coming.
Now, combining a congruous statement of all the records, it is easy to fashion
an outline for the whole. The following is submitted as that outline:
1. The great ministry in Galilee is ended forever.
2. To sum up and crystallize its results, and to rest somewhat before entering
upon a final ministry elsewhere there is a season of retirement.
3. Having reached the place of retirement, a suburban village of Caesarea
Philippi, our Lord separates himself from his immediate disciples and the
attendant multitudes to seek God in prayer (Luke 9:18).
4. The object of that prayer, as inferred from the context, is that however
variant the opinions of others concerning himself, his own disciples may have a
God-revealed faith in his office and divinity, so that they may be able to
receive clearer teaching concerning his vicarious passion by which his office
becomes efficient in the salvation of men (Matt. 16: 17-21).
5. What men think of him and why.
6. What the disciples believed as expressed in Peter's confession.
7. Our Lord's wonderful response to this confession and the doctrines involved.
8. Clearer teaching concerning his passion.
9. Peter's rebuke of Christ and Christ's rebuke of Peter.
10. Terms of discipleship and why so hard (Mark 8:34-37).
11. A great danger and its antidote, the danger of being ashamed or afraid
before the world, to confess Christ (Mark 8:38).
12. An assuring promise: That some of them should not taste of death until they
saw Jesus coming in glory to judge the world (Matt. 16:28).
It cannot reasonably be expected that I should discuss all this outline in one
chapter. I can cover none of it elaborately except one capital point. But it is
desirable to make an outline of all the salient points suggested by these
remarkable incidents at Caesarea Philippi. Let it be impressed on the mind that
the Galilean ministry is ended forever. For that great section, parable, and
miracle are over forever. In his teaching capacity he has finally left
Capernaum and the Sea of Galilee. True, we will find him subsequently, passing
through Galilee, but in hurry and silence. True, after his resurrection, he
there, once more, meets with is own people and commissions them. But his own
personal ministry to that lost people to those doomed cities is completely
ended.
This ministry being finished, it becomes to Christ a very solemn question: What
are its results? The people who heard him, who witnessed his miraculous deeds,
were bound, by the very nature of the case, to propound each to himself and to
others this question: Who is he? We need not be surprised that the answers to
this question were widely variant. It requires no deep philosophy to understand
why men, hearing the same things and looking upon the same facts, shall yet
reach widely different conclusions from what they hear and see. The standpoint
alone will account for the divergence. We may easily understand why Herod would
suppose from what he had heard of Jesus that he was John the Baptist risen from
the dead. He reasoned from the standpoint of an excited and guilty conscience,
taking counsel of his fears. His superstitious apprehension of coming evil for
his wrongdoing would lead him to put a construction upon Christ and his work
that would not suggest itself to any other man. It is just as easy to
understand how others familiar with the closing passages of the Old Testament,
which predict the coming of Elijah before the great and notable day of the
Lord, should surmise that this Jesus, working such wondrous deeds, was that
Elijah. A widely prevalent tradition accounts also for the fact that yet others
supposed he might be Jeremiah. The tradition was that Jeremiah, at the
destruction of Jerusalem by the king of Babylon, had hidden away in some secret
place in the mountains, known only to himself, many of the sacred utensils of
the Temple, and that at some time in the future he would return and show Israel
the place of deposit of these precious relics. We see the same divergent
opinions concerning Christ at the present time. Some say he is a good man;
others that he is an impostor; others that his teaching concerning morality is
perfect, but there is no reason to admit the claims of his divinity. Conscious
in his own mind of the divergent conclusion concerning himself and his work,
and having so faithfully instructed his immediate disciples, and intending now
to call forth a definite expression from them, we can see an occasion for his
prayer. While we may not dogmatize, it would seem that he would pray after this
manner: O Father, the world does not understand me and my mission. But here is
a particular group that I have called out from the others to be with me and to
hear thy word. They have witnessed more than the others. They have been near to
me; O Father, grant that these, my disciples, at least, may have a God-revealed
faith in me as the Messiah." That his prayer was somewhat in this
direction may perhaps be inferred from the exultation manifested by him on
Peter's avowal. Anyhow, immediately after his prayer comes first the question
calling out the popular verdict, and then the emphatic question, "Who say
ye that I am?" Very naturally Peter speaks for the others. We have had
reason already to observe the readiness with which he takes the lead. Mark the
principal elements in his answer: "Thou art the Christ," recognizing
his office; "the Son," recognizing his divinity; "of the living
God," sharply drawing a distinction between the real God and the dead and
dumb deities of the heathen world.
In considering Christ's response let us take up each word. "Simon"
means a hearer. "Peter" means a rock, "Barjona" means the
son of Jona, or, according to the best Greek text, the son of John. This answer
of Christ to Peter gives us a clue to the true faith: "Flesh and blood
hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father, who is in heaven. Many other
passages of Scripture might be cited to show that evangelical faith is not an
intellectual perception of the truth of a proposition, but that it is a product
of the divine Spirit, as is expressed in the beginning of John's Gospel:
"To as many as received him, even to them that believed on his name, he
gave the power to become the sons of God, who were born, not of flesh, nor of
blood, nor of the will of man, but of God." Let the reader, therefore,
especially note the nature of the true faith. It might be asked just here if
this was the first time that there had been among his disciples a recognition
of his messiahship. We have twice already found in the ground over which we
have passed, some recognition on the part of his disciples of Christ as the
Messiah. Now there has been clearer teaching, and the statement, under the
present conditions, that he is the Messiah, shows a great advance in the nature
of their faith.
We come now to consider perhaps the most remarkable passage in the New
Testament: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys
of the kingdom of heaven, and whosoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound
in heaven; and whosoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Here almost every word calls for explanation and occasions controversy. Who or
what is the "rock" upon which the church is founded? In what sense is
the term "church" used? What is the import of Hades and what
signifies, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"? What
signify the "keys of the kingdom," and the binding and loosing power?
The first thought that I would impress upon the mind is that Christ alone
founded his church. I mean that the church was established in the days of his
sojourn in the flesh; that the work of its construction commenced with the
reception of the material prepared by John the Baptist. That organization
commenced with the appointment of the twelve apostles, and that by the close of
his earthly ministry there existed at least one church as a model, the church
at Jerusalem.
We find in the history immediately succeeding the Gospel account that this
church at Jerusalem began to transact business by the election of a successor
to Judas; that they were all assembled together in one place for the reception
of the Holy Spirit, and that to them were added daily the saved. Hence, we are
prepared to ask: On what did Christ found his church? What is the rock?
After mature deliberation and careful examination of all the opposing views,
and after a thorough study of the Word of God, it is clear to my mind that the
rock primarily and mainly is Christ himself.
If it seems to violate the figure that he, the builder, should build upon
himself, the violation is no more marked here than in the famous passage in
John where he gives the bread to the disciples and that "bread of
life" is himself. I would have the reader note the scriptural foundation
upon which I rest my conclusion that the rock is Christ. The first argument is
from prophecy:
"Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation,
a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation; he that
believeth shall not make haste" (Isa. 28:16).
This prophetic scripture clearly declared God's purpose to lay in Zion a
foundation, a stone foundation, one that was to be tried, that was assured, a
foundation on which faith should rest, without haste or shame.
We next cite Psalm 118:22: "The stone which the builders refused is become
the head stone of the corner. This is the Lord's doing. It is marvelous in our
eyes. This is the day which the Lord hath made. We will rejoice and be glad in
it." In fulfilment of these prophecies we cite first the testimony of
Peter, unto whom the language of our passage was spoken: "To whom coming,
as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God and
precious. Ye also as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus
Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold I lay in Zion a
chief corner stone, elect, precious; and he that believeth on him shall not be
confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them
which be disobedient the stone which the builders disallowed the same is made
the head of the corner. And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, even
to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were
appointed" (1 Peter 2: 4-8).
The spiritual house of which Peter here speaks is unquestionably the church.
The foundation upon which that church as a building must rest, is
unquestionably our Lord Jesus Christ himself. He claims this as a fulfilment of
the prophecies which have been cited. Our Lord's own words in another
connection (Matt. 21:42), claim the same fulfilment: "The stone which the
builders rejected, the same was made the head of the corner." With any
other construction it would be impossible to understand Paul's statement (1
Cor. 3:1117): "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid,
which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver,
precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest:
for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the
fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide
which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work
shall be burned he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as
by fire. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God
dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy;
for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."
Here again the church is compared to a building. The foundation of that
building is distinctly said to be Christ. It is also worthy of note that any
other foundation for the church than Christ himself would be wholly out of
harmony with the Old Testament concept, as given by Moses, Samuel, David, and
Isaiah, and Paul's New Testament comment in the following passages, which the
reader will please note and examine carefully for himself: Deuteronomy 32:4,
15,31; I Samuel 2:2; 2 Samuel 22:2, 32; Psalm 18:2, 31; 61:2; 89:26; 92:15;
95:1; and Isaiah 17:10; 1 Corinthians 10:4. Do not understand me to affirm that
all these passages refer to God as a foundation. The thought is that the Bible
concept regards God as the rock of his people under every variety of image, and
so uniformly that to make a mortal and fallible man that rock on the doubtful
strength of one disputed passage, which may easily and naturally be construed
in harmony with the others, does violence to the rule of the faith as well as
to the usage of the term.
In a secondary sense, indeed, other things may be called the foundation and are
so called, but all these senses support the view that Christ is the rock,
primarily and mainly. By examining and comparing Isaiah 8:14; Luke 2:34; Romans
9:33; 1 Peter 2:8; Luke 20:18, we may easily see how the faith which takes hold
of Christ may be compared to a foundation. This accounts for the fact that many
of the early fathers of the church understood the rock in this passage to be
Peter's faith in Christ, and also explains how others of the fathers understood
the foundation of the church to be Peter's confession of that faith. The great
majority of Protestant scholars regard the confession of faith as the rock, and
it is a notable fact that Baptists particularly make this confession or its
equivalent a term of admission into the church. Indeed, in a certain sense,
both the faith and the confession may be regarded as the foundation of the
church. From Ephesians 2: 20-22 and Revelation 21:14, we see that the apostles
are called the foundation. But it is only because they teach Christ. They are
but instruments in leading souls to Christ, and are not the true foundation. By
so much as Peter was more prominent than the others, in this sense the church
may be gaid to be founded on Peter. The scriptural proof of Peter's prominence
is very clear. Though not the first apostle chosen, his name heads all the
recorded lists of the twelve (Matt. 10:2Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). He
also leads the movement in filling the place of Judas (Acts 1:15). He opens the
door to the Jews on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14). And he is selected to
open the door to the Gentiles (Acts 10; 15:7). By noting carefully Hebrews
6:1-2, we see that the primary or fundamental doctrines concerning Christ may
well be called a foundation, and at the close of the Sermon on the Mount,
obedience to Christ is compared to building a house on a rock (Matt. 7:24), but
all these secondary senses derive their significance from their connection with
Christ, the primary and real foundation.
Inasmuch as there are in the world at least 200,000,000 nominal professors of
the Romanist faith, constituting over half of Christendom, and as all of these
regard Peter as the rock upon which the church was founded, and as they deduce
most tremendous and portentous consequences from this interpretation, I think
it well to carefully examine this Romanist faith I would not, however, have the
reader derive his views of Romanist doctrine from any other sources than those
regarded as authoritative by themselves. A natural inquiry of the mind would
be, "On what scripture do Papists rely for proof of Peter's primacy"?
Only three passages of Scripture are cited by them: Matthew 16:18-19; John
21:15-17; Luke 22 31-32 These are called the "rock-argument," the
"keysargument" the "shepherd-argument," and the
"confirmerargument." I" connection with our text, which is the
main one cited "Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my church
" they construe John 1:42, where Christ promises that Simon shall be called
Cephas, a stone. When they speak of the powers indicated by the keys as
conferred upon Peter, they understand that government and Jurisdiction are
among those powers, in proof of which they usually cite Isaiah 22:22;
Revelation 3:7; Job 12:14; Isaiah 9:6; from which they claim that if putting
the key upon the shoulder of Jesus implied government, surely it meant as much
when applied to Peter; and they interpret the historical usage of giving up the
keys of a walled city or fortress to a conqueror, as signifying that the
control of that city or fortress is thereby publicly ceded, and that to the one
to whom these keys are presented is the province of receiving or excluding.
In the same way they derive the thought of jurisdiction from the shepherd
argument, by construing it with 2 Samuel 5:2; Psalm 78:71-72; Ezekiel 34:1-23;
Jeremiah 3:15, 23; Nahum 3:18; Isaiah 40:11; Micah 7:14; John 10:1-18; 1 Peter
2:25; 5:4; Acts 20:28. Whoever is able to meet these four arguments, the rock,
the keys, the shepherd, the confirmer, is able to answer the whole of the papal
system.
On these three scriptures they predicate the stupendous doctrine of the
supremacy of the Pope, signifying that the Pope, or Bishop of Rome, as the
successor of Peter, possesses authority and jurisdiction in things spiritual over
the entire church, so as to become the visible head and the vicar or viceregent
of Christ on earth; that, as the universal shepherd, he is the center of unity,
with whom all the flock must be in communion or be guilty of schism; that he is
the fountain of authority, all subordinate rulers in the church being subject
to him, and deriving their limited jurisdiction from him; that all the
executive power of the universal church is vested in him. He confirms in the
faith; he oversees all; he corrects all; he corrects abuses; he maintains
discipline; he possesses all inquisitorial power necessary to evil, and all
authority to subdue or excommunicate the refractory. He is infallible in all
utterances concerning faith and morals, being God's mouthpiece, and his decrees
thereon are absolute and final, being God's viceregent.
It is necessary for me to cite the authentic Romanish authyroids from which
this monstrous doctrine is gathered. I cite: (1) the profession of the
Tridentine faith, which says, "I acknowledge the holy, Catholic, apostolic
Roman church as the mother and mistress of all churches, and I promise and
swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, prince of
the apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ." The Council of Trent met in the
Tyrol near the middle of the sixteenth century, lasting off and on for about
eighteen years. The language which I have quoted is not a part of the canons
and decrees of the Council of Trent, but it is from the profession of the
Tridentine faith, issued by the Pope, and to which all Catholics must
subscribe. The date of it is 1564. The second authoritative source is the
dogmatic decrees of the Vatican Council held in 1870, which declare the
following propositions:
1. That our Lord Jesus Christ himself instituted the apostolic primacy at
Caesarea Philippi, by setting Peter as prince and chief over the rest of the
apostles, and making him, as God's vicar, or viceregent, the visible head of
the universal church, which becomes indestructible because founded on Peter,
thereby constituting him the center of all ecclesiastical unity and fountain of
all directly, in his single person, with supreme jurisdiction over preachers
and church. The council expressly denies that this supreme jurisdiction was
conferred upon the twelve apostles originally and reached Peter through them,
or as one of them, and expressly denies that it was conferred on the church
originally and on Peter through the church, but by a variety of expressions set
forth the claim that his jurisdiction was direct, immediate, single, original,
personal, centripetal, supreme, and, by being transmissible to his successor,
perpetual, thus putting him alone in the place of God to all the rest of the
kingdom of Jesus Christ, to the end of time, and anathematizes all who deny the
claim. This declaration of the institution of the papacy, as I have just said,
and as this council expressly declares, is based upon the rock, keys, and
shepherd arguments, drawn from Matthew 16:18-19, and John 21:15-17.
2. The second declaration purports to show how this power of Peter was
transmitted to his successor as the Bishop of Rome. They declare that Peter
founded the church at Rome; became its first bishop, constituted this bishopric
the Holy See, and that to this day Peter lives, presides, and judges in his
successors in that bishopric, so that whoever obtains the office of Bishop of
Rome does by the institution of Christ receive the entailed supremacy conferred
on Peter over the whole church. This declaration closes with this clause:
"If then any should deny that this be the institution of Christ the Lord,
or by divine right that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of
successors in the supremacy over the universal church, or that the Roman
pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy, let him be
anathema."
3. Their next declaration relates to the nature and extent of this power. Let
us quote: "Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord
the Roman church possesses a priority of ordinary power over all other
churches, and that this power or jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, which is
truly episcopal, is immediate, to which all, of whatever right or dignity, both
pastors and people, both individually and collectively, are bound by their duty
of hierarchical subordination and true obedience to submit, not only in matters
which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that pertain to the
discipline and government of the church throughout the world."
The council makes him the supreme judge of the faith, and further declares that
recourse may be had to his tribunal in all questions, the discussion of which
belongs to the church, and that none may reopen his judgment, nor can any
review his judgment. There is no greater authority than his. His office is not
merely of inspection and direction, but of full and supreme power of
jurisdiction over the universal church. His power is not mediate and
extraordinary, but immediate and ordinary over each and all the churches, over
each and all the pastors. Whoever denies it, let him be anathema.
4. Their fourth declaration is concerning infallibility. Citing one proof text
only, "I have prayer for thee that thy faith fail not" (Luke 22:3).
The council declares that this See of Holy Peter remains ever free from any
blemish of error, and as through Christ's prayer Peter's faith failed not, so
his. inerrancy of teaching is transmitted to his successors. Therefore, quoting
their precise language: "It is a dogma, divinely revealed: that the Roman
pontiff, when he speaks ex-cathedra, that is, when in the discharge of the
office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme
apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals, to be
held by the universal church, by the divine assistance promised to him in
blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine
Redeemer willed that his church should be endowed for defining doctrine
regarding faith of morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman
pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the church.
But if any one which may God avert presume to contradict this, our
definition: let him be anathema."
It seems an incalculable thing, an inexplicable thing, that in the latter part
of the nineteenth century such a quadruple declaration could be made by the
distinguished and educated leaders of any form of religion. We may well inquire
just here what proof is necessary to support these stupendous claims. This much
proof is absolutely necessary: (1) Scriptural proof that the supreme and
absolute power here claimed was conferred on Peter himself. (2) Scriptural
proof that it was transmissible and actually transmitted. (3) Scriptural proof
that the method of transmission was through a local pastorate. (4) Scriptural
proof that the See of Rome was constituted that pastorate.
In his lectures on the church Cardinal Wiseman seems to consider himself able
to furnish abundant proof, if not just this proof. The limits of this
discussion admit only a suggestion of some things in reply: (1) All the
apostles were declared to be a foundation of the church (Eph. 2:19-22; Rev.
21:14). (2) All the apostles had the same binding and loosing power (John
20:23; 3 John 10). So also had Paul (1 Cor. 5:3-5; 2 Cor. 2:6-10; 13:2, 10).
(3) So had every local church (Matt. 18:18; 2 Cor. 2:10). (4) For preserving
unity and averting schism all the apostles and others were appointed and no
human headship hinted at (1 Cor. 12:25-30; Eph. 4: 11-16). (5) A short time
after our Lord used the words, "Thou art Peter and on this rock I will
build my church," cited as indubitable proof by Papists of the institution
of the office of Pope, none of the disciples knew who was to be the greatest,
and our Lord, in reply to their question, was careful not to say that he had
just given that office to Peter (Matt. 18:1-4). Indeed he seems to deny that he
had given it to any one (Mark 9:38-39). If the Papist claim, that the office of
Pope was established in Peter at Caesarea Philippi, as recorded in Matthew 16,
is correct, this incident a short time after recorded in Matthew 18, is
inexplicable. (6) On a still later occasion we find the question of priority
still unsettled. How else account for the fact that James and John, sons of Zebedee,
through their mother, asked for the highest places in the kingdom? Why did not
Jesus, in answering this request, reply that he had already given the highest
place to Peter? Why did he expressly declare that none of them should exercise
authority over the others, and that there should be no greatness and no primacy
but in humility and service? (See Matt. 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45.)
On a yet later occasion, up to the institution of the Lord's Supper, we find
the question still unsettled (Luke 22-24-40). And again it is declared that
there shall be no primacy of authority and jurisdiction, but all are put on an
equality, each occupying a throne. On still another occasion we have these
words: "One is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. And call
no man your father upon the earth, for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Neither be ye called masters, for one is your Master, even Christ."
Now as the word "Pope" means father, this language is equivalent to
saying, "And call no man your Pope on earth, for one is your Pope, which
is in heaven."
When we examine the history of the apostles, as recorded in Acts, and the
references to apostolic authority cited in the letters, we find every reason to
suppose that such supreme and absolute authority had not been conferred upon
Peter. Take, as an example, the case of Samaria, as recorded in Acts 8:14. When
the apostles heard that the Samaritans had received the word, it is not Peter
who sends the others, but it is the others who send Peter. And even in the case
of Cornelius, where Peter was specially empowered by divine authority for
opening the door to the Gentiles, we find that he was held to an account for
his action by the others (Acts 11:1-18).
Again in the great consultation on a question of salvation, as recorded in Acts
15, there it not only no indication that Peter exercised Papal functions, but
it is evident that the sentence was framed by James and not Peter, and that it
was sent out in the name of all the apostles and the church. In Galatians
2:11-12, we find a proof of Peter's deference to James, the half brother of our
Lord, utterly inconsistent with the papal office. And the scriptural proof is
overwhelming that there was no subordination of Paul to Peter. That Peter was
not the fountain of authority to Paul. He did not derive his gospel from Peter.
He withstood Peter to his face when Peter was in error. But examine
particularly the following scriptures; 1 Corinthians 9:1-5; 2 Corinthians
10:8-15; 9:5-28; Galatians 1:11-12,17; 2:6-14.
Another observation in this connection will be regarded as just. There is
abundant New Testament proof of Paul's presence and work in Rome, but not a
hint in that Holy Book about Peter's ever being there. It is equally true that
Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 1:12 and 3:4-23, is adverse to the papal
claim. But what is more remarkable still, Peter himself not only never claimed
such authority, but exhorts against its exercise (1 Peter 5:1-4).
We may add this pertinent fact: Inasmuch as Peter died be-fore John (that is,
as John was the last surviving apostle), if Peter's succession in the papal
authority was transmitted through his pastorate at Rome to his successor, that
uninspired successor would become the fountain of authority for the apostle
John, yet alive, and John, who derived his authority directly from the Lord,
would be under the absolute jurisdiction of one who had never known the Lord in
the flesh, nor received authority from him.
The true history of that Vatican Council would make interesting reading. It was
a secret conclave. Its program was dictated by the Pope. It was neither free
nor ecumenical. The awful subordination of intelligent human conscience to such
a dictum, and the horror it excited in the minds of even true and long-tested
papists, may be gathered largely from a speech of the late Archbishop Kenrick,
prepared to be delivered before this council, in which he sets forth some views
very little different from those I have advocated as to the rock being Christ,
and to the utter insufficiency of any scriptural proof for the papist claim,
based on any of the other passages. It may be well to cite a few statements
from this famous speech of Archbishop Kenrick. After combating the papal
argument based on the several scriptures which have been cited, Archbishop
Kenrick says:
The natural and primary foundation, so to speak, of the church, is Christ,
whether we consider his person, or faith in his divine nature. The
architectural foundation, that laid by Christ, is the twelve apostles, among
whom Peter is eminent by virtue of the primacy. In this way we reconcile those
passages of the fathers, which understand Him on this occasion (as in the
instance related in John 6, after the discourse of Christ in the synagogue of
Capernaum), to have answer-ed in the name of all the apostles, to a question
addressed to them all in common; and in behalf of all to have received the
reward of confession.. In this explanation of the word rock, the primacy of
Peter is guarded as the primary ministerial foundation; and the fitness of the
words of Paul and John is guarded, when they call the apostles by the common
title of the foundation; and the truth of the expression used with such
emphasis by Paul is guarded: "Other foundation can no man lay than that is
laid, even Christ Jesus" (1 Cor. 3:2); and the adversaries of the faith
are disarmed of the weapon which they have so effectively wielded against us,
when they say that the Catholics believe the church to be built, not on Christ,
but on a mortal man.
Again referring to the fallacy of the usual modern Romanist interpretation of
Luke 22:31-32, he cites his own "Observations," from which we extract
the following paragraph:
Neither is there any more value as a proof of papal inerrancy in those words of
Christ to Peter (Luke 22:31-32), in which the advocates of this opinion think
to find their main argument. Considering the connection in which Christ uttered
them, and the words which he proceeded to address to all the apostles, it does
not appear that any gift pertaining to the government of the church as then
granted or promised to Peter, much less that the gift of inerrancy in Christ's
prayer for him that his faith might not fail that is, that he might not
wholly or forever lose that trust by which thus far he had clung to Christ. The
words of Christ, then, are to be understood, not of faith as a body of
doctrine, in which sense it is never used by our Lord.
In another part of the speech he says: "I believe that the proofs of the
Catholic faith are to be sought rather in tradition than in the interpretation
of the scriptures." And again,
We have in the Holy Scriptures perfectly clear testimony of a commission given
to all the apostles, and of ths divine assistance promised to all. These
passages are clear, and admit no variation of meaning. We have not even one
single passage of scripture, the meaning of which is undisputed, in which
anything of the kind is promised to Peter separately from the rest. And yet the
authors of the Schema want us to assert that to the Roman pontiff, as Peter's
successor, is given that power which cannot be proved by any clear evidence of
Holy Scripture to have been given to Peter himself, except just 60 far as he
received it in common with the other apostles; and which, being claimed for him
separately from the rest, it would follow that the divine assistance promised
to them was to be communicated only through him, although it is clear from the
passages cited that it was promised to him only in the same manner and in the
same terms as to all the others. I admit, indeed, that a great privilege was
granted to Peter above the rest; but I am led to this conviction by the
testimony, not of the Scriptures, but of all Christian antiquity.
Yet again he says, with reference to the proposed declaration of infallibility:
I boldly declare that that opinion, as it lies in the Schema, is not a doctrine
of faith, and that it cannot become such by any definition whatsoever, even by the
definition of a council. We are the keepers of the faith committed to us, not
its masters.
God only is infallible. Of the church, the most that we can assert is, that it
does not err in teaching the doctrines of faith which Christ has committed to
its charge; because the gates of hell are not to prevail against it. Therefore,
infallibly, absolute and complete, cannot be predicated of it; and perhaps it
would be better to refrain from using that word, and use the word
"inerrancy" instead.
What need would there be to a Pope who accepted this notion, of the counsel of
his brethren, the opinions of theologians, the investigations of the documents
of the church? Believing himself to be immediately led by the divine Spirit,
and that this Spirit is communicated through him to the church, there would be
nothing to hold him back from pressing on in a course on which he had once
entered. At the close of his speech, arguing against undue
haste, and meeting the objection of the Archbishop of Dublin that an examination
into the facts would last too long, in that it would reach to the day of
Judgment, he says,
If this be so,
it were better to refrain from making any definition at all, than to frame one
prematurely. But it is said the honor and authority of the Holy See demand a
definition, nor can it be deferred without injury to both. I answer in the
words of Jerome, substituting another word for the well-known word auctoritas:
Major est calus orbis quam urbis. ["It is better to save the world
than the city."] I have done.
Let the reader understand that the authoritative pronunciamento of papal
infallibility issued by the Vatican Council in July. 1870. is retroactive. It
means that. every ex-cathedra utterance of every Pope of the past ages is
infallible and irreformable. As this decree of infallibility is retroactive, I
will illustrate its awful significance by citing only four things out of many
thousands:
1. In 1320, Pope Boniface VIII issued ex-cathedra a bull, entitled Unum
Sanctum, which, under pain of damnation, claims for the Pope what is called the
"double sword"; i.e., the secular as well as the spiritual, over the
whole Christian world, and the power to depose princes and absolve subjects
from their oaths of allegiance. If we would know whether this power has ever
been exercised we should ask history to tell us what Pope Paul III did for
Henry VIII; Pius V for Queen Elizabeth; how Henry IV of Germany on demand of
the Pope went to Canossa, and there barefooted and clad in a hair shirt, waited
in penitence, for days, in an outer court, until Pope Gregory VII condescended
to receive and absolve him; how Pope Innocent III treated Raymond VI of
Toulouse; and others too numerous to mention. Connect all this with the papal
declaration that the Popes have never exceeded their powers.
2. In September, 1713, Pope Clement XI issued the bull called Unigenitus, which
condemns 101 sentences in a book of the Jansenist, Pasquier Quesnel. Among the
sentences condemned are some that assert the total depravity of fallen human
nature, others the renewing power of the free grace of God in Christ, but
particularly some that assert the right and duty of all Christians to read the
Bible for themselves. In the bull of condemnation the following terms are
indiscriminately employed to describe the condemned sentences: "False,
captious, ill-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, rash, injurious,
seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy and savoring of heresy
itself, near akin to heresy, several times condemned, and manifestly renewing
various heresies, particularly those which are contained in the infamous
propositions of Jansenius."
I will cite now the condemned sentences that assert the right and duty of the
people to read the Bible, and that there may be no mistake I give them in both
Latin and English, retaining the original number of each condemned proposition:
(79). Utile et necessarum est
ornni tempore, omni loco, et omni personarum generi, studere et cognoscere
spiritum, pietatem et mystheria sacrae Scripturae. (80). Lectio sacrae
Scripturae est pro omnibus. (81). Obscuritasi sancti verbi Dei non est Jaicis
ratio dispensandi se ipsos ab ejus lectione. (82). Dies Dommicus a Christianis
debet sanctificari lectionibus pietatiset super omnia sanctarum Scripturarum.
(83). Damnosum est, velle Christianum ad hac lectione retrahere. (84). Abripere
e Christianorum manibus Novum Testamentum seu eis illud clausum tener auferendo
eis modum istud intelligendi, est illish Christi os obturare. (85). Interdicere
Christianis lectioneum sacrae Scripturae, praesertim Evangelii, est interdicere
usum luminis filis lucis et facere, ut uatiantur speciem quamdam
excommunicationis.
As I know of no English version of Quesnel's book, I submit a reasonably accurate
translation of the foregoing Latin propositions:
(79). It is useful and necessary at all times, in every place, for all sorts of
people, to study and investigate the spirit, piety, and mysteries of the Holy
Scriptures. (80). The reading of the Holy Scriptures is for all. (81). The
obscurity of the Holy Word of God is not a reason why laymen should excuse
themselves from reading it. (82). The Lord's day ought to be hallowed by
Christians by readings of piety, and, above all, of the Holy Scripture. (83).
It is injurious to wish that a Christian draw back from that reading. (84). To
snatch the New Testament from the hands of Christians, or to keep it closed to
them by taking away from them this manner of understanding it, is to close to
them the mouth of Christ. (85). To forbid to Christians the reading of the Holy
Scriptures, especially the Four Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the
sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a certain kind of excommunication.
Let the reader fix the solemn and awful fact in his mind matized by a so-called
infallible Pope, claiming to be God's viceregent, and delivering himself
ex-cathedra in a sentence of condemnation which) according to the Vatican
Council, is irreformable.
3. On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX, issued ex-cathedra, the bull entitled Ineffabilis
Deus, declaring it to be a divinely revealed fact and dogma,
which must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful on pain of
excommunication, "that the most blessed Virgin Mary, in the first moment
of her conception, by a special grace and privilege of Almighty God, in virtue
of the merits of Christ, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original
sin." The reader will understand that this Romanist dogma of "the
immaculate conception" has no reference to our Lord's immaculate
conception referred to in Luke 1:35, but to Mary's own conception and birth,
concerning which the Scriptures are entirely silent. And to further show what
is meant by this unscriptural and antiscriptural dogma, I now cite a paragraph
of an encyclical letter, dated February 2, 1849, and sent out to the world by
Pope Pius IX: You
know full well, venerable brethren, that the whole ground of our confidence is
placed in the most holy Virgin. henceforth, if there be in us any hope, if
there be any grace, if there be any salvation, we must receive it solely from
her, according to the will of Him who would have us possess all through Mary.
4. On December 8, 1864, Pope Pius IX, issued another encyclical letter,
entitled Quanta Cura, and a Syllabus of Errors
which he anathematized. It was this Syllabus that roused Mr. Gladstone to issue
his pamphlet entitled "Vaticanism."
As an encyclical letter of Pope Gregory XVI, in 1831, condemned the liberty of
the press, so this encyclical letter, together with the Syllabus condemns
liberty of conscience and worship, liberty of speech, free schools under
secular control, the authority of the state to define the civil rights of the
church, the binding force of any marriage not performed by Romanist authority,
the right of a state called Catholic to tolerate any religion but the papal
system. Not only are these and many like things condemned, but there are
affirmed: The union of church and state, provided it be the Romanist church
only; the right of the Romanist church to employ force. Those also are
condemned who hold that Roman pontiffs have ever transgressed the limits of
their lawful power. Hence I say that these four things, to wit: The bull Unum
Sanctum, 1320; the bull Unigenitus, 1713; the bull Ineffabilis Deus, 1854; the
Syllabus of Errors, 1864, serve as well as a thousand things to show what papal
infallibility, decreed in 1870, means and involves. The dogma certainly places
any Pope, however ignorant or immoral, in the place of God to the whole world,
and substitutes a sinful and fallible woman for the im
QUESTIONS
1. What was the scene and
who are the historians of the great confession. of Peter at Philippi?
2. What three general
observations on these accounts?
3. Give the outline
submitted for the whole of sections 64-65.
4. What question arose in
the minds of the people from Christ' Galilean ministry?
5. What were the various
answers and how do you account for the divergent answers to this question?
Illustrate each.
6. What, probably, was our
Lord's prayer on this occasion, and what occasion, what Peter's answer and what
elements of his answer?
7. What was our Lord's
question addressed to the disciples on the meaning of the terms used?
8. What was Christ's
response to Peter's answer and what is the inference to this effect?
9. What does Christ's answer
to Peter reveal and what other pas sages show the same thing?
10. Indicate the beginning
and growth of the disciples' faith in bin as the Messiah up to this time.
11. What important questions
arise from this passage?
12. Who founded the church
and when?
13. Upon what did Christ
found his church and what is the scriptural proof?
14. What is the import of
Deuteronomy 32:4, 15, 31; I Samuel 2:2; 2 Samuel 22:2, 32; Psalms 18:2, 31;
61:2; 89:26; 92:15; 95:1; Isaiah 7:10; and 1 Corinthians 10:4?
15. How may faith in Christ
be the foundation also? Proof.
16. What do the majority of
Protestant scholars regard as the "rock'" here and in what sense is
it true?
17. In what sense are the
apostles the foundation and what is the scriptural proof?
18. In what sense may the
church be founded on Peter?
19. What is the doctrinal
foundation? Proof.
20. What is the Roman
Catholic position on this question and on what scriptures do they rely to prove
it?
21. What are the names of
their various arguments? Explain each.
22. What is the resultant
jurisdiction of the Pope?
23. What have the Romanist
authorities cited here?
24. What four propositions
of the Vatican Council? Explain each.
25. What proof is necessary
to support these stupendous claims?
26. What was the author's
reply to Cardinal Wiseman's contention?
27. Give a summary of Bishop
Kenrick's speech combating the papal argument.
28. What was the nature of
the pronunciamento of the Vatican Council in 1870?
29. How does the author
illustrate its awful significance?
30. What is the sum total of
such dogma?
PART III THE TRANSFIGURATION
Harmony, pages 92-94 and Matthew 17:1-13; Mark 9;
2:13; Luke 9:28-36; John 1:14; 2 Peter 1:14-18.
The transfiguration of Jesus is one of the most notable events of his history.
The occasion which called forth the event the wonderful facts of the event
itself the manifest correlation of these facts with both the near and the
remote past, and the near and distant future the primary and multiform design
of this event, and the secondary important lessons which may be deduced from
it, all conspire to make it notable. The history of the whole case may be
gathered from what are called the Synoptic Gospels, that is, Matthew, Mark, and
Luke, and from the references to the event by two out of the three witnesses,
Peter and John. James, the other eyewitness, was prevented by an early
martyrdom from leaving any record. We find an account of his death in Acts 12.
He was put to death by Herod. So these are the five historians of the
transfiguration. In discussing the subject of the transfiguration, let us
consider:
1. The occasion. From the context in Matthew, Mark, and Luke we group in
order the following facts, which, taken as a whole, constitute the occasion of
the transfiguration:
First fact: While the people generally had vague and
conflicting views of the person and mission of Jesus, his immediate disciples
had now reached a definite and fixed conclusion that he was the divine Messiah,
and had publicly confessed that faith near Caesarea Philippi.
Second fact: On this confession of their faith in his messiahship, he began for
the first time to openly and plainly show that the Messiah was to be a
suffering Messiah; that he must die; that he must die an ignominious death;
that he must die under the condemnation of the supreme court of their nation.
Third fact: At this plain revelation of his death their faith staggers. It is
both an inexplicable and abhorrent thing to them. It so deeply stirred them
that, through Peter, they present the strongest possible protest. Peter says,
"Mercy on thee, Lord, it shall never be." They, while believing him
to be the Messiah, wanted a living, conquering Messiah, with a visible,
earthly, triumphant kingdom and jurisdiction.
Fourth fact: He sharply rebukes this protest, as satanic in its origin as
coming from the devil, and it had originally come from the devil. Now, one of
his own apostles comes as a tempter. As if he had said, "You are a
stumbling block to me. You quote the very sentiments of the devil, when you
would beguile me from the cross to accept an earthly crown." He then adds
that to take that view of it is to think men's thoughts and not God's thoughts.
He says, "You are minding the things of men and not the things of God when
you present such a view as that to me."
Fifth fact: Whereupon, after his turning sharply away from Peter, he calls up
the whole multitude to hear with his disciples, the great spiritual and
universal law of discipleship, and perhaps it will stagger some to hear it, if
they take it in. What was it? Absolute self-renunciation the taking up daily
of the cross upon which one is appointed to die, and the following of Christ;
carrying the cross even unto the death which is appointed. We have such low
conceptions of self-denial. We count it self-denial if we want a little thing
and do not get it. We count it cross-bearing if some little burden is put on us
and we bear it. That is not the thought in this connection at all. "If any
man, whether he be an apostle or anybody else if any man would be my
disciple, he must have absolute self-renunciation, and he must take up every
day the cross upon which he is appointed to die, and he must follow me, bearing
that cross even unto the appointed death." He assured them that a man must
not be merely willing to suffer temporal death, if an occasion should arise
not at all such a mere contingency but he must actually lose temporal life in
order to find eternal life. He must do it. He must lose temporal life to find
eternal life, and then puts it to them as a supreme business question of
eternal profit and loss. In that very connection he says, "What will it
profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul, and what
will a man give in exchange for his soul?" It is the universal law of
discipleship, from which there is no exception. No Christian can escape
crucifixion. The reference is to our sanctification. We not only die judicially
on the cross in Christ our substitute (Col. 3:2), but we must actually
"put to death our members which are upon the earth" (Col. 3:5). I say
this is a universal law: "If ye through the Spirit do mortify [put to
death] the deeds of the body ye shall live" (Rom. 8:13). Our
sanctification consists of both death and life. The old man must die. The new
man must be developed. Paul died daily. In putting on the new man we put off
the old man. Our baptism pledges us both to death and life. ' In our
progressive sanctification the Holy Spirit reproduces in every Christian the
dying of our Lord, as well as his living. In every Christian "a death
experience runs parallel with his life experience." Not only Paul must
fill up "that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in his flesh,
for his body's sake, which is the church" (Col. 1:24), but all of us must
have fellowship with his sufferings. We must suffer with him if we would reign
with him. The lamented Dr. Gordon quotes this remarkable passage: "The
church is Christian no more than as it is the organ of the continuous passion
of Christ." Yes, it is no possible contingency, but a universal fact we
must take up the cross. We must lose our life to find it.
Sixth fact: The solemnity of this occasion was deeply intensified by his
announcement of his second coming in power and great glory for the final judgment
of all mankind according to their decision of that question which he had
presented. All this comes just before the transfiguration. After announcing to
them his death; after rebuking other conceptions of the messiahship; after
presenting the great universal law of discipleship; now he says, "For the
Son of man shall come in his glory, with his angels, and shall reward every man
according to his doings.
Seventh, and last, fact: Mark it well. Then follows the startling announcement
that some of them standing there should never taste of death until they saw
this second coming.
These seven facts, taken as a whole, constitute the occasion of the
transfiguration of Jesus Christ. Let us restate them: (1) That while the world
had vague and conflicting ideas of his person and missions, his immediate
disciples had reached the conclusion that he was the divine Messiah, and had
publicly confessed that faith. (2) That upon that public confession he
commences for the first time plainly and openly to show that this Messiah must
be a sufferer and must die. (3) They indignantly and abhorrently repudiate that
conception of the Messiah. (4) He rebukes their protest as coming from the
devil. (5) He announces the great law of discipleship, that no man could be a
disciple of Jesus Christ without absolute self-renunciation, and without taking
up every day the cross upon which he was appointed to die, and following Jesus
even unto the appointed death, and that it was simply a question of business
a supreme business question of profit and loss, and they had to decide one way
or the other. "If you prefer to find your life, you will lose it; if you
prefer to lose your life, you will find it; if you want to take this world, you
will lose your own soul; if you want to save your soul, you must renounce the
world." Just that, no less and no more. (6) He announces his second coming
in power and glory, as a final judge to determine the destiny of men upon this
solitary question: "Did you lose your life for my sake?" (7) The
still more startling announcement that some people some of those to whom he
was speaking would never taste death until they saw his second coming. That
these seven facts, considered as a whole, do in some way constitute the
occasion of the transfiguration, is to my mind incontrovertible. Some of the
most convincing reasons for the conclusion may be stated.
First: In all the histories the account of the transfiguration follows
immediately after the record of these events without & break in the
connection. No event of the intervening week is allowed to separate the two
transactions. Now, that three historians should, without collusion, follow this
method, seems to establish a designed connection between these facts and the
transfiguration which followed.
Second: The disheartening protest of the disciples against his position and in
favor of the common Jewish idea of an earthly kingdom, would naturally so
depress the humanity of Jesus that he himself would need some marvelous
encouragement from heaven and would seek it in prayer.
Third: From the same sad cause, it would be necessary that some compensating
revelation of future glory must be shown to the disciples in order to make them
bear up under the hard condition of present discipleship, and under the awful
thought of separation from him by death.
Fourth: It cannot be a mere coincident that the transfiguration is calculated
to so exactly supply these things the encouragement to Jesus and compensation
to the disciples, both for the death of Jesus and for the hard terms of present
discipleship.
2. The event. Such being the occasion, then, let us reverently approach the
wonderful transaction itself. The scene cannot have been at Mount Tabor in
Lower Galilee, as tradition would have us believe. While it is not now
necessary to show how insuperable are the objections to Mount Tabor as the
place, yet it is important to note, by the way, that little reliance can ever
be placed on the exact localities of great events in the New Testament, as
indicated by tradition, because the inspired record oftentimes designedly and
wisely leaves them indeterminate. It is not small proof of inspiration by him
who knew the superstitions of men, and would provide no food to feed it on.
Christ left neither autograph nor portrait to be worshiped as relics. None of
the historians even/ hint at a personal description of Jesus. We know
absolutely nothing of the color of his eyes or hair. Absolutely nothing of his
height or size. Worshipers of shrines, relics, and souvenirs derive no sort of
help or encouragement from the New Testament. The scene of the transfiguration
was evidently near Caesarea Philippi, and on some mountain spur of the Hermon
range. It could not have been anywhere else from the circumstances going before
and after the event. The time is night, somewhere about seven months before his
crucifixion. The object is prayer in some lonely private place. His companions
are Peter, James, and John. It must have been an all-night prayer meeting, for
they did not come down from the mountain until the next day, and it is stated
that the three disciples were heavy with sleep, as on a later and more solemn
occasion, these very three men succumbed to the spirit of sleep, through the
weakness of the flesh. The original here, however, would lead us to infer that
they forced themselves to remain awake, notwithstanding their strong
inclination to sleep, and now, late in the night, struggling against an almost
irresistible desire to sleep, but yet their gaze fixed upon their Master, who
is yet praying, they behold a sight that drives sleep utterly away. What do
they see? A wonderful sight indeed; earth never saw a more wonderful one. Mark
you, it is no vision or dream. With the use of their natural senses, sight and
hearing, being fully awake, they became the wit- nesses of three distinct
remarkable supernatural events. These three things are: first, the
transfiguration of Jesus; second, the glorified forms of Moses and Elijah;
third, the luminous cloud symbol and the voice of the eternal God. Now, let us
consider separately each one of these things:
"Transfiguration: what does the word mean? The word means to transform
to change the form or appearance. In what respect was the appearance or form of
Jesus changed? It was this: It is in the night; it is on that lonely
mountaintop; and while they look at him, he begins to shine as from a light
within. The light seems to struggle through him. He seems to become
translucent, and his whole body becomes luminous, as if it were a human
electric jet, and the light is white whiter than any fuller on earth could
make it, and his face is brighter than the shining of the sun at midday. Let us
carefully collate the several records: Matthew says, "And after six days
Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, his brother, and bringeth
them up into a high mountain apart." Mark says, "They went up into
that mountain to pray." There are the four separating themselves from all
the others and going up into that high mountain to hold a prayer meeting. Luke
then says, "And as Jesus was praying, the fashion of his countenance
altered," or, as Matthew says, "His face did shine as the sun and his
garments became as white as light," or, as Mark says, "And his
garments became glistering, exceeding white, so as no fuller on earth could
whiten," and, as Luke says, "His raiment became white and
dazzling." We notice that two things are referred to, first, the fashion
of his countenance, and second, the shining of his garments. Jesus becomes as a
pillar of fire to them, as they look at him. That is the first thing they saw
that night. Then suddenly there is an interview held with him. Those who come
to hold the interview with him are not from hell; they are not from earth. He
has gone up on that mountaintop and implored the Father for something. As a
result of his prayer, an interview is held with him. Who comes to hold that
interview with him? The two most remarkable men of the past: the representative
of the law, and the representative of prophecy Moses, the great law-giver,
and Elijah, the greatest of the prophets. These three witnesses could
instinctively, by spiritual intuition, recognize them. Of course, they had
never personally known them, but it was given to them to recognize them. And
what do they look like? They are also in glory; they are luminous. There are
the three shining bodies together, and they enter into conversation they are
talking. What are they talking about? Now, mark the occasion. Jesus had said to
his disciples, "I go up to Jerusalem to die. I must die. There is a'
necessity that I should die, and these disciples abhorred the thought that I
should die. Oh, Father, show them by some way that I must die. Is there no one
in the past whose evidence would avail?" Out from the past comes Moses and
says, "Jesus, I came to talk to you about your death." Out from the
land of the prophets comes Elijah and he says, "Jesus, I came to talk to
you about your death." The law says the substitute of the sinner must die.
Moses comes from the other world, representing the law, saying to the
substitute of the sinner, "You must die." Elijah says, "You must
die." Every voice from the prophets calls for the death of the Messiah.
"And they come to talk to him about his death" his death that
should take place at Jerusalem. Suppose Moses had said this: "Jesus, I
died on Mount Nebo. No man on earth knows where my bones are resting. Unless
you die, that body will never be raised, never, never." Suppose Elijah had
said: "Jesus, I escaped death as to my body. I was translated. I was
carried up to heaven, and am now enjoying in both soul and body the blessed
glories of the eternal world, upon your promise to die. That promise must be
redeemed. I am in heaven on a credit the credit is on your promise to pay.
You must die." "They talked with him concerning his/ death at
Jerusalem."
They are now about to leave. They have had their interview, and they are going
back, and just as they are about to depart. Peter is terribly frightened, but
they never could put Peter in a place where he would not say something. Peter
sees that the guests are about to leave, although trembling with apprehension,
and not knowing what he did thinking, however, that he ought to say
something, as if he had said, "Lord, they intend to go," and in the
original it does not say, let us build three tabernacles; it says, "Lord,
I will build three tabernacles, one for you, one for Moses, and one for
Elijah." Now, while Peter said that, there came the third wonderful thing,
and the only time that it ever was seen in the New Testament dispensation,
though it had often been seen in the earlier days the cloud symbol of God.
How did the cloud symbol of God appear? If it was in the daytime, it appeared
as a beautiful pillar of cloud; if it was the nighttime, it appeared as a
pillar of fire. Now, the old-time drapery of God, the fire cloud, that had not
been witnessed since far off Old Testament days that fire cloud came down and
wrapped Moses and Elijah and Jesus in its folds of light. As it wrapped them,
there leaped from its bosom, as leaps the lightning from the clouds, a voice:
"This is my beloved Son: hear ye him." And they fell as if lightning
had struck them. Fear had taken possession of them from the beginning; their
apprehensions had grown more and more demoralizing from the very beginning of
the supernatural manifestation, but when this voice spoke this voice of God,
they fell on their faces; they could not bear to face that burning cloud and to
hear that awful voice, and there they lie, as still as if dead, until Jesus
comes and stoops over them, and touches them, each one, and says: "Do not
be afraid," and they rise up and the cloud is gone, and Moses and Elijah
are gone. Now, these are the things they witnessed three entirely distinct
things: The transfiguration of Jesus; the glorified appearance of Moses and
Elijah; the fire cloud, which was the symbol of the divine presence, and the
audible Voice. Such were the wonderful facts of the event. Now comes the next
question:
3. The design What was meant by the transfiguration? We go back and look at
it to see if we can gather there the design. We take the testimony of the men
who actually witnessed these transaction, in order to get the design. Lets see
what that is. First, he had said that there were some people there that should
never taste death until they saw the coming of the Son of man until they saw
the second coming of the Son of man until they saw the kingdom of God come
with power. Unquestionably that is what he said: that there were some people
there that should never taste death until they saw the second coming of Jesus
Christ. Let's see what one of the witnesses says about this. I cite the
testimony of Peter: "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables,
when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but
were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father, honor
and glory when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is
my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven
we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount." Now mark what Peter
says, that in preaching to these people that Christ would come again the second
time with power and great glory and as a final judge, he had not followed a
cunningly devised fable, but he preached what he had witnessed; that he, on
Mount of Transfiguration, had gazed upon the second coming of Christ in some
sense, in whatever sense that might be. He had seen it. He was an eyewitness of
the power and majesty of that second coming. Let's see what J John said about
it. He was the other witness. In John l:14, and in the parenthesis of that
verse, we have this: "And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only
begotten of the Father." When did John see his glory, as of the only
begotten of the Father? The glory of Christ always in the New Testament when
spoken of in its fulness, is that glory which shall attend him when he comes
the second time. The first time he came without glory; he came in his
humiliation. The second time, he comes in glory, as we learn from Matthew 24:
"The Son of man shall come in all of his glory, and all of his holy angels
with him, and then shall he sit on the throne of his glory." John says
that he, with others witnessed the glory of Jesus Christ, as of the only
begotten of the Father. He saw it, and like Peter, he saw it on the Mount of
Transfiguration. As a further proof of it, in John 12:24 we have an account of
Jesus praying, and he says, "Father, glorify me," and instantly that
same voice says, loud as thunder, "I have glorified thee, and will glorify
thee." So that the glory that they witnessed was in some sense the glory
of the second Coming of Jesus Christ. It was a miniature representation of the
power and glory that would be displayed when he does come an anticipatory
scene presenting to the ye on a small scale that great and awful event in the
future.
When Jesus does come, every living Christian will instantly be transfigured. He
will take on the resurrection body. He will take on a glorified body just as
Elijah and Enoch did. As Paul puts it: "Behold I show you a mystery; we
shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling
of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be
raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on
incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible
shall have put on incorruption and this mortal shall have put on immortality,
then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up
in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?"
Here was Elijah, the type and representation of that work. Here was Elijah, who
without death, by the transfiguring power, had been carried up to heaven. Here
he was talking to Jesus.
There is another thing that will take place when Jesus comes. The dead will be
raised. The bodies that have been buried and turned to dust are to be
reanimated and "are to be glorified in one moment of time. Corruption puts
on incorruption; mortality puts on immortality; sleep changes to waking; and
the dead rise up and are glorified in the twinkling of an eye. As Paul again
puts it: "But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning
them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep
in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the
Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not
prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven
with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and
the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall
be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, and
so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these
words." Here is Moses representing that thought. Moses died; he did not
escape death like Enoch and Elijah. Moses died, and no man has ever been able
to tell where he was buried. The devil tried to take possession of his body,
but here in this transfiguration scene appears Moses glorified as Elijah is glorified.
In type, these represent the two great displays of divine power at the second
coming of Jesus Christ, and they are the very two that are needed to be brought
to bear on the discouraged heart of the disciples who have been informed that
Jesus will die.
They wanted a living Messiah. They wanted an earthly king. To say that he will
die means the loss of everything to them. They have not yet looked over the
border. Now, how can a revelation be given to them that will compensate them
for the awfully disheartening effect of the announcement that their Messiah
must die? Why, in order to compensate them, there must be some revelation of
the future. They must have an insight into the things which shall be. The
curtains must be drawn aside. They must look beyond death. They must see into
the spirit world. They must see samples of heavenly glory that are to be
brought about by the death of Christ, and as they gaze upon that
transfiguration of Jesus, which pledges the resurrection of his body when he
dies, they can understand that death; and when they see the forerunner of his
death in Moses and Elijah, as types of classes, and can thereby look to the end
of time and see all the sleeping bodies brought to life, and the living
Christians changed if anything on earth is calculated to remove their
depression, that scene is certainly calculated to remove it.
I venture to say that every Christian has become at times disheartened and
depressed when he looked at the sacrifices that have to be made in order to be
a Christian; when he looked at the stern and unrelenting laws of discipleship
absolute self-renunciation absolutely, a man must deny himself. When one
denies Christ, what does that mean? "I will not have him to rule over
me." Now, when we deny self, what does that mean? "I absolutely
abjure thee, O self, as the ruler of my life. I repudiate thee, self. I have
another King." When we take up these duties and requirements, that is the
start only, but every day of our lives requires us to see to it that self is crucified;
that the body shall be mortified; that the deeds of the flesh shall be
crucified; that they shall be put to death. When we daily take up that cross,
and know that this must go on as long as we live, even up to the very time that
we die, where is the compensation? It is in this: If I do not renounce self, if
I do not follow Christ to crucifixion, I will ultimately lose self. I will lose
my soul. This supreme business question comes up before me for decision: Shall
I gain the world and lose myself, or shall I save myself and lose the world?
Now, to help a man on that; to help him to decide rightly; to take away from
him any discouragement, and the disheartening depression, what can do it so
forcibly as to bring him up on a mountain and cause him by night, in the
loneliness of its solemn hours, to witness an interview with the glorified
spirits that have passed out of earth's sorrows and pains and disappointments,
and now in the midst of the blessedness which is theirs forever. It is to bring
him where he can see the ordinarily closed doors of the arching heavens open,
and down through the opening the light of the eternal world transfigures
everyone upon whom it shines, and looking at that he will say, "Oh, self,
die; oh, world, you shall not be my master. Jesus, I am coming; I follow; I
take up the cross. I carry it to the place where I must die the appointed death
on the appointed cross. I accept it for Christ's sake." So the
transfiguration fits the occasion of it by meeting the needs of the disciples.
Let us now see if that design of the transfiguration met the need of Christ. Oh
we must remember that he had humanity, that, he could not help feeling terribly
discouraged when these, his chosen disciples, the witnesses of his power, at
this late day in his ministry, while they had clearly recognized him as the
divine Messiah, yet did not recognize him as a suffering Messiah, and still
clung with old Jewish ideas to the thought of an earthly conquering king. How
it must have disheartened him! Then, we remember that from the beginning he saw
his death, but as he neared it, the shadows on his brow had deepened, and the
depressing effect of it weighed him down more and more as he got closer to it,
at every approach of it, feeling more and more the anguish of it, and now with
these thoughts upon him, he had spent so much time and labor, his loneliness,
his solitariness oppresses him, and he wants to pray. He wants to get alone and
pray; and on that mountain top he prays: "Oh, Father, nobody down here understands
me, nobody, not even my disciples; send me sympathy, send me some revelation
that shall cheer and sustain me; let somebody from the upper world come and
talk with me here on the edge of the battlefield, where I am breast- ing the
tide by myself." And he prays until the glory of God in him bursts through
the opaqueness of the flesh and makes translucent, and he is glorified by his
importunate prayer. And the Father comes down from heaven, comes in a drapery
of clouds, comes in his drapery of fire, and wraps around with its folds of
light the dear Redeemer, and speaks to him. "My Son, my beloved Son, my
chosen One on earth, hear him! Hear him! Hear him I Not Moses, not Elijah, hear
the Son of God." That strengthened him, and he went back to his burden
with lighter heart. That is what I understand to be the design of the
transfiguration.
4. Its relations See how the facts of that transfiguration correlate
themselves. with the near and the remote past and with the near and the remote
future.
The facts of the transfiguration reached right over and took hold of the scene
of that confession at Caesarea Philippi; they go on back until they touch the
prophetic days and grasp the hand of Elijah; they go on back to the days of
Israel in the wilderness and take the hand of Moses; they go on back until they
touch the first promise of mercy in Eden. Then they go forward until they touch
the death in Jerusalem. They touch the resurrection after that death; they
reach through the silent centuries of the unborn future and take hold of the
second coming; they speak of hovering angels and heavenly glory, and open
graves, and the white throne of the judgment, correlating with all the past,
and correlating with all the future, harmonizing law and prophecy and gospel;
showing that in Jesus, they all meet in perfection, and also showing that in
Jesus is the redemption of all the world.
Such is the relation of the transfiguration to the past and present and future.
"Say nothing about it; say nothing about ill" Well, why say nothing
about it? "Do not tell it now; wait until I am dead; wait until I have
risen from the dead; and when I have risen from the dead you may tell this
story, and it will fit into the resurrection so that no man will disbelieve it.
If you tell it now they cannot understand it, but wait until I have risen and
then it will instantly appear to men to be a miniature resurrection
scene."
I have thus presented to you what I conceive to be: (1) the occasion of the
transfiguration; (2) the wonderful facts of the event itself; (3) the design of
that event; (4) the correlation of that event with the past and with the
future, and now what are its lessons for us?
5. Its lessons for us. There is one thing about a pastor that a congregation
never can understand never can, and that is his concern that the congregation
may get upon a higher plane of Christianity. Sometimes it is like a stroke of
death. What kind of Christians are we? What kind of self-denial do we now
exhibit? What kind of cross-bearing? What kind of discipleship? What kind of
decision of the question of profit and loss? And after intense agony, I pray,
"Oh, God, multiply the number that will make a full renunciation of
self." We ourselves know that the majority of church members are walking on
the edge only of practical Christianity; just. on the edge of it. Oh, the value
of the spiritual power that will come upon all who will utterly decide the
question who will truly say: "I am God's all over. He is Lord of all my
time, and all my money and all of my life." Now and then we find a few
that will come up to that just a few. In view of the low grade of present
Christianity, the very few that attain the gift of the Spirit, what is it that
keeps pastors from being discouraged? From being utterly disheartened? What is
it that keeps despair from spreading her mantle of gloom over his pulpit and
over his heart? What is it that keeps away the howling wolves, and the
ill-boding owls and ravens, that creeping or swooping from the plutonian shores
of night, croak and howl their prophecies of evil? What is it? It is that every
now and then he gets on some mount of transfiguration, where after long prayer;
where after reconsecration; where after offering up himself and his soul and
his body to God Almighty, the heavens open and show him the glorious future, so
beautiful, so shining, so near, so enchanting, so drawing, so thrilling, that
he goes back, and says, "Well, I can stand anything now." And every
now and then God comes so to a church. He did to us, once, while I was pastor
in Waco. He did rend the heavens and come down. The fire cloud was on the
church. Heaven was near to us. We saw it. We felt it. Its glory could be
touched, and under the power of that revival, earth seemed little and
insignificant, and all of its claims were DO more than thistledown on the
breath of the storm.
O that our children some dark night, awfully dark night, should be up on a
spiritual mountain and see a fire church, see a translucent church, a church in
touch with angels, a church hearing heavenly voices, a church wrapped in the
great fire symbol of God, then might they believe and receive in their trusting
hearts an impression that would affect forever and forever their life.
Shall we not pray that God may cause us to take a solemn look at that universal
and spiritual and absolute law of discipleship? "If any man would be my
disciple, let him renounce himself, take up his cross and follow me. He that
loses his life for my sake shall find it." "What shall it profit a
man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" O Lord, we
are in the valley just now. Its shadows are as the shadows of death. Lead us,
we pray thee, for a little while up to the top of the Delectable Mountains,
from whose unclouded summits we may catch again the inspiring, transfiguring
view of the Heavenly City. Thus reassuring our desponding hearts, and
refreshing our weary minds, we may resume our pilgrimage in hope of speedily
arriving at our heavenly home.
QUESTIONS
1. What things conspire to
make the transfiguration a notable event?
2. What are the sources of
its history and import?
3. What facts constitute its
occasion?
4. What reasons assigned for
the conclusion?
5. What was the scene of
this event and what left in doubt by the inspired record? Illustrate.
6. What was the time?
7. What was the object of
the going on this mountain?
8. Who were Jesus'
companions?
9. What were the events
while on the mountain leading up to the transfiguration?
10. Was what they saw a
dream or vision?
11. What were the three
distinct, supernatural events which they saw here?
12. What is the meaning of
the word "transfiguration"?
13. Describe this
transfiguration of Jesus.
14. What two Old Testament
characters appear in interview here with Jesus, how were they recognized by
Peter, James, and John and what was the bearing on the question of heavenly
recognition?
15. What was the subject of
their conversation, what were the circumstances which led up to it, what was
the bearing of the work of Moses and Elijah on this subject, respectively, and
how illustrated in each case?
16. What was Peter's
proposition and why?
17. What Old Testament
symbol reappeared here and what was its special significance?
18. What voice did they hear
and what was its import?
19. What was the design of
this incident?
20. What was Peter's
testimony? What was John's?
21. What was the
significance of the appearance of Elijah here and how does this correlate with the
New Testament teaching on this thought?
22. What was the
significance of the appearance of Moses here and how does this thought
correlate with New Testament teaching?
23. What was their
conception of the Messiah and what was the bearing of this incident on that
conception?
24. What was the requirement
of discipleship and what was the bearing of this incident on it?
25. Show that the design of
the transfiguration met the need of Christ just at this time.
26. What was probably
Christ's prayer here on this occasion and how does this fit the idea of his
need at this time?
27. How do the facts of the
transfiguration correlate themselves with the past and the future?
28. What charge did our Lord
give his disciples relative to this incident & why?
29. What are the lessons of
the transfiguration for us?
30. What illustration of
this transfiguration power from the life of the author?
SEASON OF RETIREMENT PART IV THE CLOSING
INCIDENTS
Harmony, pages 94-103 and Matthew 17:14 to 18:35;
8:19-22; Mark 9:9-50; Luke 9:37-62; John 7:2-10.
When Christ and the three disciples who were with him at the transfiguration
returned from the Mount they saw a great multitude gathered about the nine and
the scribes questioning with them. Then follows the story of the failure of the
nine to cast out the evil spirit of a demoniac boy and Jesus' rebuke of their
little faith, upon which our Lord healed the boy and restored him to his
father. This story is interesting from several points of view. First, the case
was an exceptional One and so difficult that the nine were unable to cast the
Evil spirit out. Second, this is the only case of demonical epilepsy in the New
Testament, the description of which by Mark is very vivid and much more in
detail than that of either of the other evangelists. Third, Christ's momentary
impatience at dwelling amid such an environment is nowhere else so expressed,
perhaps the more distressing from the contrast with the scene of the
transfiguration, a few hours before. Fourth, the rebuke of the boy's father is
a fine lesson. He said, "If thou canst do anything, have compassion on us,
and help us." Jesus answered, "If thou canst!" We see here the
point of the rebuke. Herefore we have found the form of faith that said,
"If thou wilt, thou canst," but this man reversed it: "If thou
canst do anything, help us." But the rebuke of Jesus set him right in his
faith and then healed the boy. What a lesson for us! So often the Lord has to
set us right in our faith before he can consistently give us the blessing.
Fifth, the explanation which Jesus gave of their failure and the possibilities
of God through the children of faith are a most helpful encouragement to the
Christian of today. All difficulties may be removed by the power of faith.
Sixth, the prescription of prayer as a means to the strengthen- ing of faith is
a valuable suggestion as to the mans of our overcoming. Prayer is the hour of
victory for the child of God. This is the winning point for every worker in the
kingdom. All victories for God are won in the closet before the day of battle.
Let us heed the lesson.
While on the way from Caesarea Philippi Jesus revealed again to his disciples
that he must suffer and die and rise again, but they did not understand and
were afraid to ask him. They were very slow to comprehend the idea of a
suffering Messiah. This they did not understand fully until after his
resurrection. This thought is more fully developed in connection with his
submitted test of his messiahship which is discussed elsewhere in this INTERPRETATION OF THE
GOSPELS.
When they came to Capernaum an event occurred which made a lasting impression
on Peter. This was the incident of the half-shekel for the Temple. When asked
if his Lord was accustomed to pay the Temple tax, Peter said, "Yes."
But Peter did not have the money to pay it with, and our Lord, after showing
Peter that he (Jesus) was exempt, told him to go to the sea and take the piece
of money from the mouth of a fish and pay the Temple tax for Peter and himself,
in order that there might be left to the Jews no occasion of stumbling with
reference to him as the Messiah.
In section 70 we have the lesson on how to be great, which arose from their
dispute as to who among them should be the greatest. To this Jesus replied that
the greatest one of all was to be servant of all, and illustrated it by the
example of a little child. The characteristic of the little child to be found
in the subjects of his kingdom is humility.. Then he goes on to show that to
receive one of such little children was to receive him. Here John, one of the
"sons of thunder," interrupted him with a question about one whom he
saw casting out demons, yet he was not following with them. Then Jesus, after
setting John right, went on with his illustration of the little child, showing
the awful sin of causing a little one who believes on him to stumble, and
pronounces a woe unto the world because of the occasion of stumbling, saying
that these occasions must come, but the woe is to the man through whom they
come. The occasions of stumbling arise from the sin of man and the domination
of the devil, but that does not excuse the man through whom they come.
Now follows a pointed address in the second person singular, showing the cases
in which we become stumbling blocks, in which he also shows the remedy, indeed
a desperate remedy for a desperate case. This passage needs to be treated more
particularly. Then, briefly, what the meaning of the word "offend"? If
thy hand offend thee, if thine eye offend thee, if thy foot offend thee; what
is the meaning of this word? We find it in the English in the word
"scandal," that is, "scandal" is the Anglicized form of the
Greek word here used. But the word "scandalize," as used in the
English, does not express the thought contained in this text, since that is a
modern derived meaning of the word. Originally it meant the trigger of a trap,
that trigger which being touched caused the trap to fall and catch one, and
from that of its original signification it came to have four well-known Bible
meanings. An instance of each one of the four meanings, fairly applicable to
this passage here, will be cited. First, it means a stumbling block, that which
causes any one to fall, and in its spiritual signification, that which causes
any one to fall into a sin. If thy hand causeth thee to fall into a sin, if
thine eye causeth thee to fall into a sin, if thy foot causeth thee to fall
into a sin, cut it off, pluck it out. It is more profitable to enter heaven
maimed than to have the whole body cast into hell. The thought is as we see it
in connection with a stumbling block, that we fall unexpectedly into the sin,
as if we were going along not looking down and should suddenly stumble over
something in our regular path, where we usually walk. Now, "if thine eye
causeth thee, in the regular walk of life, to put something in that pathway
that, when you were not particularly watching, will cause you to stumble and
fall into a sin" that is the first thought of it.
Its second meaning is an obstacle or obstruction that causes one to stop. He
does not fall over this obstacle, but it blocks his way and he stops. He does
not fall, but he does not go on. To illustrate this use of the word, John the
Baptist, in prison, finding the progress of his faith stopped by a doubt, sent
word to Christ to know, "Art thou he that should come, or do we look for
another?" Evidently showing that some unbelief had crept into his heart
that had caused him to stop. He was not going on in the direction that he had
been going, and hence, when Jesus sent word to John of the demonstrations of
his divinity, He added this expression, using this very word, "Blessed is
the man who is not offended in me." "Blessed is the man who in me
does not find an obstacle that stops him." Anything that is an occasion of
unbelief fulfils this meaning of the word. If thine eye causes something to be
put in thy path that suggests a doubt as to the Christian religion, and by that
doubt causeth thee that had been going steadily forward, to stop, pluck it out.
Let me give another illustration: In the parable of the sower, our Saviour, in
expounding why it was that the grain that had fallen upon the rock and came up
and seemed to promise well for awhile, afterward, under the hot sun, withered
away and perished, says, "There are some people that hear the word of God
and, for awhile, seem to accept it, but when tribulation or persecution cometh
they are offended they are stopped." That is the meaning of the word strictly.
Persecution and tribulation cometh and an obstacle is put in their path that
causes them to stop. Now, if thine eye causes an obstacle to be put in thy
Christian path, that causeth thee to stop and not go forward, pluck it out. Yet
another illustration: Our Saviour, who had announced a great many doctrines
that people could easily understand and accept, suddenly, on one occasion,
announced a hard doctrine, very hard, and from that time it is said that many
of his disciples followed him no more. They stopped. Now, there was something
in them, in the eye or the hand or the foot, that found an occasion of unbelief
in the doctrine he announced, and they stopped. I remember a very notable
instance, where a man, deeply impressed in a meeting, and giving fair promise
of having passed from death to life, happened to be present when the scriptural
law of the use of money was expounded, and he stopped. Some obstacle stretched
clear across his path. It was the love of money in his heart. He couldn't
recognize God's sovereignty over money. As if he had said, "If you want me
to cry; if you want me to say I am sorry, I will say it; if you want me to join
the church, I will join it; if you want me to be baptized, I will be baptized;
but if you want me to honor God with my money, I stop."
Now, the third use of the word. It is sometimes used to indicate, not something
over which one stumbles and falls into a sin, and not an obstacle that blocks up
his pathway, but in the sense of something that he runs up against and hurts
himself and so becomes foolishly angry. As when one, at night, trying to pass
out of a dark room, strikes his head against the door, and in a moment flies
into a passion. "Now, if thine eye causeth thee to run up against an
object that when you strike it offends you, makes you mad, pluck it out and
cast it from thee."
These three senses of this word have abundant verifications in the classical
Greek and a vast number of instances in the Bible, in the Old and New
Testaments. But there is a fourth use of the word. That is where the eye has
caused a man to turn aside from the right path and to reject the wise counsel
of God, and to indulge in sin until God has given him up; then God sets a trap
for him right in the path of his besetting sin. In Romans 11:9 we find that use
of the word: "Let their table be made a trap for them." That is to
say, God, after trying to lead a man to do right, if he persists in doing
wrong, the particular sin, whatever hat may be, whether it be of pride, or
lust, or pleasure, whatever it may be, that particular, besetting sin which has
caused him to reject God, will make the occasion of his ruin, and in the track
of it God will set the trap, and the man is certain to fall into it and be
lost. Now, these are the four Bible uses of this term "offend."
Greek: Scandalon, the noun, and skandalizo, the verb. "If
thine eye causeth thee to offend," that is, "If your eye causeth you
to put something in your path over which you will unexpectedly fall into a sin;
if thine eye causeth thee to put an obstacle clear across your path, so that
you stop; if thine eye causeth thee to put some object against which you will
unthoughtedly run and hurt yourself and become incensed; if thine eye causeth
thee to go into a sin that shall completely alienate you from God, and in the
far distant track of which God sets a trap that will be sure to catch your soul
pluck it out."
The next thing needing explanation: People who look only at the shell of a
thing may understand this passage to mean mutilation of the body. They forget
that the mutilation of the body is simply an illustration of spiritual things.
Take a case: One of the most beautiful and sweet-spirited girls I ever knew,
before whom there seemed to stretch a long and bright and happy future, was
taken sick, and the illness, whatever the doctors may call it, was in the foot,
and the blood would not circulate. The doctors could not bring about the circulation
and that foot finally threatened the whole body. Then the doctors said,
"This foot must be amputated." And they did amputate it. They
amputated it to save her life. They cut off that member because it offered the
only possible means of saving the other foot and both hands and the whole body
and her life. It was sternness of love, resoluteness of affection, courage of
wisdom that sacrificed a limb to save the body. Now using that necessity of
amputation. as an illustration, our Saviour says, "If thy hand offend
thee, cut it off; if thy foot offend thee, cut it off. If thine eye offend
thee, pluck it out." But that he does not mean bodily mutilation is
self-evident from this: that if we were to cut off our hand we could not stop
the spiritual offense; if we were to pluck out the eye we could not stop the
spiritual offense on the inside, in the soul; no lopping off to external
branches would reach that. But what our Saviour means to teach is this: That as
a wise physician, who discovers, seated in one member of the body, a disease
that if allowed to spread will destroy the whole body, in the interest of mercy
cuts off that diseased limb, so, applying this to spiritual things, whatever
causes us to fall into sin, we should cut loose from it at every cost.
One other word needs to be explained, the word "Gehenna." It is a
little valley next to Jerusalem that once belonged to the sons of Hinnom. It
came to pass that in that valley was instituted an idol worship, and there the
kings caused their children to pass through the fire to Moloch, and because of
this iniquity a good king of Israel defiled that valley, made it the dumping
ground of all refuse matter from the city. The excrement, the dead things, the
foul and corrupt matter was all carried out and put in that valley. And because
of the corruption heaped there, worms were always there, and because of the
burning that had been appointed as a sanitary measure, the fire was always
there. Now that was used as an illustration to indicate the spiritual condition
of a lost soul; of a soul that had become as refuse matter; of a soul that had
become entirely cut loose from God and given up to its own devices; that had
become bad through and through; that had become such a slave to passion, or
lust or crime, that. it was incorrigible, and the very nature of the sin which
possessed it was like a worm that never dies. There was a gnawing, a ceaseless
gnawing going on, referring to conscience, and there was a burning and a thirst
going on. Now those images our Saviour selected were to represent the thought
of hell.
Having explained its words, look now at the passage itself: "If thine eye
offend thee, pluck it out." What is the principle involved in that
exhortation? First, that it is a man's chief concern to see that he does not
miss the mark; that he does not make shipwreck; that he does not ruin himself.
That is the chief concern of every boy, of every girl, of every man and woman,
to see to it that he does not miss the mark of his being; that he does not make
shipwreck; that he does not go to utter ruin.
The next thought involved in it is that in case we do miss the mark; in case we
do make shipwreck; in case our soul is lost, then there is no profit and no
compensation to us in any thing we ever had. "For what shall it profit a
man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" If he misses the
main thing, if he makes shipwreck of his own soul, then wherein does the
compensation come to him that in his life he had this or that treasure, this
pleasure or that; that he was able to attain to this ambition or that; that he
for such a while, no matter how long, was on top in society or fashion in the
world? What has it profited him if the main thing worthy of supreme concern, is
lost?
The next thought is this: Whatever sacrifice is necessary to the securing of
the main thing, that we must make. That is what this passage means, and no
matter how dear a treasure may be to us; no matter how much we esteem it, if it
be necessary that we should give it up or that our soul should be lost, this
passage calls on us to give it up. A man may have in a ship a vast amount of
money which he idolizes, but in the night he is alarmed by the cry of fire; he
rushes upon the deck and he finds that the ship is hopelessly in flames and
that the only way of escape is to swim to the shore. Now he stands there for a
moment and meditates: "I have here a vast amount of money, in gold. If I
try to take this gold with me in this issue in which the main thing, my life,
is involved, it will sink me. My life is more than this money. O glittering
gold, I leave you. I strike out, stripped of every weight and swim for my
life." It means that he ought to leave behind everything that would
jeopardize his gaining the shore. A ship has a valuable cargo. It has been
acquired by toil and anxiety and industry. It may be that the cargo in itself
is perfectly innocent, but in a stress of weather, with a storm raging and with
a leak in the vessel and the water rising, it becomes necessary to lighten that
ship. Now whatever is necessary to make it float, to keep it above water, that
must be done. If there be anything which, if permitted to remain in that ship,
will sink it, throw it out. They that do business in great waters know the
wisdom of this. Why? It is a question of sacrificing the inferior to the
greater and better.
The next thought involved is this: Whenever it says, "If thine eye offend
thee, pluck it out," I venture to say that it is a demonstration, by the
exhortation addressed to us personally, that if ruin comes to us it comes by
our own consent. I mean to say that no matter what is the stress of outside
seduction, nor how cunningly the devil may attempt to seduce and beguile us,
all the devils in hell and all the extraneous temptations that may environ a man
can never work his shipwreck if he does not consent.
The next point involved is, that whenever one does consent to temptation,
whenever the ruin comes to him, it comes on account of some internal moral
delinquency. Out of the heart are the issues of life. Out of the heart proceed
murder, lust, blasphemy, and every crime which men commit. I mean to say that
as the Bible declares that no murderer shall inherit eternal life, that
external incentives to murder amount to nothing unless in him, in the man, in
the soul, there be a susceptibility or a liability or moral weakness that shall
open the door to the tempter and let in the destroyer.
Now if that be true we come naturally to the next thought in this text, that
is, God saves a man, and if God can save a man, he must save him in accordance
with the laws of his own nature. That is to say, that God must, in order to the
salvation of that man, require truth in the inward part; that nothing external
will touch the case; that God's requirements must take hold, not of the long
delayed overt act, but of the lust in the heart which preceded the act and made
the act. And therefore, while a human court can take jurisdiction only of
murder actually committed, God goes inside of the man and says, "Whosoever
hateth his brother is a murderer." From hate comes murder. If God saves
you he must save you from the internal hate. Human law takes hold of a case of
adultery. God's law goes to the eye: "Whosoever looketh upon a woman to
lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." God
requireth truth in the inward part. And if one is saved he must be saved
internally; he must be saved, not only from the guilt and penalty of sin, but
he must be saved from the love of it and from the dominion of it.
The next point: With that law looking inside, looking at our thoughts, looking
at the springs of action, the question comes up, "How shall one save his
soul? How shall one so attain to the end of his being as that in the main thing
he shall not miss the mark?" He has to look at it as an exceedingly sober
question. There is no child's play about it. He must not rely upon the quack
remedies of philosophers and impostors, or rely upon any external rite, upon
joining the church or being baptized, or partaking of the Lord's Supper. The
awful blasphemy of calling that the way to heaven! God requireth truth in the
inward part, and if we are saved, we must be saved inside. As a wise man,
having my chief business to save my soul, I must scrupulously look at
everything with which I come in contact. Some men's weaknesses are in one
direction and some in. another, but the chief thing for me is to find out my
weakness, what is my besetting sin, where is the weak point in my line of
defense, where am I most susceptible to danger, where do I yield most readily?
And if I find that the ties of blood are making me lose my soul, I must move
out of my own family, and therefore in the Mosaic law it is expressly said,
"If thine own son, if the wife of thy bosom, shall cause thee to worship
idols and turn away. from the true God, thou shalt put thine own hand on the
head as the first witness, that they may be stoned. Thou shalt not spare."
It is a question of our life, and if our family ties are such that they are
dragging us down to death, we must strike out for our life. And that is why
marriage is the most solemn and far-reaching question that ever came up for
human decision. More souls are lost right there, more women go into hopeless
bondage, more men are shipwrecked by that awful tie, than by anything else.
Then he goes on to show that these little believers must not be despised,
because their angels are always before their heavenly Father, just as the
angels of more highly honored Christians. This thought he illustrates with the
parable of the ninety and nine, the interpretation of which might be considered
as follows: (1) If there are many worlds and but one is lost, (2) if there are
many creatures and only man is lost, (3) if there were many just persons, and
only one is lost, then we find the lost world, the lost race, the one lost man
is near the heart of the Saviour, the principle being that the weakest, the
most needy, the most miserable are nearest the Shepherd's heart. "Even so
it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little
ones should perish," is the conclusion of the Saviour.
In section 71 we have our Lord's great discussion on forgiveness, i.e., man's
forgiveness of man. This subject is amply treated in volume 1, chapter xvi of
this INTERPRETATION and also in my sermon on "Man's Forgiveness of
Man." (I refer the reader to these discussions for a full exposition of
this great passage.)
In section 72 we have a very plain word on the sacrifices of discipleship. Here
three different ones approached Christ asking permission to be his disciples.
The first one that came proposed to go with him anywhere. Jesus told him that
he had no abiding place; that he was a wanderer without any home, which meant
there were many hardships in connection with discipleship. The second one that
came to him wanted to wait till he could bury his father, which according to
Oriental customs, might have been several years, or at least, thirty days, if
his father was dead when he made the request, including the time of mourning.
Luke tells of one who wanted first to bid farewell to them of his own house.
But Jesus said, "No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking
back, is fit for the kingdom of God." The import of all this is that
Christ will not permit his disciples to allow anything to come between them and
him. He must have the first place in their affections. The expression, "No
man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom
of God," means that the man who is pretending to follow Christ and is
looking back to the things he left behind is not fit for his kingdom. This is a
strict test, but it is our Lord's own test.
Then, following the Harmony, we have, in the next section. the counsel of the
unbelieving brothers that Jesus go into Judea and exhibit himself there. But he
declined to follow their counsel and remained in Galilee. This incident shows
that the brothers of Jesus had not at this time accepted him, which was about
six months before his death and thus disproves the theory that the brothers of
Jesus were apostles.
We now come to the close of this division of the Harmony in section 74, which
tells of Jesus setting his face toward Jerusalem in view of the approach of the
end of his earthly career. This going up to Jerusalem, John says, was after his
brothers had gone, and it was not public, but as it were in secret. He sent
James and John, the "sons of thunder," ahead to Samaria to make ready
for him, but the Samaritans rejected him because he was going toward Jerusalem,
which exemplifies the old, deep-seated hatred between the Jews and the
Samaritans. This section closes with a rebuke to James and John for wanting to
call down fire upon these Samaritans. The next chapter of this INTERPRETATION connects with this section and gives the results of
this trip to Jerusalem and his ministry in all parts of the Holy Land.
QUESTIONS
1. What was the incident
immediately following the transfiguration?
2. What are the points of
interest in the story of the epileptic boy?
3. What revelation did Jesus
again make to his disciples while on the way from Caesarea Philippi, how did
the disciples receive it and why?
4. Tell the story of Peter
and the Temple tax and give its lesson.
5. What was the lesson on
"greatness" here and what its occasion?
6. What was the point in the
illustration of the little child?
7. What is the lesson from
John's interruption of our Lord here?
8. How does Jesus show the
awfulness of the sin of causing a little child who believes on him to stumble?
9. From what do the
occasions of stumbling arise and upon whom rests the responsibility for them?
10. What would you give as
the theme of Matthew 18:8-9; and Mark 9:43,45,47-50?
11. What are the several
meanings of the word "offend" in these passages? Illustrate each.
12. What is the application
of all these meanings? Illustrate.
13. Explain the word
"Gehenna" as used here.
14. Looking at the passage
as a .whole, what is principle involved the exhortation? Give details.
15. What reason does Christ
assign for the command not to despise one of these little ones and what does it
mean?
16. How does he illustrate
this
17. In a word what is the
author's position on the subject of man's forgiveness of man?
18. What is Christ's
teaching here on discipleship and what is the meaning of his language addressed
to each of the three, respectively, who approached him here on the subject?
19. What advice here given
Jesus by his brothers, how did Jesus regard it, and what the lesson of this
incident?
20. What are the closing
incidents of this division of our Lord's ministry and what are their lessons?
CHRIST'S DISCOURSES AT THE FEAST OF
TABERNACLES
Harmony, pages 104-110 and John 7:11 to 10:21.
The great Galilean ministry is ended and we now take up the closing ministry of
our Lord in all parts of the Holy Land. The time is about six months before the
crucifixion, probably in the autumn of A.D. 29. These incidents occurred in
Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles. The law of this feast is found in
Leviticus 23:34-36, 39-43; Deuteronomy 16: 13-15. The time of it was the
fifteenth day of the seventh month of the Jewish year, or the month of Tisri, which
corresponds to our September and October. The duration was one week and there
were two distinct ideas: (1) it was a memorial, Leviticus 23:42-43, and (2) an
ingathering, Exodus 23:16.
The writer of these sections is John, and there are several peculiarities of
his Gospel. First, he confines himself mainly to the Judean ministry of our
Lord. Second, special incidents and miracles were the occasions of his great
discourses. Third, John is truly the theologian of the evangelists, as may be
seen in these discourses. Fourth, there are mighty lessons here. Fifth, these
sections are of special homiletic value, abounding in great public themes. Each
of these peculiarities will have special attention as we proceed with the
discussion.
There were several notable incidents at this Feast of Tabernacles. The first
was that of the interest of the people. They inquired about him and some
murmured because of him. One faction said that he was a good man, while the
other contended that he led the multitude astray. His teaching brought forth
the inquiry, "How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" To
this he replied with a discourse, the points of which will be noted presently.
The second great incident at this feast was the issue with the leaders on the
sabbath question. This connects with the miracle wrought on the impotent man,
the account of which is recorded in John 15 (Harmony, pp. 39-41). The third
event was the attempt to arrest him, but they were not able. The fourth
incident was the report of the officers, that "never man so spoke."
The fifth incident was the reasoning of Nicodemus, that their law did not
condemn a man until he had been heard.
In reply to their question, "How knoweth this man letters, having never
learned?" Jesus made the following points in his discourse with them:
First, the message was not his, but God's. Second, if any man desired to know
the doctrine let him will to do God's will and he would know. Third, he replied
to their sabbath question by showing that they circumcised on the sabbath day,
and then he entreated them to judge righteous judgment. Fourth, his reply to
their seeking him was, that they knew him, but they did not know his Father,
and this was the reason why they tried to kill him. Fifth, he closes with the
great invitation and the promise of the Holy Spirit and his effect in the
outflowing life.
Upon this the multitude divided in their opinion of him, some saying that he
was a prophet and others that he was the Christ. They were greatly puzzled with
reference to his birthplace and parentage, not being able to reconcile his
residence in Galilee with the prophecies of the lineage of the promised
Messiah. They were not willing to believe that any prophet should arise out of
Galilee.
Section 76 gives the account of the adulterous woman brought to Jesus. This
section is now generally considered to be spurious, though perhaps a true
story, very likely taken from the collection of Papias (see note in Harmony).
This accords with Luke 21:38 and John 21:25. The evangelists did not pretend to
give a full history of Christ's work, but selected only such material from his
life and ministry as suited their purposes, respectively. The lesson of this
incident is the rebuke of the censorious spirit of this woman's accusers.
Christ did not mean here that the woman was not guilty of sin, but that she was
no more guilty than her accusers. This fact seems to have made a deep
impression on them, as they did not stone her, but sneaked away. His words to
the woman here are in line with his utterance in John 3:17, "God sent not
his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world should be saved
through him" and shows that Christ had a tender compassion for the fallen
and outcast of earth. Note carefully his final words: "From henceforth sin
no more." How we would like to know what Jesus wrote on the ground! But
alas I We are left to conjecture.
In section 77 we have a continuation of Jesus' contest with the Pharisees begun
in section 75. Omitting section 76, the story of the adulterous woman brought
to Jesus, the contest goes right on without a break. This great passage
consists of a dialogue between the Pharisees and Jesus touching the great
questions of his mission.
First, Jesus announced that he was the light of the world, to which the
Pharisees objected that he was bearing witness of himself. Jesus replied that
even if he did bear witness of himself, his witness was true, because his
Father bore the same testimony. Then they raised the question as to who his
Father was, to which Jesus replied that they did not know his Father because
they did not know him.
Second, Jesus tells them of their responsibility and sin because they rejected
him; that except they should believe that he was the Messiah they should die in
their sins. This is a plain statement of the necessity of accepting Jesus as
the Messiah and Saviour in order to salvation. Here they raise again the
question as to who Jesus was, to which he replied, "Even that which I have
also spoken unto you from the beginning. Then he submitted the text by which
they would recognize him as the Christ, viz.: his death at their hands. Upon
this "many believed on him."
Third, from 8:31-59 we have our Lord's great discussion with the Pharisees on
true liberty. While I was pastor in Waco, Ingersoll, the great infidel,
delivered his lecture there on "Liberty for Man, Woman, and Child,"
to which I replied in a sermon on this passage. (See author's sermon on
"Liberty for Man, Woman, and Child.") Here several things are evident:
(1) There is a faith which does not constitute discipleship nor secure freedom.
To be truly a disciple one's faith must not only be in the head, but extend to
the life. We must abide in his word. (2) Truth and not falsehood leads to
freedom. Not indeed scientific truth, but truth concerning God the truth of
revelation; the truth as it is in Jesus. But this truth is not speculative nor
theoretical it must be inwrought in the life. (3) There may be, as in the
case of these Pharisees, unconscious bondage; indeed, the most deplorable of
all bondage, resulting from such blunting of the moral perceptions and such
perversion of sensibilities, as will make one call bitter sweet, and put light
for darkness yea, that will make one hug his chains and hate the coming
deliverer. (4) The great slavery of this world is bondage to sin, and the great
slave master is the devil. (5) Jesus Christ is the only liberator. (6) The most
enslaved of all can talk eloquently of "liberty." (7) The only true
liberty is the glorious liberty of the children of God.
In section 78 we have the case of the blind man. The place was Jerusalem, going
out from the Temple. The time was the sabbath, i e., the eighth day of the
feast, a sabbath construction. The topics here are as follows: A question
concerning sin, the work of God, the miracle itself and the means used, the
problem to Christ's enemies, the difficulty of rejecting the evidence, a
question of prayer, and the law of excommunication. The first of these, in
order is
A question concerning sin. There were certain prevalent beliefs concerning
sin, implied by this question: (1) That there is a connection between sin and
suffering. (2) That every affliction is proof of some special sin. (3) That
this sin was on the part of immediate parents of child. (4) That a child might
sin before birth (v. 34). The answer implies certain limitations. It does not
deny (1) that all suffering in some way comes from sin; (2) nor that the
consequences of parental sin fall on the children; (3) nor that children may
inherit sinful tendencies; (4) nor that children have sinful natures; (5) nor
that sickness is sometimes the direct consequence of sin (Lev. 26:16; Deut.
28:22; 1 Cor. 11:30); (6) nor that judgments are sometimes direct (See the
cases of Herod, Ananias, and Elymas). But it shows (1) that suffering is a
large and varied problem; (2) that God often distributes sufferings for other
than punitive purposes, for example: the cases of Job, Esau, and Jacob (Rom.
9:11); the death of Josiah, Lazarus (John 11:4); the fall of the Jews (Rom.
11:11), the Galatians, the tower of Siloam; and the chastisements of
Christians. The next thought is
Work and its season. Whatever the cause of affliction we must work. (See
author's sermon on "Working for Christ.") Here we have set forth the
obligation to work: "We must work, etc.," then who must do it?
"We must, etc.," then whose work is it? "Of him that sent
me," then the time is specified: "While it is today," i.e., in this
life; then the reason for it: "For the night cometh," i.e., the night
of death. This thought is enforced by Psalm 104:23 and finds its application in
every phase of our religious life.
The miracle itself and the means used. Jesus spat on the ground, made clay of
the spittle and with the clay anointed the eyes of this man. Then he commanded
him to go wash in the pool of Siloam, which means, "Sent." The man
went and washed and came seeing. Such is the simple story of the miracle, but
why this use of means? Here the record is silent and we are left wholly to
conjecture. Perhaps it was to test the man's faith, as in the case of Naaman.
A problem to Christ's enemies. They did not agree as to the fact, though many
affirmed that a great miracle had been "wrought. They raised the question
of his identity with the beggar whom they knew, but the man said, "I am
he." Then they raised the question as to the means of his healing. To this
the man responded definitely that it was a man called Jesus, and then he
detailed the process to them. They were not satisfied and called for the
healer, but he was gone. So they brought the man to the Pharisees and they
asked him to state the case again. This the man did, but they brought the
charge against Jesus of the sin of breaking the sabbath law, because this miracle
was wrought on the sabbath. Then they divided, some saying he was a sinner and
others that no sinner could do such signs. Therefore they asked the man his
opinion of the healer and he replied that he was a prophet. This led to the
complete distrust of all he had said. So they called for his parents, and they
identified the man as their son who was born blind, but for fear of the
threatened excommunication they declined to give testimony as to the healer and
put the responsibility off on the son. Here they called him the second time and
tried to make him waver in his testimony, but the man gave the clear,
unwavering testimony of his conviction that the healer was from God. Then
follows their
Difficulty of rejecting the evidence. They had to confess (1) that they knew
not whence Jesus was, (2) that they could not tell how a sinner could do such
works, nor (3) how God would hear such a sinner, but they did not mind a
contradiction. So they resorted to excommunication.
A question of prayer. The following scriptures should be studied carefully in
the light of this passage: Job 13:16:27:9; 35:13; Psalm 50:16; 66:18; 109:7;
Proverbs 1:28; 15:8, 29; 21:27; 28:9; Isaiah 1:11-15; 59:1-2; Jeremiah 14:12;
Amos 5:21-23; Micah 3:4; James 4:3. They reveal the following facts: (1) That
the hypocrite may not come before God; (2) that there is prayer that may be too
late; (3) that a wicked man, persisting in sin, need not come before him; (4)
that one who regards iniquity in his heart will not have a hearing with God; (5)
that prayer with the wrong motive will not avail anything; (6) that prayer may
be sin, if offered for obedience (Cf. case of Saul and Samuel). All this
furnishes the background for the statement of the man here that God does not
hear sinners, but it has no reference whatever to God's hearing a humble,
penitent sinner who comes to God confessing his sins. The Bible teaches
abundantly that a penitent sinner may come to God with the assurance that God
will hear him and save him.
Jewish excommunication. "Put out of the synagogue they cast him
out." There were three kinds of excommunication. First, that which
prohibited (a) the bath, (b) the razor, (c) the convivial table, (d) approach
to any one nearer than four cubits (e) making the circuit of the Temple in the
usual way. The time of this kind was thirty days and might be extended to sixty
or ninety days. Second, if the subject was contumacious, he was prohibited (a)
from teaching or being taught in company with others, (b) from hiring or being
hired, (c) from any commercial transactions beyond purchasing the necessaries
of life. A court of ten men delivered the sentence with malediction. Third, the
entire cutting off from the congregation of Israel.
There are some things that need to be noted in the last paragraph (35-41) of
this section. First, Jesus found the "outcast" and led him to accept
him as the Messiah. Notice how he develops the man's faith: "Dost thou
believe on the Son of God?" (Cf. v. 22). The emphasis here is on "thou."
Second, what is the meaning here of "judgment"? It means that our
Lord is a touchstone (Luke 2:34-35), a rock of offense (1) Peter 2:8) a savor
of death (2 Cor. 2:16). and a means of strife (Matt. 10:10), according to the
different attitudes of people toward him. So to those who do not receive him
his work becomes judicial, and though they see now, they are blinded judicially
when they reject the offered light. This is forcefully illustrated in the case
of the Jews themselves. This discussion is vitally connected with the parable
and discussion of the next chapter, furnishing the background for the great
chapter 10 of John.
This chapter (sec. 79) is introduced by a parable (1-6) founded on visible
facts. There was one large enclosure for sheltering many small flocks. All the shepherds
brought their flocks to this one enclosure and caused the sheep to pass under
the shepherd's rod for the purpose of counting. A porter kept the door and knew
all the shepherds. The porter guarded all night, but the thief did not come to
the door, but climbed up some other way. In the morning each shepherd came to
the one door and, being recognized by the porter, was admitted into the
enclosure. There he called the names of his several sheep which heard and
followed him. Then he counted them as they came out and passed under the rod,
led them forth to pasture, guarded them by day, and defended them against the
attacks of the wolves. Such is the story of the parable.
Now let us look at the interpretation. Jesus is the door to the shepherd. There
is no rightful way to the office of the shepherd except by him. Therefore we
have the divine call to the ministry. Yet some assume the office without the
call. The Holy Spirit is the porter. He will not open the door to the uncalled,
and the uncalled who assume this office climb over the wall. Their motive is
selfish. Jesus is also the door of the sheep. Through him they find life. His
motive is to give life and life more abundantly. Then Jesus is the Good
Shepherd. The false shepherd cares not for the sheep, but flees when the wolf
comes.
There are certain great doctrines taught in these sections of John, which need
special attention. Let us note them in order:
First, as they relate to the life of Jesus. (a) His preexistence:
"Before Abraham was, I am." (b) His unity with the Father, (c) He was
consecrated and sanctified to be sent into the world, (d) The object of his
coming was to give his life for his people.
Second, as they relate to his death. (a) It was voluntary: I lay down my
life." (b) It was according to his Father's will and was by his own will.
(c) Without his will he could not be put to death by the Father, by the people
or by the devil, (d) It was expiatory in its nature: "I lay down my life
for the sheep."
Third, as they relate to his resurrection: (a) His resumption of life was a
part of the original purpose, (b) It was accomplished by his will and power:
"I take it up." (c) It was one of rights: "Other sheep I
have." (d) It was one of activity: "Then must I bring."
Fourth, as they relate to his redeemed: (a) They are the Father's covenanted
gift: "He gave them to me." (b) Their regeneration is assumed their
heavenly parentage, (c) Their safety is forever guaranteed from deception:
"I know them they recognize me"; from danger: "They shall
never perish." (d) Their food is guaranteed: "Shall find
pasture."
Fifth, as they relate to his coming day: (a) This day was revealed, (b) It was
in sight by faith: "Abraham saw my day." (c) The sight of it filled
Abraham with gladness: "And was glad."
This great division of John's Gospel is a mine of homiletical material. There
are many texts and themes here for sermons. These may be found in every
paragraph from John 7:17 to 10:18.
QUESTIONS
1. What was the time, place,
and date of the incidents of these sections of the Harmony
2. What was the law, date,
duration, and ideas of the Feast of Tabernacles?
3. Who was the writer of
this part of the Harmony and what are the peculiarities of his Gospel?
4. What was the first notable
incident of this Feast of Tabernacles? Discuss.
5. What was the second
incident and what was its remote occasion?
6. What was the third and
fourth incidents and what the results?
7. What was the fifth
incident?
8. What are the points in
the reply of Jesus to the question, "How knoweth this man letters, having
never learned?"
9. What was the result of
this discourse and what was the puzzle of the multitude concerning him?
10. What can you say of the
incident of the adulterous woman brought to Jesus and what was its lessons?
11. What was the connection
between sections 75 and 77 and of what do these sections consist?
12. What was the Pharisees'
objection to the announcement of Jesus that he was the light of the world, and
what was his reply?
13. How did Jesus show their
responsibility, what questions did they raise in response and what was his
reply?
14. What is the theme of
John 8:31-39 and what historic incident connects?
15. What things are evident
from this passage?
16. What was the place and
time of the incident of healing the blind man?
17. What were the topics
growing out of this incident?
18. What were the prevalent
beliefs concerning sin implied in the question?
19. What are the limitations
implied in the answer?
20. What further does the
answer show? Illustrate.
21. On the text, "We
must work, etc.," show (1) the obligation, (2) who must work, (3) whose
work it is, (4) the time to do it and (5) the reason for it.
22. What was the story of
the miracle, what were the means used and why?
23. Discuss the problem to
Christ's enemies arising out of this miracle.
24. What were the points of
their confession in their difficulty?
25. What question about
prayer here and what is the Bible teaching on this?
26. What is meant by the
Jewish excommunication? Discuss.
27. What are the points to
be noted in John 9:35-41?
28. Give the parable of John
10:1-21 and its interpretation.
29. What are the great
doctrines here as they relate to the life of Jesus?
30. What, as they relate to
his death?
31. What, as they relate to
his resurrection?
32. What, as they relate to
his redeemed?
33. What, as they relate to
his coming day?
34. Search out from this section
thirty good texts and indicate the theme suggested by each.
THE SENDING OUT OF THE SEVENTY
Harmony, pages 110-111 and Luke 10:1-24.
This passage of Scripture at times impresses my own mind more than any other
passage except Luke 15. I am never able to read it without being deeply and
solemnly impressed. There are in it the solutions of more difficult questions
than in I any similar amount of statement ever compacted into so small a space.
There are more texts for revival preaching in it than in any similar space of
scripture in the Bible. After such fashion as I am able I will try to impress
upon the reader its import its deep, high, and wide import. It contains the
foundation principles underlying the spread of the gospel of our Lord Jesus
Christ.
1. The great destitution. "The harvest is plenteous." On several
momentous occasions in his life, and with every possible emphasis of solemnity,
our Lord called the attention of his disciples to this fact. The destitution
pressed on his spirit at the well of Jacob, near Sychar, so that he had no
appetite to eat earthly food. He says, "I have meat to eat that ye know
not of." And while they were concerned about what kind of a dinner they
would have, he pointed to the great crowd of lost and uninstructed people that
were pouring out of that city to approach them and said, "Say not ye,
there are yet four months, and then cometh the harvest? Behold, I say unto you,
lift up your eyes, and look on the fields, that they are white already unto
harvest." And before he sent out the twelve apostles we are told that he
looked out over the vast destitution 1 mean spiritual destitution of the
masses of the people the common people, the poor people, the sick people, the
sad people. He stood there alone and he wanted help. And when he saw that
destitution, he appointed the twelve and sent them out. And we have here
another sight of destitution and he appoints seventy more and sends them out.
Now do let us impress upon our minds the nature of this destitution among the
just as it appears in the United States, the most enlightened country of the
world, and where we have greater religious privileges than any other country in
the world. The destitution is appalling: People that do not hear the word of
God preached; people that are without God and without hope in the world; people
that are dying by thousands, unforgiven; a dearth of the word of God; a dearth
of the promise of eternal life. In the vicinity of the strongest churches that
destitution lurks. The light that shines from the brightest church of God's
kindling in the world today does not illumine the darkness thoroughly one
square from that church building. It is not merely a destitution of privation, a
privation of life, not merely that, but it is a privation enhanced by the fact
of false teachers, of wolves in sheep's clothing, of those who claim to be
guides and are themselves blind; of those who go in and out among these people
ignorant of the teachings of God's Word and kindling the hot and blasting fires
of prejudice and strife and malice, making every poor little church an arena of
contention and of shame in the sight of God. Men claiming to be preachers men
claiming to be sent out by the Holy Spirit, who will, to serve some selfish
purpose, see the light put out, the only light that shines in a vast
circumference of darkness. A destitution not merely of being harried by wolves
in sheep's clothing, but a destitution of shepherds.
Our Saviour saw the people scattered like sheep without a shepherd, no safe
guides, no unselfish God-loving, prayerful, pious, God-fearing men, to stand
among these scattered and dying masses of people and shepherd them as the flock
of God. O the destitution the destitution! Look at it, church of God. Look at
it, ye grumblers, ye growlers, ye kickers, ye splitters, ye cavilers look at
it and remember the judgment to come. Look at it and ask your souls what
emotions should be excited by it. This leads to our next thought.
2. The great compassion. Of course I mean the Lord's compassion. Here are the
very words of the touching record concerning the occasion of sending out the
twelve: "But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion for
them, because they were distressed and scattered, as sheep not having a
shepherd. Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but
the laborers are few. Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he send
forth laborers unto his harvest" (Matt. 9:36-38).
Who that is converted, who that himself has experienced the grace of God, who
that himself has rejoiced in the glory of God, who that has tasted for himself
the Bread of Life and quenched his own burning thirst in the cool waters of life,
can be without concern and without deep anguish of spirit when he looks out
over this destitution?
I would be willing, God being my judge, this day to renounce all my claim or
title to any mansion in the skies; I would count myself an exile from God's favor;
I would reckon myself to be among the reprobate, if I did not have something of
the compassion that was in the heart of Christ when he looked out over this
destitution. If I could eat and drink and be merry; if I could be absorbed in
the pleasures of this world; if I could follow the bent of a worldly mind,
without concern, without anguish of soul, concerning the appalling destitution
that there is in the world, I would be willing to say, "It is certain that
my own name is not written in heaven."
Having adverted to the appalling destitution and noted the divine compassion
excited by it and the human pity and prayer that ought to be excited by it, let
us now be amazed as we consider
3. The simplicity of the means for supplying the destitute Napoleon Bonaparte
wanted to establish a world empire; he wanted to be the dominant spirit in the
world; over Spain, over Portugal, over Holland, over the German Confederation,
over Austria, over Prussia, over Turkey, over Egypt, and on into India, where
Alexander halted, and he wanted to unfurl his flag, though it froze, over
Moscow, the ancient capital of the Czars. Wanting such an empire, what means
did he deem necessary for its establishment? How much money? What treasure?
What systems of taxation? What sources of revenue? He thought it necessary to
lay the resources of the entire world under an exhaustive tribute in order to
establish it, so far as money could do it. And so far as men were concerned, he
called out every able-bodied man in France. He anticipated the conscription two
years in advance. He not only robbed the cradle of its youth, but he robbed the
tomb of tottering old age. By the side of his hoary-headed veterans who ought
to have been in the hospital, were boys that ought to have been in school. And
then he called upon Portugal for its contribution of men, and Spain for hers
under the Marquis of Romano; Holland for her contingent; Bavaria for hers, and
a vast army corps from Prussia after he conquered it; and Saxony for hers and
Poland for hers. He said to the world, "Give me men," and he took
them. And what else? He wanted artillery that could not be numbered; not twenty
pieces, nor a hundred, nor a thousand, but many thousand pieces of field and
siege artillery. And what number of horses? Horses by the hundreds, by the
thousands, by the ten thousand, by the hundred thousand, by the million. And
what arms? The sword, the bayonet, gunpowder, and every means of destruction.
These were the means he employed and failed.
We see the Son of God looking out on a world over which he purposes to
establish an empire, and with a view that he shall not reign a few short years,
as did Napoleon and then, before the close of an ordinary lifetime meet his
Waterloo; but reign while the sun rises and sets and ocean tides beat against
the shores; reign until the moon waxes and wanes no more and the heavens are
melted and rolled together as a scroll; reign one hundred, one thousand, two
thousand years, forever, over the whole world.
And what means? "Shall I send to the universities and call the learned
professors from their chairs? Shall I gather about me the philosophers who have
inquired touching the secrets of life? Shall I gather about me metaphysicians
who can spin webs so fine spun that they are transparent? Shall I gather about
me men who in logic and argument or in oratory surpass all other men? Shall I
do this? Not that; not any of it. I do not want the wise, nor the great, nor
the noble. I gather a few fishermen together. I will not reach up to what is
called the upper crust of society and take some man of lordly intellect or of
colossal wealth. No, I will go down here next to the mud-sills, in the haunts
of poverty, where men are sickening and dying, and there from among the people,
I will gather me a lot of simple folk, and I will say to them, 'Carry no sword;
beat no drum; unfurl no flag; carry no purse; do not carry even an extra pair
of shoes; but go out and take the world.' " This is the thing that caused
profound astonishment to Napoleon Bonaparte in his exile. Over and over again
at St. Helena he looked at it and thought about it and compared it with his
method of establishing a world empire. "My empire is gone. I am in exile;
and two thousand years in passing away have added only to the glory and power of
the Galilean." How wonderful the simplicity of the means!
4. How were these men educated for their work? Mighty question! The question
of ministerial education! What is a school for the prophets? We readily
understand the necessity of preparation, of training, of disciplining in order
to attain great success in any work. There is West Point for training army
officers. See the West Pointers under Taylor and Scott in the Mexican war and
doubt, if you can and dare, their value at Palo Alta, Resca, Monterey, Buena
Vista, Cerro Gordo, Cherubusco. There is the naval academy in Annapolis. What
thoughtful student of naval warfare will have the hardihood to deny the value
of that school? But a school of prophets what is that? Did Jesus send out
uneducated men? As the destitution was so great why did he not send out 12,000
instead of twelve? Why not 70,000 instead of seventy? Be- cause only twelve
were ready first, and only seventy later. But how were they made ready? That is
the supreme question the vital inquiry. I answer, by patient training under
Jesus himself. They had no need to sit at Gamaliel's feet. What Paul learned
there, he had to forget and count it loss and refuse when compared to the
excellency of the knowledge of Jesus. But it does not follow that ignorance of
human learning means knowledge of Christ. Let not ignorance so presume.
Training under Jesus implies hard and long continued study of what God has
revealed, lesson after lesson, here a little, there a little, as they are able
to bear the light. It implies a subordination of the passions, a bringing of
every thought, desire, and imagination into the subjection of Christ, a
crucifixion of self, of cowardice, and a patient and persistent cross-bearing.
Therefore before he would send out anyone he took the selected ones near to
himself. "Stay close to me. Let me teach you. Imbibe my spirit. Learn my
methods. See how I endure. See the spirit of self-sacrifice that prompts me in
what I do. Learn from me the revelation from heaven, so that men may take
knowledge of you when you go out that you have been with Jesus, and then when
you are instructed I will put you in this field."
But though the destitution was vast, and the darkness intense, and the wailings
and the sobs and sighing of the perishing were like the dirges of a lost world,
he would send no man until that man was ready. Better not send anybody if) he
is not qualified to teach, if he does not know what to preach, if he has not
the spirit of the Master, if he will not go to de- liver the people from their
ignorance and prejudice. If he go out simply to stir up and excite parties for
selfish ends, better never send him. And so he waited until he had instructed
twelve, and sent them, and now having instructed seventy, he sends them. Now
when he has instructed these men and they are ready to be sent out the question
comes up
5. "What were they to do?" He says, "You are to do this: Heal
the sick and preach the gospel. Say unto every city you visit, The kingdom of
God is at hand. Repent ye and believe the gospel." That is the whole of
it. But, says one who assumes to be a critic and who would check the
benevolence of the people of God, "Our Lord sends men out simply to preach
the gospel. Why attempt in missionary lands to heal the sick and care for the
poor? Why tax missionary money to have the bodies of these people attended to
in their suffering?" And they think they have raised quite a question. I
ask them to go back and look at Jesus. Go and see him who never could have
filled the prophecy that he was the Messiah if the lame man did not leap at his
coming, if the blind did not receive their sight, if the sick were not visited
and healed. What commission of our Lord Jesus Christ was ever given that did
not enjoin it upon his disciples to give heed to the sufferings of the body?
Where is there one? I challenge any man to find one.
And he who would try and put the church so supernally and spiritually high as
to put it out of contact with suffering humanity, just as it is, with its
poverty and its cold and its hunger and its groanings and its fever, that man
has a sublimated view of the subject that is foreign to his Saviour. "As
you go, heal the sick, remember the poor." Paul had that solemn charge
given to him, "Do not forget the poor." And if we were to take off of
the brow of Christianity today its crown of benevolence, what it has done for
asylums, for orphanages, for the amelioration of human sufferings, for the
relief of the destitute, we would deprive it of the characteristic of the New
Testament, and we would sap its power with the people to whom the gospel is to
be preached. And why? Because our Lord came to save the body as well as the
soul; because he suffered in the body; because he purposed to redeem the body;
because the consummation of salvation is a glorification of the body as well as
a sanctification of the spirit.
6. Other amazing things. I stand amazed when I look at these men. We see two
of them coming along down a dusty road, walking with staves in their hands,
coming to a city, a great city, without a letter of recommendation, no bank
account, no armies back of them; coming up to a house and saying, "Peace
be to this house," accepting just what hospitality was accorded them; if a
crust of bread, taking it and making no complaint; if better fare, eating that
without comment; not running around from house to house eating big dinners and
to be entertained. They were sent out on a message of life and death sent to
redeem the world, to minister unto others and not to be ministered unto; not to
be the pets, the pampered pets of the sickly sentimentalism of a community, but
the vitalized exponents of the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ in the
community they visit. I stand amazed at their authority: "We come not to
argue anything. We come not to indulge in metaphysical speculation. We come as
heralds we come with a proclamation, a proclamation from heaven. It is our
business to herald it and let God take care of it. He did not appoint us to
prop it up with our feeble strength. He sent us in his name to say, 'The
kingdom of God is come; the kingdom of God, the power to forgive sins here on
earth, is come. And we offer to you people the peace of God.' "
I have a picture in my mind of that peace of God going out from them to the
unworthy, and returning, as Noah's dove went out from the ark, to find a
resting place for its feet, and after long and weary flight, coming back again
to the window of the ark. "If there be no son of peace in that house, your
peace shall return unto you"; and yet in eternity it will be true that in
that house that house that had so little thought of God and so much thought
of the world it would be eternally true that one time the dove of God's
peace, the white dove of that peace that passeth all understanding, came to
that house and tried to get in; tried to find a resting place for its feet, and
was rejected and returned and no more reappeared at that place. And the same
way with the cities. They were to go to that city and say, "The kingdom of
God is come nigh unto you"; you bankers, you merchants, you rich people,
you poor people, you lawyers, the kingdom of God, the power on earth to forgive
sin, is come among you, and you are commanded to repent of your sins and
believe the gospel. And if they rejected it, then they were to shake the dust
off their feet. Shake it off! What does it mean? It means two things: That
there is upon that preacher a responsibility for the sins of that community and
there rests upon him blood guiltiness until he does faithfully and courageously
preach the gospel. But when he cries aloud and spares not, and seeing the sword
coming he blows his trumpet, though the people perish, yet he can shake off the
dust. He can shake it off of his feet and say, "You die in your sins, but
your blood can not be required at my hands. You are lost. You go down to death
and hell. Lost forever, but O Lord, I was faithful. I stood in that city and
preached to you. I did not preach philosophy. I did not preach an empty,
indefinite morality. I preached life, eternal life through our Lord Jesus
Christ, and every grain of your dust I shake from my feet. I am clean from the
blood of you men."
It means that and it means more than that. It means that when that dust is
shaken from that man's feet it becomes a witness, an imperishable evidence of
the fact that the kingdom of God had once come nigh to that soul and been
rejected. And when the great day of account rolls around and that convicted
soul stands in the presence of its Master and would attempt to proffer before
God's bar the empty pretenses that fell so glibly from his lips here upon the
earth, the grains of sand upon which apostolic feet stood and testified that
life had come right to his door, they become vocal and Bay, "Your excuses
are false. Remember, on us poor grains of sand, stood the feet of the
messengers of the Son of God, and preached peace to you and you rejected
it." Just as the prophet describes it, the rafter in the roof and the beam
of timber in the wall, cry out against the man. So even on the very verge of
the final and eternal separation there will be a demonstration for that man:
"I might have repented. I had an opportunity to repent. The dove hovered
over my house once. The waters came to my door once. The minister of God approached
my vicinity once. To me, now lost, to me, now without hope, to me, doomed to a
prayerless, hopeless, merciless, and eternal condemnation; to me is the
conviction that I might have obtained eternal life by just holding out my
hands, but I would not do it."
7. The great victory. In looking at this scripture another thought presses on
my mind and it should certainly teach a solemn lesson to every preacher, and
that is, the astounding victory that resulted from sending out these seventy
men. It eclipsed their own conception. They did not understand it. The means
seem to be so utterly disproportionate to the result! Not only blindness saw;
not only the halt were made to stand erect and walk with ease; not only the
deaf heard and the dead were quickened; not only did hoary-headed sinners find
forgiveness of sin and peace with God; not only did these fall before them, but
even the very devils, at the name of Jesus, the principalities and powers in
high places, fell before them at the first stroke of the gospel sword. "Oh
Jesus; even the devils were subject to us through thy name." And Jesus
says, "I know it; I saw it. My spirit was with you. I saw you go to that
town and I saw Satan fall as you preached." Fall how? Fall struggling?
Fall after stubborn resistance? No! "Have you ever been out when clouds
were gathering and have you seen the lightning fall from heaven so swift the
eye could scarcely see it before it was gone? Well, I saw Satan fall that
way."
He does not mean, "I saw Satan in heaven fall from heaven, but when you
preachers went to a community and preached in that earthly community, I saw the
devil fall as suddenly while you were preaching as the lightning falls from
heaven." And it has no other meaning than that. We know when people, who
never amounted to much in themselves (and I frankly say that preachers do not
amount to much, I mean the very best of them, and some of them are a terrible
lot), whenever instrumentalities thus weak, thus powerless, see such a mighty
result as that, it is an easy thing for them to be puffed up; it is an easy
thing for each of them to say, "I came; I saw; I conquered." It is an
easy thing for them to begin to lay the flattering unction to their souls that
by their own might and power this was accomplished, and to rejoice that they
are conquerors of the devil. But our Lord said, "I would not stop to
rejoice over that. You did not do it. I would not stop to glory over that. I
will tell you something that ought to make you glad, even in the darkest sorrow
and the blackest night that this earth, with its vicissitudes of trial, ever
brings upon a soul." "Well, what is it?" "Rejoice because
your names are written in heaven." By the power of God a Judas might cast
out devils, but Judas' name is not written in heaven, and there will come a
time when it would be better for him that he had never been born. Balaam had
prophetic power and Balaam is lost.
Gifts are not graces, and in the world to come there will be something of such
a nature that when the mind reflects upon it joy will spring up in the heart
like an unsealed fountain, that will spontaneously bubble and outflow and glow
and sparkle and sing as it goes. And what is it? "My name is written in
heaven. I am sick. but my name is written up yonder, and sickness shall not
have eternal dominion over me. I am slandered, but my name is written up yonder
and slander's foul stain shall not forever spot my good name. My name is
written up yonder. I am dying, but death shall not have eternal dominion over
me. My name is written up yonder. The Judgment Day is coming. The heavens are
on. fire and the earth is in blaze. Graves open and hell yawns, and the white
throne looms up, but, ah me! on that throne a book called the Lamb's Book of
Life, and whosoever's name is written there need never fear the second death,
which means to be cast into the lake of fire with the devil and his angels.
Now, I rejoice in that."
8. The strange joy of Jesus. "At that hour Jesus rejoiced in
spirit." I do not say that Jesus rejoiced in spirit on account of the
report made by these missionaries. I know we sometimes grow jubilant over the
report made by our missionaries. He rejoices not at that. Here is the ground of
his joy: He rejoiced because the Father was well pleased to reveal these things
to babes and not to wise men. That caused him to rejoice. Often I have
considered that joy of Jesus and philosophized. And when men would say,
"Come here now and get a gospel out of geology; go to Chicago University
and get a gospel out of higher criticism; go to Yale, go to Oxford, and get a
gospel out of the speculations of the very learned few.'" I don't want to
do it, because it would give no joy to Jesus. Our Saviour saw that any way of
salvation that let in only great people, would be a very limited way of salvation,
for there were a very few great people; and he saw that a way of salvation that
would only let in rich people who already have the earth, why, that would make
a very small heaven. And he saw that a way of life that could be found out only
by a college and a post-graduate course, would be a very limited road, and he
wanted a wider road. He wanted a way that the masses could find, for it was
their destitution that touched his heart. It was their condition that excited
his compassion. O Father, I thank thee that thou hast made the way so plain
and so simple that the weak and the poor and the suffering and the untutored
can enter in." I am glad of that. That saves the millions. That saves
those who are hemmed up by cruel circumstances and ever narrowing environment;
that saves the prisoner in the dungeon; that saves the sailor on the plank in
mid-ocean; that saves the thief on the cross; that saves the man whose time is
but a few gasping moments ere he is gone. O God, I do thank thee that thou
hast revealed these things to babes I"
There are some great cities almost utterly lost because they have only worldly
great preachers. Every preacher there is a great man; every one of them a
graduate and a postgraduate; every one of them is learned in philosophy and nearly
every one of them preaches more politics than religion; and the proportion of
the saved to the total population gets smaller all the time. Yet there one may
hear the most unanswerable arguments on mere morality. He may hear the most
beautiful essays on philosophy to which the world ever listened, but ah me! it
does not save a man and it does not awaken a conscience; and it continually
diminishes the crowd that hears it, and there is no saving power in it. The
sooner the last one of such sermons is forgotten the better for the world.
Let a preacher preach Christ to the lost and not Epicurus; preach salvation
through the blood of the Lamb instead of the miserable subterfuge of
speculative vagaries and unverified hypotheses of conceited so-called philosophers,
that cannot kindle a glow worm's spark, much less make a sun to dispel the
darkness. There is no contempt so deserving as the contempt for the idea that
all good men ought to pour out upon the people are the miserable, sickly,
frivolous, drivelling things they substitute for the gospel.
Hasn't it been tried? Where did it reform a nation? Where did it save a soul?
Where did it quicken a conscience? O my soul, come thou not into such
traitorous counsel! Oh, let us keep the gospel of the blessed God, that causes
the mother to die in peace and with heaven-lighted face to say, "My boy,
meet me in heaven." O God, let us keep that! What is to become of these
people when such stuff as that is commended for preaching? Why should one man
preach that more than another? What right has any man to claim to be a minister
of that? What right has any man to demand of an audience a support for talking
such stuff as that? Why, you do not need any church for that. Tear your
churches down. Pull down your altars. Tear down your religious schools and join
the dizzy walk down to death. I could give some samples. I have in my mind
passages of Genesis and other portions of the Old Testament, that even within
my time were held up as absolute, scientific demonstrations that the book was
not from God.
I have seen that chameleon, Science, that forty years ago was one thing, and
thirty years ago was another, and twenty years ago was still another, and ten
years ago another, and today is another๙1 have seen Science come with her spade
and dig up from the ruins of buried cities the conviction of the falsity of
what she taught ten, twenty, thirty, forty years ago. Why, it doesn't stand
still long enough to believe in it. It doesn't stand still long enough to put
your finger on it. A man would have to be swifter than Atalanta; yea, he would
have to have the wings and heels of Mercury, or ride upon Pegasus, to be able
to keep near enough to it to be orthodox, and then he would have to go on the
supposition, "I hold myself prepared to denounce as false tomorrow
everything I bold sacred today."
I think we had better wait until it settles in one place long enough to know
"where it is at" before we give up religion for it. I went out on all
of those tracks in my early life. I was a fool, a downright fool. I laughed at
the religion of my father and my mother, and like many another young man,
half-fledged, imagined that I was wiser than those whose souls had been
converted by the Spirit of God, and whose feet rested upon the everlasting
Rock. I was a fool. But God delivered me from my follies. And now I would not
give one ray of light that shines from this blessed Book for all the fox-fire
light that emanantes from decaying philosophies. If the whole world was
Egyptian darkness, whose opaqueness was penetrated in only one place, through
which one flicker of light from that Book would come, do you think that I would
exchange that ray of heavenly light for all the dim glow the lightning bugs of
science could kindle by holding their phosphorescent tails together?
To the young preachers who are concerned about a support, I do not say,
"Trust the brethren." I do not. But I do say to you that if you will
trust Jesus Christ, and rely upon his word, for he cannot deny himself the
heavens will fall before one of his words shall fail to come to pass 1 say
that if you will just rely on the word of Jesus Christ and go out and preach
the pure, simple gospel of eternal life, God will take care of you. He will
feed you and he will clothe you; don't you be uneasy about that. Go out where
wolves are raven, I admit. Go out in danger, I know. Go out to face
contradiction and slander, is conceded. Go out to be spoken against by men. I
know that. But I do know here on earth Jesus will make your heart sing with
happiness, and give you plenty of food to eat and clothing to wear, and in the
world to come eternal life. O thou doubting heart; thou hesitating foot, that
will not step out on the promises of God; thou palsied hand of incertitude that
will not lay hold of the promises of God with a grip that never turns loose,
have faith in God and preach his word and leave the results to him.
QUESTIONS
1. How does the author show
the importance of section 80?
2. What can you say of the
great destitution? Give other similar experiences of our Lord.
3. What of our Lord's great
compassion and its relation, to the Christian experience?
4. What can you say of the
simplicity of the means used by our Saviour? Contrast with Napoleon Bonaparte.
5. How were these men
trained and what is the bearing on theological schools for preachers?
6. What were they to do and
what is the bearing on the benevolent work of Christianity?
7. What are some of the
amazing things in this connection?
8. How is the return of
their peace illustrated from the Old Testament?
9. What two things signified
by shaking off the dust of their feet?
10. How does the prophet
describe the second thought?
11. How is the lost soul
represented as reflecting on this opportunity?
12. What can you say of the victory
of this movement?
13. What is the meaning of
Satan falling as lightning?
14. What is the danger of a
preacher in such a time of victory?
15. What was the real cause
for rejoicing noted by our Lord here? Discuss.
16. What can you say of the joy
of Jesus on this occasion?
17. How does the author here
philosophize on this joy of Jesus?
18. What has the author to
say of chameleon Science?
19. What was the author's
experience with these speculative philosophies?
20. What is the author's final
word to preachers?
THE PARABLE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN; JESUS,
THE GUEST OF MARTHA AND MARY
Harmony, pages 111-112 and Luke 10:25-42.
We commence this chapter with section 81 of the Harmony. Taking up Luke 10:25,
we have this statement: "And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tempted
Jesus." "Lawyer" here does not mean a pleader before a court,
but an expounder of the Jewish law, which was both civil and ecclesiastical.
The word tempt may have a good or a bad sense. May judgment is that the sense
here is good. It means to try. "And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and
tempted Jesus, saying, Master [that means teacher], what shall I do to inherit
eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, What is written in the law?" i.e.,
You are a lawyer. Your business is to expound the law. "What is written in
the law? How readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy strength and with
all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself." Well, that is written in the
law. It is a summary of the Ten Commandments. Not a New Testament summary, but
the synopsis given by Moses himself, not all in one place, but in two different
books of the Pentateuch. Here it is a quotation: "It is written in the law
that thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul
and with all thy strength and with all thy mind and thy neighbor as
thyself." "And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast answered right. Do this
and thou shalt live." Mark the answer: "Do this and thou shalt
live." "But he, desiring to justify himself, said unto Jesus, Who is
my neighbor? Jesus made answer and said, A certain man was going down from Jerusalem
to Jericho and he fell among robbers who both stripped him and beat him and
departed, leaving him half dead."
That road from Jerusalem to Jericho was down hill all the way, the grade very
steep and in certain parts of it almost a canyon through the mountains; a very
narrow passway, with porous rocks on each side, honeycombed with caves. From
time immemorial robbers have harbored in those caves and attacked travelers
passing over that road from Jerusalem to Jericho and from Jericho to Jerusalem.
In the time of the Crusaders an organization was formed called the
"Knights Templars," for the sole purpose of establishing their
headquarters on that road and protecting travelers, keeping robbers off. That
organization of the Knights Templars increased and changed its original form
until it became the mightiest organized power of chivalry at one period, and of
rascality at a later period. Kings found it necessary to the peace of their
realms to banish them. Romance readers will recall Scott's vivid description in
Ivanhoe of their expulsion from England by Richard the
Lion-hearted. In modern times we have the Knights Templars, a continuation of
the old organization, only with different objects. Here it is well to note in
passing that the illustrations of Jesus, while always supposititious, are
always natural. His illustration is always a verisimilitude of real life; the
thing could have naturally happened Just as he stated. "And by chance a
certain priest was going down that way; and when he saw him, he passed by on
the other side. And in like manner a Levite also, when he came to the place,
and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he
journeyed, came where he was; and when he saw him, he was moved with
compassion, and came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on them oil and
wine; and he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn, and took care
of him. And on the morrow he took out two-pence and gave them to the host, and
said, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, I, when I come back
again will repay thee. Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbor to
him that fell among the robbers? And he said he that showed mercy on him. And
Jesus said unto him, Go and do thou likewise."
I ask the reader to note, first, our Lord's method of dealing with men. He
always addressed himself to the man's standpoint in such a way as to awaken
thought and produce self-conviction. Here was an expounder of the law relying
upon his conformity to the law for eternal life; an expounder of the law who
wanted to call out and try Jesus on this standard. Hence he comes with this
most important of all questions: "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit
eternal life? Oh, what a question! What a question for you, for me, for
anybody, for everybody! "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
Or, "What shall I do to escape eternal death?" Jesus says to him,
"What does the law say?" "Well, the law says this: Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God with all thy strength and with all thy mind and with all
thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself." Jesus replied to the man,
"You have answered right. That is what the law says. That covers the scope
of all the Commandments. That summary comprehends every detail, not only of the
decalogue, but of every other statute, civil, ecclesiastical, ceremonial, or of
any other kind. That is the whole of it. "On these two hang all the law
and the prophets." What was the question? "What shall I do to inherit
eternal life?" Mark the answer: The law says, "Thou shalt love God
with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself. Do this and thou shalt live.
You are standing in the law. You are an expounder of the law. You are seeking
justification before the law, from your standpoint. Here is your chance. Do
this and thou shalt live. Fail to do this and thou shalt die."
Just here comes up a question. As men now are am not talking about Adam and
how he was, but as men now are, is this a practical way of life? That is, is it
possible for eternal life to be obtained this way? And the answer to it is
prompt and clear: "By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in
the sight of God." That makes it absolutely impracticable. There is God's
inspired declaration that while it remains true if a man will do what the law
requires, he shall inherit eternal life, yet under present conditions it cannot
be done; no man can obtain eternal life that way. And here arises a question in
morality. Why then did Jesus say, "Do this and thou shalt live?" Why
did be answer the question that way? For this reason: It was the object of
Jesus to convict that man. That man did not think he was a sinner. Jesus knew
he was. The Bible says, "By the law is the knowledge of sin." And
Paul says, "I was alive without the law once, but when the commandment
came sin revived and I died." Now that man stood before Jesus without any
consciousness that he was a lost soul, and there in that delusion, he was going
along a road that he thought would certainly land him in heaven, and the only
way on the earth to cause him to turn from his hopeless and doomed path was to
produce the conviction in his mind that he was a lost sinner. Hence Jesus says,
"This is what the law says: Do it. Come and look in this mirror and let
it, as you look, reflect back yourself to your sight, that you may see that you
are not loving God with all your heart, with all your strength, with all your
mind, and that you are not loving your neighbor as yourself." In other
words, he turned Mount Sinai, trembling with the touch of God's foot and
crested with the fire that shows his presence and throbbing with the thunders
of his power, over on this man, not to save him, but to bring him to Calvary.
Moses was a schoolmaster unto Christ. This lawyer stood there and said: "I
am for the law. I am going to stand on my own record. I am going before the bar
of God, at the last, and according to what I have done I will seek
justification. Now, the sooner Jesus got that man to see what was the heart,
the spirit, as well as the exceeding broadness of the divine commandment, the
better it was for him. That was the object that Jesus had.
Pursuing the discussion our next question is: What is the constant attitude of
the mind of a man who is trying to get to heaven that way? This passage says of
the lawyer, "He, desiring to justify himself." There it is. The
constant attitude is a desire to justify himself. But what does that desire to
justify himself prompt him to do? Here is that high, broad commandment of God:
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as
thyself," and here is a man trying to save himself by obedience to that
law, and very anxious to justify himself. What result follows? He lowers that
law to suit the grades of his obedience. How does this lawyer manifest that? By
the question, "Who is my neighbor? Oh, yes, I am seeking salvation by the
law. The law says I must love my neighbor as myself. Now in order for my
obedience to that law to be practicable, I must so limit I the meaning of that
word 'neighbor' as that my obedience will be co-extensive with it." The
very first thing that it induces is the lowering of the divine commandment to
suit the grade of the obedience. The lawyer in his mind was saying, "My neighbor
is a Jew, and a Jew of my own sect, a Pharisee; of course not a Sadducee. He is
not a neighbor of mine; an Essene, he is not a neighbor of mine; a Samaritan,
pah! I would not even look toward a Samaritan. I love my neighbor as myself,
but you must let me say who my neighbor is, that it means my brother
Pharisee." Now we can see why Jesus gave him that answer, and to expose
that man's profanation of the divine commandment and the sophistry with which
he sought to justify himself, he gives the parable of the good Samaritan. As if
he had said, "I will throw a side light on that subject of neighbor, and I
will throw such a side light as you yourself with your own mouth shall condemn
yourself." Didn't he condemn himself? What does the record say? When Christ
got through with that story of the good Samaritan he puts the question to this
lawyer: "Which of these three thinkest thou proved neighbor to him that
fell among the robbers?" And out from his very lips the answer had to
come, "He that showed mercy to him." But where does this answer land
his law-righteousness? "If that is what the word 'neighbor' means, looking
back over your past life, O Pharisee, where is your Justification? How have you
loved your neighbor as yourself? You that seek to be justified by the law, in
the light of this parable defining neighbor, you are a lost soul and you know
it. You know you hate a Samaritan. You know you hate a Sadducee. You know you
hate the Gentile. You know that you have wrapt the mantle of your exclusiveness
about you, lest you should come in contact, and by contact receive defilement,
from other men, and you have kept narrowing the law, narrowing it until you
have got a little bit of a circle here, described by the word 'neighbor,' that
confines only you and your wife and your son and his wife, and nobody else in
the world."
I never saw a man on the face of this earth that stood on the basis of his
morality, that stood on his own record, either before or after his conversion,
that did not lower the divine law in order to make his obedience fill what the
law required. A sliding scale! A sliding scale! I can keep the law perfectly if
I may reach up and slide it down to fit what I do. So the parable of the good
Samaritan disposes of the lawyer's quibble on the Second Commandment.
Let us now take up section 82, our Lord's first visit to the home of Mary and
Martha. Perhaps no part of the Bible has attracted more quiet, pleasing
attention than the part which tells of the relation of Jesus Christ to this
Bethany family, consisting of two sisters and a brother. We have four special
accounts of it. This is the first one, where Jesus makes the acquaintance of
the family, and Martha, who seems to be the head of the house, the elder
sister, invites him to be her guest. The second account is when they send him a
message that their brother is sick, and his coming after the brother dies, and
raising him to life again. The third account is later, six days before his last
Passover, when he visits Bethany again. The fourth is still later, when, in
this very village, a certain man, once a leper, gives him a feast and invites
to meet him his friends and his disciples. In this case, as in the first,
Martha characteristically serves the outer man while Mary ministers to the
spiritual nature of Jesus.
The first question that called for solution in my own mind as I began to study
this passage, was this: What object had Christ. in view in entering into this
or any other house while he was here upon earth? If we once understand his
purpose, the great reason prompting him to come, we can understand then what
reception of him would be most consistent with that purpose and hence would
best please him. He himself tells his purpose. He says, "I come not to be
ministered unto, but to minister." He did not come into the world to be
made much of as a guest, to receive a stranger's hospitality. He came to save
the world, to minister to them. That purpose never left his mind. It follows
that when he accepted this invitation he would approve as the better reception of
him, that which best accorded with his object in going there.
The two sisters seem to have formed separate ideas of the kind of reception to
tender Jesus. One of them, as we infer from what is said of her every time she
is mentioned in the Bible, was a very careful housekeeper, with much pride in
her housekeeping, and who, when she received a guest, thought that the best
thing she could do would be to prepare a very sumptuous meal for him, and so
she put herself to a vast deal of trouble in the preparation of this meal. She
counted it a big thing, something well worthy of thought and anxiety and
preparation. And so highly did she emphasize this part of hospitality that it
drove everything else out of her mind. "Now the way I am to receive this
guest who comes to my house this day is to spread before him such a table as he
has not seen in a long time." This involved a great deal of work. The
other sister had this idea of hospitality that to receive a guest properly
implies that he be given her company; that it did not suffice to feed him, for
he could provide food elsewhere, but if he came to that house he came to enjoy
the companionship of those who were there. So, while the one concluded to give
him a dinner, the other decided to give him her company, to entertain him
personally. This view of it would strike any thoughtful mind at once as being
the best attention a thoughtful hostess could possibly pay to a guest; to show
by her presence, by the delicate manner in which she listens to what he says,
is the best way to receive him, far higher in the scale of hospitality than to
so busy herself about less important matters as to allow no opportunity for
personal conversation or communion with him. On this point then, all good
judges of hospitality will say that Mary's method was the better method.
But I pass to something very much higher than this. As was stated, our Lord
came to minister to other people. He came to do them good. He was the great
teacher of the way of life. He came to open up to them a plan of reconciliation
to God. He came to save the souls of the people with whom he came in contact.
Mary seemed to understand that: "Now as that is his mission, as his heart
is on that, as he is thinking more of saving my soul than of eating a fine
dinner in this house, I will receive him, not to my table but to my heart. Come
and reign in my soul forever, Lord Jesus." And I submit that the reception
of Jesus into the soul, to give him a welcome into the heart, is far higher
than simply to give him a welcome at the table. A great many people have kind
thoughts about the Son of God and his kingdom who are ready enough at times to
minister, with some degree of thoughtfulness, to what are called the external
wants of the kingdom of God, and yet these people are very slow to welcome that
kingdom into their own souls, very reluctant to say, "I will not only give
a portion of my time, of my money, and of my best skill to attend to the
external parts of the Christian religion, but independent of all this, and
higher than all of this infinitely, I will give myself, and let the Lord Jesus
Christ be the King of my soul."
It is important next to observe that when he came to that house these two ways
were optional. Martha chose one. Mary chose the other. I am not now discussing
that high and mysterious and great doctrine of God's election, God's choosing
us from before the foundation of the world, but I am speaking of the choice
that we make. Here was a necessity of choice put upon these two women:
"Jesus is coming to this house today. He will be a guest under this roof,
and to both of us is an opportunity of election, as to the better method of
receiving him." Martha chose one way and Mary chose the other way. Let us
see then what this choice was. It is said that, "Mary sat at his
feet." What does it mean? Does it mean that he occupied a high chair and
that she took a stool or low chair, and literally and actually sat at his feet?
There is not the slightest reference to that. Painters indeed catch that
thought and so represent it in the great masterpieces given to the world on
canvas, concerning this scene. But the expression "sitting at the feet is
what is called a Hebrew idiom. Paul refers to it. He says he sat at the feet of
Gamaliel. What does it mean there? It means that Gamaliel was the teacher and
Paul was the pupil. To sit at one's feet then, in all the sense meant here, is
to put one's self under the instruction of another, to become a pupil, to be
taught. Behold then, the scene! The great Teacher has come to this house. His
object is to teach and to teach the greatest thing. He comes to teach as no
other can teach. Now, if the Teacher is coming, which is the better, to be no
more than an ordinary cook to furnish him a dinner, or to receive instruction
from him, to put the life under his direction? Note this point: To submit ones
self to the tuition of Jesus is to become the disci- ple of Jesus. Jesus is the
Master, the Teacher. Mary became the disciple or pupil. Approach that thought
through a lower form. Suppose such a man as Socrates, the great teacher of
philosophy, has come to the marketplace in Athens; and two services are there
offered to him. First, a friendly huckster in the marketplace arranges for him
a sumptuous repast, which is confessedly a very thoughtful, pleasant kindness;
second, Alcibiades comes with lordly intellect, and princely form, and mighty
influence to say, O Socrates, teach me; impart to me thy wisdom. Let me
receive thy familiar instruction." Which service would please the great
philosopher most? And when we consider that our Lord's teaching was infinitely
higher than the teaching of any earthly philosopher, that it involved a
gathering back of all the clouds of darkness that hide the other world from
human sight, that it revealed to the clear eye of faith the great hereafter,
eternity and judgment and salvation and glory, and that this is the first time
that this Teacher comes to that house, why did it not occur to Martha:
"The supreme thing that I can do this day is to place myself at Jesus' feet,
saying, 'O Lord, instruct me.' "
The question recurs, Which would he like the better? Fortunately we have some
examples from the Bible that show us which he liked best. On one occasion when
traveling through Samaria, he stopped at Jacob's well near Sychar. They were
tired and hungry; Jesus was very weary; they had walked a long way, and the
minds of the disciples were very much concerned about dinner and what they
should eat. For this they left him. But there came a woman to this well, and
instantly Jesus forgot the hunger of his body and began the joyous work of
leading a soul to salvation and making that soul the instrument of leading many
others to salvation. And when the disciples return with their baskets of dinner
he waves them aside and says, "I have meat to eat that ye know not of. You
ask me which I prefer, which I would esteem as the greater joy, for you to
bring me food to minister to temporal and physical hunger, or for God my Father
to open up a way for me to show a lost soul how to find salvation." No
wonder that his worldly minded brothers thought he was crazy on this very
point, for we are told that on one occasion when word was brought to them that
he was so much absorbed in teaching, in reaching out the hand to lead souls to
eternal life, that he would not so much as eat, they said, "He is out of
his mind." They wanted to get out a writ of lunacy against him and
apprehend him, to lay violent hands upon the one who was so crazy as to prefer
teaching the plan of salvation and the way of eternal life to the satisfaction
of temporal hunger.
These two cases show how much more the Son of God appreciated the reception
that Mary gave him than the reception that Martha gave him. She sat at his feet
and heard his words. He says, "Mary hath chosen that good part. Martha,
thou art anxious and troubled about a great many things. There is only one
thing in this world that it is needful to be anxious about, just one, and that
is the obtaining of that good part which can never be taken away." It is a
waste of human energy; it is a degradation of human dignity; it is a reflection
upon the majesty of the image of God in which a human being is made, that we
should have distracting cares and anxieties about infinitesimally small things,
the millions of them, when if they were all put together they would not weigh
even as a particle of fine dust in the balance of God's judgment, and that too,
when the great question of eternal life is not solved. Look at the Sermon on
the Mount. See how he addresses himself to this question. He says, "Be not
anxious about what ye shall eat nor what ye shall drink, nor what ye shall put
on. The life is more than the raiment, than the food of the body, but seek ye
first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and afterward all these things
shall be added to you."
There was the wisdom of Mary; she chose the chief thing first. She made the
great thing paramount. And there was the folly of Martha, that she disturbed
her mind and fretted and fumed and took cares and burdens on her soul when that
supreme question with her had not been settled. Here is a comparison between
many things and one thing. "Martha, Martha, thou art disturbed about many
things, but one thing is worth anxiety, only one thing in this world that you
need to be deeply concerned about, and when that thing is settled, everything
is settled, and when that is unsettled, all things are unsettled." It is
only another instance of our Lord's manner of impressing upon his audience,
whether that audience was a great crowd of people or a single individual, that
we should first settle our relation with God, that we should fix our thoughts
on the great need of the soul, and never allow anything else to be accounted as
worthy of consideration until that supreme question was thoroughly and
effectually settled. He gives as a reason for this that the good part that Mary
chose could not be taken away from her.
This is the doctrinal point and I will discuss is briefly.
Our Saviour here certainly teaches that if one does choose God and eternal
life, it can never be taken away from him.. I know there are some who teach
that one may have that good part today and may lose it tomorrow. That puts it
on an equality with the dinner that Martha made, with the perishable things,
sweet to the taste and gladsome to the sight, here now and gone tomorrow, and
the same hunger crying out to be appeased as if we had never stood at that
feast. Over against the perishable in sublime contrast Christ puts the
imperishable. Over against the things which slip through our fingers even while
we grasp them, and the robes which fade even while we wear them, he puts the
crown of eternal life, and predicates the wisdom of choice upon the fact that
no change of season, no vicissitudes of life, no emergency that can arise under
the sun, can ever jeopardize what we have gained when our souls once get that
good part.
The psalmist refers to this in that precious division of the book of Songs that
has always been a favorite with me, Psalm 73. After staling that God will guide
him on earth with his counsel and afterward receive him into glory, he bursts
into this rapture: "Though my heart fail, though my flesh fail, O God,
thou art my portion forever." "Mary hath chosen that good portion
which shall not be taken away from her." And in talking with his disciples
about it he says, "I give unto them eternal life [mark the nature of it,
eternal], and they shall never perish." "None shall pluck them out of
my hand." "I am persuaded that neither life, nor death, nor things
present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature
shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ
Jesus." The value then of this good part consists in that when we once get
it, it is ours forever. It is inalienable.
There are no destroying forces of wind or wave, or fire or persecution, that
can eliminate one grain of substance from the solid and enduring gift of God,
but in its fulness and in its entirety it is ours forever and ever.
"Mary hath chosen that good part which can never be taken away from
her."
Let us notice in the next place that when we make an election of the good thing
first that it shows the highest wisdom in this, that we secure the other things
also. The apostle Paul referring to this says, "All things are yours. Is
Peter a gifted apostle? If you are Christ's, Peter is yours. Is Apollos, that
great rhetorician from Alexandria, who being converted to God turned all of the
powers of his cultured mind to the ministry of God, desirable? Then Apollos is
yours, and life is yours, and death is yours, and heaven is yours." All
things are ours if we get the main thing, which is God.
We are so constituted, God made us so, that we can never be satisfied if we do
not get that lasting portion that never can be taken away from us. The prophet
Isaiah compares what are ordinarily called the good things of this world to a
cistern. The cistern is a vessel limited, and a broken cistern can not hold any
water. Not only is it limited in its capacity, while our cravings are unlimited
on account of the eternity of our being, because we have a deathless soul, but
even as a cistern it is cracked and lets the water out, whereas God, he says,
is an unfailing fountain that is not wasted by its outgushing fulness and its
overflowing, a fountain which comes from such deep reservoirs and such a great
volume of accumulated waters that it commenced to sparkle and sing when the
earth was created, and when the last day dawns on the world that fountain is
still flowing. He says, "My people have committed two evils. They have
forsaken me, the fountain of living water, and have hewed out for themselves
broken cisterns which can hold no water."
Hear the words of a great and good man. Patrick Henry thus closed his last will
and testament: "I have now disposed of all my property to my family. There
is one thing I wish that I could give them and that is the Christian religion.
If they had that (and I had not given them one shilling) they would be rich;
and if they have not that (and I had given them all the world) they would be
poor." Whoever has God and nothing else is rich indeed. Whoever has
everything else and not God, is poor indeed. Then we see why one is called the
good part. We see how there is no necessity to have any undue cares and anxieties
about the little things. They are not worth it. The human soul ought not to vex
itself over the nonattainable. Let them go if they do not come of themselves.
Now we can understand what our Saviour meant when the disciples, the seventy
that were sent out, came back rejoicing. "What are you so glad
about?" "Lord, the devils are subject unto us." "Rejoice
not that the devils are subject unto you. Why? Because there is only one thing
in which the soul should rejoice. Rather rejoice that your names are written in
heaven. Rejoice that the good portion is yours; rejoice that the great question
of salvation has been settled and settled forever, and can never become
unsettled." And that is why also those preachers who go out among the
people, whose minds are so possessed with the value of a soul, who can enter
into the depths of that question of Jesus, "What shall it profit a man if
he gain the whole world and lose his own soul, or what shall a man give in
exchange for his soul when it is once lost?" why the preachers who go out
with that great ruling thought in their heart and address themselves to saving
men, become such grand preachers. It is a nice thing to get up in the pulpit
and sometimes, if we do not take too much time for it, a profitable thing to tell
how many miles it is from Dan to Beersheba, and what is the grade of the fall
of the river Jordan, and how much lower the Dead Sea is than the Mediterranean.
These are good points, but if a preacher's mind is fixed on them, if he stops
to look at landscapes, if his fancy is carried away with the height and
blueness of mountains, if he stops to gaze at the trees and the flowers as he
goes and forgets that souls are perishing, his ministry is barren, and the
world could well do without him.
QUESTIONS
1. Recite the story of the
good Samaritan.
2. What is the meaning of
"lawyer" in this connection?
3. What are the two meanings
of the word "tempt" and what its meaning here?
4. What question did the
lawyer ask Jesus and how did Jesus turn the question upon him?
5. What was the lawyer's
reply and where do we find this teaching in the Old Testament?
6. What was Jesus' reply to
the lawyer's statement?
7. How did the lawyer then
try to evade the proposition and what was Jesus' reply?
8. Describe the road from
Jerusalem to Jericho.
9. What organization was
formed as a result of such conditions as herein described and what of their
later history?
10. What can you say of the
illustrations of Jesus and what does this parable illustrate?
11. Who then is your
neighbor?
12. What can you say of
Jesus' method of dealing with men, what our Lord's purpose here and how is it
here demonstrated?
13. What use does Jesus make
of the law here and how does it con- form to the New Testament teaching on the same
point? Discuss.
14. What is the constant
attitude of a man who is trying to get to heaven by the works of the law and
what result follows?
15. How does the parable of
the good Samaritan explode the lawyer's theory of "Who is my
neighbor"?
16. What can you say of the
Bible accounts of the relation of Jesus to the Bethany family? Recite these
accounts.
17. What was the purpose of
our Lord in entering this or any other house in his earthly ministry?
18. What were the different
ideas of the two sisters respecting the entertainment of our Lord and which
must have pleased him the better?
19. How do these two women
illustrate the relative importance of the externals and internals of the
kingdom?
20. What can you say of the
freedom in the choice of Martha and Mary and what is meant by "Mary sat at
the Lord's feet?" Illustrate.
21. What illustrations from
Christ's ministry showing his appreciation of the spiritual over the temporal?
22. What of the teaching of
our Lord here touching anxieties and how does it correspond to his teaching
elsewhere?
23. How is Mary's wisdom
here seen above her sister Martha's?
24. What is the doctrinal
point here? Discuss.
25. How is the highest
wisdom shown in the election of the "good thing" first?
26. Why is this called the
"good part"? Discuss and illustrate.
THE MODEL PRAYER REPEATED; A BLASPHEMOUS
ACCUSATION; HOW TO BE CLEAN; AND A DISCOURSE ON HYPOCRISY, WORLDLY ANXIETIES, WATCHFULNESS,
ETC.
Harmony, pages 112-118 and Luke 11:1-13; 59.
In section 83 of the Harmony (Luke 11:1-13) we have the model prayer repeated.
It will be noted that the phraseology here is quite different from that found in
section 42 (Matt. 6: 5-15), but the ideas are the same. Then follows
immediately the parable of the friend at midnight, which teaches that
importunate prayer overcomes the greatest difficulties, to which is added the
promise of success to the one who asks, seeks, and knocks. In this same
connection is also given the promise of the Holy Spirit to them who ask for
him. This promise is emphasized by contrasting the willingness of earthly
parents, though evil, in giving good gifts to their children, with the heavenly
Father's willingness to give the Holy Spirit.
In section 84 of the Harmony (Luke 11:14-36) we have the incident of casting
out the demon which was dumb, and the blasphemous accusation that Jesus did
this by the prince of demons. This incident and the teaching growing out of it
needs to be considered more particularly.
When that question came up about the expulsion of that demon, Jesus met it
substantially thus: Here is a fact. This man was occupied and Satan has been
cast out. How do you account for it? The Pharisees reply: "You cast him
out by the chief of demons." "But that is absurd. A house divided
against itself cannot stand, and if Satan cast out Satan, Satan's kingdom ends.
Moreover, you and your children profess to be able to cast out demons. Turn
your logic there, and if I, by the prince of demons, cast out demons, do not
your children? As you say of your children, then let them judge you in this
accusation. If not then by Satan, then what follows? Here is a superhuman power
that could not be expelled except by a stronger force. Man is no stronger
force. This superhuman power has been overthrown. It is absurd to suppose that
Satan did it himself. Hence it follows that I by the finger of God have cast
him out. And then it follows that if I by the finger of God have cast him out,
the kingdom of heaven is come to him. The kingdom of heaven is present whenever
Satan is overthrown, for Satan will not overthrow himself, and it must be a
power greater than Satan, and therefore it is the kingdom of heaven, and that
kingdom of heaven is among you." What a thought! See one who last year
rejoiced in the fact that he was a sinner, that he did not go to church, that
he reviled religion, that he mocked at its holy claims, that he laughed at its
threatenings, that he invoked presumptuously a judgment this man that pitched
his frail straws of opposition against the thick bosses of Jehovah's buckler
look, a change has come, and profanity has died on his lips and praises sit
there, praises unto his God. A glorious change! Light has come into his eye,
innocence into his face, joy and love into his heart, hope into his soul,
consecration into his life, and it has been done by the finger of God, and it
is a demonstration that the kingdom Of God has come. It is here. That is one
thing it proves. What other thing? It proves the Judgment. "When the Holy
Spirit is come he will convince the world of judgment, because the prince of
this world is judged." The Scriptures say that there shall appear a great white
throne, and him that sitteth on it, before whom the heavens shall fade away,
and before whom all nations shall be gathered, and that they shall be judged
out of the things that are written in the book. One solid argument that
judgment is coming is that the prince of this world is judged. Satan is judged
and overthrown, and if the captain be judged and his power demolished, then we
may rest assured that his subjects will be judged. That crisis on Calvary was
the only crisis the world ever had after the fall of man in the garden of Eden,
the only one. Just as sure as Satan is judged; just as sure as the finger of
God delivers one here and there throughout the land; every time there is heard
the voice of a newborn soul; every time there is an emergence from darkness into
light; every time one lifts himself up through the power of God and shakes off
the crushing bondage of the devil, it is another thunder-toned demonstration
that the judgment is coming, and all who are of Satan shall go to Satan's
place, to the place prepared for the devil and his angels.
The strong man here then is Satan, but what is his trusted armor? I will name
some pieces of it which show the ground of his confidence. First, "this
subject of mine is lawfully condemned by the divine statute. There is the
strength of my hold on him. There is the chief part of my armor even the
righteous law of God. I could not have done anything with him if I had not made
him transgress the law, and now, while God's law stands and calls for a victim
to satisfy its penal sanction, my hold on him is good." What else?
"When he sinned his nature became perverted. That which had loved God now
hates God, and I trust in that aversion to his heart from God. I know that his
mind is not subject to God's law and cannot be made subject to God's law. His
inherited depravity, therefore, is a part of my armor. By it I shut the windows
of the cup held out before him. If his bent be not in this direction, if he
have a disposition that cannot be extravagant or spendthrift, then I lead him
in the path of the miser, and fill his mind full of wise laws and maxims and
apothegms about saving and holding on to what he gets, and that 'if a man doth
not provide for his own he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel';
and in the guise of economy I will make him so stingy and hard-hearted that the
granite is softer than his soul. I trust to his habits." These things
constitute Satan's armor. Evidently till some one stronger than Satan shall
come, this usurped dominion over this world will be successfully maintained.
And Just here I want to call attention to one of the most remarkable missionary
sermons ever preached by man, by one of the profoundest thinkers that ever
honored the American continent. It is Dr. Lyman Beecher's great sermon on the
"Resources of the Adversary and the Means of His Overthrow."
The next question is, "How are these captives at peace in a state of
captivity?" "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace his goods are
at peace." How can people be at peace who are in bondage, who are slaves,
who have lost that liberty with which God originally endowed the moral agent?
How is it that they are at peace? In a case of mesmerism so long as the subject
is under the influence of the mesmerizer he is at peace; he reflects the mind
of the one who has put the spell upon him. He voices the will of that one. He
performs what the mesmerizer commands. No one can come in from the outside and
break that spell, and so long as the spell obtains, that man, if one were to
ask him the question, "Are you obeying this mesmerizer cheerfully?"
"Yes." "Are you doing this of your own will?" "Yes, I
want to do just what he tells me to do." That illustration may partly
serve to introduce this scriptural thought, that when a strong delusion possesses
the mind it assures the mind of its rightfulness, and there is perfect
confidence on the part of the deluded one in the rightfulness of the position
which he occupies. He is thinking another's thought. A superior and imperious
will is suggesting his thought and inditing his words and prompting his acts
and filling his heart so that he becomes but the expression of another, doing
the will of another, and while in that state he is at peace. What good would it
do to argue with one who is mesmerized? What pictures would he see if we were
to hold them up before him? What impression could we make on his mind that is
occupied? His mind is preoccupied. His mind is filled full of another. Hence,
before that man can be delivered we must overcome the one that holds him under
the spell. Hence, this passage says that "when a strong man armed keepeth
his palace his goods are at peace." We have illustrations of this in
people that we from our standpoint of regeneration, of redemption in Christ,
know to be lost. We know them to be slaves. We know them to be doomed. And yet,
they calmly look into our eyes and claim as complete a satisfaction with their
state as we claim for our state. How many times have I heard one of the most
deluded men repeat, putting his hand upon his heart, "I have perfect
peace. I am at rest."
The next question is, "How is the captor at peace?" He seems to be
perfectly quiet, as long as his subject remains in subordination, as long as
there is no effort to throw off the yoke of bondage, as long as there is no
rebellion against his authority, the captor seems to be at peace; and we also
notice in this passage that if that evil spirit be expelled from a man or
voluntarily leaves him that then he, the captor, is at unrest: "But when
the unclean spirit is gone out of the man he walketh through dry places seeking
rest and finding none." To dispossess him is to put him at unrest. Note
this thought. We get at the nature of a mind by the surroundings it seeks. This
evil spirit seeks dry places, waste places, desolate spots, volcanic shores,
treeless countries. There is something in the brazen sky above, in the iron
bound earth beneath, in the dust, in the barren rocks, in the lava beds and
other tokens of volcanic eruptions; in other words, in the desolation and the
absence and privation of life, there is something consonant with his feelings.
If consonant with his feelings why does he not find the rest that he seeks in
these places? This demon that has been cast out, when he comes to a desert
where no rose blossoms and no water laughs, no birds sing and no flowers
perfume the air, no luscious fruits hang from the trees; when he comes to a
country that seems to be a land of ashes and despair, looking for rest in such
surroundings, why does he not find it? Here is the answer:
It does not content a deathless mind to have an empire only over rock and soil.
It does not content such a lost spirit to see a land burned up in drought or
convulsed by volcanic eruptions. It does not content such a mind as that to see
the lightning rive the vigorous oak and blast the surrounding trees about it.
That does not content it. "I want to see desolation and despair come not
only to rocks and trees, but I want to see it come to intelligence. I want to
rule over minds. I want to rule over souls." Hence, he is never at rest
until he gets some soul in subjection. When the unclean spirit is gone out of
the man he walketh through dry places seeking rest, and finding none he says,
"I cannot stay out here. I will return unto my house, whence I came out. I
want to inhabit a man's body and dominate a man's soul and make that a desert.
I want to put that in ruin, so that when I look abroad on the prostrate image
of God, on the understanding darkened, on the conscience seared, on the
judgment deflected, on the affections perverted, on the brain collapsed, on
great powers prostituted when I look on that I can then say, 1 am getting
even with God.' I am at rest, satisfied while I can hold such a possession as
that. Take this away from me and I cannot content myself with fire and ashes
and rock and drought." And what is true of an expelled demon is true of
one who is demon like. A man whose character is crystallized in evil would not
be satisfied in the presence of purity. He seeks impurity. He is not satisfied
simply to have the forces of nature subject to him. Not he. "I want to
poison youth. I want to defile the minds of young men. I want to turn aside the
right thoughts of young maidens. I want to dominate and hold in subjection,
under bondage to my dictation, people who have immortal souls." We
sometimes wonder why these recruiting sergeants of the devil, these agents of
evil, why they take such a delight and go so much out of their way, to cause
another human being to fall. That is the reason. It is their unrest. They will
not be content with a barren sway. They want to exercise power over intellect
and over soul, and that is why they do this.
Who then is the stronger than Satan? On this point the Bible is clear as the
sun. Immediately after Satan obtained his dominion by guile, God promised to
put enmity between the woman and Satan, and that the seed of the woman should
bruise his head the seed of the woman, not of the man. As by subtlety he
overcame Eve, so through the seed of the woman shall a Deliverer come. When
Cain was born Eve thought the promise was fulfilled and said, "I have
gotten the man from the Lord," but that was not the seed of the woman, nor
was Abel. Not he. He saith, "And the seed" (not seeds), meaning one
there should come one born of a woman that would overthrow Satan. How could he
do it? Who could solve the problem? And yet at last a bright being winged his
way from the heavenly mansion and came down to the lowly hut of a Jewish maiden
and said, "Hail, Mary. Blessed art thou among women. I announce to thee
that of thee shall be born the Holy One that shall overcome Satan." And
the power of the Highest overshadowed the virgin and the Holy One born of her
was called the Son of God.
Here in this passage, are two releases spoken of: A release that simply expels
Satan and then a release that expels Satan and puts Christ in: that release
which simply drives out Satan and leaves the house empty is not a complete
victory, for there may be a relapse. The mind is not occupied. Man's mind,
man's soul, is derived, it is created. It is not a creator. Hence it must be in
subjection, and simply to expel one master and not provide another is not to
win a final victory, because when the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, that
does not mean that the Holy Spirit is gone into the man. And though that house
be swept and garnished, yet if it is empty, no Spirit of God reigning in those
chambers, that evil spirit may come back, and "the last state of that man
is worse than the first." And just here a capital mistake is often made.
Some men suppose that it is conversion to have Satan expelled. How does the
expulsion of Satan turn the carnal mind into amity? Now, if Satan had taken
possession of innocent people, if Satan had taken violent possession, and not
by guile and through their consent, the expulsion of Satan would have been
sufficient. But since they are fallen in their nature the expulsion of Satan
and the cessation of his direct domination, does not mean that a man is
converted. We have seen people who had an experience similar to this in the
abandonment of a bad habit, and they thought they were converted. "I was
once a drunkard; I have quit; now am I not a Christian? I was once a swearer; I
no longer swear; am I not now a Christian? I was once the slave of sensual
desires; I now govern my passions; am I not now a Christian? I once was stingy;
I now make large contributions to benevolent purposes. The evil spirit is gone
out of me; am I not now a Christian?" Certainly not, unless another master
has come in unless Christ, unless the Holy Spirit dwell in that heart, and
have renewed that soul by regeneration we are simply delivered from the
immediate domination of Satan, and our house is without a tenant. That is all
without a tenant; but we may be assured the devil will get tired of ruling over
dry rocks, and he will say, "I cannot find anything to sufficiently occupy
my powers or satisfy my desires out here on mere material nature. I will go
back to my old house. I remember, I remember how I dominated that intellect,
that soul; how I prostituted it. I will go back." And he goes back and he
takes a look, looks into the window: "The house is swept; it is garnished.
Nobody in that house; empty, empty! Jesus is not in there. The Holy Spirit is
not in there. I went out, but nobody else has been put in, and now I go back in
there, this time to stay, and so I will call to me other evil spirits, many in
number, more evil than I am, and our name shall be legion, and we will re-enter
that house and fortify again and hold that soul," and the "last state
of that man is worse than the first." Sometimes a man, just by one of
those little tricks of the devil, the cessation of an evil habit, perhaps
imagines he in converted, joins the church and becomes a preacher, but the
house being empty shall he escape Satan? Can Satan find him in the pastor's
study? Can Satan follow him into the pulpit? Can Satan enter into that pulpit
and refill that unoccupied heart, and say, "Go thou and be my infidel! go
thou and be the apostle of unbelief"? Unquestionably. And unquestionably
the "last state of that man is worse than the first," for it is
hopeless.
I have never in my life heard of any man being saved who has apostatized from
the pulpit๙1 mean who went into infidelity from the pulpit. I have never heard
of a case; I have never read of a case. "The last state of that man is
worse than the first."
There are several other items of interest in section 84 which call for special
mention. First, a woman with true motherly instinct cried out from the
multitude: "Blessed is your mother." But Jesus referred her to the
higher relation which is expressed in obedience to God. Second, he reproved
that generation as evil because they were seeking a sign, but no sign would be
given it but that of Jonah, typifying the Lord Jesus Christ in his
resurrection. Third, he gives a principle of the judgment, as illustrated by
the incident of the "queen of the south" and that also of the
Ninevites. These show that the judgment will be conducted on the principle that
the condemnation will be according to the amount of light that people have here
in this world. Fourth, the illustration of the lighted lamp, which connects
back with Matthew 6:22-23. There the dark side of the illustration is presented,
but here the light side. The thought is expressed in v. 36, which is a thrust
at their stubborn and wilful darkness in the face of such light as they had in
Jesus Christ.
We now take up section 85 of the Harmony, the incident of Jesus break fasting
with a Pharisee. The paragraph is Luke 11:37-54. Now as he spake, a Pharisee
asketh him to take breakfast with him, and he went in, and sat down to meat.
And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not dipped himself before
breakfast. And the Lord said unto him, replying to his thought, "Now do ye
Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the platter; but your inward
part is full of extortion and wickedness. Ye foolish ones, did not he that made
the outside make the inside also? Howbeit, give for alms those things which are
within; and behold, all things are clean unto you." The King James Version
reads: "But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all
things are clean unto you." But this reads: "Give for alms those
things which are within and all things are clean unto you." There is no
doubt in anybody's mind as to the word in the original Greek, enonta.
This word was before the King James translators and the Canterbury revisers,
but it can be grammatically derived from either one of two words, eni or
eneimi. If from the former, it means "such things as ye have,"
but if from the latter, it means, "those things that are within."
Where the grammatical construction favors one derivation as much as another, we
must go to the context to determine the true word from which it is derived; and
the context here unquestionably shows that the Canterbury revisers derived it
from the right word. I recall many books which I have read and hundreds' of
things which I have heard, predicating an awfully false theology upon the King
James rendering, "Give alms of such things as ye have and all things are
clean unto you," that is, if we are benevolent, if we are open-hearted,
why, the Lord will forgive everything else; and the way to get to heaven, the
way to inherit eternal life, is just to give alms. But that is far from the
meaning of Jesus.
To resume the quotation: "But woe unto you Pharisees! for ye tithe mint
and rue and every herb, and pass over judgment and the love of God; but these
ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Woe unto you
Pharisees! for ye love the chief seats in the synagogues and the salutations in
the market places. Woe unto you! for ye are as the tombs which appear not, and
the men that walk over them know it not. And one of the lawyers answering said
unto him, Master, in saying this thou reproachest us also. And he said, Woe
unto you lawyers also! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and
ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe unto you! for
ye build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. So ye are
witnesses and consent unto the works of your fathers; for they killed them, and
ye build their tombs. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send unto
them prophets and apostles; and some of them they shall kill and persecute;
that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the
world, may be required of this generation; from the blood of Abel unto the
blood of Zachariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary: Yea, I
say unto you, it shall be required of this generation" (Luke 11:42-50).
What an awful thing is God's dealing with a nation or a race! Just as he deals
with an individual, so with a nation the whole race. And how the long
treasured wrath that has been massing up from the beginning of a nation's
history until its iniquity is full, bursts over the barriers, and on that last
generation falls all of the accumulated woe.
Instance the French Revolution. Louis XVI was about the most moderate, the most
amiable of all the Bourbon kings, and yet on him and in his day came the doom
that the predecessors of his dynasty had gathered up. "Woe unto you
lawyers! for ye took away the key of knowledge!" Not the key that unlocks
knowledge, but the key, knowledge; knowledge itself is the key. "Ye took
away the key." What key? Knowledge. "Ye entered not in yourselves,
and them that were entering in, ye hindered."
This passage shows that what that man in section 81 did as an individual the
Pharisees did as a class; that in order to obtain justification by the law they
were sliding God's law down on everything. How? Well, the law requires us to be
clean, clean, clean. But they said that we will slide the law down so that it
just means to be clean on the outside; that it only means to keep the outside
of the cup and the platter clean. That is all. Inwardly full of rottenness and
dead men's bones. "Ye foolish ones! Did not he that made the outside make
the inside also? Does not the law of God require truth in the inward part? Does
it .not say that the inward part shall know wisdom and righteousness? And now
you will slide it down until it only means obedience in little things, but not
the great things, tithing mint and rue and herbs and leaving undone love and
judgment and mercy. Ye hypocrites! It says, 'Honor thy father and thy mother,'
but you do not want to honor your father and your mother, so you slide that law
down, so that it says, that if I take some of my property and write 'Corban' on
it, and say, It is a gift,' then I am under no obligation to take care of my
old worn-out father; I am under no obligation to support, in her last days, my
infirm mother. Thou hypocrite! sliding the law down, and it must be slided down
to get any justification."
How shall I be clean? How shall I keep clean? "Give alms of those things
that are within and all things are clean unto you." Here is a question of
how to be clean and how to keep clean. Some say, "Wash externally";
Jesus says, "Wash inwardly, and let the soul be made clean." What a
man has on his hands, the little dirt on his hands that when he goes to eat may
get into his mouth, that does not defile him, but defilement comes from within.
"Out of the heart of man proceed murder and blasphemy and adultery and
every foul and loathsome thing." That is where defilement comes from.
In section 86 of the Harmony (Luke 12) we have a continued discourse of our
Lord, interrupted here and there by a question from the audience. There are
some things in this discourse which remind us of the Sermon on the Mount, and
others which remind us of his great discourse on the second advent. These parts
are v. 21-34 and 35-40 respectively. The first thought here presented by our
Lord is the danger of the leaven of the Pharisees, which was hypocrisy. With
this statement as a predicate he showed that all hidden things should be
revealed, and exhorted them not to fear them who could kill the body and not
hurt the soul, but to fear him who had power to cast into hell. Then follows
the great passage on the providential care of God's children; that God cares
for the small birds, and the very hairs on our heads are numbered. All this was
given to encourage them to be steadfast in their testimony of him in the most
trying times of persecution. In this connection he refers to the sin against
the Holy Spirit which I discussed at length in The Four Gospels, Volume I of
this
INTERPRETATION.
Just at this point our Lord was interrupted by a request from the audience,
that he become a divider of an inheritance, to which he replied that he was not
a judge nor a divider of inheritances. Then he issued a warning against
covetousness, illustrating it by the parable of the rich fool, which shows the
folly and danger of selfish wealth. Out of this incident also came forth his
great teaching on God's providential care for his children (21-34) so similar
to his great teaching on the same subject in his Sermon on the Mount. In this
she shows God's pledge to care for those who make his kingdom paramount in
their lives. Then he closes this paragraph by exhorting them to secure
perennial purses by transmuting the money of this world into the money of
heaven, where thieves and moths could not steal nor destroy. But the reason for
it all is that the heart follows the treasure.
Our Lord follows this teaching with the parable of the watchful servant, which
warns God's people to be ready at all times to meet the coming Lord. He
introduces this thought with the imagery of the parable of the ten virgins,
viz.: the girded loins, the burning lamps, and the watchfulness of the five who
were ready to go out to meet him, but the thought is different in that when
they receive him as here described he makes a feast for them and serves them.
The point of both, though, is readiness for his coming in view of the
concealment of the time at which he shall come.
The next paragraph (12:41-48) enlarges the idea and teaching of the preceding
parable. This was suggested by Peter's question, "Speakest thou this
parable unto us, or even unto all?" The Lord apparently ignores Peter's
question, but" shows by the application that he here included all, i.e.,
those who were his faithful servants, and that his dealing with all would be on
the same principle of justice; that one principle is that the rewards and
punishments at the judgment will be according to the amount of light people
have here, but all disobedience will receive its just recompense of the reward.
The rest of this chapter consists of three parables. The first is the parable
of fire, sword, and flood, which shows the divisive effect of the gospel. This
has been illustrated in thousands of homes as here described. The second is the
parable of the weather signs, which shows that, as the weather signs forecast
the weather, so spiritual developments forecast themselves to the observing,
just as the sons of Issachar were wise to discern what Israel ought to do. The
third is the parable of the settlement with an adversary which warns against
the delay in being reconciled with God.
QUESTIONS
1. What can you say of the
model prayer given, here as compared with the one given in Matthew 6:5-15?
2. What parable in this
connection, what is its lesson, what promises growing out of it, and how is the
latter one emphasized?
3. What blasphemous
accusation did the Jews make against Jesus here, what was its occasion and how
did Jesus meet it?
4. How does Jesus turn their
logic against them?
5. If Christ cast out demons
by finger of God, what followed from that fact?
6. How is the kingdom of
heaven brought to a man? Illustrate.
7. How does this prove the
judgment?
8. Who then is the strong
man here and what is his trusted armor?
9. What sermon commended by
the author in this connection?
10. How are these captives
at peace?
11. When is the captor at
peace and what causes his unrest?
12. Who then is the stronger
than Satan?
13. What two releases here
spoken of? Discuss and illustrate each.
14. What cry from the
multitude in response to this teaching of Jesus, what was the reply of Jesus
and what its meaning?
15. What reproof did Jesus
here give the Jews? Explain?
16. What principle of
judgment did he here announce & how did he illustrate?
17. What is the illustration
of the lighted lamp and what does it illustrate?
18. Give an account of
Jesus' breakfasting with a Pharisee.
19. What is the difference
in the rendering of Luke 11:41 in the King James Version and in the Canterbury
Version?
20. Which is the true
rendering and what is the proof?
21. What heresy based upon
the King James rendering?
22. What was Jesus' charge
here against the Pharisees?
23. What was his charge
against the lawyers?
24. How does Jesus here show
God's dealing with a nation? Illustrate.
25. What is the meaning
& application "Ye took away the key of knowledge"?
26. How does this passage
here show that the Pharisees as a class did just what the man described in
section 81 did as an individual? Discuss.
27. What are the two
theories of cleanliness and which is scriptural?
28. In our Lord's discourse
in Luke 12 what do we find to remind us of the Sermon on the Mount and the
discourse on the second advent?
29. What was our Lord's
warning respecting the Pharisees and what his teaching growing out of this
warning?
30. What is the teaching
here on the providence of God, and what was its occasion and what its purpose?
31. What reference here to
the sin against the Holy Spirit?
32. What was our Lord's
teaching respecting wealth, what was the occasion of this teaching, how did he
illustrate it, and what special teaching on the providence of God growing out
of this incident?
33. What is the meaning of
"purses perennial"?
34. What of the parable of
the watchful servant; its imagery; the difference in the thought of this and
that of the parables of the ten virgins?
35. How does the next
paragraph (12:41-48) enlarge the idea and teaching of this parable and what is
the teaching here in particular?
36. What three parables in
Luke 12:49-59, and what is the import of each? Illustrate.
REPENT OR PERISH; PARABLES OF THE MUSTARD SEED
AND LEAVEN; AT THE FEAST OF DEDICATION; "ARE THERE FEW THAT BE
SAVED?" DINING WITH A PHARISEE AND A THREEFOLD LESSON; THE COST OF
DISCIPLESHIP
Harmony, pages 118-I22 and Luke 13:1-14, 22-25; John
10:22-42.
In this chapter we commence with section 87 of the Harmony (Luke 13:1-9), which
is on the necessity of repentance. This thought is elaborately treated in my
discussion on repentance (see The Four Gospels, Volume I of this INTERPRETATION). Therefore, I pause here only to say that the
parable in v. 6-9 illustrates the teaching on repentance in the preceding
verses as it applied to the Jews. The "three years" of this parable
refers to the three years of Christ's ministry to the Jews prior to this time.
"This year" refers to the time from the giving of this parable to the
end of Christ's ministry and was the last space for repentance granted the
Jewish nation. This parable of the fig tree should be taken in connection with
the cursing of the barren fig tree which marks the end of the space here allotted
for their repentance. Then the mercy limit was passed and the tree was cut
down, i.e., the sentence was pronounced though it was not executed until the
year A. D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus.
In section 88 we have an account of an act of mercy on the part of Jesus,
performed on the sabbath day, which provoked the indignant expression of
condemnation from the ruler of the synagogue because this was done on the
sabbath day. To this Jesus replied with the parable of watering the ox on the
sabbath, which shows the triumph of mercy over statutory law. This put his
adversaries to shame, and all the multitude rejoiced because of the glorious
things that were done by him. Then he gave two parables that of the mustard
seed and that of the leaven, illustrating, respectively, the extensive and
intensive phases of the kingdom. The kingdom, with a very small beginning is
destined to be the biggest thing in the world, and the method of the kingdom is
the leavening process. The principles of the kingdom, through the gospel, must
permeate every part of the world until the whole shall be leavened.
In section 89 (John 10:22-42) we have an account of an incident in Solomon's
porch in the Temple at Jerusalem. The Jews here demanded that Jesus should tell
them plainly whether he was the Christ. To this he replied that he had already
told them, but they would not believe. Then he cited them to his works and his
relationship to his people and the Father, upon which they attempted to take
him, but "He went forth out of their hand," and went away into Perea
where many believed on him. In this section is to be noted one of the strongest
teachings of our Lord on the final preservation of the saints: that his people
know him intimately and are held by the firm hand clasp of himself and the
Father, which shows that God's people are beyond the power of the devil to
destroy them. Not one of them shall perish without breaking the omnipotent grip
of the hands of the Trinity. In section 90 of the Harmony (Luke 13:22-35) we have
a very important question asked, and therefore I shall dwell upon it at length
here because it involves a most important proposition respecting the final
outcome of the gospel of the kingdom of our Lord. To a Bible class I once put
these questions and passed them all around, insisting on direct answers from
each one: "Have you ever been seriously concerned about the comparative
number of the saved and the lost? Does the question obtrude itself often? So
far as you are able to determine, is mere curiosity the predominant element
prompting the question?"
It was developed by the answers that all had been concerned and often about
this matter the concern sometimes resulting from curious speculation
sometimes from graver causes. Where the spirit of inquiry is reverent, in view
of the infinite God, and humble, in view of our own finite nature, and for good
ends, very gentle is our Lord in replying to our questionings, and only where
it is best for us do we find the barrier, "Hidden things belong to God,
but revealed things to us and our children." If then we have this reverent
spirit, this humility so becoming to our finite nature, if our inquiry looks to
good ends only, and if we are willing to stop where our Lord's wisdom and love
raises a barrier to further investigation just now, and if at that barrier we
consent in patience to wait, comforting ourselves with his assurance that we
shall know hereafter what we know not now, even knowing as we are known, then I
see no reason why we may not follow our great Teacher as he, in his own
fashion, answers the question: "Are there few that be saved?" Let us
then very reverently consider the whole paragraph: "And one said unto him,
Lord, are they few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in by
the narrow door: for many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in, and shall
not be able. When once the Master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to
the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying,
Lord, open to us; and he shall answer and say to you, I know you not whence ye
are; then shall ye begin to say, We did eat and drink in thy presence, and thou
didst teach in our streets; and he shall say, I tell you, I know not whence ye
are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and
gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the
prophets, in the kingdom of God, and yourselves cast forth without. And they
shall come from the east and west, and from the north and south, and shall sit.
down in the kingdom of God. And behold, there are last which shall be first,
and there are first which shall be last."
Now that the whole paragraph is before us we are first of all reminded of this
saying in the Sermon on the Mount: "Enter ye in by the narrow gate: for
wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many
be they that enter in thereby. For narrow is the gate, and straitened the way,
that leadeth unto life, and few be they that find it."
Here then we learn our first lesson if our minds are docile, that our Lord's
words are often repeated, but always with a variant setting of conditions and
circumstances. Wide apart are the places and yet wider apart the conditions and
times of the two lessons. The scene of the Sermon on the Mount is Galilee, the
time early in his ministry. The application of the paragraph cited (Matt.
7:13-14) more local. The scene of our lesson today is Perea, late in his
ministry, the application more worldwide.
In Matthew 7:14 he says, "Few there be that find it." But we may not
arbitrarily construe these words of our Lord to be an answer to the general
question: "Are there few that be saved?" When he says "few"
in Matthew 7:14, we are sure he is not referring to the whole number of the
elect. He refers to Jews and to Jews of that day. Allow me to prove this double
limitation. Turn to the next chapter in Matthew, where our Lord marvels at the
faith of the Gentile centurion: "And the centurion answered and said,
Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but only say the
word, and my servant shall be healed. For I also am a man under authority,
having under myself soldiers: and I say to this one, Go, and he goeth; and to
another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. And
when Jesus heard it, he marveled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say
unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto
you, that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham,
and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven: but the sons of the kingdom
shall be cast forth into the outer darkness: there shall be weeping and
gnashing of teeth."
This incident occurred immediately after the Sermon on the Mount and that
"few" there has become the "many" here. So, then, we must
not construe Matthew 7:14, "few there be that find it," with this
passage. For a true parallel read together Matthew: 8:11 and Luke 13:29, this
way: "And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and the west,
and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of
heaven" (Matt. 8:11). "And they shall come from the east and west,
and from the north and south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God"
(Luke 13:29).
The glorious prophecies and promises in both Testaments concerning the
ingathering of the Jews after the fulness of the Gentiles, show that the
"few" of Matthew 7:14 is limited even in its Jewish application. So
that we may express the whole matter somewhat in this fashion: "Are there
few that be saved?" Answer: Of the Jews of Christ's day, few; of the
Gentiles, not many; of Jews and Gentiles in apostolic days, perhaps we find an
answer in the glowing imagery of Revelation 7:2-17. But two verses express the
thought: "And I heard the number of them that were sealed, a hundred and
forty and four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of the children of Israel. .
. . After these things I saw, and behold, a great multitude, that no man could
number, out of every nation, and of all tribes and peoples and tongues,
standing before the throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in white robes, and
palms in their hands. . . . These that are arrayed in the white robes, who are
they, and whence came they? . . . These are they who come out of the great
tribulation, and they washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of
the Lamb." But we must not look on this as the final showing. This is the
first fruits only. This is but the first martyr crop. We must read Revelation
21-22 to get a full view of the Holy City the Lamb's Bride.
So then if I were called on to answer, in the light of Bible teaching, this
question: "At the judgment will the saved outnumber the lost?" I
would reply by citing in contrast a Jewish opinion prevalent just before Christ
was born, and a Christian opinion of the present day, and say frankly that I am
inclined to the Christian opinion. The Jewish opinion is thus expressed twice
in the apocryphal book of Esdras: "The kingdom on earth was made for many;
the kingdom above for few," and "The number of the saved is like a
drop to the wave." Such is the Jewish opinion. The Christian opinion,
expressed by one of the truly great expositors of this generation is: "The
number of the finally lost will compare with the whole number saved about as
the criminals in jails and penitentiaries now compare with the free and
law-abiding citizens of this country." For myself, without taking time
just now to cite the scriptural basis of the judgment, I heartily cherish the
Christian opinion.
Understand me, I do not dogmatize here, but express the deepest, maturest
conviction of mind, that at the round up, the outcome, the consummation, our
blessed Lord will have saved the overwhelming majority of the human race. There
are many mansions in the Father's house. They will be occupied. There is great
room in paradise. It will be filled. Many indeed that were bidden shall not
enter in, but other hosts will. I count much on the millennium. Even if it mean
only a literal thousand years, who can estimate the teeming population this
earth may bring forth and nourish in ten centuries of the highest religious
civilization, with Satan shut up; peace reigning; no armies; no wars; no
plague, famine, or pestilence? I am quite sure that all the population for the
first six thousand years would not be a tithe of the population of the seventh
thousand and under millennial conditions of health, knowledge, peace, and love.
The devil banished and selfishness routed and religion reigning as Christ
taught it, all the latent forces of nature developed by civilization, disease
checked, and this earth could easily produce and support a hundred billion
people for each generation of the thousand years. I mention this just this way
because of the deep earnestness and ever-recurring interest attaching to the
question: "Lord, are there few that be saved?"
Let us now take up this passage and mark our Saviour's treatment of this dread
question. The questioner here, as I think) was prompted by prurient curiosity,
or to evade personal responsibility. This may be inferred from the fact that
our Lord did not answer him directly. He heard him, but he answered aside to
the others; and always where some good and honest motive is at the bottom of a
question propounded to our Lord, he answers to the person. Seeing then that
when this man asked this question, "Are there few that be saved?" he
turned and gave his answer to the crowd that were about him, I believe that the
question was prompted by an evil motive, though the questioner may not have
been conscious of it.
It is that answer of our Lord Jesus Christ to that question, as set forth in
this passage, that I wish to speak very earnestly about. Our Saviour's answer
suggests several reflections, each worthy of some notice, in its order.
1. There is an implied rebuke of the questioner. This may be fairly gathered
from the answer: "Strive to enter in at the strait gate." Does not
that seem to suggest to the questioner that there was a much more important
matter to which he should be giving his attention? Does not that say to him
plainly that his mind is exercised upon the solution of a problem comparatively
unimportant, and especially when considered in contrast with this mightier one?
The rebuke points with emphatic earnestness to the necessity of giving
precedence to a personal matter. "Are you to be one of the saved? Are you
to be one of the saved, whether the whole number be few or many? That number,
great or small, will not amount to much to you if you are lost." Whatever
the number, whatever the comparative status of the number, here is a question
of great and personal interest, "Are you to be one of the saved?"
This means that each one should settle the question of his personal salvation;
that there is no other question comparable to it in urgency and importance.
There is nothing superior in obligation. If we are not now saved we might
combine all the other matters which excite public interest, from one end of
this earth to the other, and the combination means less to us personally than
this: "Are we to be of the saved?"
2. Following that thought comes this reflection: In the matter of personal
salvation, whatever many scriptures seem to teach, there must be earnest
exertion upon our part. No man believes more than I do the doctrine of
predestination, the doctrine of the elect, the doctrine of the absolute
sovereignty of God in salvation, the doctrine that salvation from its inception
to its consummation is of God, the doctrine of the necessity of the work of the
Holy Spirit at the very beginning and throughout the entire course of the
Christian life. All of these I believe, without a shadow of reservation. And
yet the Bible teaches that man must not sit still; that he occupies no waiting
attitude; that he is not to remain in a morally passive state, and if I knew
that I had to stand before the judgment bar tomorrow and answer for the
orthodoxy, the soundness of the statement 'I now make, I would lift up my voice
confidently and say that this lesson shows that in the matter of salvation
there must be the most attentive, the most earnest, the most vigorous and the
most persistent exertion upon our part. On what word do I found this? I found
it on this word "strive." It is our Lord, not I, who turns the
questioner from a question of curiosity first to his own case and then to the
responsibility of exertion. The Greek word is agonizes. The Milton has a poem,
"Samson Agonistes," that is, "Samson the Wrestler." This
very good word is employed in the Greek to indicate, not only the kind of preparation
and training one must make to be able to wrestle on the arena with a
competitor, but the degree and persistence of intense exertion that he actually
puts forth in that conflict. He prepares himself for the contest by a regimen
of diet. He does not eat the things that enervate. He does not give himself up
to dissipation, but by temperance, by self-denial, by practice, by continual
exertion, he drills and trains his muscles the muscles of his fingers, of his
hands, of his legs, of his back, of his whole body, and when after the most
diligent training the hour comes for the wrestling, then see the exertion that
he puts forth! What can equal it? Every muscle is on tension and it is not
relaxed for one moment. It is persistent. Some of the most expressive works of
art in painting and sculpture exhibit the bulging outlines of the muscles of
the athlete. And yet that is the word which our Saviour uses by which to
express personal exertion in the matter of salvation. And it is the precise
thought that the apostle Paul brings out in his letter to the Hebrews under the
image of the race course. In view of the fact that they are surrounded by so
great a crowd of witnesses, the competitors are commanded to lay aside every
weight and every besetting sin, and to run, and to run with patience the race
which is set before them. Evidently our Lord did not employ such terms to
express a passive state of mind on the question of personal salvation. Not only
this term "strive," but others of like import are employed: "Seek
ye first the kingdom of heaven." He calls upon us to direct our attention,
to call forth all our powers, to concentrate our minds, and to lay hold and to
hold on, and to press to its settlement the question of our personal salvation
in the sight of God.
3. The third thought is that not all who strive will be saved: "I say unto
you, Strive to enter in at the strait gate, for many shall seek to enter in and
shall not be able." Here it is of infinite moment to know certainly the
ground of this disability. By paraphrase and punctuation we may easily learn.
Note this reading. "Do you strive now to enter in at the strait gate, for
many shall seek to enter therein later and shall not be able when once the
Master of the house is risen up and the door is shut." The thought then is
this: That there comes in a limitation as to time; that there is a time to seek
and a time when not to seek; that there is a time when seeking has the promise
and hope of accomplishment, and there is a time when if one were to put forth all
the exertion in the world it would make no difference at all. That certainly is
the thought of our Saviour here. It is the keynote of this very lesson. It is
Isaiah's emphasis: "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found; call ye upon
him while he is near." It is Matthew's emphasis: "Many will say to me
in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast
out devils, and by thy name do many mighty works, and then will I profess unto
them, I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity." It is the
regnant thought in the parable of the ten virgins. Those five foolish virgins
tried to get in, tried hard to get in, and knocked and said, "Lord, Lord,
open to us." Then let it be fixed in our minds in what the inability
consists. These that did strive and failed, in what did the inability consist?
So far as the teaching of this lesson is concerned the inability consisted in
striving after it was too late to strive, when no good could be accomplished by
it, when the door was shut, when the opportunity was gone. Then they wake up;
they are aroused, and with eyes wide open take in at one appalling sight, the
eternal importance of the question, feeling that outside is darkness and death
and banishment, and that inside is light and life and glory. Realizing at last
the great importance of personal salvation they do then seek him, they do try,
they do strive, they do knock and pray, but in vain. "Too late; too late;
you cannot enter now."
4. Keeping strictly to the lesson, which only presents certain views of this
question, and not the fulness of it, I call attention to another feature of our
Lord's answer: Enter the strait gate. If one would enter he must try at the
right place. Of what avail is it to be concerned about eternity, and what shall
it profit if one exert himself from early youth to bended old age, and how much
will it count in the solution of the question, that he shall sacrifice any
amount of property, if he tries to get in where there is no opening? This part
of the subject is brought out very prominently in all the scriptures. People
who vainly busy themselves to establish a righteousness by which to enter
heaven, they may show a zeal toward God, but it avails nothing if not according
to knowledge. They seek to build a tower so high that from its summit they can
put their fingers in the crevices of the skies and pull themselves up into the
realms of glory. They seek to construct a ladder so long that when its base
rests on the earth its summit will touch the skies, and up that ladder, step by
step and rung by rung, they fain would climb to glory and to God. But they are
never able. Though they rise early, commencing betimes, though they persist in
struggling, their ladder is ever too short; their tower does not reach the skies.
Their righteousness is spotted, and cannot bear the test, and at that day when
they take their seat at the marriage supper of the Lamb, the finger of the
bridegroom rests on the guilty shoulder: "Friend, what doest thou here
without the wedding garment?"
I mean to say that no matter how much one does, how much he exerts himself,
what sacrifices he makes, that if he ever tries to enter heaven except by the
strait gate he will never enter. Never!
How important then to settle the question, "What is meant by the
gate?" A gate or door is a means of entrance. What is the door? See the
walls of heaven rise up in their impenetrable solidity, and I wish to enter in.
What is the door? Where will I find an open place through which I may enter in?
Following the language of the figure, this is the answer: Our Saviour says,
"I am the door." Whoever seeks to enter heaven, and not through
Christ, and not through the atonement of Christ, not through the vicarious
expiation of Christ, that man is lost.
5. Let us next inquire what is meant by the door being shut. If Christ is the
door what is meant by the inability of people to enter heaven even by Christ?
That also we may easily understand. God gives to us here upon earth an
opportunity; that opportunity he measures himself. We cannot measure it for
ourselves. God measures it out himself. How much there is of it to any
particular person only he knows. He may to one school girl give a measure of
three weeks. He may to a wicked man give a measure of sixty years, I don't know.
It is wholly, absolutely, with him. Herein is divine sovereignty. This much we
do know: There is a time in which Christ may be found, and there is a time in
which he cannot be found. Because of that I say, "Exert yourselves, seek
ye the Lord while he may be found. Call ye upon him while he is near." The
passages which I have cited show that these people were trying to enter through
Christ, but Christ had then withdrawn. Now then plainly, how is the way of life
through Christ limited to men? One thing shuts the door, we know, and shuts it
forever. If death finds us out of Christ there never will be another
opportunity to us. We know that as the tree falls so it lies. One who dies
unjust is raised unjust, and all the proceedings of the final judgment are predicated,
not on what we do after death, but on what we do in this life. We know that the
door is shut then. Our Saviour tells us of a case where it is shut before that
time. He says that if one should blaspheme against the Holy Spirit he has
committed an eternal sin which hath never forgiveness, neither in this life nor
in the life to come, which means that while people are yet alive, before the
dissolution of the soul and body they may have that door shut, and that
shutting is eternal, and though they may live ever so long after that time, the
door is shut and forever shut against them. Rising up early, sitting up late,
knocking by day and by night, weeping as Esau wept, they then find no place for
repentance. God says about Jezebel, "I gave her space to repent and she
repented not." Jesus said to Jerusalem: "And when he was come near,
he beheld the city, and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou,
at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they
are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies
shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on
every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within
thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou
knewest not the time of thy visitation."
6. There are many that be saved. "Are there few that be saved?" He
seems now to answer that question. So far, he has not answered it. He has
desired to awaken attention to a more important question. But now, in the last
of his words he does give an answer to this question. As if he said, "You
ask me if there are few that be saved; I say, Look yonder toward the north, you
see them coming; you see many coming. Look south, you see them coming; you see
many coming. Look east, look west, look at every point of the compass, and
behold them coming as the birds gathered in clouds to the ark. What mighty
multitudes are these? And they are coming and entering into the kingdom of God,
and they are sitting down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of
God, the multitude, the uncounted and uncountable multitude."
7. Heaven's joy is its company and feast. What image of heaven is here
presented? There are two elements of blessedness set forth, so far as this
lesson goes. First, the company of heaven, as represented by the words,
"Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Second, the feast of heaven. There is
one long Greek word which is translated by "sit down." It means this:
"Recline at the table." They shall recline at the table with Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob. So that there is presented to us heaven, as to its company
and its banquet. Elsewhere he tells us of a great supper in which many are
invited, and over and over again is heaven presented in that way. In the
parable of the rich man and Lazarus that is the ruling thought. The rich man
here on earth fared sumptuously every day. He had his feast here. Lazarus
hungered here. Lazarus died and immediately he was carried up and made to
recline at the table with Abraham, for the phrase "in Abraham's
bosom," means that in reclining at the table he would be next to Abraham,
so that in the posture of eating, his head would touch the bosom of Abraham, as
John at the Last Supper reclined on the Lord's bosom. There is the feast of
life. The hunger and starvation on the opposite side are presented in the case
of the rich man. "Remember that in yonder world you had your feast, your
good things. Now you are tormented. In yonder world Lazarus had his evil things,
his starvation; now he is filled."
Heaven I say, in this lesson, is represented in the two features: its company
and a feast, and in that company the light shining on them, the music
delighting them and the converse of the good and great and wise and pure and
true and noble; we may eat and drink to our fill of things which the soul has
been hungering for so long, the bread of life the water of life. It cannot
but be an attraction that a certain place, no matter how difficult of access,
has in it the good people of the world, the women that as daughters were true,
as wives were true, as mothers were true, as children of God were true, and who
lived not for fashion, not for time, but for eternity. Oh, what a grand thing
it will be to see that company of women, and the men that have been
self-denying, that have not said, "I live for myself, I satisfy my hunger,
I foster my pride, I pander to my tastes, I yield to the cravings of my
passions"; not them, but the men who have endeavored to do good, to love
God, to brighten the world, all of them gathered together in one grand company.
O how sweet in the next world to have that association I No evil men or women
among them. No man or woman of slimy thought; no man or woman of vile
affections. No man or woman but whose soul has been sanctified by the Spirit of
God and made spotless and holy. That is a goodly company to join. And then
their feast! When the Queen of Sheba, coming from the uttermost parts of the
earth, saw Solomon's house that he had built, and the sitting of his servants,
their apparel, and. the feasts that he had spread for them, she fainted away.
There was no more breath in her. She said that the half was never told. But O
the servants of God, and the sheen of their apparel, and their banquet, and the
richness of it, if we could. see it we would fall breathless before the
ravishing prospect of the things that God has in reservation for them that come
to him.
8. Sorrow and despair. We now come to the last thought. of the lesson. When we
see people coming from the north and the south and the east and the west and
reclining at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, there will also be
weeping and gnashing of teeth. Here are two thoughts: First, that the
blessedness of the saved will be within the vision of the lost. That is
certainly taught in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man was
not only penetrated with a sense of his own awful loss and agony; but when he
lifted up his eyes he saw Lazarus afar off in Abraham's bosom: "That miserable
beggar, in yonder world, I did not count him as the dust of my feet; he had no
name on the exchange, he could not even pay for his supper. Oh, to look across
the wide and deep and impassable gulf, and to see Lazarus in Abraham's bosom I
Does not that double my hell?" This brings home an awful thought. What is
it? The most painful thing in this world to an evil soul, is the anguish of
seeing other people happy I The evil people in this world are tormented by that
sight now. Mark how a man with an envious, jealous disposition will cast his
eye sideways at the prosperity of his neighbor! See how it did fill the devil
with malice when Job prospered! The righteous have not that feeling, but I say
that the unregenerate heart has it, and one of their enduring pangs of anguish
will be to look upon the class of people that they now despise, that they call
fools, and to see those fools in heaven and glorified, and they, the wise ones
of earth, in the depths of dark and endless damnation. How unspeakable the
scorn now extended to the simple-minded followers of Jesus Christ! How the eye
is haughtily elevated above them! But when you๙0 proud man, O scorner, O
intellectual giant, drawing about yourself the mantle of your exclusiveness
when you see the poor despised people enter heaven, enter light and glory,
there will come to you these awful pangs: Weeping and gnashing of teeth. You
are cast out! You, that had been a governor, you that had been a senator, you
that had been a Congressman, you a banker, you a great man in time; you are
cast out into outer darkness, and that one that you despised is in heaven! The
weeping expresses grief, the gnashing of teeth expresses both the impotence of
ungratified malice, and also of despair. A wolf that has sprung at the throat
of a lamb and missed his aim, gazing at his victim, now beyond his reach, will
gnash his teeth. That is the impotence of malice, malice unable to reach and
glut its vengeance. Then when one has striven and has failed, and sees the sand
slipping from under his feet, and the opportunities of recovery gone forever,
he gnashes his teeth in despair. Unglutted malice, impotence, and despair
that shall be the pang of the lost.
In that hour come certain Pharisees to him, warning him that Herod would kill
him. But he told them to tell that fox that he must finish his course before
any one could kill him; that Herod was not to be feared because Jerusalem was
the place where the prophets perished. Then he pronounced the doom and
desolation of Jerusalem and that they should not see him again until they
should be prepared to serve him, when all the Jews as a nation should be
converted. Then they will say, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of
the Lord."
The incident of dining with a Pharisee (Luke 14:1-24) and the lessons growing
out of it were very instructive and valuable. The healing of the man with the
dropsy and his defense is the first item of interest. The Pharisees were
watching him and seeking an occasion to accuse him, but Jesus here anticipated
their accusation by raising the question of the lawfulness of healing on the
sabbath day, and seeing that he had thus anticipated their objection they held
their peace. Then Jesus took the man, healed him, and defended the act by an
appeal to their own custom of helping lower animals on the sabbath day. From
the occasion comes also the parable of the seats of honor, which shows that the
host should designate the relative places of the invited guests and not the
guests themselves; or, in a word, this parable teaches that there is no place
of conceit in the kingdom of God; that the subjects of the kingdom should be
humble and await the call of the Master to promotion. Then follows a second
parable growing out of the same occasion, to the end that acts of benevolence
should be toward those who are needy, and that those who do them should look to
the Lord for the reward which will be bestowed at the resurrection of the just.
The third parable growing out of this occasion is the parable of the great
supper. This parable shows the vain excuses for not accepting Christ and is one
of our Lord's master strokes at the Jews. They are the ones who were bidden
first, but their vain excuses provoked the Lord to denounce them and to send
out after the poor and needy, and then again to go into the highways and
hedges, everywhere and for everybody, that the Lord's house should be filled.
But the Jews who had the first chance at the gospel were rejected because they
rejected him.
In section 92 of the Harmony (Luke 14:25-35) we have an impressive lesson on
the cost of discipleship. The renouncing of everything which is most dear to
the individual and cross-bearing are the essentials to being a disciple of our
Lord. He does not mean here that one must literally hate his earthly relations,
but that no earthly, or human relation can come between the disciple and his
Lord. It is a figure of speech by which one extreme is counteracted by another.
Then in view of such cost of discipleship our Lord gives two parables showing
that one should consider well the step when he would enter upon discipleship to
him. This section closes with another stroke at the Jews. They had been the
salt of the earth, but now, since they had lost their savor, they were fit only
for the refuse heaps of the world.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the relation
between the parable of the barren fig tree and the preceding teaching on the
necessity of repentance?
2. Explain the meaning of
this parable and show its connection with the incident of cursing the barren
fig tree and the destruction of Jerusalem.
3. Give an account of the
healing in the synagogue (Luke 13:10-17) and the controversy growing out of it.
4. What is the meaning of
the two parables, the mustard seed and the leaven?
5. Give an account of Jesus'
controversy with the Jews in Solomon's porch.
6. What great and consoling
doctrine here is taught by Christ and how is it here set forth?
7. What important question
raised in Luke 13:22-35 and why is it important?
8. What can you say of the
general interest in this question and the causes for it?
9. In what spirit should we
approach the solution of such problems, and with what assurance may we come to
them in such a spirit?
10. In what particular does
this passage remind us of the Sermon on the Mount?
11. What is the first lesson
from this comparison with the Sermon on the Mount, and what is the variant
setting of conditions and circumstances?
12. To whom does the
"few" of Matthew 7:14 refer and what is the proof?
13. Where do we find and what
a true parallel to Luke 13:29?
14. What was the testimony
of the prophets on this question, how may we express the whole matter, and what
was the testimony of Revelation 7:2-17; 21-22?
15. Contrast a Jewish
opinion just before Christ was born and a Christian opinion of the present time
on this point.
16. When, perhaps, will most
of the elect be saved, and what are the conditions then conducive to their
salvation?
17. What prompted the
questioner here to ask this question and what is the evidence?
18. What is the implied
rebuke of the Saviour here? Discuss.
19. What is here taught as
to personal exertion in one's salvation? Discuss,
20. Will all who strive to
enter be able to do so? Why? Discuss and illustrate.
21. What other limitation here
and what is the door?
22. What is meant by the
door being shut? Discuss.
23. Then what is our Lord's
answer to the question?
24. What image of heaven is
here presented? Illustrate.
25. What can you say of the attractions
of heaven here pictured?
28. What is the contrast
with this condition of the saved as represented in the lost, and what will then
constitute the horrors of the lost? Illustrate.
27. What warning came to
Jesus just here from certain of the Pharisees, what his reply and why?
28. What sentence did he
here pronounce and what great prophecy did he give in this connection?
29. What issue arose when
Jesus dined with the Pharisee (Luke 14:1-24), how did Jesus anticipate their
objection and how did he defend the act afterward?
30. What is the parable of
the seats of honor, and what does it illustrate?
31. What is the second
parable growing out of this occasion and what its lesson?
32. What is the parable of
the great supper and what in detail does it illustrate?
33. What is our Lord's
teaching on discipleship and what is the meaning of his language in this
instance?
34. How does our Lord
illustrate the caution one should have when he enters upon discipleship to him?
35. What is the meaning and
application of Christ's illustration of the salt here?
FIVE PARABLES: THE LOST SHEEP; THE LOST
COIN; THE LOST BOY; THE UNJUST STEWARD; DIVES AND LAZARUS
Harmony, pages 123-125 and Luke 15:1 to 17:10.
We are now in the section treating generally of the closing ministry of our
Lord in all parts of the Holy Land, but particularly of his Perean ministry. We
have already (in The Four Gospels, Volume I of this INTERPRETATION) learned what is a parable, etymologically and by
usage; we have stated clearly the distinctions in the meaning between the word
"parable" and such other words as proverb, allegory, illustration,
fable, myth, and legend; we have given the principles of interpreting parables,
particularly noting the discrimination between what is important and what is
the mere drapery of the illustration, and we have noted the wisdom of our Lord
in grouping parables so that the many sides of a great truth or of a complex subject
may be shown.
It has been my custom, hitherto, particularly when considering our Lord as the
great Teacher, to lay special stress on his method of teaching by parables. And
to this end I have prepared a large chart showing, in the order of their occurrence
and in the setting of their occasion, all of his parables, citing for each the
page of the Harmony, the chapter and verse, and the leading thought, or
principal lesson. Every Bible student, every Sunday school teacher should have
such a chart. (For this chart see The Four Gospels, Volume I of this INTERPRETATION.)
Since there has been so much injudicious and even wild interpretation of the
parables, I warn the reader against certain books purporting to expound them,
and especially commend certain other books which treat generally of the whole
subject in a masterly way and expound each particular parable on sane and
profitable lines. And even now I delay the present discussion long enough to
urge the reader to put into his library and to master by close study, the books
of both Taylor and Trench on the parables. I do not endorse every particular
statement, or detail, in either of the books, but on the whole I can commend
them most heartily. To those who are more advanced in scholarship and general information,
I commend in the same general way Edersheim's discussion of the parables in his
really great work The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. What a pity that
many young preachers, following the promptings of an unripe judgment, waste
their scanty means for purchasing good books, and fill up their few shelves
with not only profitless, but poisonous literature. But now to our subject.
It would not be difficult to show some connection between these parables and
the others closely following in Luke's Gospel, but it is more important just
now to note the close connection between the two last parables of this group
and the three parables immediately preceding, namely, the lost sheep, or one of
a hundred; the lost coin, or one of ten; the lost boy, or one of two.
There five parables arise from one occasion, to wit, the censure of the
Pharisees on our Lord's receiving sinners, and make an incomparable group,
surpassing in value all of the uninspired wisdom of the ancients and the
philosophies of all heathen sages since the world began.
The first exhibits the attitude of mind toward sinners and his special work in
their behalf, of God the Son, who, like a good shepherd, seeks and saves the
lost. The second illustrates the part of God the Holy Spirit in the same
salvation as a shining light which discovers the lost coin. The third discloses
the heart of God, the Father, in receiving the penitent prodigal. The third
also exhibits, in an inimitable way, the experience of the sinner himself in
passing from death unto life, and all three vividly exhibit heaven's joy at the
salvation of the lost, in sharp contrast with earth's scorn and censure. (For
detailed explanation of the parable of the prodigal son see author's sermon in Evangelistic
Sermons.)
It is the purpose of the fourth, that is, the unjust steward, to teach a
forward lesson to these saved publicans, viz., as God the 'Son had come down
from heaven to seek out and save them; as God the Spirit had shined into their
hearts the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of his Son;
as God the Father had embraced them coming in their penitence, and, as all the
bells of heaven ring out their welcome, so, after salvation, they should offer
their service and, the particular lesson is that the wisdom which prompted them
as publicans to make provision for the future in time must now be applied to
making provision for the future in eternity, else the "children of this
world in their generation will be wiser than the children of light in their generation."
The reader must not fail to note the mixed audience listening to these
parables. The lesson of the unjust steward is indeed addressed primarily to his
disciples, that is, mainly to the recently disciplined publicans, but yet in
the hearing of the Pharisees, while the warning lesson of Dives and Lazarus. is
addressed primarily to the Pharisees, but yet in the hearing of the others. It
is important to note that both parables have one theme, namely: "How the
use or misuse of money in this world affects our status in the world to come,
whether in heaven or hell." But we must bear in mind that, while the
parables in chapter 16 discuss-service and rewards, we must carefully hedge
against the idea of any power in money to purchase heaven or evade hell. I
repeat that the three preceding parables in chapter 15 teach us the way of
salvation; the parable of the unjust steward, on the other hand, is addressed
to saved men to show how their lives as Christians may yet affect their status
in heaven. It is a matter of rewards, not salvation. Just so, the parable of
Dives and Lazarus does not teach that the rich man was lost because of the
wrong use of money, but that being already lost, his misuse of money in time
aggravates his status in hell. Apart from salvation and damnation is the
question of awards when saved or of aggravated suffering when lost. And as both
parables have one theme, so one moral links them together indissolubly. That
moral is, "And I say unto you, make to yourselves friends by means of the
mammon of unrighteousness; that, when it shall fail, they [the friends made by
it] may receive you into the eternal tabernacles."
In the case of both parables the leading thought is that a reasonable mind
should provide for the future, and that the use or abuse of what we have in
time, whether opportunities, or talents, or money, does in some way affect our
status in eternity. Other important things may be taught incidentally; and in
the parable of Dives and Lazarus, particularly, other quite important things are
certainly so taught but sound principles of interpretation require that first
of all there should be due stress on the main point. With these premises in
mind we now consider
THE PARABLE OF
THE UNJUST STEWARD
As has been said, it is addressed primarily to "his disciples," that
is, particularly to the publicans recently discipled; that its purpose is to
show that after their salvation comes service, with its appointed rewards in
glory; that since the publicans, before their conversion, had endeavored to provide
for their future on earth, so now as disciples they must with the same
foresight, only better directed, provide for an eternal future; that for only a
little while on earth they are blessed with opportunities and means of
usefulness, and that these are held in trust. How then shall they be transmuted
into eternal exchange? This grave question is answered by this illustrative
parable. The substance of the story is this: A rich lord, on learning that his
steward was wasting the substance entrusted to him, notifies him that he may no
longer be steward, and orders him to give an account of his stewardship. This
dishonest servant had no illusions, attempted no self-deceptions, but in a
candid, practical way, looked the facts and the logic of the situation squarely
in the face. He knew that his own books would confirm the accusation against
him; that his office was inevitably lost; that there was no defense possible;
and that there was no hope of future employment from his lord. He must,
therefore, rely wholly on himself. He saw clearly and rejected both of the
ordinary alternatives, hard manual labor or beggary. He felt himself unable to
dig and was ashamed to beg. What remained then? In some way he must provide for
his future. He was as quick to decide what to do as he was clear in his
apprehension of the facts. Being only a child of this world, no moral scruples
hampered his decision. Moreover, as the time was short he must be as prompt in
action as in decision. Having yet the power of attorney that accompanies
stewardship, his disposition of his employer's interests would be legal. That
point he must safeguard. So he proceeded at once to make friends in another
direction by further misuse of his employer's means, according to the saying,
"In for a penny, in for a pound," or "One may as well hang for a
sheep as for a lamb." Rapidly and separately he approached his lord's
debtors and by sharp reduction of the amount due in each case he succeeded in
securing the good will and gratitude of each debtor. By that creative faculty,
the imagination, he could vividly see each relieved debtor going home, and hear
him tell the delighted family all about the kind offers of the friendly steward
who sympathized with labor against capital; with the oppressed tenant against the
bloated landlord. He argued: "Now, when I am cast out of this office these
grateful debtors will receive me into their homes with welcome and hospitality,
and so I shall be provided for the rest of my days with shelter and food
without the necessity of digging or begging." It is also true that he
could hold in terror over these tenants the fact that they had knowingly
conspired with him to defraud the landlord, but there is no hint in the parable
that he relied upon exciting fear in the tenants, but friendship only. When his
lord (not our Lord) heard of this new exploit of rascality, he could not but
admire the sagacity and shrewdness with which the cornered steward had escaped
from his dilemma and caught upon his feet with catlike dexterity. We must not
for a moment suppose that in relating this story our Lord approves either the
rascality of the steward or shares the employer's commendation of his
shrewdness. He is merely showing how children of this world, without thought of
heaven or hell, do from their worldly viewpoint, make shrewd provision for the
future in this life and how they apply a shrewdness that wins by any means
without technically breaking any human law. He is showing how with practical
business sense they are clear in their apprehensions of the facts of a case,
quick to decide on a course, prompt to act on their decision, and ready to use
all available means to attain their object.
The application is that "the children of light" from a higher
viewpoint of the future, extending into an eternity of heaven and with higher
moral standards, should so wisely use their fleeting wealth as to make it a
friend, not an enemy; to make friends by it, who passing ahead into eternal
habitations await to greet and welcome them when they arrive.
There is a difference between a mere entrance and an abundant entrance. Two
ships sail from one harbor and are bound for the same port. Much depends upon
skillful seamanship and the prompt use of all available means. Both reach the
port of destination. One of them by bad seamanship arrives at last, a battered
hulk, masts broken, shrouds riven, cargo damaged, and is towed by a tug into
safe anchorage. It is much to get there at all. But the other arrives with
every mast standing, every sail filed, freighted to the water's edge with
precious cargo, and flags flying. How joyous her welcome! Friends crowd the
wharf to greet her coming. Salvos of artillery salute her. So, while salvation
is one definite thing for all, the heavenly status of the saved is not one
uniform, fixed quantity. In my Nashville, Tennessee address on the death of
Spurgeon I gave an illustration of the meaning of the scripture, "Make to
yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when it
shall fail, they may receive you into the everlasting tabernacles."
Spurgeon was saved by grace, not money; but he made wise use of his money in
building orphanages, almshouses for widows, and his pastoral college. Orphans,
widows, preachers were not only beneficiaries of his bounty, but many of them
had been led to Christ by him, and others comforted and strengthened by his
ministrations. Many of these died before he died, and waiting up there,
welcomed him when the Master called him home.
The parable of Dives and Lazarus shows another side of the same picture. It is
addressed to the scornful Pharisees who were lovers of money and callous to
human suffering, who lived with reference to this world and not at all with
reference to the world to come. Keeping in mind first the main thought, that
the misuse, or ill use, of money on earth will affect the final status in
eternity, we may by a diagram make visible this leading thought, as the words
make it audible (diagram on next page). From the upper left hand corner (marked
A) is a line to the lower right hand corner (marked C). So from the lower left
hand corner (marked B) is a line to the upper right hand corner (marked D).
Then two perpendicular lines in the center, inclosing the crossing point of the
diagonal lines. The perpendicular space is death; all to the left in this
world; all to the right, the eternal world. In this world Dives has the upper
place at A, faring sumptuously every day, while Lazarus has the lower place at
B) starving with hunger for even the crumbs that fell from the rich man's
table. In the other world the position of the two is reversed: Lazarus has the
upper place (marked D) reclining at the heavenly banquet with Abraham, while
the rich man has the lower place (marked C) starving with hunger and burning
with thirst. It will be observed that death does not break the continuity of
being in either case, nor interrupt the exercise of the senses of the
disembodied soul. Both are alive, conscious, sensible (the one to enjoyment,
the other to pain), seeing, speaking, hearing, feeling, remembering. It will
further be observed that there is no midway stopping place for either after
death, but both pass at once to a final place and state; to the one, a place
and state of happiness; to the other, a place and state of wretchedness. It
will be noted that in this world Lazarus may pass to the rich man and the rich
man to Lazarus; not so after death; neither can pass to the other. Here wealth
may help poverty and poverty may serve wealth. The rich man may send crumbs to
hungry Lazarus. Yonder the opportunity is dead; Lazarus may not bring water to
thirsty Dives. It will be more particularly observed that neither Dives nor
Lazarus may return to this world for any service to the living; that opportunity
is dead. The rich man, conscious that hell's restrictions prevent his own
return, pleads that one from heaven may return and bear a message for him. But
the one from heaven is not permitted to return. Each has gone to a bourne from
which no traveler, except One, has ever returned. If, therefore, we desire to
make friends with our money or our service, we must do it in this world or
never. If we desire to keep the lost from hell and lead them to salvation we
must do it while we are living in the body and they are living in the body. If
they die first, from earth we cannot help them by prayer, money, or service. If
we die first, we cannot return to help them from either heaven or hell. In
either case, so far as we are concerned, "their redemption must be let
alone forever."
The main thought is that while Dives and Lazarus were both living the rich man
had an opportunity by means of the wealth entrusted to his stewardship to make
a friend of Lazarus. But failing to use the means, when, at death his wealth
failed, he, in his eternal habitation of woe could not have the friendly
service of Lazarus. The parable implies that Lazarus was a Christian and the
rich man an unconverted Jew, relying upon fleshly descent from Abraham. It does
not teach that Lazarus went to heaven because he was poor in this world, but
because in this world he prized future good above present good. Nor that Dives
went to hell because he was rich in this world, but that he prized present good
above future good. This is implied in the words of Abraham: "Son. remember
that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and Lazarus in like
manner evil things: but now here he is comforted, and thou art in
anguish." Each man made deliberate choice. The rich man, according to the
saying, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush," preferred his
good in time and despised eternity; the poor man elected eternal good instead
of temporal good, and each reaped according to his sowing.
But let us consider more particularly the details of the story. Lazarus was
laid at the rich man's gate. This fact stops Dives from pleading ignorance of
the special case. The opportunity to do good with his wealth was brought home
to him who would not seek it. The destitution was real and great. The poverty, hunger,
rags, and sores advertised themselves and all pleaded for help, though Lazarus,
in the parable, utters no word. It is related that a traveler in Ireland coming
upon a diseased, emaciated wretch, ill-clad in dirty rags, silently standing by
the wayside, said, "Why are you dumb? Why don't you ask for help?"
"Can my mouth," replied the miserable one, "speak louder than my
rags and sores and skeleton bones?" Dives was abundantly able to help
without impoverishing himself, as even crumbs falling from his table were
desired. But he so fully trusted in his wealth he could not conceive that he
ever might, himself, be in want. He had no realization that death would strip
him of all he possessed and send him bankrupt into eternity. He could not
conceive that he ever would be in a situation to desire the help of Lazarus. We
can almost hear him saying, "What impertinent busy-body thrust this
disgusting nuisance upon my attention? Let every man take care of himself. When
I put money out it is to make more money. It is absurd to think that I should
ever need, in return, anything that this diseased and helpless beggar could do.
I do not care for his friendship or good will. And so let him die the sooner
the better." And the beggar died; the rich man never expected to see or
hear of him again. He could not see the angels bearing the disembodied soul to
heaven. He could not see heaven's banquet table awaiting the starved pauper. He
could not see his place of honor, resting his head on Abraham's bosom as he
reclined at the table, even as the head of the beloved John rested on the bosom
of his Lord at the Last Supper. "The rich man also died," and, what a
revelation! All his wealth gone! Gone all his purple and fine linen, all his
obsequious servants! And, oh, this burning thirst, this eternal hunger! With
uplifting eyes seeking help he sees the sore-smitten, rag-covered, starving
Lazarus of earth, now healed, now in shining apparel whose sheen out-glistens
all his fine linen in time, now feasting at a banquet whose viands far surpass
his own sumptuous, everyday fare on earth, now resting his head on the heart of
glorified Abraham.
What a revelation! What a reversal of earth's conditions! What an overthrow of
his time confidence that he was a true child of Abraham! But shall he not still
think to himself that Abraham is his father? Is he not a Jew and shall not a
Jew claim relationship with the father of the Jews? In his torment may he not
appeal to his father?
Mark where he prays. In hell.
Mark to whom he prays. To one of the heavenly saints, Abraham.
Mark for what he prays. One drop of water.
Mark for whose service he prays. "Send Lazarus."
Mark how small a part of Lazarus. "The tip of his finger."
These questions thunder:
May prayers in hell avail?
May prayers to saints avail?
Can the thirst of hell be quenched?
May the saved in heaven minister to the lost in hell?
"Son" The fleshly relation acknowledged.
"Remember" So memory survives death.
Remember what? The supreme choice of time. "In yonder world you preferred
your good things and Lazarus had his evil things."
The appeal to reason: "Now here he is comforted and thou there art in
anguish." So reason survives death. So time fruits in eternity. So is the
law of cause and effect inexorable: "What a man sows that shall he also
reap."
The answer reveals another law, viz.: One may not invoke the service of
friendship where no friend was made. The rich man, wretched in eternity, had no
title to the services of Lazarus, whose wretchedness he had ignored in time.
The answer reveals a far greater law: Between the saved in heaven and the lost
in hell yawns a fixed and impassable gulf. No saint in heaven may pass to hell
on a mission of mercy. No lost soul may after death enter heaven.
HE
PRAYS AGAIN
Mark what he accepts that his own case is without remedy. "I pray thee
therefore Father" i.e., since no help can come to me.
Mark what he remembers: "I have five brothers in yonder world," not
yet forever lost.
Mark what he implies: It is as if he said, "I am now at last concerned for
their future. I am now troubled at the thought of my influence over them. They
looked to me as the head of the family. They imbibed my spirit. They endorsed
my business maxims. They are following in my footsteps. I hear them coming!
They are under my delusions. They are nearing the boundary line of death. I am
in great anguish already, but if they come here my anguish will be greater, my
hell enlarged. Then, must I eternally remember that my influence dragged them
here. Oh, my brothers! My brothers! I cannot myself return to warn them. Hell's
restrictions forbid. I am in prison, in everlasting chains."
Mark what he prays for: "Send Lazarus to my father's house." Ah! He
needs again the friendship and service of Lazarus. Send him for what?
"That he may testify unto them; lest they also come into this place of
torment." Let us suppose that the testimony was permitted. He comes to the
house he so well remembers, the house whose portals were shut against him in
time when he was in need. He obtains an audience. "I am Lazarus, who died
unpitied and unhelped at your gate. From that very gate angels carried my soul
to recline at the banquet with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of
heaven, while you were carting off my body and rattling my bones in a pauper's
grave. In that glorious place and company we heard a voice from hell, the voice
of your brother in torment. That voice said, 'Send Lazarus to my father's house
to testify to the reality, certainty, and eternity of the heaven and hell in
which they do not believe, and to tell my brothers not to come to this place of
torment.' So here I am, risen from the dead, with testimony and message from
the eternal world. I testify that I saw your brother lost forever, and bring
you his very words." But be was not permitted.
The answer: "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them."
That is, they have light enough. God's written inspired Word is sufficient. Or,
as teaches Paul: Every one of these holy writings is God-inspired and is
profitable for teaching what one should believe or do, and for convicting one
of any error in belief or deed, and for correcting the error of belief or deed,
and for training one into right belief or deed that one should be complete,
thoroughly equipped for every good work. What more light is needed?
THE DESPERATE
PERSISTENCE of A LOST SOUL
"Nay, father Abraham: but if one go to them from the dead, they will
repent." Ah! The incorrigible blindness and delusions of the lost! They
keep on affirming that they need more light, when what they need is an eye to
see the light and a heart to walk in the light. If our God's light be hid, it
is hid to them whom the god of this world has blinded. Their condemnation is, that
light has come into the world, but they love darkness rather than light because
their deeds are evil. All whose deeds are evil hate the light and shun it.
The final answer: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will
they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead." This very Moses suffered
not a wizard, witch, necromancer, or soothsayer to live, because they taught
the people that messages from the dead could be obtained throwing more light on
the other world than shines in God's revelation. Isaiah, the most evangelical
of the prophets taught: "And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them
that have familiar spirits and unto the wizards, that chirp and that mutter:
should not a people seek unto their God? On behalf of the living should they
seek unto the dead? To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not
according to this word, surely there is no morning for them" (Isa.
8:19-20).
Now let us impress our minds with a brief restatement of some of its great
doctrines, expressed or implied:
1. At death probation ends, character crystallizes, the constant tendency to
fixedness of type reaches its consummation. This is evident because in all the
Scriptures there is no hint that any man is brought into judgment for speech,
thought, or conduct after death. The final judgment is only on "deeds done
in the body." But if there were probation after death there must needs be
judgment for deeds done out of the body. As the tree falls, so it lies. He that
dies just remains just, and he that dies unjust is raised unjust.
2. There is no half-way stopping place between death and the final place of
happiness or woe. The banquet feast at which Lazarus reclined, leaning his head
on Abraham's bosom, is in "the kingdom of heaven."
The tormenting flame into which the rich man was cast was the real and only
hell for the soul. The body after the resurrection will go to the same place.
It is true that the word in this parable is Hades, not Gehenna. But Hades means
only the invisible world where disembodied spirits go, whether good or bad. The
idea of hell is not in the word Hades, but in the torment and flame into which
the rich man enters, its irretrievable nature and its eternal fixedness. There
is no purgatory from which souls may ascend after purification unto heaven, or
becoming confirmed in wickedness, pass on to hell. Therefore, all prayers for
the dead are without scriptural warrant. Lazarus and Dives each passed at once
without a pause to his final home.
3. No saint or sinner after death can return to earth in behalf of or against
the living. Going from this world to the next, death is passable; returning
from the other world, it is impassable.
All attempts through mediums, necromancers, wizards, and witches or
spirit-rapping is expressly contrary to God's law and does despite to the
sufficiency of God's revelation.
4. We should not pray to the saints, but unto God only. Jesus Christ is the one
Mediator between God and man, and we need no human mediator between ourselves
and Jesus. He is more approachable, more willing to hear than Mary or Peter or
Paul. They are but sinners themselves saved by grace.
The stupendous system of Mariolatry is one of the most blasphemous heresies
ever propagated by priestcraft. The only prayer to a saint in heaven recorded
in the Bible is the prayer of Dives in hell to Abraham, and every request was
denied.
5. We should stand upon the impregnable rock of the Holy Scriptures as the
sufficient means of light in defining creed and deed.
6. Between the saved and lost, from death to eternity, there is a fixed and
impassable gulf. On earth the saved may go to the lost in order to seek their
salvation or the lost may hopefully appeal to the saved for help, but after
death no saved man can pass over to the lost in any kind of helpful
ministration, not even to carry on the tip of one finger a single drop of water
to cool the tongue.
The parable, as a whole, and in all its parts, stresses the thought: Now, not
hereafter, is the day of salvation.
QUESTIONS
1. Where are we in the discussion
of the life of our Lord, generally and particularly?
2. What instruction on
parables precedes the discussion at this point?
3. What books commended on
the parables?
4. What parables constitute the
group which are discussed in this chapter, what was their occasion, and what is
the direct connection of the two last with the preceding ones of the group?
5. What is the purpose of
the parable of the unjust steward?
6. To whom was the parable
of the unjust steward addressed, to whom the parable of Dives and Lazarus, and
what is their common theme?
7. In interpreting these
parables what teaching must .be hedged against; and what is the moral of both?
8. What question is answered
by the parable of the unjust steward?
9. What is the substance of
the story?
10. What are the points
illustrated by our Lord in this parable as it relates to the children of this
world and what is the application?
11. Illustrate the
difference between mere entrance and an abundant entrance into heaven.
12. How is this truth
illustrated in the life of Spurgeon?
13. Give the diagram showing
bow the misuse of money on earth affects the final status in eternity, as
illustrated by the parable of Dives and Lazarus.
14. What three observations
worthy of note relative to the change wrought by their exit from this world?
15. What changes have been
wrought as to possibilities & opportunities each?
16. What does the parable
imply, what does it not teach and what the basis of the implication?
17. Show how the opportunity
came to Dives in this world, illustrate how he disposed of his responsibility
and the reversed state of Dives and Lazarus in eternity.
18. Dives prays, where, to
whom, for what, whose service asked, how much, and what four questions arise
from this prayer?
19. What is the answer to
this prayer and what three laws revealed?
20. What was his second
prayer, what does he accept, what does he remember, and what does he imply?
21. What was the answer,
what the meaning and application?
22. Show the desperate
persistence of a lost soul and what the final answer.
23. What was the teaching of
Moses and Isaiah on this very point?
24. What are the great
doctrines of this parable expressed or implied?
1. Why is it
"impossible but that occasions of stumbling should come"? Answer:
This arises from the sin of man and the domination of the devil.
2. What is the meaning of
"stumbling"? Answer: Sin.
3. What is meant by
"little ones" in v. 2? Answer: Young converts.
4. What law of forgiveness
is 'here stated? Answer: That we must forgive those who repent of their sins
against us. (See author's discussion of this subject in The Four Gospels,
Volume I of this
INTERPRETATION.
5. What kind of faith is
referred to in v. 6 & what its nature? Answer: Miracle-working faith, which
was temporary & passed away with apostolic age.
6. What is the lesson of the
parable on unprofitable servants, and what of the Romanist doctrine to the
contrary notwithstanding? Answer: The lesson here is that we cannot go beyond
God's law in works, and is a strong teaching against the Romanist doctrine of
supererogation.
THE RAISING OF LAZARUS AND ITS RESULTS
Harmony, pages 126-127 and John 11:1-54.
In the preceding chapter we considered, in group, the greatest of the parables;
in this chapter we consider the greatest miracle wrought by our Lord. The
following are the several Greek terms employed by our four historians to
describe or define miracles, particularly these four:
Ergon work, meaning the deed itself. Dunamis power,
expressing the supernatural energy by which the deed was wrought. Teras
miracle, expressing the effect or wonder in the witnesses of the deed. Semeion
sign, expressing the purpose of the deed.
Several times in the New Testament three of these terms occur in the same
connection: "Wonders, signs, powers," (Acts 2:22; 2 Cor. 12:12; 2
Thess. 2:9; Heb. 2:4). There is a propriety of miracles. To illustrate what I
mean by "propriety" I recall substantially from memory a saying of
Horace, found in his Ars Poetica, somewhat to this effect:
"Never, in your story, introduce a god unless there is a necessity for a
god; and when introduced let his words and deeds be worthy of a god."
These words of a heathen not only express a high idea of literary taste, but
embody a principle by which many spurious and silly miracles, both ancient and
modern, may be exposed. We may not, with materialists and atheists, carry this
principle so far as to reject whatever may not be accounted for naturally, and
thus altogether deny the supernatural. In the creation, providence, and history
of this world many occasions have arisen to justify the intervention of God,
and on all these occasions, the speech and deeds, whether mediate or immediate,
have been worthy of God.
It is well to note just here, that no one of the four historians, nor all of
them together, claim to record all the miracles wrought by our Lord, but each
one only so many as comport with the special plan of his own story. On this
point, at the close of his Gospel, John says, "And there are also many
other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I
suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be
written" (21:25). And with special reference to miracles he had just said,
"Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which
are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye may believe that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his
name" (20:30-31). Indeed, apart from his miraculous appearances after his
resurrection, John is led of the Spirit to select and record only seven
miracles. Let the reader prepare a citation from the Harmony, of John's seven
recorded miracles in the order of their occurrence.
Among the miracles recorded, restoration to life, after death, quite naturally
excited the most wonder in the minds of the witnesses; they were truly terata,
wonders. Only three instances of these restorations are specially recorded, and
yet the three represent every grade of restoration: the raising of the little
daughter of Jairus, who had just died; the raising of the widow's son at Nain,
who had been dead longer and was being borne to the tomb; the raising of
Lazarus, who had been in the tomb four days. While the evidences and signs of
death increased with each new case, yet all were equally dead, and the
restoration of the little girl to life, from whose cheek the flush of life had
scarcely faded, called for the exercise of omnipotent power as much as the
restoration of Lazarus, of whom his sister said, "By this time he
stinketh." All these were erga, by the same dunamis, yet the
last was the most wonderful of the terata, and the most significant of
the semeion class.
The reader would do well to read Spurgeon's great sermon on "The Spiritual
Resurrection," based on the analogue of these three graded physical
restorations, and he should also note that neither these New Testament
restorations to life, nor those recorded in the Old Testament, contradict the
scripture that Jesus was, in his resurrection, "the first fruits of them
that slept," since they were not glorified, but died again, but he was
glorified, raised to die no more. I mean by not being glorified in their case,
that mortality did not put on immortality, nor corruption) incorruption, nor
did their natural bodies become spiritual bodies.
We call this the greatest miracle wrought by Jesus, not because it was greater
as a deed, nor greater in its power, but greater as a wonder and a sign.
This miracle is connected with the history of one of the most remarkable
families in the New Testament history. We know nothing of Jairus, nothing of
the widow of Nain, and but little of the family life of many other
beneficiaries of Christ's supernatural power. Here all is different. By a very
few words here and there in the Gospels we are able to see into the very heart
of the little family at Bethany. We know Martha, Mary, and Lazarus as we know
our nearest neighbors in their home life. To bring out the word painting power
of these few and brief references, let the reader look up and note all these
references, in the order of their occurrence in the Harmony, and read an
account of the Bethany family in art, citing the great paintings and by whom.
Biblical critics who deny the intervention of the supernatural, have based an
objection against the credibility of John's account of the raising of Lazarus
on the silence of Matthew, Mark, and Luke concerning so marvelous an event.
They argue that three out of four authors of the memoirs or life of a
distinguished personage could not naturally omit reference to so stupendous a
fact; that an author of Washington's life might as well omit any reference to
the battle of Yorktown. Quite true, they would not naturally omit such
reference. But what about supernatural omission? The strongest proof of their
inspiration lies as much in the fact of what they omit as in what they record.
Here are four historians of one life. Each author from his own independent
viewpoint, and according to an evident plan, writes an account, recording this
and omitting that, and yet preserving unity of plan that gives a perfect
individual portrait of a life. When you arrange the four stories into a
harmony, the united story also forms a natural guidance in the selection and
omission of matter, otherwise the narratives of the four would not fit into
each other with such exactness as to form a combination evidencing as much
plan, unity, and perfection as any one of the parts.
John's account of this miracle makes plain a divine prearrangement of all the
facts with a view to a definite end, the glorification of our Lord. This
central event becomes, from foreordination, a stupendous wonder and sign, upon
which pivot all the subsequent events of his life, including the fact that it
shall bring to a head the long developing malice of his enemies, and
instrumentally bring about the tragedy of the cross, the triumph of his own
resurrection, glorification, and enthronement, and the consequent salvation of
men. The sickness of Lazarus was providential as much as it was natural. It was
not intended to be "unto death," i.e., unto final death. The
restoration to life was predetermined. And it was deliberately delayed to
invest it with every circumstance of publicity, of wonder, of solemnity, of
nearness to Jerusalem, of the presence of such witnesses, friendly and hostile,
and of demonstration of power, so that it would be impossible to ignore it, and
so that it would force alignment for or against him and draw an impassable line
of cleavage between the corrigible and incorrigible, while at the same time
exposing the utter malice of his enemies. From this time on the battle will be
fast and furious. Colossal events, at double-quick, will converge to the great
crisis. The next time he approaches Jerusalem will be the last time. The
appendices to Greenleaf's Testimony of the Evangelists appears first the work
of a learned Jewish rabbi attempting to prove from the Gospels themselves that
Jesus was legally condemned and executed, and, therefore, his people were
innocent of judicial murder; and, second, a reply to the rabbi by Dr. Dupin, a
distinguished French lawyer. Both of them lay stress on the raising of Lazarus
as the pivotal deed of our Lord, which occasioned the high court of the Jews to
determine on his death.
As the text of the familiar story is before us we will consider only such
details as need some explanation beyond what has been set forth in the
introductory remarks:
1. "Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick." This message of the
sisters to our Lord in Perea is an exquisite gem in brevity, simplicity,
pathos, and delicacy. They ask nothing in words, but the message suggests a
prayer, "Lord help us."
2. "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the
Son of God may be glorified thereby." The apostle John seems, more than
others, to recognize the higher purpose of miracles. His comment on the first
miracle is: "This beginning of his signs did Jesus at Cana of Galilee, and
manifested his glory" (John 2:11). So presently he will say to Martha at
the tomb: "Said I not unto thee, that, if thou believedst, thou shouldest
see the glory of God?" Spurgeon has a great sermon on "The Voices
from the Most Excellent Glory," in which the Father attests the Son:
(a) At his baptism when he prayed for the Spirit (Luke 3: 22).
(b) At his transfiguration (Luke 9:35).
(c) On the occasion when the Greeks sought to see him (John 12:20-30).
On all these occasions the Father's voice responded to his prayer. As in this
case the raising of Lazarus for his glory was in answer to his prayer
(11:41-42) and as later in his greatest prayer (John 17:5).
As a pastor visiting the afflicted who were either attributing their troubles
to the cruelty and injustice of God, or to his punitive judgments on account of
special sins, how often have I expounded this passage: "This sickness is
not unto death but to the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified
thereby." It was not the anger of God nor any absence of his love, that
brought this trial on the beloved Bethany family. In like manner we may
judiciously use these other scriptures: "Neither did this man sin, nor his
parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him" (John
9:3). "Those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and killed
them, think ye that they were offenders above all the men who dwell in
Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay" (Luke 13:4).
3. "Are there not twelve hours in the day?" How clearly this
passage teaches that a man cannot die until his work is done, nor malice strike
the beloved of God until he permits! It is a statement of the doctrine of
predestination, and surely the men of this spirit have been the world
conquerors. The Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, Cromwell's Ironsides, the
Scotch-Irish of Londonderry, swarming into Pennsylvania, down the Shenandoah
into Virginia and on into the mountains of the Carolinas, Georgia, Tennessee,
and Kentucky, sending out great spirits here and there like Andrew Jackson and
Stonewall Jackson, together with the Baptist hosts of Texas, who have helped
much to make this Texas a commonwealth of perfect portrait of a life, the
writers supporting and supplementing each other to a degree inexplicable in any
natural way and demonstrating that each of the four was led by super God
these all illustrate the meaning of the passage. I deny not that the Arminians,
particularly the Methodists, have achieved great things in evangelism, but this
they did not by "falling from grace," but by "the perseverance
of the saints" and their doctrine of the power of the Holy Spirit.
4. "Let us also go, that we may die with him." Thomas, the twin,
was indeed slow to believe, a doubter, a man inquiring after explanations,
somewhat pessimistic withal, but he had more pluck and staying power than some
faster and impulsive men.
5. "Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died." The
words of both sisters show both had unfaith. "If thou hadst been
here," as if Jesus had to be physically present to know and to do! So the
nobleman at Capernaum: "Sir, come down ere my child die" (John 4:49).
Not so the centurion of the same city: "Lord, trouble not thyself; for I
am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: wherefore neither thought
I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say the word, and my servant shall be
healed. For I also am a man set under authority, having under myself soldiers:
and I say unto this one, go, and he goeth; and to another, come, and he cometh;
and to my servant, do this, and he doeth it" (Luke 7: 6-8). The
limitations are not in the Lord, but in ourselves. One man will say,
"Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean," questioning the
Lord's willingness, but not doubting his ability. Another says, "If thou
canst do anything, have compassion on us and help us," questioning his ability,
but not his willingness. No wonder to this last Jesus said, "If thou
canst! All things are possible to him that believeth." The "if"
was on the man, not on our Lord.
But we are not yet through with Martha's faith, now great, now small:
"Even now I know that, whatsoever thou shalt ask of God, God will give
thee." This seems to mean, that though Lazarus is dead, Jesus, through
prayer, can bring him back to life. But does it? If so, why does the Lord
continue to probe her heart with questions, and why does she protest against
his command to remove the stone closing the tomb? "Lord, by this time the
body decayeth," so as to provoke the gentle rebuke of Jesus: "Said I
not unto thee, that, if thou believedst, thou shouldest see the glory of
God?" Martha believed indeed that Lazarus would rise again in the
resurrection at the last day, and that Jesus was the Messiah that should come
into the world, but did she believe his positive assertion, in any present
sense, "He that believeth in me, though he die, yet shall he live again?"
And especially may we question her faith in, and the realization of that
stupendous affirmation, that ringing declaration of the Lord's present and
eternal sovereignty over life and death, that supreme claim of divinity that he
was the eternal source and fountain-head of all life: "I am the
resurrection and the life." As in the beginning of his Gospel, John had
said, "In him was life." As he is Lord of the sabbath day so he is
Lord of life and death. Paul grandly puts the thought: "Our Saviour Jesus
Christ, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through
the gospel." "I am the resurrection" now or hereafter; "I
am the life," physical and eternal. "In him," as the source, in
all potentiality, "was life." But what inhered, because of his divine
nature, was unrecognized by men, until brought to light in the gospel.
6. Another declaration of our Lord in this connection staggers faith:
"Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believeth thou
this?" What does it mean? Perhaps some may say, "It means the same as
he that believeth on me hath eternal life," referring to spiritual life,
which is about the same as our doctrine of final perseverance, or, rather,
preservation of the saints; in other words, shall not die the second and eternal
death. The doctrine is sound enough, but would Martha have staggered at that?
She has already avowed her faith in the final salvation of Lazarus. The
question therefore recurs: What does it mean? Does it mean that if one's faith
were strong enough he might be translated without death, as was the case of
Enoch and Elijah, and as will be the case of the living saints at the final
advent of our Lord? These rare cases meet all the conditions of "shall
never die," but can these three exceptional instances square with the
broadness of "Whosoever liveth and believeth in me"1 Then, does it
mean that the "sting of death" is removed from every believer? That
seems hardly large enough to meet the case. "The sting of death is
sin," and Martha would not have doubted so obvious a truth as the
remission of sin to a believer. Doubtless, then, the reader says, "Let the
author himself tell us the meaning." The author, then, disavowing
dogmatism, will tell what, in his opinion, it most probably means. It cannot
mean that every believer will escape dissolution of soul and body. We know it
cannot mean that. And yet it must mean something true of every believer (the
whosoever requires that) which yet is very hard to believe. What I think it
means can best be set forth by reference to an Old Testament type and to an
incident which came under my own observation. When Israel went on a pilgrimage
from bondage in Egypt to the Promised Land, the last barrier to cross was the
river Jordan, which in that sense was typical of Death, the last barrier
between us and the Promised Land. A reference to this typical character of
death appears in the hymn:
On Jordan's stormy banks I stand, And cast a wishful eye To Canaan's fair and
happy land, Where my possessions lie.
Could I but climb where Moses stood, And view the landscape o'er, Not Jordan's
stream, nor death's cold flood, Would fright me from the shore.
Now, it is the purpose of the New Testament gospel light to give every believer
in this world to see a vision of the world to come, surpassing that secured by
the vantage ground of Moses on Nebo. To these people Jordan was a formidable
and dreadful barrier that well might fill them with forebodings. It was at the
flood no bridge, no ferry, naturally impassable. Yet when they reached its
brink, God divided the flood and they passed over dry-shod. Their task was po
more than they had often accomplished, going down one hill and climbing
another. In other words, they crossed the channel, but there was no river
there.
The incident further illustrating the probable meaning is this: In my early
ministry, 1869, I was holding a great meeting under a brush arbor by the
roadside. One day, when about half way through the sermon, I observed a
ramshackle sort of a mover's wagon stop in the road) and through a rent in the
dirty wagon sheet, there looked out at me the most hungry eyed, emaciated,
woebegone, cadaverous face of extreme poverty and suffering I ever saw. Quick
as lightning came the impression to stop my sermon to the crowd and go out and preach
present and eternal salvation to the one sick and despairing man. I yielded at
once to the impression, walked down the aisle, put one foot on the wagon wheel
and, with all my soul, lifted up Christ as a present and everlasting Saviour to
that poor dying man. In one moment he accepted the Lord as his Redeemer and
from the wagon was received into the church. He was so weak that he had to be
baptized sitting in a chair. A few days later I found him dying on the Brazos
in an old Negro cabin, with dirt floor and straw bed. He was already cold to
his elbows and knees. I leaned over him and said, "Brother Bryan, you have
come to the river. But in the name of Jesus I assure you that in the crossing
you'll find no river and no darkness. And now, when you reach it, if God permit
you, give us a token that what I say is true." He merely nodded his head
and seemed to die. We thought him dead. But when I reached over to put my
finger on an eye to close it, he shivered, gasped, raised his head and said, in
jerking words, "Brother Carroll no river all bright," and died.
He found no darkness and the channel was empty.
So awful are the seeming sufferings of the body, the crumbling tenant house,
when the soul is evicted, we find it hard to believe that every Christian finds
no real death, no darkness, only an empty channel all ablaze with the light of
the pillar of fire. We can easily believe that this is so with some bright
cases, but how many of us believe that "Whosoever liveth and believeth
shall never die"?
7. "The Master is here and calleth thee." I heard, if not a great,
yet, a most moving sermon on this text by the noted evangelist, A. B. Earle. He
applied it this way: Every revival is a coming of the Lord to the community.
When it is known that he is present, some, like Martha, rise up immediately and
go forth to meet him; others, like Mary, "still sit at the house,"
intending to do nothing, to whom he sends his preemptory message: "The
Master is here and calleth thee." Then all the Marthas who heard that sermon
went out after the Marys and delivered the message. There was a crowd of
Christians to hear the next sermon.
8. He groaned in the spirit . . . again groaning in himself." In the
margin we find probably a better translation (vv. 33, 38) of the words rendered
"groaned," "groaning." That rendering is, "He was
moved with indignation to himself." To justify preference for the marginal
rendering we must find in each connection something to call forth indignation
on such a solemn occasion. The cause for his first indignation was his seeing
in sharp contrast, Mary's sincere weeping, and the shallow, perfunctory, hired,
hypocritical weeping of the Jews. The cause of the second indignation was the
sceptical insinuation of some of the Jews who said, "Could not this man
who opened the eyes of him that was blind, have caused that this man also
should not die!" He felt the antagonism and malice of their presence. He
knew that part of the Jews present would not believe though one rose from the
dead, and that it would only inflame their hate. They were the men who went
away and reported to the Pharisees what Jesus had done.
9. "Jesus wept." This shortest verse in the Bible (v. 35) expresses
the humanity, tenderness and sympathy of our Lord. He was touched with a sense
of all our infirmities. It has been, by some, regarded as unmanly to weep. But
this standard of manliness is false. The sufferings, the sorrows, and sins of
the world call for tears. Earth's greatest men have manifested their sympathy,
or penitence, or earnestness with tears.
Thomas Moore in the "Peri and Paradise" story of Lalla Rookh makes
the tear of the penitent more potent in opening the gate of paradise than the
last drop of a patriot's blood, or the last sigh of human love. The psalmist
declares: He
that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing seed for sowing, Shall doubtless come
again with joy, bringing his sheaves with him.
PSALM 126:6
The great prophet, Jeremiah, cried, "Oh, that my head were waters, and
mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of
the daughter of my people." Macauley, in his Battle of lvry,
thus speaks of Henry of Navarre: He looked upon the foeman and his glance was stern
and high; He looked upon his comrades and a tear was in his eye.
So Jesus is here indignant at the simulated grief of his foes, and tender
toward Mary. Paul, "even weeping," warned against the enemies of the
cross, and day and night for three years, testified, in tears, to the Ephesians
of the grace of God. elsewhere it is said concerning our Lord that in the days
of his flesh he cried unto God with strong crying and tears and was heard in
that he feared. And his lament over Jerusalem is more touching and pathetic
than David's lament over Absalom:
Did Christ o'er
sinners weep And shall our cheeks be dry? Let floods of penitential grief Burst
forth from every eye.
He wept that we might weep; Each sin demands a tear; In heaven alone no sin is
found And there's no weeping there
10. "Take ye away the stone loose him and let him go" Men could not
raise the dead; Christ did that. But men could remove the stone from the mouth
of the tomb that the Lord might say, "Lazarus, come forth." And when
the dead was raised men could loose him and let him go. They could loose him
from the grave clothes which bound him hand and foot. What men can do the Lord
commands them to do. Two of the most impressive sermons I ever heard on
"Human Instrumentality" were, first, from Dr. Burleson at the
beginning of a meeting on, "Take ye away the stone," the theme,
"What men should do that God might make the dead alive." The other,
at the close of the meeting, by Jesse Thomas, "Loose him and let him
go." The theme of the last was, "Men may be made alive by the power
of God and yet remain bound in grave clothes, unless intelligent friends loose
them from the difficulties that prevent them; though living they are kept from
the activities of life."
Two classes of unbelieving Jews witnessed the resurrection of Lazarus: one
class, open to conviction, and these believed and were saved; the other class,
too blind to see and too full of hate to be melted. These carry the astonishing
news to Jerusalem. The tidings led to a session of the Sanhedrin. No one dared
to deny the fact. They openly confessed it. They feared that all men would
believe on such overwhelming evidence of divine and benevolent power. Something
decisive must now be done, or they would lose "their place." But in
hypocrisy they attribute their malice to concern for the nation. The high
priest in that dreadful years was Caiaphas, and he justified the decision to
put Jesus to death on the ground of political expediency: "It is expedient
for you that one should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish
not."
Concerning this remarkable session of the Sanhedrin, two special things need to
be said:
1. I agree with the rabbi and dissent from Mr. Dupin in believing that this was
a legal meeting of the Sanhedrin, but dissent from the former and agree with
the latter that it did not order the arrest of Jesus, on the alleged ground of
political expediency, but resolved to kill him really from malice and
selfishness. Their determination to put him to death, and the alleged ground of
it, was in his absence; preceded any form of investigation or trial, confessed
the miraculous facts which excited their hate, and so this fixed determination
of the supreme court of their nation, contrary to their own law, was but the
source from which flowed all their subsequent illegal, malicious proceedings
culminating in his judicial murder. There remained only to devise means of
executing their judicial and official purpose, and of rendering him odious to
the people, and for espionage and suborning testimony, and such other
arrangements as would render their wicked deeds plausible and safe to
themselves. Jesus himself, a short time after, showed them plainly, in the parable
of the wicked husbandman, their malicious, murderous purpose, and thereby only
increased the hate and deepened the purpose.
2. A comment of John on the words of Caiaphas is indeed remarkable: "This
he said not of himself: 'but being high priest that year, he prophesied that
Jesus should die for the nation; and not for the nation only, but that he might
gather together in one the children of God that are scattered abroad."
Truly, it was "making the wrath of man to praise him" when Caiaphas,
meaning evil, should be unwittingly constrained to utter such a glorious and
far-reaching truth. The man in his freedom proposed, but God in his sovereignty
disposed. As Joseph's brethren meant evil in selling him, but God meant good in
sending him into Egypt, or as Peter later puts it: "Him being delivered up
by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless
men did crucify and slay"; so, whenever God wills it, a wicked man may
unconsciously prophesy. Whether this prophecy was at that time a function of
the office of high priest, is an interpretation I shall not now consider. But I
do say that the raising of Lazarus was the greatest and most consequential of
all the miracles personally wrought by our Lord.
QUESTIONS
1. What was the greatest
miracle wrought by our Lord?
2. What are the four Greek
words used to define miracles, what are their English equivalents and what do
they severally express?
3. In what four New Testament
passages do we find three of these words used in the same connection and what
are the three words?
4. What is the propriety of
miracles? Illustrate.
5. What danger pointed out
in connection with this illustration?
6. What is the plan of the
four historians relative to the miracles they record and what is the double
testimony of John on this point?
7. What seven miracles
recorded by John and what is the Harmony page and scripture of each?
8. What class of Christ's
miracles naturally excited the most wonder in the minds of the witnesses, what
three of these recorded, and how do they represent every grade of restoration?
9. What sermon commended on
these three miracles? Show how they do not contradict the scripture that Jesus
was in his resurrection "the first fruits of them that slept."
10. In what respect was the
raising of Lazarus the greatest miracle of our Lord?
11. Give the references in
the order of their occurrence in the Harmony, to the family of Mary, Martha,
and Lazarus; give also an account of this family in art, citing the great
paintings and by whom.
12. What objection urged
against the credibility of John's Gospel based on the silence of the synoptic
Gospels concerning this marvelous events, and what the reply?
13. Show how, by
foreordination, the raising of Lazarus becomes the pivot of all the subsequent
events of our Lord's life.
14. What does the message of
the sisters, "Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick," suggest?
15. How does John, more than
others, seem to recognize the higher purpose of miracles (John 11:4; 2:11),
what sermon commended on this thought, and what the application of 11:4 by the
author?
16. What is the teaching of
"are there not twelve hours in the day"? Illustrate.
17. What trait of Thomas
here revealed?
18. What does the statement
by both sisters, "Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not
died," show?
19. What other instances of
a similar nature referred to and what instances in contrast?
20. What did Martha mean by
"Even now I know that, whatsoever thou shalt ask of God, God will give
thee"?
21. What is the meaning of
"whosoever liveth and believeth in. me shall never die"?
22. What is the application
of "The Master is here and calleth thee"?
23. What is the meaning of
"He groaned in the spirit . . . again groaning in himself," and what
in the context to justify the meaning in each case?
24. What does "Jesus
wept" express, is it unmanly to weep, what of Thomas Moore's testimony,
the psalmist's testimony, Jeremiah's testimony, Macaulay's testimony, Paul's
testimony, and what other illustrations from the life of our Lord?
25. What is the meaning and
application of each of these expressions, "Take ye away the stone"
and "Loose him and let him go"?
26. What two classes of Jews
witnessed the raising of Lazarus, what did the second class do and the results?
27. What two special things
concerning the meeting of the Sanhedrin. discussed by the author?
THE TEN LEPERS; WHEN AND WHERE OF THE
KINGDOM; THE PARABLE OF PRAYER FOR JUSTICE
Harmony, pages 128-129 and Luke 17:11 to 18:8.
This section commences on page 128 of the Harmony and includes three subjects:
1. The healing of the ten lepers
2. The when and the where of the kingdom and the king
3. The parable of the prayer for Justice
On the page immediately preceding this section we learn that "Jesus
therefore walked no more openly among the Jews, but departed thence into the
country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim; and there he
tarried with the disciples." That Ephraim is in the northern part of
Judea. The first verse of the section says, "And it came to pass, as they
were on their way to Jerusalem, that he was passing along the borders of
Samaria and Galilee." The question naturally arises: Why did not Jesus,
being in Judea, go straight back to Jerusalem, why did he go through Samaria
and a part of Galilee, both north of him, in order to get to Jerusalem south of
him? The answer is: Jesus in making this last visit to Jerusalem wishes to fall
in with the pilgrim throng from Galilee attending the Passover near at hand,
and this pilgrim throng would not pass through Samaria to go to Jerusalem, but
would cross the Jordan and pass through Perea to Jericho and thence to
Jerusalem, the object being to avoid Samaria. The Samaritans were very hostile
to all Jews going south to the feasts, but hospitable to them going north,
because they claimed that theirs was the true temple in Mount Gerizirn.
THE TEN LEPERS
In John 20-21, we have these two passages: "And there are also many other
things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I
suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be
written" (John 21:2&); and, "Many other signs therefore did Jesus
in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these
are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and
that believing ye may have life in his name" (John 20:30-31).
In other words, the inspiration of God leads each historian to record, not
everything that Jesus said and did, but just such things as fall in with his
plan and viewpoint, leaving the combined histories to show a larger plan.
Therefore, when we come to consider this healing of the ten lepers we first
compare it with the passage on page 31 of the Harmony, where Matthew, Mark, and
Luke give an account of the healing of one leper in the early Galilean
ministry. I have already discussed all the general features of leprosy, so it
remains now to consider only the distinguishing features of the two passages,
which are these:
There, on page 31 of the Harmony, only one leper is healed, and here ten.
There, the leper was near at hand and was healed by a touch; here the ten
lepers are afar off, in speaking distance however, and are healed by a word.
There, the healing of one leper was instantaneous; as soon as Christ touched
him he was healed. Here the healing of the ten lepers is as they were going
away obeying what he told them to do.
There, the healer enjoins silence on the healed because he didn't want to
spring prematurely on the unbelieving Jews the claims of his messiahship lest
their hostility should hinder the laying of the foundations of his kingdom and
the preparation of his disciples. But here no silence is enjoined.
Apart from these distinctions of the two lessons, we now note these special
things:
1. Leprosy, as it outlaws a Jew, unites him in association with the Samaritan.
One of these ten was a Samaritan. On account of the religious jealousies, only
a great calamity upon all could associate them. We often see in life that the
people who scratch and fight in the days of prosperity become bedfellows in the
day of adversity.
2. One reason for recording a second healing .of lepers is to show the
exceptional gratitude of one of the recipients of the divine mercy. Jesus
healed all the ten. One of them, feeling himself to be healed, rushed back and
prostrated himself at the feet of Jesus and returned thanks and glorified God.
Hence comes the great text from which many preach: "Where are the
nine?" Ten were healed. Only one is grateful, which leads to another
reason.
3. Both the judgments and mercies of God are given to lead to salvation. Paul
says that the goodness of God leadeth to repentance. Now only one out of the
ten who received this goodness, physical healing, was led to spiritual healing,
and that one was a Samaritan. Nine Jews, one Samaritan. The one, following the leading
of the divine mercy, is saved saved spiritually as he had been saved
physically. The nine were saved physically, but no hint of their spiritual
salvation is given.
When any great trouble or any great blessing comes upon us we should stop right
there and ask ourselves the question, What is the shortest road from this
trouble or blessing to God? What did he mean by it, to me?
He meant good of some kind. He always means good. But some people both
judgments and mercies harden. Leprosy was regarded as a special divine
judgment, and its healing a divine mercy. Therefore, both the affliction and
its cure should turn the mind toward God. In order that we may get vividly
before us the fearful nature of leprosy and the blessedness of its cure, we
should study the case of Job. His affliction was leprosy. The account in Ben
Hur of Christ's healing his leprous mother and sister, and N. P.
Willis' great poem on the healing of the leper are worthy of note.
This part of our discussion is given by Luke alone (17:20-37). In the beginning
of the paragraph the Pharisees ask, "When is the kingdom of God?" At
the close the disciples ask, "Where, Lord?" So that this paragraph is
an answer to two questions, "When" and "Where?"
If we turn to our Lord's great prophecy on page 160, we find a similar
question, last part of the third verse in Matthew and corresponding places in
Mark and Luke: "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the
sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" Mark says, "Tell
us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things
are all about to be accomplished?" And Luke puts it: "Teacher, when
therefore shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things
are about to come to pass?" Again, on page 229 of the Harmony, near the
bottom, Acts l:6f, "They therefore, when they were come together, asked
him, saying, Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? And he
said unto them, It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father
hath set within his own authority." So, that first question is, When? It
is the most natural question that comes to the mind. Jesus is talking about the
judgment, about his final coming. They say, "When, Lord? Will it probably
be tomorrow, or next week, or next year?" In both ancient and modern times
experts have not been wanting to answer that question, When? But notice that
Jesus does not answer it. So we, when we preach, may safely imitate our Lord.
I heard an old Negro preacher say to an ambitious young Negro preacher,
"My young brother, don't you be cocksure about the time the Lord is going
to come." The Lord himself said that the angels in heaven did not know it,
that no man knew it, not even the Son of man, Jesus himself, as far as his
humanity was concerned. Of course, he knew it in his divinity. The Pharisees
asked when the kingdom of God should come.
Now notice how he replies to questions of that kind. He says, "The kingdom
of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo, here! or,
there! for, lo, the kingdom of God is within you." To Pilate he said,
"My kingdom is not of this world." Paul says that the kingdom of
heaven is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy
Spirit. In other words, instead of being curious as to dates, we should be
concerned as to the spiritual nature of the kingdom, and our preparedness for
it.
There was a kingdom set up and it was a visible kingdom, but the spiritual
nature of the kingdom should concern us, and our preparedness for it, far more
than to know the date. Keeping in mind the question asked by the Pharisees, he
then turns to the disciples and begins to talk about the final coming of the
Lord: "The days will come, when ye shall desire. to see one of the days of
the Son of man, and ye shall not see it." In other words, many sad things
must intervene. "You will be discouraged at the delay of your vindication.
You will be outcasts, persecuted, put to death, so that the souls of the saints
under the altar will be crying out, 'How long, Master, the holy and true, dost
thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?' " So
his answer here and elsewhere puts the When a long way off. Likewise as to the
place, in answering the question, Where? Pay no attention to men's "Lo,
here, and Lo, there." The Millerites in the United States were wiser than
the Lord. They appointed a date for the Lord to come and a place from which
they were to ascend to heaven. He warns against such folly. When that day
comes, it will advertise itself. As a flash of lightning from one end of heaven
to the other, in a moment of time, so will be the coming of the Son of man.
There will be no need of human heralds to say, "Lo, here, and Lo,
there." Here and elsewhere many times, the New Testament teaches and warns
that the necessary intervening things must precede his coming. Here he says,
"But first must he suffer many things and be rejected of this
generation." In this great discourse on this subject, to be considered
later, he warns: "The end is not yet . . . famines and earthquakes . . .
are the beginning of travail." Paul, in the letter to the Thessalonians,
rebukes them for expecting the advent to come right away. He says that it cannot
be until first the great apostasy comes, and the revelation of the man of sin.
In other words, it comes at an appointed time.
It is not true that the final advent and general judgment may come tomorrow or
next day that it is always imminent.
Likewise, Peter explains the delay of the coming of the Son of man when they
were saying, "Where is the promise of his coming?" i.e., "He
said he was coming quickly and he has not come." He explains that God's
delay is in order to the salvation of the lost; that we must reckon that the
long delay of his coming meaneth salvation, i.e., he delays his final advent in
order to save men, for after he comes nobody will be saved. This section does
teach, however, that the coming will be sudden and that the wicked will be
unprepared. It will be as in the days of Noah. Noah for 120 years had been
preaching righteousness and telling them the flood was coming; at first, he may
have attracted some attention, but after awhile they got to laughing at him,
doubtless joked the old man for spending all that money building that huge old
tub of a ship, and on the very last day the sun was shining as brightly as it
ever shone, the wedding bells were ringing, people were marrying and giving in
marriage, eating and drinking. The likeness of his advent to the days of Noah
does not consist in the relative number of the saved and lost. Our passage does
not mean that as there were only eight people saved at the deluge, so only a
few Christians will be on the earth at the coming of Christ, as some
premillennialists insist on preaching, but the likeness is in the suddenness of
the event and in the unpreparedness of the wicked. Similarly he compares the
advent on these points, with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot, a
preacher of righteousness, was vexed in his soul at their wickedness. They did
not repent and reform, so the very day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained
fire and brimstone from heaven and those cities were buried under the Dead Sea.
So, to the unprepared wicked the advent will be sudden. The great point of the
passage is that there will be no chance to get ready after the coming. A man on
the housetop has no time to go back into the house to get anything. If he is
out in the field he cannot go back home. Whereover a man may be or in what
engaged (he may be asleep; he may be traveling), when that great shout and the
sound of the trumpet come, the preparation is ended forever.
This scripture teaches clearly that it will be a time of separation very
unexpected and startling separation. The very day that Christ comes two women
will be grinding at a mill, one will be taken and the other left; two men will
be in the field, plowing, grubbing, or harvesting, and in one flash of the eye
one will be translated and caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord, and the
other will be left. Nothing that has ever happened on this earth will equal the
suddenness and sharpness of this separation: "When the Son of man shall
come . . . he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth
the sheep from the goats." The father may be placed on the left, and the
mother on the right; the daughter on the left, and the son on the right.
Now comes the disciples' question, Where, Lord? "When he comes, to what
place is he coming?" Man's questions are, When is it? Where is it? As he
answered the When, so here, the Where: "Where the body is, thither will
the eagles also be gathered together." He will not tell whether the place
be Jerusalem or London or New York or Texas, but "wheresoever the carcass
is, there will the eagles be gathered."
This is a lesson on prayer. If the reader will take the Harmony and go through
it on the subject of prayer, first, as to Christ praying, and what he prayed
for; second, Christ's lessons on prayer, what he taught concerning it, he will
be wonderfully impressed by these prayers of Jesus.
Here are two of his prayer lessons. The first connects right back with his
advent-teaching just discussed, that is, the relation of the prayers of his
people to their vindication at his advent.
Because of this connection we must not construe the words, "Men ought
always to pray, and not to faint," as being equal to Paul's exhortation,
"Praying without ceasing." Paul gives an exhortation concerning prayer
in general, but this parable refers to praying for one particular thing. The
idea here is that Christians ought to keep on praying that Jesus would
vindicate them, avenge them on their adversaries and not become discouraged at
his long delay.
This idea he illustrates by a story of how one on earth, persisted in her plea
for justice, before a human court, until her wrongs were righted. Her
persistence until successful under far more unfavorable conditions than those
surrounding a Christian, constitutes the point of the story.
The judge before whom she pleads is far less approachable, far less disposed to
hear, than the Judge to whom the Christian prays for vindication. The argument
is, that by just so much as our Judge is better than the woman's judge, on all
the points of contrast, by just that much the Christian should be encouraged to
pray in faith, and to keep on praying, nothing doubting.
But though this argument makes it certain that God will at last avenge the
wrongs of his people, yet as faith in long deferred vengeance is difficult to
impatient people, will the Lord at his coming find that faith on earth?
In general this is the idea of the parable. But let us note somewhat in detail
the points of contrast between the human and the divine Judge. In both cases it
is the office of the judge to right wrongs, to dispense justice. The Mosaic law
sternly requires every judge to acquit the innocent and condemn the guilty and
particularly enjoins him to protect the widow and the orphan from oppression.
But this judge was unjust. The plea for justice did not move him. This judge
cared nothing for widows. He was not concerned to protect the helpless. Usually
the fear of God hereafter influences men to do right in time. But this man
feared not God. He was an atheist. Usually deference to public opinion somewhat
constrains men to do right. But this judge "regarded not man." The
case seemed hopeless. But the woman kept on crying out: "Avenge me of my
adversary." Every day she appeared in the court and renewed her plea:
"I am a widow. I have been wronged. You are the judge. Avenge me of my
adversary." Perhaps she waylaid him on the streets or followed him home
and stood under his window, if the door was shut in her face, all the time,
everywhere crying out, "Avenge me of my adversary," and so at last
she found the one and only way to reach him. He loved himself and his ease, or
feared danger to his person from a desperate woman, and therefore righted her
wrongs.
But God is just; God loves his people. They are his elect. God has promised to
right their wrongs. Therefore, shall not God avenge his own elect who
continually, day and night, pray unto him, though he delay long to avenge? He
will avenge them speedily, though not as we count speedily. Nevertheless, when
the Son of man cometh to avenge them, so long has he delayed to come, and so
impatient are they, and so sick from hope deferred, will he find that faith on
the earth? Not, Will he find faith on earth, but that faith, faith in his
speedy vengeance on their enemies, not saving faith in Christ. Indeed, not even
faith that he will ultimately avenge them, but faith in his speedy vengeance,
ten pistin, "that faith." The article has all the force of a
demonstrative pronoun. It designates a particular kind of faith. The difficulty
in the way of exercising that particular faith lies in the two ways of
understanding "speedily." He promised to come quickly. But men
construe the "speedily" and "quickly" from their idea of
the meaning of the words. But God construes them from his idea of the meaning.
With him a thousand years are as one day. So when he said, "speedily"
and "quickly," though eighteen centuries have passed away, that is
less than two of our days to him.
Bulwer, in his drama of Richelieu, represents that great cardinal as scornful
of future judgments, to whom Annie of Austria replies: "The Almighty, my
lord cardinal, does not pay every week, but at last He pays." The German
poet, Von Logau, well says: The mills of God grind slowly, But they grind exceeding small. Though
with patience He stands waiting With exactness grinds He all.
All our premillennial friends should restudy on the "quickly Peters
great argument on this point (2 Peter 3), and no longer allow their
misconception of Luke 7:26;18:8 to fill them with pessimistic views concerning
the progress of the kingdom and the fewness of Christians on earth at the
coming of our Lord.
QUESTIONS
1. Why did Jesus go through
Samaria and Galilee, which were north of him, on. his way to Jerusalem?
2. What was the cause of the
hostility of the Samaritans toward the Jews?
3. What two passages in John
bearing on inspiration, and the individual plan and viewpoint of the several
historians?
4. What did inspiration lead
each historian to record?
5. What method, therefore,
is adopted in the study of the healing of ten lepers?
6. What are the
distinguishing features of the healing of the one leper and the healing of the
ten?
7. What three special things
noted?
8. What great text for a
sermon in this connection and what is the point of application?
9. How was leprosy and its
healing regarded in that day?
10. What Old Testament case
of leprosy cited and what are the points of its illustration?
11. In what country was
leprosy most prevalent?
12. What two instances of
the healing of leprosy in current literature cited?
13. What two questions does
Luke 17:2&-37 answer?
14. What were the similar
questions which brought forth "the great prophecy" of our Lord?
15. What similar question
just before our Lord's ascension and what was his answer?
16. How does Christ answer
the question, "When the kingdom of God"?
17. What should be our
principal concern as to the kingdom?
18. What statement of our
Lord here puts the when a long way off, and what does it mean?
19. What illustration given
of the foolishness of appointing the date and place of our Lord's coming?
20. What of the warning of
Christ against such folly?
21. According to Christ,
what must first take place?
22. According to Paul, what?
23. What was Peter's
explanation of our Lord's delay?
24. What two Old Testament
illustrations cited by our Lord?
25. In what does the
likeness of the coming of our Lord to the days of Noah consist, negatively and
positively?
26. What of the likeness to
the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?
27. What is the great point
of the passage?
28. What illustrations given
by our Lord of the startling separations that will take place at his coming?
29. What was Christ's answer
to the question, "Where"?
30. What is the lesson of
the parable of the importunate widow and how does it connect back with his
advent teaching?
31. What is the principal
idea in this parable?
32. Repeat the story of the
widow and the judge. What is the point of the story?
33. What is the argument of
the parable?
34. What is the relation of
this argument to faith?
35. What are the points of
contrast between the human and divine Judge?
36. What faith is mentioned in
this parable and what is the difficulty in exercising it?
37. What is the meaning of
"avenge them speedily"?
38. What is Bulwer's
illustration of this?
39. What is Von Logau's?
40. What misconception of
Luke 17:26; 18:8 here cited and what u the result of such interpretation?
PARABLE OF THE PHARISEE AND THE PUBLICAN;
THE LAW OF MARRIAGE, AND DIVORCE; THE CASE OF THE LITTLE CHILDREN
Harmony, pages 129-131 and Luke 18:9-17; Matthew 19:1-15;
Mark 10:1-16.
Our last section closed with the prayer for vengeance or justice, called the
prayer of the importunate widow. Over against that we have a prayer for mercy,
not for justice. Nothing in any language, in so short a space, conveys such
clear ideas of prayer as this parable, both negatively and positively
negatively, in that the prayer offered by the Pharisee is not prayer at all.
Let us see if we can find any petition in it: "The Pharisee stood and
prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as the rest of men,
extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican." No petition
there. "I fast twice in the week." No prayer there. Neither in form
nor in spirit is that a petition. Truly does the text say, "And prayed thus
with himself." He is simply congratulating himself upon his superiority
over other people and his absolute need of nothing.
The other prayer, how different! "Standing afar off"; he does not
feel that he can come close to God. "Would not lift up so much as his eyes
unto heaven." There is utter absence of presumption, "but smote his
breast," as if there in his heart was the seat of his trouble,
"saying [now we come to the prayer], God, be merciful to me the
sinner." How few the words, how expressive each word and how more
expressive the conjunction of the words! "Ho theos, hilastheti mm toi
hamartolm," "God, be propitious to me the sinner." Mark the
elements of this great prayer:
First, there is an evidence of contrition for sin. The Holy Spirit had convicted
him of sin, and now he exercises contrition. In receiving members into the
church I often put this question to them, "Did you ever realize that you
were a sinner?" I had one man to answer me by saying he never did feel
like he was a sinner. Then I asked him what need he had for a Saviour.
The second element is humility. The parable has this application: "Every
one that exalteth himself [as that Pharisee did], shall be humbled, but he that
humbleth himself [as that publican], shall be exalted." So that the second
element of power in this prayer is the deep humility. He did not trust in
himself that he was righteous. He did not despise others.
The third element is the sense of helplessness. He comes for something that he
can't secure by tithing or fasting. He stands there contrite, humble, helpless.
The fourth element of his prayer is the earnestness manifested in going right
to the heart of the matter in the fewest words. There is not only the absence
of anything perfunctory in this petition, but there is directness and
earnestness. When I was studying Latin my teacher called my attention to this
distinction between the Latin language and the English, viz., that the Latin
language always puts the main word first, and the illustration used was this: We
say in English, "Give me fruit," and the Latin says, "Fructum
do mihi," "Fruit give to me." So this prayer gets at the
very heart of the matter with a directness and simplicity that has never been
surpassed and seldom, if ever, equalled.
The fifth element that we note is that it is a prayer of faith, evidenced by
the word employed, hilastheti in the Greek. The hilasterion is
the mercy seat where the atonement is made and hence asking God to be
propitious is exactly the same as saying, "God be merciful to me through a
sacrifice; be propitious to me through the atonement." That shows it to be
a clear case of faith, which is further evidenced by the result: This man went
down to his house justified and not the other. We are justified by faith. We do
not get to justification except through faith. God's mercy has appointed a
propitiation for sin and with that propitiatory sacrifice atonement was made on
the mercy seat. So the one word hilastheti expresses every thought in
the "be propitious to me through the atonement," and hence it is the
prayer of faith, and justification follows it.
The next section of this discussion gives us Christ's teaching concerning divorce,
and also concerning the expediency of not marrying. There are two elements in
the discussion: The lesson on divorce, if one be married, and the lesson on the
expediency of not getting married if one be single.
The heart of the lesson is presented in the following language: "Have ye
not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,
and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall
cleave to his wife; and the twain shall become one flesh?" (Matt. 19:4f).
Now, that is the great law of marriage as instituted by the Father himself when
he created the world, when he first made man, when he himself performed the
first marriage ceremony. That constitutes the law of marriage. "They
twain, saith he, shall become one flesh" (1 Cor. 6:16). It contemplates
such a complete unity that there is in it no idea even of separation. That
being the law in the beginning, the question comes up, Why did Moses, an
inspired man, allow in his legislation divorce for a number of causes? Jesus
says that on account of their hardness of heart Moses did that. In other words,
they had been slaves for a long time, just as the Negroes have been here in the
South. What low ideas of marriage those slaves had and have yet! These Israelites
were but little prepared for the enforcement of a high moral standard. The
original law was not changed nor its high ideal standard withdrawn. Whatever
evil custom his people had adopted from heathen nations, such as divorce,
polygamy and slavery, which were rooted too deep for immediate and complete
eradication, these he modifies in his practical legislation, softening their
asperities, restricting their evil, while always upholding in theory a pure,
ideal standard, whose principles ever tend to eliminate the evil altogether.
Moses prescribed no law on divorce, slavery, or polygamy that did not
ameliorate the evils of these deep-rooted customs. And we must distinquish
between the moral law inculcated by Moses and his civic regulations. The moral
law standard was never lowered. It was absolutely perfect. But he was also the
head of a nation, a political entity, and must needs legislate on civil,
criminal, sanitary, and other matters.
This legislation was as high in its moral tone as they were able to bear. He
did not proscribe divorce, but mitigated its existing evils. Men already were
putting away their wives. He regulated the evil by requiring a bill of
divorcement, which was some protection to the divorced and their children. On
account of their hardness of heart and unpreparedness for better things he
suffered them to retain the custom of divorce for the time being, while all the
time teaching moral principles that tended to the utter eradication of the
evil. A critical examination of the Mosaic civil and criminal law makes evident
to an unprejudiced mind that all his statutes on existing social evils elevated
the standard far above the prevalent custom, and never lowered it. If he
suffered divorce while hedging against its evils, he did not approve it. But
when the question was put to our Lord, "Is it lawful for a man to put away
his wife for every cause" he promptly set forth the primal law of marriage
for all men; for man, as man, in the creation, long anterior to Moses and the
civil law of the Jews. Instead of its being lawful for a man to put away his
wife for every cause, be acknowledged only one justifiable cause, viz.,
infidelity to the marriage vow. The husband alone had title to the body of the
wife and the wife alone to the body of the husband. An offense against this
authority justified absolute divorce, for thereby was the unity of "one
flesh" broken. But even this did not operate ipso facto. The one
wronged might forgive and not legally plead the offense. It is always lawful to
forgive, as God, married to his people, oftentimes does forgive spiritual
adultery.
These two spheres of law, civil and moral, together with the prevalence of
social customs, cause, for Christian people, many vexations and hard problems.
Our missionaries today in heathen lands confront these problems, in dealing
with new converts. Paul confronted them in the heathen city of Corinth in his
day. Many slaves, many from the dregs of society, many polygamists, many liars,
thieves, and murderers were converted, many with loose ideas of purity and of
family sanctity. He could not regulate the state, but what should the church
do? What must be the stand of preachers and churches in relation to members of
the church in matters of discipline? On these problems the letters to the Corinthians
constitute a mine of instruction. It was there that a new question came to the
front, a question not of absolute divorce, but of legal separation. Suppose a
heathen man becomes a Christian and his wife on that account leaves him? Or,
because the wife becomes a Christian her husband abandons her? Paul's reply is:
"If the unbelieving departeth, let him depart: the brother or sister is
not in bondage [rather, enslaved] in such cases" (1 Cor. 7:15).
Here arises a question of interpretation upon which Christian theologians
differ, and even the discipline of churches differ. The question is, Do Paul's
words fairly teach that abandonment of the other, by husband or wife, justifies
absolute divorce or merely separation a mensa et toro? And if it justifies
absolute divorce, then since abandonment may be "for every cause,"
does not this interpretation put Paul in direct conflict with our Lord,, who
justifies divorce for only one cause? Even if one insists on limiting Paul's
words to the one course of abandonment on religious grounds, it yet makes two
justifiable grounds of absolute divorce, whereas our Lord taught but one.
The author believes that Paul's words, "is not in bondage in such
case," mean only, "is not in bondage" to so much of the marriage
bond as the abandonment necessarily renders impracticable. That is, is not in
bondage to live with, to provide for, and like things. But in 1 Corinthians
7:11 Paul settles the question by quoting our Lord to the effect that cases of
abandonment do not permit remarriage. This seems further evident from Paul's
later statement in the same connection: "A wife is bound for so long a
time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be
married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (1 Cor. 7:39). This reaffirms
the primal law limited only by our Lord's one exception (see Matt. 19). We must
also note the difference in Paul's words. In 1 Corinthians 7:15 the word is
"enslaved," but in v. 30 the word is "bound." To sum up:
1. Death breaks the marriage bond and leaves the survivor free to marry.
2. Divorce on the ground of adultery leaves the innocent party free to marry.
3. Abandonment frees the abandoned one from so many of the marital duties as it
necessarily renders impracticable, but confers no privileges. Therefore, there
may be separation a mensa et thora on other grounds than adultery, but
no privilege of remarriage.
I urge, with insistent emphasis, on the reader, particularly the preacher, to
immediately supply himself with Dr. Alvah Hovey's little book, The Law of
Divorce, because the divorce question is much to the front. When I
conducted the "Query Column" of the Baptist Standard, more
queries on divorce came to me than on all other matters put together. It is 80
now in letters asking for advice.
The civil divorce mill is grinding day and night. Divorces are granted by the
courts for almost every cause. The sanctity of the family is continually
violated and children put to open shame by their parents and by the law. The
public conscience on marriage and purity in this country is debauched to the
ancient heathen level, and in some respects below it, and even below the mating
of the brutes which perish.
The churches all over the land are staggered with the perplexing problems of
discipline and in fear of libel laws. Three imperative duties devolve upon us:
1. We must as citizens seek to reform the civil divorce laws.
2. We must as churches maintain a Christ standard on the reception of members
and on discipline. No matter what the complications or hardships in a given
case, the church suffers more in receiving or retaining them than it gains by
their membership. Their membership gags the pulpit, and commends the example of
sin to the young.
3. We must as preachers refuse to officiate at marriages which violate divine
law.
In addition to the more vital matters just considered it may not be amiss
before we leave the subject of marriage to call your attention to the import of
these words of our Lord: "For this cause shall a man leave his father and
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife." We generally construe it the
other way: The bride must leave her father and mother and cleave unto her
husband. If we put emphasis upon the "his" it would mean that it is
better for the groom to live with his father-in-law than to take his bride to
his father's home. The reasons would be obvious. The wife's life being indoors
and the husband's outdoors, it would entail greater hardship on her to live
with his mother than for him to live with her mother. He would not be, in his
outdoor field, subordinate to her mother; but her sphere, being indoors, would
make her subordinate to his mother.
But doubtless the meaning is that both bridegroom and bride, having now become
a family unit, should each leave the old home and strike out together for
themselves. Neither marries the family of the other. Both want a home of their
own in which no outsider is boss. They must be free to live their own life,
unhampered by each other's relatives. Living with her father reflects on his
manhood. Living with his mother breaks her heart. If marriage means to her only
subordination to somebody's mother, naturally she would prefer her own. Let
them visit occasionally each other's family, but not dwell; and let not the
parents of either side interfere.
Let the reader particularly note that while nearly all the scriptures on this
subject speak of the man's putting away his wife, yet Mark 10:12 expressly
applies the law to a woman's putting away her husband. So Paul, in 1
Corinthians 7, applies it to both parties. Because of the importance of the
subject, we must take time to expound one other word, "fornication."
Some expositors contend that this term can refer only to unchastity before
marriage, therefore no offense after marriage justifies divorce. The position
is wholly untenable on three grounds:
1. The Greek word porneia is a general term, not limited to unchastity
before marriage. This is the verdict of most scholars. This abundantly appears
from classical, biblical, and later usage by great scholars. The term is
applied to married people in the noted case in-1 Corinthians 5: 1ff. The
corresponding Hebrew word is always employed figuratively to denote Israel's
unfaithfulness to Jehovah, her husband. Dr. John A. Broadus, one of the greatest
Greek scholars in American history, cites Amos 7:17; Ezekiel 23:5; Numbers
5:19f; Hosea 3:3, and many passages from great Greek scholars and theologians,
including Dion, Cassius, Chrysostom, Origen, and notes that the Peshito Syriac
translates this very passage by "adultery." The reason for the
general term is to include un chastity during betrothal, as well as adultery
after marriage is consummated. (See supposed case in Matthew 1:18-19.)
2. The limitation of the meaning to unchastity before marriage would give most
married women and multitudes of married men a scriptural ground for divorce.
Divorces would be disastrously multiplied.
3. The limitation is absurd, opposed to sound principles of common sense and law.
Nations hold each other responsible for violations of treaties after they are
made, not before. Married people cannot reasonably dissolve the bonds of
marriage for offenses before the marriage or the engagement to marry. Contracts
do not bind before made or the pledge to make.
Here it is important to note what the disciples said: "If the case of a
man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry." What does this
mean? It means, if marriage is so binding as our Lord had just stated, if only
one extreme offense justifies divorce, then it is not expedient to marry at
all. The "so" refers directly back to Christ's statement of the
binding power of marriage on both man and wife. Many commentators attach a
delicate meaning to the word "so" and interpret it as if it read:
"If the case be so with a single man, it is not expedient for him to
marry." But there is nothing in their statement touching single men. They
say, rather: "If the case of the man is so with his wife [i.e., as Christ
has just de~ dared], then marriage at all is inexpedient." To them this
was one of Christ's "hard sayings." In other words, they thought his
teaching here, as at other times, put a man in too tight a place. This shows
that the disciples shared the general Jewish view that a man might put away his
wife for every cause, otherwise marriage was not desirable; concubinage would
be preferable. That this is the meaning of their statement further appears from
the "but" with which Jesus commences to refute their statements.
"But" indicates opposition to the preceding clause. Instead of citing
instances of inexpediency to confirm and illustrate their general statement, he
cites certain exceptional cases to which alone their inexpediency would apply.
In effect affirming that in all ordinary cases men and women ought to marry,
notwithstanding the stringency of the marriage bond. We come then to these
exceptional cases where marriage is inexpedient:
1. Natural disqualifications, whether congenital or from violence or from
accident. This would include physical and mental cases, or those subject to
grave hereditary diseases.
2. Voluntary, but temporary, abstinence from marriage in view of "a
present distress" of any great character, as that of which Paul speaks.
3. Certain widows and widowers might find it inexpedient to remarry (others had
better remarry).
4. Voluntary and permanent abstinence from marriage on the part of certain
people in order to special concentration in the service in the kingdom of God.
But, as our Lord declares, this saying is only for those who are able to
receive it. The cases are rare, special, exceptional. The rule is the other
way. Man's original commission required marriage. "Marriage is honorable
in all" and "Forbidding to marry" a mark of the great apostasy.
Any church law forbidding the marriage of its preachers outrages both the
precept and example of the New Testament. All of the apostles, except Paul,
were married men, and it is quite probable from a passage in 1 Corinthians 7
that he was a widower, not choosing to remarry. The law concerning church
officers contemplates the bishop or pastor as a married man and father of a
family. An unmarried pastor is greatly handicapped, and, indeed, only very
prudent bachelors or widowers can safely be pastors.
We now pass from celibacy to consider one of the most touching and instructive
incidents in the life of our Lord, the case of his praying for
What a pity that this impressive, heart-moving story was ever wrested from its
truly great lessons and marred by being irreverently dragged into the baptismal
controversy. It has nothing whatever to say or suggest about baptism.
These children were certainly not brought to our Lord that he might baptize
them, for our Lord himself personally baptized nobody. Nor, that being the
purpose of their being brought, would the disciples have forbidden their coming
if they had been accustomed to baptize children. The purpose of being brought
is expressly stated: That he should touch them, lay his hands on them, and pray.
What he did is expressly stated: He called them unto him, took them in his
arms, blessed them, laying his hands upon them.
But the defenders of infant baptism who employ this passage in defense of their
view, say our Lord said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven," and
quote his words on another occasion: "Except ye be converted and become as
little children, ye cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." They interpret
these passages to mean that little children, in their natural state, are free
from sin, equal to converted adults and therefore possess the spiritual
qualifications for baptism. But this denies their own doctrine of depravity, as
set forth in their confessions, and denies their avowed purpose for baptizing
infants, namely, to cleanse them from sin, regenerate them, and make them
children of God and members of the kingdom. Their prescribed rituals for
baptizing infants makes this very clear. Indeed, church history abundantly
shows that it was the doctrine of baptismal regeneration that led to infant
baptism. If until today there had been no infant baptism, and tomorrow for the
first time baptismal regeneration should be widely received, then inevitably
would follow infant baptism.
"Such" in the passage, "Of such," expresses likeness rather
than identity. Here it cannot mean identity. It would be absurd to say,
"Of little children is the kingdom of heaven." The true lesson of the
touching passage is that the imperfectly developed disciples considered those
children too young and too unimportant to be thrust upon the attention of the
Saviour engaged in great matters about grown people. Our Saviour promptly
rebuked their error. Children, because more docile, more trustful, less bound
by evil habits, less absorbed in business or other cares are more susceptible
to religious impressions than adults. Prayer takes hold on them more
powerfully. We should pray for them before born and when in their cradles, as
well as later. We should welcome, not distrust, their interest in the Lord. The
mothers did well to bring them in touch with Christ and seek his prayers in
their behalf. No one of the little ones could ever forget, "The Lord
noticed me. He called me to him. He took me in his arms. He prayed for me. He
laid his hands on me and blessed me."
QUESTIONS
1. What contrast in the
parable of the Pharisee and publican and the parable of the importunate widow?
2. To whom was the parable
of the Pharisee and publican addressed?
3. What do the Pharisee and the
publican each illustrate respectively concerning prayer?
4. What was the petition of
the Pharisee?
5. What was the petition of
the publican?
6. What was the contrast
between it and the prayer of the Pharisee?
7. What are the elements of
this prayer?
8. What is the literal
translation of this prayer?
9. What is the bearing on
justification?
10. What are the two
elements in the discussion on marriage and divorce?
11. What is the primal law
of marriage?
12. Then why did Moses allow
divorce for a number of causes? I3. How did Moses adapt his law to the social
evils of his time, and which of the elements of the Sinaitic covenant was thus
adapted to their conditions?
14. What one cause alone for
divorce did Christ recognize?
15. Did this law operate
ipso factor Why?
16. What are the perplexing
problems relative to this question?
17. What letters furnish
much light on these questions?
18. What new question arises
in these letters?
19. What was Paul's reply to
this question?
20. What question of
interpretation arises here?
21. What is the author's
interpretation of Paul's language on this point and what is his proof?
22. Give a summary of this
teaching.
23. What book is commended
on this subject?
24. What is the present
status of things relating to marriage and divorce?
25. What three imperative
duties devolve upon us?
26. What is the import of
Christ's words in Matthew 19:4-5?
27. What one scripture
applies to the law of the woman's putting away her husband?
28. What is the meaning of
"fornication"?
29. What false theory 13
mentioned and what are the three arguments against it?
30. What is the meaning of
the language of the disciples in Matthew 19:10?
31. What was Christ's reply
and what did he mean?
32. What are the exceptional
cases where marriage is inexpedient?
33. What was the original
commission of man and under what limitation was he placed with respect to it?
34. What do you think of the
doctrine of celibacy for the ministry?
35. Did Jesus baptize the
children and why your answer?
36. What is the argument of
the defenders of infant baptism and what is the reply?
37. What is the relation of
infant baptism to baptismal regeneration?
38. What is the meaning of
the phrase, "Of such"?
39. What is the true lesson
of this touching passage?
40. Why are children more
susceptible to religious impressions than adults?
THE RICH YOUNG RULER; DEATH AND
RESURRECTION FORETOLD; THE SELFISH AMBITION OF JAMES AND JOHN REBUKED
Harmony, pages 132-136 and Matthew 19:16 to 20:28;
Mark 10:17-45; Luke 18:18-34.
This section commences on page 132 of the Harmony; the first three pages of the
section constitute a distinct subsection, because all that is said in it arises
from the coming of the young ruler to Christ. This coming of this rich young
man to Christ, related by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, is the occasion of four
distinct lessons, which I group around four passages of Scripture: The first,
"One thing thou lackest"; the second, "It is easier for a camel
to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of
God"; the third, Peter said, "Lo, we have left all, and followed
thee' what then shall we have?"; and the fourth, "But many shall be
last that are first; and first that are last." Everything in this section
may be arranged around these four scriptures.
The teaching of the Bible, especially the teaching of our Lord, on the subject
of riches, calls for careful interpretation. The teaching is very abundant and
manifold in both Testaments. Probably no other subject is more extensively
discussed. We may accept as safe the following conclusions on these teachings:
To be rich or to be poor is not in itself a sin; either may be a token of
divine favor. Exceptional temptations and dangers, however, attend either great
riches or extreme poverty. Agur's prayer was wise (Prov. 30:8b-9) : Give me neither poverty nor
riches; Feed me with the food that is needful for me: Lest I be full, and deny
thee, and say, Who is Jehovah? Or lest I be poor, and steal, And use profanely
the name of my God.
But we may pray for others as John prayed for Gains: "I pray that in all
things thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth."
This expresses the great law and standard. Be as rich as you please, even as
your soul prospers; keep your soul on top, but do not love wealth more than
God, nor trust in uncertain riches. Wealth is a trust which brings blessings
rightly used or curses wrongly used. We are perfectly safe in accepting those
conclusions concerning the manifold teachings in both Testaments on the subject
of wealth.
Jesus said to this young ruler, "One thing thou lackest." This young
ruler's sin is discovered to him by the throbbing heart of our Lord and is
found to be his refusal to accept God's paramount authority and sovereignty in
one point alone: "One thing thou lackest: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and
give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow
me." There seems to be more than one point here, but they are different
sides to the same thought "selling all" is the negative side;
"following Jesus" is the positive side. Heavenly treasure must be
preferred to earthly treasure. This young man preferred the earthly treasure.
Following Christ must be preferred to following mammon. This young man
preferred to follow mammon. Let the reader observe that this case is introduced
with the answer, "Keep the commandments." This young man, relying
upon salvation through obedience to the law, supposed that he had kept the
Commandments all his life. It was necessary to prove to him that he had not
kept them perfectly: "If thou wouldst be perfect." We are not to
understand our Lord to teach that the universal condition of eternal life is
that men must actually give all their possessions to the poor, nor that fallen
man can keep the law of God perfectly, but the soul must accept God's
sovereignty in all things. It must love treasure in heaven more than the
treasure on earth. It must follow Jesus. There must not be even one thing
reserved from God's supremacy; there must be a complete surrender of our mind
to God's mind. These are great matters: The question of sovereignty, the
question of true objects upon which affections should be placed, and the
question of obedience. We may not satisfy ourselves with compromise or
reservation. We may not Compound with sins we are inclined to, By damning those we have no mind
to.
The next part of this discussion hinges on "the camel and a needle's
eye." The camel was the largest animal familiarly known to the Jews of
Palestine in Christ's day and a needle's eye one of the smallest openings. To
say, then, that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than
for & rich man to enter the kingdom of God, naturally expresses not
something difficult, but something that is impossible, and is so meant here;
the disciples so understood it, and our Lord, later in his explanation,
confirmed their construction. It was the custom of our Lord that when he
desired to attract attention and to so impress the memory that his hearers
would never forget, to employ very striking sayings, but men when they come to
interpret these sayings, are tempted to take all the snap out of them by trying
to soften the meaning, for example (See Harmony, middle column, page 133,
Mark's account, latter part of v. 24): "How hard it is for them that trust
in riches to enter into t~e kingdom of God." That seems to be an
explanation of what k he says, and yet that is a gloss, a human gloss. I mean
to say, that verse does not appear in the two oldest Greek manuscripts, the
Sinaitic and the Vatican, and that its appearance in later manuscripts is easier
to account for as a marginal gloss by the copyist (he is doing it according to
his opinion of what it means), than it is to suppose that such a statement as
that would have been left out of the oldest manuscripts. The interpolating
copyist is trying to soften Christ's hard saying. It is true that they that
trust in riches cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. The interpolated doctrine
is taught in other scriptures, but it is not a part of this scripture and
should not be so received. It is one of the passages that is certainly
spurious. Consider another gloss:
When I was a child in Sunday school, all the Sunday school lessons had this
explanation: The Jaffa-gate at Jerusalem had a little side-gate much smaller
than the other, and over that little gate was its name written, "The
Needle's Eye," and no camel could go through that little gate without
getting on its knees and having its load taken off. That seemed to be, and is,
a most beautiful illustration. The rich man must kneel and have his load taken
off him before he can get in, but it is probable that the gate of the Sunday
school lesson got its name as a development of this text, rather than being its
cause.
Another explanatory gloss in this, that the Greek word of the text should not
be kamelos, "a camel," but kamilos, "a
cable." Those who have been about wharves or vessels and have noted the
eye or loop of a cable in comparison with a needle's eye may see how much this
play upon words relieves the difficulty. It would then mean for a camel to go
through the eye of a cable. But as every text has kamelos, and not kamilos,
we need not believe any of it.
The disciples were exceedingly amazed and they rightly said, "Who then can
be saved?" They had been taught that riches are a blessing sent from God,
and that he promises prosperity to those who love and obey him. If it be
impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, "Who then can be
saved?" Our Lord's answer practically says, "It is impossible for
anybody to enter the kingdom of heaven," that is, in themselves.
Impossible with men, but possible with God. His teaching seems to be this: That
in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven there must be something apart from
any power in us. Now this rich young man had been well taught, but he had never
been regenerated. He was trying to keep the law of God perfectly, and a camel
might just as well try to go through the eye of a needle. It is an
impossibility for any man in himself, apart from an extraneous power, to enter
into the kingdom of God. We may try to set our affections on heavenly
treasures, but we have to be regenerated before we can do it. Christ's
questions were designed to show him just where his difficulty lay. He must be
willing at least to give up everything and follow Jesus. To show that they thus
understood it, it is manifest from Peter's words: "Then answered Peter and
said unto him, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee; what then shall we
have?" He claims that what was required of this rich man is just what they
had done. Christ found them engaged in the fishing business, making a living by
it, and said to them, "Leave this business and come, follow me. I will
make you fishers of men." "If then the rich man when obedient shall
have treasure in heaven, what shall we have?" Or, "What shall we have
hereafter, and what shall we have in this world?" Listen to the answer:
"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye who have
followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of
his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of
Israel. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or
father, or mother, (or wife), or children, or lands, for my sake, shall receive
a hundred fold, and shall inherit eternal life" (Matt. 19:28-29).
This does not mean, "you that have followed me in the regeneration,"
but "you that follow me now shall have in the regeneration." The
phrase, "in the regeneration," marks the time of the reward and not
of the following. He is telling first what they shall have hereafter. What
then, is the meaning of the word "regeneration" here? Precisely the
same word, paliggenesia, is found in Titus 3:5 and there refers to the
new birth of a man, but here to the new birth of the world, which in Acts 3:21
Peter calls the times of the restoration of all things and which in his second
letter he describes as the destruction and renewal of the material universe (2
Peter 3:713). To the same great climax of the world's history Paul refers in
Romans 8:19-23 where the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain
together with us waiting for the redemption of our bodies. It is the clear
teaching of the Bible that this earth, which was cursed on account of man's
sin, shall itself have a regeneration; not only shall man be redeemed, but his
habitat shall be redeemed. There shall be a new heaven and a new earth. There
shall come a great fire in which the heavens shall be rolled together as a
scroll and the earth wrapped in flame shall be burned, not annihilated, for out
of the purgation of that fire in the dissolution of the material universe there
shall come the new heaven and the new earth, like that which was pronounced
good when God originally made it. "Now, you ask me what you shall
have," says Jesus. "I tell you what ye shall have: in the
regeneration [that is, hereafter], when the Son of man comes in his glory, ye
also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
And Paul says, "Know ye not that the saints shall judge the world? . . . Know
ye not that we shall judge angels?" Now, when Christ comes again he takes
his own people to himself at his right hand. They sit down with him, sit on his
throne and share in the judgment that he pronounces upon wicked men and fallen
angels. See a similar promise in Revelation 2:26-27. In other words, Christ,
the Son of man, shall lift up by his redemption, all of his people who have
suffered, to sit with him on his throne, sharing with him as co-heirs of God,
and that is why man, who for a little season is made lower than angels, will be
lifted up above them and shall have all dominion and everything shall be in
subjection to him. "Now, you apostles left your possessions, quit your
business, dropped your nets and left your homes! left everything, you twelve
apostles; when I said follow me, you followed me. So you will have a reward for
that hereafter."
Then he goes on to show what they shall have now, and that not only is to the
apostles, but to every Christian: "There is no man that hath left house,
or brethren, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or lands, for my
sake, and for the gospel's sake, but he shall receive a hundred fold now in
this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and
lands, with persecutions: and in the world to come eternal life" (Mark
10:29-30). A hundredfold now. The question arises here, what did Jesus mean by
that? If you leave one acre of land, that you will in this life receive a farm
of 100 acres? That is not his meaning, but you do in this world receive some of
these things in a sense. Let us suppose, for instance, that your father and
mother and brother and sister and wife, every one of them, opposed your being a
Christian, and that to be a Christian, you must lose the affection of every one
of them. Now in this world you will receive the affection of 100 fathers,
mothers, brothers, sisters, and wives. You will find that a new family and a
new kingdom exists among the people of God. You will recall when Jesus was so
intensely interested in teaching on one occasion that he would not even stop to
eat, that his mother and his brothers came to arrest him under a writ of
lunacy. Somebody said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are standing
out there." He answered, "Who is my mother? Who are my
brothers?" and raising his hands to his disciples, he said, "Behold,
my brothers and my mother and my sisters." You get into a new spiritual
family. The old earthly kinsfolk may go against you, the spiritual kinsfolk
will be for you. That is what it means as to this world. In other words,
"Godliness with contentment is great gain. It has the promise of the life
that now is and of the world to come," both of them. Receive that deep
into your heart, but receive it in the sense that the Lord meant it.
We now come to another one of the scriptures around which lessons are grouped:
"But many shall be last that are first, and first that are last."
This proverb he explains by a parable. The time that you have been in the
service of God does not count, so much as the spirit and the quality of your
services. One may say, "Here is a young Christian; he was converted only
three years ago and behold how exalted, while I am still at the bottom, though
I have been a member of the church forty-five years [and asleep all the
time]." Who shall be the first of these twelve disciples? Is it the one
that Christ called first in order of time? Is that the one? Here in the parable
are some men that commenced work the first hour of the day and some that
commenced the eleventh hour of the day, and these eleventh-hour men were paid
first and received just as much as the ones who, as they said, had borne the
burden and the heat of the day.
I heard Dr. Tom Eaton, who, by the way, was a marvelous expounder of God's Word,
before my prayer meeting in Waco deliver a lecture on this parable of the
laborers. He said:
I want to
inquire on what principle Christ paid the eleventh-hour men as much as he paid
those that had worked longer. I think this may be recognized as the principle:
These later men explain why they are not at work. They say "No man hath
hired us. We have had no opportunity. We reported ready for work; we went to
the place where workmen are employed. We have wanted to work we have needed the
work we held ourselves in readiness to work but there were no openings."
David's men detailed to stay in camp and watch over the baggage, received an
equal portion with those who went and fought the battle. They would have gone
if they had been commanded to go and how many hundreds of their brethren,
brokenhearted men, are begging for work I They want work. It is enough to make
one weep to see a man who feels that he is called to preach, whose soul is on
fire to preach, longing and hungering for the care of a church and no church
calls him. Perhaps he has not the attractive qualities of some other men,
perhaps the modern standard of employment is not of the right kind. Some
churches have itching ears and they want preachers who will preach something
pleasing to them, and daub with untempered mortar, and it does not follow that
every man that is idle, is sinfully idle.
That was Tom Eaton's explanation, and there is sense in it. But this parable
gives another explanation: The sovereignty of God. If I give a man that only
came at the last hour as much as I give a man who commenced at the beginning of
the day on a special contract, what is it to that first man? Can't I do as I
please with my own? In other words, God is the sovereign and we must never lose
sight of that.
The next section (of two pages) has two great lessons arising from one
occasion. Mark thus gives the occasion: "And they were in the way, going
up to Jerusalem; and Jesus was going before them: and they were amazed; and
they that followed were afraid."
What excited that amazement and fear? He was saying nothing. It was something
startling and marvelous in his appearance. The shadow of an awful coming event
invested his face with a pathetic solemnity, a realization of the approaching
tragedy, and a sublime purpose of resignation. More than once the historians
refer to this bearing of Jesus, this majestic presence, radiating his glory in
a way to separate him from all other men and to put him above all other men.
His disciples once saw him praying, and something in his manner convinced them
that they knew not how to pray. They saw him on the mount of transfiguration
radiating his glory, and they were as drunken men at the sight. Later, in
Gethsemane, his presence or bearing, caused the company of soldiers who came to
arrest him to fall back as if smitten with lightning.
On the occasion we are considering he answers their unspoken amazement and
fear. He explains the handwriting of tragedy on his own face. He foretells
minutely his approaching arrest in Jerusalem and all its attendant indignities;
his crucifixion and his resurrection. But they understood it not. How blind
they were, not to understand that the crosses must precede the crown! Their
minds kept leaping forward to a glorious earth kingdom with its high places of
honor. So Peter, immediately after his great confession at Caesarea Philippi,
had said of Christ's humiliating death: "Be it far from thee, Lord."
So here two of his disciples, James and John, working through their ambitious
mother, are petitioning for the places of honor at his right hand and left
hand, in his kingdom.
My old friend, Mr. Bartlett, of Marlin, once put into my hands a newspaper
clipping which related a remarkable occurrence at the Pan-Episcopal Convention
in London. The clipping set forth that Dean Stanley put up to preach in
Westminster Abbey the bishop of Haiti, a coal black, thicklipped Negro, who,
unawed by storied urn and animated bust, or the representatives of royalty,
nobility, boundless wealth and aristocratic pride, calmly took this text:
"The mother of Zebedee's children said, Lord give my son John the place at
thy right hand in thy kingdom and give my son James a place at thy left hand in
thy kingdom," and then said, "Let us pray:
O Lord, thou who didst make of one blood all the nations of men that inhabit
the earth and didst fashion their hearts alike, give thou to the sons of Shem
that betrayed thee a place on thy right hand, and give to the sons of Japheth
that crucified thee a place on thy left hand, but Lord, give to the sons of
Ham, the sons of that Simon, the Cyrenean, that bore thy cross, a place at the
outer gate where some of the light of the heavenly city may fall on them and
where they can hear some of the sweet music, but where looking earthward they
can see Ethiopia stretching out her hands to God and behold her dusky children
coming home in penitence to God and be the first to welcome them there."
It is a marvelous prayer, if correctly reported.
One very important lesson we may deduce from this petition of the mother of
Zebedee's children. The Romanists claim that Peter received away back yonder,
that is, at Caesarea Philippi, the primacy; that he received from the hands of
Christ the first place; that he was made Pope. But if indeed that question was
settled then, how could John and James here suppose that the highest places
were yet to be assigned, and how could the same matter of honor or precedence
arise again at the last Passover supper? But look at our Lord's reply: "Ye
know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I am about to
drink?" The sons prompted the mother to make the request and were with
her. So Bathsheba, who came to David requesting that Solomon, her son, should
succeed him upon the throne. Ambitious mothers! Our Lord rebukes the ambitious
sons: "You ask for the high places, but high places must be preceded by
high service. Are you able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of? Are you
able to be baptized with that baptism that I am baptized with? Are you able to
establish your title to precedence, and to do the services that obtain primacy
in the kingdom of heaven?"
When the ten heard this application they were moved with indignation. The ten
includes Peter; the ten includes nine others. What does it show? Virgil once
asked, when he was describing how the gods intervened to destroy Troy,
"Can such ire exist in celestial minds?" So here we may ask,
"Can such envy exist in apostolic minds?" Did you ever notice at
conventions an ambitious desire to be made prominent?
Now comes the great lesson (p. 136), Matthew 20:25-28: "Ye know that the
rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise
authority over them. Not so shall it be among you; but whosoever would become
great among you shall be your minister; and whosoever would be first among you
shall be your servant: even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto,
but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." Now, I solemnly
assure you that instead of craving the prominent places and positions, it is
far better to crave the spirit of service and sacrifice, that will entitle you
to the prominent places.
QUESTIONS
1. What are the four
scriptures around which the four lessons occasioned by the rich young ruler's
coming to our Lord are grouped?
2. What may be regarded as
safe conclusions on the teachings of our Lord concerning riches?
3. What was Agur's prayer
relative to riches?
4. What was John's prayer
for Gaius and its lesson?
5. What was the one thing
the "rich young ruler" lacked, or what was his one sin?
6. What was the double idea
in Christ's language to him, "Go, sell," etc., and what the
application?
7. Had he kept the
Commandments? If not, in what point had he failed?
8. What are three great
questions for every soul?
9. What couplet cited in
point, and who wrote it?
10. What is the meaning of
the "needle's eye," negatively and positively?
11. What question did the
illustration call forth from the disciples, what Christ's answer and what his
meaning?
12. What question did this
call forth from Peter, and Christ's reply?
13. What did Christ mean
both negatively and positively by "in the regeneration"?
14. Give the Bible teaching
on the "regeneration" of the earth.
15. What is the meaning of
"sit upon twelve thrones," etc., and how does the thought apply to
all Christians?
16. How are we to receive a
hundredfold for the sacrifices we make here in this world for Christ and what
was Christ's own illustration of this thought?
17. What is the point
illustrated by the parable of the laborers and Dr. Baton's explanation of it?
18. What other point
explained by this parable?
19. Explain the amazement of
the disciples on the way to Jerusalem and illustrate by other scriptures.
20. How does Christ answer
their amazement and fear and how did they receive the explanation?
21. How does the ambition of
James and John here manifest itself? Relate the incident of the Pan-Episcopal
Convention in London.
22. What lesson from this
incident of the mother of Zebedee's children relative to Peter and the papacy?
23. What was our Lord's
answer to this request and its lessons?
24. How did this request of
Zebedee's sons affect the other ten, and what does it show?
25. What is the great law of
promotion in the kingdom of God?
BARTIMEUS HEALED; ZACCHEUS SAVED; AND THE
PARABLE OF THE POUNDS
Harmony, pages 137-139 and Matthew 20:29-34; Mark
10:46-52; Luke 18:35 to 19:28.
This section commences on page 137 of the Harmony. There are just seven things
that I want to say about this miracle of the healing of Bartimeus:
1. This record has always given Bartimeus a lively place in the memory of each
student of the Bible. The story takes hold of the imagination.
2. While our Lord healed a great many blind people, our Gospels specialize but
three instances in the following order: (1) The healing of the blind man in
Bethsaida recorded by Mark alone (8:22-26), found on page 89 of the Harmony;
(2) the healing of the man born blind at Jerusalem as recorded in John 9, and
found in the Harmony, page 108; and (3) this lesson on page 137 of the Harmony,
recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And it is one of the greatest proofs of
the inspiration of the Bible that when we take the three accounts and put them
together in the form of a Harmony, a definite plan is just as evident in the
combined narrative of the case as in the gradations of the single narratives.
The same characteristic appears in the three restorations to life: (1) of the
daughter of Jairus, (2) of the son of the widow of Nain, and (3) of Lazarus. So
with other miracles; the combined narratives are graded in every case.
Therefore in studying this miracle of the healing of blindness we must compare
the first instance recorded, the one in Bethsaida, with the second instance
recorded, the one in John 9, and this last instance, and we will be enabled by
the comparison to notice the distinguishing features of the three miracles,
which are very remarkable. I have more than once recommended Trench's book on
miracles. If we take his book and carefully read in connection and in order
these three instances of the healing of the blind, then Broadus on this last
one in his commentary on Matthew, and Hovey on the one in John, we learn how to
gather and correlate homiletic materials for a great sermon on Christ's healing
the blind. The books of Broadus and Hovey belong to "The American
Commentary."
3. The textual difficulties of this last case call for some explanation. These
difficulties appear as follows: Matthew says, "Behold, two blind men
sitting by the wayside;" Mark and Luke give just one, and give the
surname. Matthew says, "And as they went out from Jericho," and Luke
says, "As he drew nigh unto Jericho." There is no trouble at all
about the first difficulty, that is, Matthew mentions that there were two and
the others confine what they say to the principal one; there is no
contradiction. In other words the histories of Mark and Luke do not contradict
the statement by Matthew that there were two, unless they had said, "only
one."
4. In the other difficulty, Matthew and Mark saying it occurred as they went
out from Jericho, and Luke saying that it was as they drew nigh to Jericho, and
Luke saying that it was as they drew nigh to Jericho, there seems to be a plain
contradiction of Scripture. The footnote in the Harmony gives the best
explanation. It is clearly stated in that footnote and it is much more
elaborated in the commentary on the passage by Dr. Broadus. The point is just
this: The old Jericho was abandoned for a long time after the curse that was
put upon it when the Israelites first entered into the land, but it was
afterward partially rebuilt. Herod, the king living when Christ was born, built
a new Jericho, and if we simply understand that Luke is referring to the new
Jericho, and Matthew and Mark to the old Jericho, we have the explanation.
5. This beggar, or these two beggars, both ascribe to Jesus a messianic title:
"Thou son of David." It was the peculiar characteristic of the
Messiah when he came that he was to be the son of David sit on David's throne
and that is why in the genealogies Matthew traces the descent of Jesus from
David legally through Joseph, and Luke really through Mary, his mother. It had
to be proved that he belonged to the royal family of David. Now these men
ascribe that messianic title to him.
6. The next thing which I wish to explain is in v. 31 of Matthew's account:
"And the multitude rebuked them, that they should hold their peace."
The source, or ground, of that rebuke, has been explained in two ways, and the
latter way is the more probable. The first is that the Pharisees in that
multitude rebuked these suppliants for ascribing the messianic title to Jesus
of Nazareth. It is more probable that the disciples did the rebuking because
they did not like for Jesus to be constantly obtruded upon by the persistence
of these beggars. In like manner, on an earlier occasion, they rebuked the
persistence of the Syrophoenician woman: "Why trouble ye the Master?"
And again they rebuked the bringing to him of little children that he might put
his hands on them, bless them, and pray for them.
One of the strongest proofs of the divinity of Jesus Christ was his
approachableness by all men at all times. He would not allow himself to be
hedged against the approach of people to him who needed help.
A rich man like Mr. Rockefeller surrounds himself with guards and with clerks,
so that it is impossible for anybody to have an interview with him unless he
first designates his wish to have an interview, and the reason is that he
hasn't time, and that it isn't possible for him to receive and hear everybody
who desires to come and see him) especially when they want help, but Christ
faces the whole world and says, "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are
heavy laden, and I will give you rest," and whether it was a
Syrophoenician woman, or parents bringing little children, or blind beggars by
the wayside, he would not have their approach or progress to him barred.
7. The last thing to which I wish to call attention in that miracle can be put
forth in the form of a question. What thrilling song was based on a passage in
this miracle? ZACCHEUS
SAVED
Now, on the next section (p. 138), I wish to say a few things about the case of
Zaccheus. Zaccheus, like Bartimeus, strikes the imagination. In my childhood I
heard a plantation Negro sing: Little Zaccheus climbed a tree, The Lord and Master for to ace.
I don't remember the rest of the song, but it illustrates the hold of the
Zaccheus story on the popular imagination. It suggests also a very valuable
lesson, correcting the impression that only giants in body and strength can
become masters in mind and knowledge. Big men physically are apt to look down
somewhat, not only in body, but spiritually and mentally, upon men of low
stature. I recall the poem in the old school book, McGuffey's Third
Reader: How
big was Alexander, Pa, That people called him great? Was he so tall, like some
steeple high, That while his feet were on the ground His hands could touch the
sky?
We recall such men in this country as Alexander Stephens, and Stephen Arnold
Douglas, the little giant, and many others of small stature who attained to
great distinction. The great William of the house of Orange, the Duke of
Luxemburg, General Roberts, a great British general, the Duke of Wellington,
and even Louis XIV, were small men. I say that for the comfort of any one who
is unable to measure up high physically as he may wish he could.
Here I ask a question: When Zaccheus says, "Behold, Lord, the half of my
goods I give to the poor; and if I have wrongfully exacted aught of any man, I
restore fourfold," does that language express what had been his habit
before this date, or does it express a purpose of what he will do since he has
met Jesus? Does Zaccheus say that from the viewpoint of a man converted that
day and expressive of what he intended to do in the future, or does he
designate what had been his habit to justify himself of the censure upon him by
the Pharisees? They said, "Here is a sinner and Jesus of Nazareth is going
to abide with a sinner." Now does Zaccheus reply, "However great a
sinner I may have been, hereafter I intend to give half of my goods to the poor,
and if I have wronged any man, to restore to him fourfold?" Or,
"Though they call me a sinner, yet by my deeds have I proved that I am
saved?"
The third observation on the case of Zaccheus is the expression, "Today is
salvation come to this house." I remember once when the president of
Baylor University, in the long ago, took a number of the boys out to hear an
Episcopal preacher. The Episcopal preacher took the position that there was no
such thing as instantaneous conversion, intending to criticize the Methodists
and Baptists upon that point that conversion was the result merely of a long
previous education. As we were walking away from the church Dr. Burleson says,
"What about the case of Zaccheus? He was a sinner, and a lost sinner, when
he climbed that tree. He was a saved man when he came down from the tree, for
our Lord said, 'To-day is salvation come to this house.' "
I call attention to that fact because a great many preachers preach without
directness and without expectation of immediate results. They think that if
they will hold a meeting about nine days that on the tenth day they can get the
iron so hot somebody will be converted, and they themselves have no faith in
anybody being converted early in the meeting.
But great preachers expect immediate results. They are dissatisfied if somebody
is not converted every time they preach. They feed their minds on that thought
that God has present ability to save any man, and look for conversions. They
believe that somebody will be converted that day. They pray that somebody will
be converted that day:
The last thought on the Zaccheus case is what Christ said in the rebuke of the
Pharisees: "He also is a son of Abraham." They counted him, because a
publican, an outcast, for the publican was a Jew, who would consent to collect
taxes for the Roman government, and they were held as much in abomination by
the Jews as the Southern people used to hold a scalawag, i.e., a Southerner who
would take office under the oppressor of the people. So "scalawag" would
be a pretty good modern translation of "publican." Jesus says,
"He shows that he is the son of Abraham." "All are not Jews who
are Jews outwardly, but only those that are Jews inwardly," Paul says. Now
this man is a Jew inwardly and outwardly; he is a fleshly and spiritual son of
Abraham.
THE
PARABLE OF THE POUNDS
The case of Zaccheus and what disposition he made of his money, for he was a
rich man, suggested a parable. But the two reasons assigned for giving the
parable of the pounds are these: "He spake a parable, because he was nigh
to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was immediately
to appear." Oh, how many times did our Lord warn against the idea that the
coming of Christ in his glorious kingdom was immediate! Instead of its being
immediate, this nobleman goes away as Jesus went away when he ascended from the
dead; went to receive his kingdom and administer it from his throne in heaven;
only after a long time will he come back. Let us be clear on that. He will stay
there until he has done the things for which he ascended to heaven, and then
when he comes back he will come back for reasons of resurrection and judgment.
He will make professed Christians give an account of their stewardship. He will
punish his enemies and there will not be an interval of time between his coming
to reward his people and the punishment of the wicked, which the
premillennialists continually affirm, but both will take place on the same
occasion. This parable and a number of others make that as clear as the noonday
sun. One of the reasons for speaking this parable was because so many of them
supposed that this glory kingdom would come immediately. A little later we will
take up a parable pretty much on the same line as the parable of the pounds, called
the parable of the talents, and the two ought always to be studied together,
but there were special reasons for speaking the parable of the pounds, in this
connection, and when we get to the parable of the talents I will show the
points of distinction between the two. So far as this one goes, two classes of
people are in his mind, as here represented in the parable, the going off of
the nobleman or prince to receive a kingdom: the first one is the case of those
who profess to be his disciples or his people; the second case is that of those
who refuse to admit his sovereignty over them, that is, the wicked, the
avowedly wicked, those who openly say Jesus Christ is neither my king, nor my
ruler, nor my Saviour. It is the object of this parable to show what he does in
the case of his servants as he goes off, and what he does in their case when he
comes back, and then to show what he does with those citizens who say that he
shall not reign over them. In the case of his professed servants they are
represented as agents or stewards receiving a certain amount, and here the
amount is equal, ten servants each one pound, and he says, "Trade ye
herewith till I come." If we profess to be Christians we acknowledge that
we stand toward Christ in the relation of steward, and that what we have is
given to us; that we may use it for the glory of God, and that when Jesus
returns he will have a reckoning with us on that point; so that a Christian
comes into judgment, not on a life and death matter, but he comes into judgment
on his fidelity as a Christian. The parable shows that rewards will not be
equal. All saved people will not be rewarded alike: they are saved alike, but
they are not rewarded alike. The difference in their rewards is based upon the
degree of their fidelity. If one man takes one pound and makes ten with it his
reward is twice as great as the one who takes one pound and only makes five.
That is clear. We often hear the question, "Are there degrees in
heaven?" The answer to it is but another question, "Degrees of
what?" If we ask, "Are there degrees of salvation?" The answer
is, "No." If we ask, "Are there degrees of rewards?" The
answer is, "Yes." That is evident. The servants are dealt with
according to their profession, as church members are held accountable, without
stopping to inquire whether they are rightfully church members. One of these
servants took his pound and hid it in a napkin, and at the day of judgment he
says, "Lord, here is your pound, just as you gave it to me. I rolled it up
in a napkin and hid it." Now to the man Jesus replies, "Thou wicked
servant," wicked because he has done no good with his opportunities, with
his talents, with his money, with anything that he has had as a professed
Christian. "Therefore," says the Lord, "take away from that man
his pound. What good is it to him? Wrap it up in a rag and stick it in a hole.
He doesn't use it for any good purpose." As Cromwell said when he entered
the British parliament and saw twelve silver images, "Whose are those
images?" and the reply was, "They are the twelve apostles in
silver." "Well," he says, "melt them down and put them into
the coin of the realm and let them go about doing good like their name
sakes." An idea is expressed in this paradox, "Unto every one that
hath shall be given, but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall
be taken away from him."
There is an inexorable natural law, that an unused organ goes into bankruptcy
and a used organ develops a greater power. An arm carried in a sling and unused
for twelve months, loses its muscle power. So nature proves how may be taken
away what one hath and to him that hath shall be given. The parable closes,
"Howbeit these mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over them,
bring hither and slay them before me." The slaying of the enemies and the
rewarding of the servants take place at his coming and not separated by a
thousand years of time. As Paul says, he visits his righteous indignation upon
his enemies when he appears to be admired in his people. The two are simultaneous.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the impress made
by the story of Bartimeus?
2. What three instances of
healing the blind specialized by the Gospels and what evidence of inspiration
do they give?
3. What are the points of likeness
and the points of contrast in these three instances?
4. What authors commended on
these instances of Christ's healing the blind and the special value of a study
of them on these miracles?
5. What two textual
difficulties here and what is the solution of each?
6. What title did these
beggars ascribe to Jesus, what is its meaning and what is the bearing of this
on the harmony of the genealogies of Christ?
7. What are the two
explanations of Matthew 20:31, which is preferable, and what other examples
that illustrate this explanation?
8. What is one of the
strongest proofs of the divinity of Christ and how contrasted with modern men
of wealth and power?
9. What thrilling modern
song is based on a passage in this miracle?
10. How has the incident of
Zaccheus impressed the imagination and what is the couplet here given to
illustrate?
11. What valuable lesson
suggested by the fact that Zaccheus "was little of stature"? Quote
the poem to illustrate.
12. Name seven men small in
stature but great in mind.
13. What did Zaccheus mean
by his saying in Luke 19:8?
14. What bearing has this
incident on instantaneous conversion and what is the lesson here for the
preacher?
15. What is the meaning of
Christ's saying, "He also is a son of Abraham," and what is Paul's
teaching in point?
16. What parable suggested
by the case of Zaccheus and what two reasons assigned for speaking the parable?
17. How does this parable
warn against the idea that Christ's coming in his glorious kingdom was
immediate?
18. What other parable ought
to be studied in connection with this one?
19. What two classes of
people in the mind of Christ when he gave this parable and what is the object
of the parable?
20. What do
"servants" and "citizens" each represent in this parable?
21 What tremendous responsibility here shown to rest upon the professed
servants of Christ and what is the bearings on rewards?
22. Who is represented in
this parable by the man who buried his pound?
23. Give the illustration of
the twelve apostles in silver.
24. What paradox in this
parable and what the explanation?
25. What does this parable
teach relative to the second coming of Christ and attendant events?
JESUS AT BETHANY; THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY; THE
FIG TREE CURSED; THE COMING OF THE GREEKS, AND THE CRISIS OF THIS WORLD
Harmony, pages 140-146 and Matthew 2I:1-22; Mark
11:1-18; Luke 19:29-48; John 11:55 to 12:50.
We now come to the seventh part of the Harmony, devoted to the transaction of
one week. The record extends from page 140 to page 217 of the Harmony. It is
very thrilling. There is no halt; one event chases another. It is as living a
narrative for rapidity of action as can be found in any language, and from now
on to the conclusion of the Harmony we have before us the greatest studies to
which the mind of man was ever directed. On page 140 there is a paragraph from
John. That paragraph of Just a few lines tells everything that is recorded
about two of the days of the week, Friday and Saturday. Friday he gets to
Bethany; Saturday, the Jewish sabbath, he remains there; there is nothing
recorded about it at all. So that from the bottom of page 140 to the part that
commences with the appearances, we have just six days. Now, as that one
paragraph in John tells about what took place Friday and Saturday, so we have
what happened on Sunday pages 140-143; what happened on Monday, pages 144-146;
and what happened on Tuesday, pages 146-148, and so on. But we will have to do
our hardest studying when we come to what happened on Tuesday. Just now,
however, we are to consider what happened on Friday. The events that happened
on Friday were that Jesus, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany where
Lazarus was, and on that very day in Jerusalem there was an intense curiosity
as to whether Jesus would come to this feast. The resurrection of Lazarus had
made a profound impression. It stirred the people; it stirred the enemies of
Jesus, and there was an increased curiosity in the city about his coming. About
that time the common people found out that he was already within two miles of
Jerusalem, at Bethany, there on Friday, and so a great many of them go out that
afternoon to Bethany, just a two-mile walk, with a double purpose in view:
First, to see Jesus; and, second, to look in the face of a man who had been
raised from the dead after he had been dead four days. When the Pharisees saw
that great throng leaving Jerusalem that Friday afternoon to go two miles out
to Bethany, and learning that one of the motives that prompted them to go was
to see Lazarus, then they counseled together to put Lazarus to death as well as
Jesus. They were afraid for the people to go out and see Lazarus. They were
afraid that the multitudes, through this miracle of the raising of Lazarus and
their personal knowledge of the fact that Lazarus was raised, would turn from
them.
Saturday, which was the Jewish sabbath, he remained quietly in Bethany. Now we
notice what took place on Sunday. That is the first time that Sunday is brought
into prominence as the first day of the week. On the first day of the week
Jesus is proclaimed King; on the first day of the week Jesus rises from the
dead; on the first day of the week he makes his appearance after rising from
the dead; on the first day of the week he pours out the Holy Spirit upon his
church. From now on Sunday will be prominent. That is what is called Palm
Sunday. Palm Sunday occupies a conspicuous place in ecclesiastical calendars.
The world is full of literature on Palm Sunday. The Romanists and Episcopalians
have a special service on every Palm Sunday, and on the following Sunday, which
is Easter, or Resurrection Sunday. On one he was proclaimed King; on the other
he was raised from the dead, and crowned King in heaven.
Now, my own calculation commences with the commandment in Ezra 7:13, which was
457 B.C., and adding 483 years it brings us to the baptism of Jesus Christ when
he was publicly acknowledged from heaven and the Spirit of God descended upon
him.
The procession was twofold. First, his disciples and the Bethany people,
including the Jews, that had come to him the Friday previous, and then a
multitude, when he was on the march to Jerusalem, came out and joined him. It
was an immense procession. They knew that Zechariah had prophesied that when
their King came he would come that way. They knew from the prophets just what
they should say in acclamation: "Hosanna to the Son of David: blessed is
he that cometh in the name of the Lord!" and they gathered the branches
and leaves of the palm trees and spread them down before him. Some spread their
clothes down for him to ride on, and the whole multitude shouted and sang as
they moved, and one thousand pieces of artillery thundering at one time on
Jerusalem could not have shocked and startled his enemies like seeing that
throng. The event was a vivid fulfilment of Scripture and identified the
Messiah, The demonstration terrified his enemies. Some of the multitudes were
not participating in either the praise or throwing down branches for him to
ride on, and they said, "Master, rebuke thy disciples. They are applying
to you the words that belong to the Messiah. Rebuke them." He replied,
"If these shall hold their peace, the stones shall cry out." Why?
Because this is the day that marks the winding up of the probation of the
Jewish people, and if nobody should cry out, "Hosanna to the Son of
David," then the rocks their lasting silence should break and cry out,
"Hosanna to the Son of David."
It is characteristic of children to be intensely interested in parades and
processions. When a circus comes, we see the little children running to where
they can see it, and when it passes them, they cut around another corner and
wait for it to pass again. So these children cut around and got into the
Temple, as that was Jesus' objective point. And as he approaches the Temple
they take up the song, "Hosanna to the Son of David," and the
Pharisees speak again: "Hearest thou what these children are saying? Ought
you to suffer that? Why even the little children are hailing you as the
Messiah!" Jesus whirled upon them and said, "Yea, did ye never read,
Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise? Have you
never read that?"
The next section commences on page 144 of the Harmony, and is the beginning of
what took place on Monday. We will consider the sections separately and in
order.
THE FIG TREE
CURSED
It has already been a subject of remark that nearly all of our Lord's miracles
were miracles of mercy, and that only two were punitive the cursing of the
fig tree and the permitted destruction of the swine in the sea. This cursing of
the fig tree, in fact, must be compared with the parable of the barren fig tree
on page 118 of the Harmony given in Luke 13:6-9. It may be well in this
connection to repeat the very words of that parable: "He spake also this
parable: A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came
seeking fruit thereon, and found none. And he said unto the vinedresser,
Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none:
cut it down; why doth it also cumber the ground? And he answering saith unto
him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:
and if it bear fruit thenceforth, well; and if not, thou shalt cut it
down."
The parable represents the Holy City, Jerusalem. For three years he had been
preaching to them concerning the kingdom of God. They had borne no fruit and a
sentence is pronounced: "Why doth it also cumber the ground? Cut it
down." The husbandman or dresser of the vineyard pleads for one more year,
the part of the year yet remaining of the ministry of our Lord. How often has
the parable been the theme of a sermon or of an admonition!
In our old family Testament on the margin in the handwriting of my father are
these words: "Lord, spare him another year." This was written
concerning my oldest brother, and on the other margin in my mother's
handwriting years afterward are these words: "He now bears fruit."
It is the mission of a fig tree to bear fruit. If it does not bear fruit it has
failed of the object of its being. It is characteristic of the fig tree that it
puts out its fruit before it puts on its leaves, hence to see leaves on a fig tree
justifies an expectation of fruit. Jesus leaving Bethany walking toward
Jerusalem, not yet having had the breakfast or first meal of the Jews and being
hungry, sees a fig tree covered with leaves. He goes to it to find fruit, and
finding none, pronounces a curse upon it that withers it instantly to its
taproot. The action is symbolic. It represents the cursing and destruction of
Jerusalem, a total and overwhelming destruction, a destruction that was so
unnecessary if only their eyes had been opened to the things which made for
their peace. How well Luke has expressed the thought: "When he drew nigh,
he saw the city and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known in this
day," that is, the great Palm Sunday, the day when he came as King, so vividly
foretold by the prophets, "If thou hadst known in this day, even thou, the
things which belong unto peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. . . .
Thine enemies shall cast up a bank about thee, and compass thee round, and keep
thee in on every side, . . . and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon
another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation" (Luke
19:41-44).
An infidel has said that it was not the season for figs, and according to the
text itself, the curse was unjustifiable but the meaning here is that it was
the full season for figs; the tree is not cursed for failing to bear fruit out
of season, but having failed in season it now creates an expectation of fruit
by putting forth its leaves. In nearly all books upon the Holy Land we find the
fact stated that in some places of the country some fig trees bear fruit
earlier than others and often some in the same garden, one tree being in a
sunny spot sheltered from cold winds, bears a week or two ahead of other trees,
and the putting forth of the leaf is the sign that the fruit is there.
This section is intensely interesting, not merely on account of the historical
incident, but on account of the great group of mighty lessons developed from
it. Certain Greeks of those that went up to worship at the feast came to Philip
and said, "Sir, we would see Jesus." I suppose many preachers, as
well as myself, have preached from that text, "Sir, we would see
Jesus!" and maybe got more out of the text than those Greeks meant. I
suppose those Greeks were Jewish proselytes, as the Ethiopian eunuch was a
proselyte, that is, they had adopted the Jewish religion, and coming up to the
annual feast were concerned to see the new great expounder of their adopted
religion. When informed of their desire to see him, our Lord makes this strange
reply, "The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified."
What is its relevancy to the request of the Greeks that they should see him?
Apparently this: if the Gentiles, already knocking at the gate of grace which
they could not possess until the time of the Jews be fulfilled, then does not
their coming prove that the hour approaches for Christ to die and for all
Gentiles to share in his salvation? Hence he says, "The hour is come that
the Son of man should be glorified." But how is he to be glorified? He
explains: "Except a grain of wheat fall into the earth and die, it abideth
by itself alone; but if it die, it beareth much fruit." The sense of the
passage seems to be this: "The Gentiles are coming. In their salvation I
will be glorified. I cannot get to that glory except through my cross."
His disciples all the time misconceived the nature of his kingdom: "Far be
it from thee, Lord, to suffer death," and "Wilt thou at this time
restore the kingdom to Israel?" Jesus rebukes them by teaching first, his
death: "I can attain no glory nor bear fruit until I die." Then he
announces the general principle: "He that loveth his life loses it; he
that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. If a man
profess to love me, let him follow me; if when to follow me means to die with
me, come to my cross. Men cannot be my disciples except they take up the cross
and follow me." We must die to our sins, by the withering work of the Holy
Spirit, before we can bear the fruit of joy in our regeneration. That was the
astounding thing the prophet spoke concerning John the Baptist. This man comes
to bring the news of salvation, and what shall he say? And the voice said,
"Say that all flesh is grass and the grass withereth and its flower
fadeth." In other words, as Christ died before he was glorified, there
must be the withering work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts to precede the
saving work.
He now turns from the special application of his words to the coming of the
Greeks, to the general principles involved in his death. "Now is my soul
troubled; and what shall I say?" This death ahead of him was not a painted
death. It was not merely a physical death. It was a spiritual death; it was a penal
death. The baptism of suffering was not a mere sprinkling of sorrow, but it was
an overwhelming flood. Wave after wave must roll over him.
A few aspersed drops on the brow can never represent the overwhelming sorrows
of Christ when deep uttered its voice to deep at the noise of its water-spouts.
He continues: "Shall I say, Father, save me from this hour?" In view
of its sorrow shall he ask God to avert it? It was for this cause he came into
the world and shall he offer prayer to defeat the object of his mission? Later
on when we see him in the garden of Gethsemane and the awful horrors of Calvary
are already felt in apprehension, we indeed hear him pray: "Father, if it
be possible, let this cup pass from me." That seems to mean, "If men
can be saved without my death; if thy omniscience can discern some other plan;
if thy omnipotence can bring about any other way of salvation, then let this
cup pass from my lips." But if there is no other way and no other plan for
the salvation of man, then he offers to drink the cup according to the will of
God. It seems to me that this is the most convincing proof in the world that
there can be no salvation apart from salvation in Christ.
Having thus stated the only method of his glorification and the horror of that
method, he now prays: "Father, glorify thy name," and the silence of
heaven is broken by a voice from the most excellent glory, "I have both
glorified it and will glorify it again." This is the third time that a
voice of attestation has come from the highest heaven once at his baptism
when the Father said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased"; once at his transfiguration, when the Father again said,
"This is my beloved Son, hear ye him," and now, "I have both
glorified it and will glorify it again." This brings us to a climax. The
thought has been continually mounting upward as if climbing from one peak of a
range to another still higher, until at last the foot is planted upon the crest
of the loftiest summit.
The coming of the Greeks suggested the thought. He sees the coming of the
Gentile world. The desire of the Greeks, "Sir, we would see Jesus!"
he interprets as coming from the lips of all nations. In their voice he hears
the Roman and the Briton and every nation and tribe and tongue saying,
"Sir, we would see Jesus." It is no Jewish crisis of which he speaks
when he says, "Now is the crisis of this world." In employing the
English word "crisis," I simply Anglicize the Greek term. The world
has had but two crises: The first man when he stood before the tree of death
and yielded to the temptation of his wife that was the first crisis. In him
the race fell. In that fall Satan usurped the sovereignty of this world. He has
been the prince of this world ever since, and now the Second Adam has come.
Satan was foiled in his first temptation of our Lord immediately after his
baptism. But he only left him for a season. He is back again. The conflict
between the Prince of life and the prince of death has been raging for three
and a half years. The death grapple comes on the cross. There the serpent will
bruise the heel of the Messiah and there the Messiah will crush the serpent's
head. So when this temptation comes to him to shun the horrors of his
sacrificial, penal, and substitutionary death, it is again and for the last
time the crisis, not of the Jews alone, but of the whole world. This Second
Adam, this messianic Prince, who, before his incarnation, created the world for
his own glory and from whom it had been snatched by the wiles of Satan in the
fall of the first Adam, shall regenerate this world. The material earth itself
shall be purified by fire. All its land and sea, its mountains and valleys, its
sky and its earth, shall be redeemed.
The strong man armed has kept his goods in peace, but he shall be bound hand
and foot, stripped of his armor and expelled from the house which he has
defiled.
The crisis consists in this: That the prince of this world the usurping
prince shall be cast out, and now on the last mountaintop the cross is
erected as the supreme climax and his words ring out, "And I, if I be
lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself." By being lifted
up he signifies the manner of his death on the cross. "As Moses lifted up
the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that
whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life." That lifting up
occurred nearly two thousand years ago. We may well ask, "Has it lost its
attractive power? Can it now draw men?" Paul said to the Galatians long
after the crucifixion of Christ, "Before whose eyes Christ was openly get
forth crucified." On the cross he was lifted up in fact, but in the gospel
he is lifted up as a proclamation of that fact.
Every time the preacher sets forth from the pulpit Christ crucified as the hope
of glory, he is lifted up. Every time a man, claiming to be a preacher,
substitutes for the cross some inferior theme, he is guilty of the blood of
Jesus Christ. The cross is Time's masterpiece and Eternity's glory. And whoever
in simple, childlike faith will lift up Jesus crucified will find that it draws
more than any sensational advertisement, pays better than the hired singing of
theatrical choirs, pays better than philosophical, economic, or ethical
discussion, and ultimately not only all redeemed will be drawn to that cross,
but all the lost will be compelled to bow the knee, and every tongue in the
last judgment shall confess his name, and even from the horrors of hell in that
day of revelation of the righteous judgment of God shall say, "Thy
judgment is just."
I mean to say that everybody that ever lived upon this earth and every angel
who has ministered, and every fallen demon who has sought to mar and obstruct
the kingdom of God, shall at the last acknowledge the wisdom and glory of the
sacrificial death of Jesus Christ some in their salvation and others in their
punishment.
They, blind as moles, replied: "We have heard out of the law that the
Christ abideth forever: and how sayest thou the Son of man must be lifted
up?" The lifting up is the means of his abiding forever. Again they say,
"Who is this Son of man?" Had they never read Daniel? Does not that
great prophet fix the title of the Messiah as the "Son of man," and
does not Christ accept the title? Did they not recall how that prophet said
that he saw one like unto the Son of man, brought to the Ancient of Days and
thousands and thousands and ten thousand times ten thousands ministered unto
him, and that there was given him a kingdom that should never end? In that way
shall he abide forever.
Isaiah, seven hundred years before, had foreseen their rejection and the
triumph of the cross in that great chapter 53, commencing: "Lord, who hath
believed our report and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?"
Men saw no beauty in him that they should desire him. To them he seemed to be
afflicted and smitten of God. They did not understand that by his stripes we
are to be healed, and that God was to put on him the iniquity of us all, and
that be must pour out his soul unto death, and that when he poured out his soul
unto death then he should see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied.
We have seen all of the final struggle pivoting on the raising of Lazarus. That
event led the Sanhedrin to its final determination to put the Christ to death.
Then we have seen him coming according to the Scriptures on that great Palm
Sunday, and their rebuking of his disciples and of the little children because
they cried, "Hosanna to the Son of David!"
QUESTIONS
1. What division of the
Harmony does this study embrace and what can you say of the narrative?
2. Which one of the
historians gives an account of our Lord's actions on Friday and Saturday of his
last week, and what were they?
3. What particular interest
upon the part of the common people were manifested, what the actions of the
chief priests and why?
4. What did Christ do on
Sunday and what other great events in the scripture marking the first day of
the week?
5. What is this Sunday
called by Romanists and Episcopalians, what other Sunday is of importance with
them, and what do you think of such celebrations?
6. From what date does the
author calculate Palm Sunday and how?
7. Who constituted the
procession into Jerusalem, what prophet had foretold this event, how did the
procession demonstrate its joy, and what the effect on Jerusalem?
8. What request came from
some of the multitude and why, what Christ's answer and its signification?
9. What interest manifested
on this occasion by the children, who objected and what Christ's reply?
10. What two of our Lord's
miracles only were punitive?
11. What parable must be
considered in connection with this cursing of the fig tree, what does the
parable represent, what the three years, what the extra year begged for it by
the husbandman, and what touching incident in the author's family in this
connection to illustrate?
12. What is the mission of a
fig tree, what is its characteristic, justifies what expectation, what is the
application, and how does Luke express Jerusalem's great responsibility in this
matter?
13. What infidel objection,
and what is the reply?
14. Why is the incident of
the coming of the Greeks intensely interesting, who were these Greeks, why
their interest to see Jesus, when thus informed what was Jesus' reply, what its
relevancy to this coming of the Greeks, how was he to be glorified, what
misapprehension by the disciples, what general principle announced. What its application?
15. What was the nature of
the death that he was to die?
16. Did Christ try to escape
death for the salvation of the world, what was the meaning of the prayer in
Gethsemane, what great proof that there can be no salvation apart from
salvation in Christ?
17. What was his prayer on
this occasion, what was the Father's response, what three voices from the Most
Excellent Glory, and how do they express a climax?
18. What did Jesus hear in
the voice of these Greeks, what thought did it suggest to him, how many and
what crises of the world, how is this a crisis of the world, what the parallels
between the two crises, what to be the outcome of the last, what part has the
preacher in the result, and what theme suggested for the preacher?
19. What was the reply of
the multitude, what prophecies show their blindness?
20. Show the connection of
these events with the raising of Lazarus.
THREE QUESTIONS AND CHRIST'S ANSWERS
Harmony, pages 147-154 and Matthew 21:23 to 22:33;
Mark 11:27 to 12:27; Luke 20:1-40
This section commences on page 147 of the Harmony, near the bottom. Before its
special exposition let us consider several introductory thoughts:
First, It is a part of a great day in the life of our Lord. We have already
noted one great day's work in Galilee, and a little later we considered another
great day, and this one makes the third. The transactions of this one
twenty-four hour day covers everything from page 146 to page 172 of the
Harmony. If we reckoned according to the Jewish method of days, from sunset to
sunset, we would have to stop at page 168.
To obtain some general idea of the tremendous work of this day we must group
its events:
Jesus walked from Bethany to the Temple two miles.
On the way he gave the lesson concerning the withering of the fig tree.
On arriving at the Temple he began walking about and teaching. Here the
Sanhedrin pressed on him this question of authority: "What sort of
authority have you for doing these things and from whom did you get it?"
Their inquiry looks to the nature of his authority and its author. To that
question he makes an elaborate reply. Then commences the series of questions
resulting from a conspiracy on the part of his several enemies with a view to
ensnare him or tangle him in his talk in one way or another that would make him
odious either to the authorities or to some part of the people. The object of
the second question is to put him either in opposition to Herod and Rome, and
thus make him amenable to the civil authority, or to the people, and thus
destroy his popularity. This was a question concerning the tribute money. Then
comes a question concerning the resurrection, the answer to which they hoped
would array him against either the Sadducees or the Pharisees. This was
followed by a question as to the kind of commandment that should be considered
greatest. The form of this question resulted from a conference among
themselves, and they selected a lawyer to propound it. To all of these
questions he gave the most marvelous replies, demonstrating his supreme wisdom
and rendering them dumb. Then follows his last public discourse, in which he
makes a terrible indictment against the scribes and Pharisees, denounces an
awful penalty upon the Jewish nation, but holds out a glorious future hope.
Then follows his lesson on giving suggested by the widow's contribution to the
treasury of the Temple. Then, after he left the Temple and got as far as Mount
Olivet going to Bethany, came his great discourse concerning the destruction of
Jerusalem and his final advent in response to the questions of his disciples.
This great discourse is recorded in Matthew 2425; Mark 13; Luke 21.
Following this comes a lesson concerning his death nearly at hand. In the
meantime a meeting of the Sanhedrin is held concerning the way to put him to
death. We have a thrilling account of a feast given in his honor when he
arrives at Bethany, at which he is anointed by Mary, and where he delivered a
great lesson concerning that anointing. Following this anointing Judas returns
to Jerusalem and offers for a price to betray him to the Pharisees. All of
these events thus grouped happened in one day. The strain upon both his
physical and mental resources must have been very great.
Second, The next introductory thought lies in the obvious fact that here it is
Bethany versus Jerusalem, an obscure village against the Holy City. His
headquarters are at Bethany and every morning he goes into the city and teaches
in the Temple, and every afternoon late he goes back to Bethany. The whole
narrative here is very lively.
Third, We cannot fail to see the steps of a triple development. The malice of
his enemies ripens rapidly. We see also the development in the clearness of
Christ's exposure of their murderous attempt. We see the rapid development in
the spiritual downfall of Judas Iscariot and how it culminated.
Commencing then on page 147 of the Harmony, in the text of Matthew, Mark, and
Luke, let us consider in detail such of the events of this great day, as come
within this discussion. We see him walking and teaching in the Temple. One who
is familiar with Greek history may recall how Aristotle was accustomed to teach
in the same manner, walking about with his disciples under the colonnades of
certain buildings; hence the name, "peripatetic philosophy." He may
also recall from Greek history the method of Socrates, who taught by asking and
answering questions, and the scene of Paul at the marketplace in Athens.
The scribes and Pharisees commenced the catechism with this twofold question:
"By what sort of authority do you teach and do these things and who gave
it to you?" They were accustomed to give authority to the rabbis before they
taught. No man could expect to be heard in teaching who could not show the
authority by which he taught. Their questions, however, had already been
answered by our Lord, as appears from John 12:44-50. I will quote:
And Jesus cried
and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent
me. And he that beholdeth me beholdeth him that sent me. I come a light into
the world that whosoever believeth on me may not abide in the darkness. And if
any man hear my sayings, and keep them not, I judge him not; for I came not to
judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not
my sayings, bath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall
judge him in the last day. For I spake not from myself, but the Father that
sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should
speak. And I know that his commandment is life eternal; the things therefore
which I speak, even. as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak.
Here very plainly and explicitly he has given a reply to that question as to
the sort of authority under which he acted and the author of that authority. He
had divine authority for all he said and did. They knew well enough what he had
taught concerning his being sent of the Father, and there was no need to
propound that question this time, but let us see how he replies now.
He replies by a counter question. This was an acceptable method of rejoinder by
both Pharisee and Greek philosophers: "I also will ask you a question; and
tell me the baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men?" After
consideration they replied that they did not know. Their answer was insincere,
for in their communing they had said, "If we say that John's baptism is
from heaven, then he will say, Why did not ye believe him when he testified of
me and baptized me as the Messiah and pointed to me, saying, Behold the Lamb of
God that taketh away the sin of the world!" Hence to answer that the
baptism of John was from heaven would be to answer the question that they had
just propounded to him. On the other hand, if they had answered that it was
from men, then the people would rise up against them, for the people believed
that John was a prophet, and here they would be defeated in the object that
they had in view, viz., to destroy his popularity with the people. As the
object of their questioning was to break his power with the people so that they
could arrest him safely, we can readily see the dilemma in which he placed them
by his counter question. So they had to stand there dumb before the people. To
complete their discomfiture he then goes on to show that John was sent from
heaven and that the people who believed in John were wiser than these religious
teachers propounding questions to him: "The publicans and the harlots go
into the kingdom of God ahead of you. They justified God, being baptized with
the baptism of John, and you, when you saw it, repented not yourselves that you
might believe." In this way he made it plain that it was not a desire upon
their part to know his authority) but their question was one of guile and
malice. Nor is he yet through with them upon this question of authority. He
continues to press home upon them their own wickedness by a parable. A man had
two sons. To the first he said, "Son, go along and work to-day in the
vineyard," and he answered and said, "I will not," but afterward
he repented and went. He said also to the other son, "Son, go and work in
the vineyard," and he replied, "I will, sir," but went not.
Having stated this parable he forces them to say which was the obedient son,
the one who first said, "I will not" and afterwards obeyed, or the
one who said, "I will," and did not obey. Having extorted from them
the reply that the first was the obedient son, he then applied his lesson. Here
are two classes of people: First, these publicans and harlots refused to obey
God at first, going into open wickedness and wrong, then later repented and
obeyed God and he accepted them. The other class, consisting of the scribes and
Pharisees, are all the time saying, "I will, I will," but their
professions are empty; they never obey.
He now drives them like a wolf into a final corner by another parable the
parable of the wicked husbandman. His object is to utterly expose the malice
underlying all their opposition to him. They could not misunderstand the
application of this parable. It is a perfect arraignment of the Jewish nation
and of its leaders. Following the old time Jewish imagery he tells of a
vineyard as one of the prophets hath said, "I brought a vine out of Egypt,
and planted it and watered it and cultivated it, and what more could I do to my
vineyard than I have done?" Now these husbandmen who had charge of that
vineyard were refusing to its owner its land dues. The prophets who had been
sent unto them were maltreated, their message rejected, some of them were
killed, some sawn asunder, some stoned. Then at last the heir comes and they
take counsel to kill him in order to make permanent their authority over the
vineyard. His purpose is to show that the most inveterate unbelief, hardness of
heart, and murderous malice are evinced by these scribes rind Pharisees. From
that day until the present the unbelieving Jews have sought to evade the point
of our Lord's great indictment, that they have murdered the Prince of Glory,
their own Messiah.
Many years ago, when I was a young pastor, a Jewish rabbi came to Waco and
offered to prove from the Gospels themselves that the Jews were not guilty of
the death of Christ; that he was punished according to the forms of the Jewish
law. And he offered to prove this if any church in the city would offer him
their pulpit. I accepted on condition that I be allowed to reply to him, and he
would get his people to hear my reply, as I would get my people to hear his
discussion. The arrangements were made and when he delivered his address he
followed very closely an account of the trial of Jesus Christ given by Mr.
Joseph Salvador, a physician and learned Jew, who had published at Paris a work
entitled A History of the Institution of Moses and the Jewish People. In this
history there is a chapter on the administration of justice. Then follows an
application of the principles set forth in that chapter to the most memorable
trial in history that of Jesus Christ. Doubtless this rabbi supposed that
nobody in Waco had ever heard of that book. When I began my reply the following
night I recited the facts concerning Mr. Salvador's book and that this rabbi's
speech was merely a series of quotations from that book, and then I gave the
reply to Mr. Salvador's book by a distinguished French lawyer, Mr. Dupin. Mr.
Dupin, with the utmost courtesy and respect, grinds to fine powder Mr.
Salvador's argument. I then told the audience that they would find both Mr. Salvador's
argument, which was the same as that to which the audience had listened, and
Mr. Dupin's reply in an appendix to Greenleaf's Testimony of the
Evangelists.
I may refer also to a discussion by Mayor Gaynor of New York, and I mention the
most exhaustive discussion by a great lawyer: The Trial of Jesus from a
Lawyer's Standpoint two volumes, by v. M. Chandler of the New York Bar. While
fully agreeing with Mr. Chandler in his broad sympathies with all persecuted
Jews, by any country" or religion, I utterly dissent from him on one
capital point which is also both a legal and a historical one, my own
conviction being that nations as well as individuals are responsible for their
actions and the actions of their leaders, and more so in this case than in any other
in history. There can be no serious question here. Jesus of Nazareth was
pursued to death murderous death contrary to the forms of the Jewish law.
This is exactly our Lord's indictment, and in this argument of the wicked
husbandman he puts the final point upon this indictment, forces these scribes
and Pharisees to answer this question: "When, therefore, the Lord of the
vineyard shall come, what will he do unto these husbandmen?" And they are
compelled to answer: "He will miserably destroy these miserable men, and
will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the
fruits in their season."
Our Lord seeks to prepare all of his audience for this immense transition, the
taking away of the kingdom of God from the Jews and the giving of that kingdom
to the Gentiles. He puts the capstone upon his application by a citation from
the prophets, "The stone which the builders rejected, the same was made
the head of the corner." Isaiah had said, "Behold, I lay for a
foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone." Now our
Lord's charge is that this stone, which God himself had prepared for the
foundation, they rejected, and then he announces their doom: "Whoever
stumbles on that stone, whoever through unbelief in this life, rejects Christ,
shall be broken. But upon whom that stone shall fall, he shall be ground to
powder."
He follows up this victory by another parable, the parable of the marriage
feast. We have already seen Luke's account of a similar parable, and yet in
some things dissimilar: The parable of the gospel feast. The distinction
between the two is very important. A student should put them side by side. The
gospel feast is at the beginning, illustrating the preaching of the gospel to
the Jews. The marriage feast presents not the beginning, but the culmination.
While the Jews counted a betrothal as binding as marriage, yet there was a
distinction between the betrothal and the consummation of the marriage. The
object of the gospel feast is to betroth Christ. The object of the marriage
feast is to show the consummation of that betrothal. Paul says, "I have
espoused you as a chaste virgin unto Christ." Everybody is invited under
the terms of this gospel feast to be betrothed to Christ, but in this marriage
feast the rejection is final, and as a penalty the king himself sends his
armies and destroys the murderers and burns their city. Such is the fate of
Jerusalem. Already the shadow of the coming armies of Titus on the nation
appears. In less than forty years from the time that Jesus speaks this parable,
Titus takes Jerusalem, since which time they have had no home, no Temple, and
no national government.
This argument clearly shows that on the rejection of the Jews the heralds of
the cross are to go to the highways and the hedges. There is one special
incident in the parable a man who outwardly accepts the invitation to the
wedding feast, but attends without a wedding garment is cast into the outer
darkness. He represents the formal professor of religion; the one who accepts
God's invitation so far as externals are concerned, but who makes no inward
preparation. Thus by parable after parable Christ makes an end to his answer to
their first question, "By what sort of authority do you teach and who
gives it?"
The conspiracy underlying the second question and the motive prompting it is
thus expressed by Luke: "And they watched him, and sent forth spies, who
feigned themselves to be righteous, that they might take hold of his speech, so
as to deliver him up to the rule and to the authority of the governor."
There were two political parties. One was called the Herodians, that is, those
who accepted the Roman government and its administration through Herod. The
Sadducees belonged to this party. The Pharisees constituted the bulk of the
other party. Their object was to free their nation from any semblance of
dependence upon Rome. The issue between these parties was very sharp.
Everywhere there was alignment for one or the other. One who committed himself
to the Herodians deprived himself of favor with what is called the patriotic
party led by the Pharisees, and one who openly aligned himself with them
secured the enmity of the ruling party. Led by malice they feigned great love
for Jesus and respect for his teaching and brought him a question concerning
the poll tax or tribute money. With flattering words they thus introduce it:
"Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth,
and carest not for any one: for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us,
therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or
not?" If he had answered, "Yes," this would have turned the
people against him. If he had said, "No," this would have made him
obnoxious to the authorities and would have furnished them the ground for
preferring a charge of treason. It is a well laid plot. The question was a
puzzling one to most of the Jewish people. They were a holy nation enslaved to
a heathen nation. Could they as God's own people pay this poll tax? History
tells us that not long after Christ was crucified a rebellion took place on
this very subject. A man named Judas in Galilee raised an insurrection, and
Barabbas, about whom we will learn later, was not so much a common robber and
murderer as he was a representative of this patriotic idea of freeing the
nation from the iniquitous government of Rome. Our Lord does not hesitate to
make a reply to their question. He passes no judgment on the righteousness of
the Roman rule, but he recognizes the fact that they are the rulers of Judea.
His mission is not a political one, but a spiritual one. He asks for the
tribute money. Holding it in his hand he says, "Whose is this image and
superscription?" They answer, "Caesar's." He replies, "Render,
therefore, unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and unto God the things
that are God's."
This reply shows that he would not head a political faction; that his kingdom
was not of this world; that while he did not justify the Roman government, he
recognized the fact that they were the rulers of the nation and he made it the
occasion of laying down a principle of worldwide application by his people.
Paul repeats it later, "Render tribute to whom tribute is due." Peter
repeats it, "Honor the king," not that he expresses a preference for
a monarchial form of government over a democratic, but that it is not the
object of the Christian religion primarily to teach forms of human government,
but to save men; to deal with the spiritual condition of the people. The answer
of our Lord to this second question, has, throughout all history, been the
guiding principle of his people.
The Sadducees came to the front with a question that has hitherto puzzled their
adversaries. They do not believe in the immortality of the soul. They are
materialists. They think when a man dies that is the last of him, and, of
course, they do not believe in the resurrection of the body. The Pharisees
believe in the immortality of the soul and in the resurrection of the body. The
Sadducees present what they consider an unanswerable question, citing a
supposititious case of a man dying without an heir and under the Mosaic law his
brother taking his place as a husband of the widow, and that brother dying
without an heir, and so on, until she had been the wife of seven brothers. Then
she dies. Now, in the resurrection which one of the seven will be her husband?
Of course, they did not believe that there would be any resurrection, but as
the Pharisees were accustomed to teach that in the next world there would be
marriages, and that earthly relations would be continued, to them the question
was a puzzle. The Mohammedans also teach the continuance of sexual relations in
the world to come: They hold out as an incentive the luxuries of sexual pleasures
of paradise. Of course, it was agreed between the Pharisees and the Sadducees
that this question should be propounded to our Lord. If he should answer in
favor of the Sadducees that would turn against him all the people who followed
the teachings of the Pharisees. If he should answer in favor of the Pharisees
then the Sadducees, who were Herodians, fewer in number, but occupying the most
of the offices, would have had ground of accusation against Christ. The
Sadducees were the party in power. The object of the question was to put him
between the upper and the nether millstones. He completely vanquishes both of
them by his teaching that in the next world there is no marriage nor giving in
marriage. Those who attain the resurrection state are sexless, as are the
angels, not that they will be angels. But the present physical conditions of
this life will not be continued in the other world. He does not mean that man
and wife living long together on earth may not rejoice with each other in
heaven, remembering the lessons of time, but that the physical conditions of
married life do not continue in the world to come. This answer both breaks the
points of the question of the Sadducees and corrects the erroneous doctrine of
the Pharisees concerning the conditions of the future life. No Pharisee with
the views that he held could have met the difficulties of the question of the
Sadducees. Our Lord now turns upon the Sadducees with a most crushing
rejoinder. "You deny the resurrection of the body. You err upon two points:
You neither know the scriptures nor the power of God." He then proves from
the Pentateuch the resurrection of the dead by the words of God to Moses:
"I am the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and the God of Jacob." He is not
the God of dead people, but of living people. Abraham is dead only as to his
body. He lives and is with God. This argument is from the greater to the
lesser; if God be the Saviour of the soul of Abraham he will be the Saviour of
his body, rescuing it from the grave. Some commentators have been puzzled to
see the application of Christ's answer to the resurrection of the body. But our
Lord was wiser than commentators. His one citation destroys both errors of the
Sadducees. They held that there is no immortality of the soul. He disproves that.
They held that there is no resurrection of the body. He disproves that.
QUESTIONS
1. What three introductory
thoughts to this chapter?
2. What is the greatest
day's work in the life of our Lord, and what two other very great days in his
life?
3. Give a detailed outline
of this great day's work.
4. What are the parallels
between the methods of Christ and Paul in their teaching and the methods of the
Grecian philosophers?
5. With what double question
did the scribes and Pharisees open the discussion with Christ in the Temple?
6. How had Jesus already
answered these questions?
7. How did Christ answer
them here and how did this answer place them in a dilemma?
8. Do you know any other
people who have been puzzled to account for John's baptism?
9. How does Christ complete
their discomfiture?
10. How does he further
press on them their own wickedness in. a parable?
11. How does he drive them
into a final corner by another parable?
12. Give an account of the
controversy which occurred in Waco between a Jewish rabbi and the author.
13. Where may be found the
substance of the rabbi's speech and the reply?
14. What other discussion
cited and commended and what one point from the prophets and what application?
15. What great purpose of
Christ toward his audience, what citation of dissension?
16. How does he further show
their doom in a parable?
17. What other parable
similar and what points of contrast and distinction between the two?
18. What historical event clearly
foreshadowed by this parable?
19. Who represented by the
man that "had not on the wedding garment"?
20. What two political
parties in the time of Christ, what did each stand for, how did one of these
parties try to entangle Christ, and how did Christ in his reply, outwit them?
21. What does this reply
show, what principle here enunciated by Christ and how recognized afterward by
Paul and Peter?
22. What distinctive tenets
of the Sadducees, how did they conspire with the Pharisees to entrap Christ,
what dilemma in which they attempted to place him and how did he escape?
23. How does Christ prove
the resurrection in this connection and what is the argument?
24. How does this citation
disprove the two main tenets of the Sadducees and thus silence them?
ANOTHER QUESTION AND ITS ANSWER; HIS LAST
PUBLIC DISCOURSE; OVER AGAINST THE TREASURY
Harmony, pages 155-159 and Matthew 22:34 to 23:39;
Mark 12:38-44; Luke 20:41 to 21:4.
This section commences on page 155 of the Harmony and consists of the last
question of Christ's enemies, differing bitterly among themselves, yet led by a
common interest, conspired to test, tempt, and ensnare him by hard questions.
He had answered the question concerning his authority, the question concerning
paying tribute to Caesar, and the resurrection question. The Pharisees, seeing
that he had muzzled the Sadducees, rapidly held a council, selected with great
care the form of a final question and a representative to propound it. It will
be understood that this representative is a better man than those he
represents, but he speaks representatively. And the word "tempt" is
used in its usual bad sense. They consulted first as to what question should be
propounded. Second, who should propound it. The querist was a lawyer. The word
"lawyer" in the Bible does not mean altogether what our word
"lawyer" means. A lawyer in the time of Moses and after, and
especially in mediaeval ages, was one who was an expert in both civil and canon
law, or ecclesiastical law. The first business of a scribe was to copy the
text, then expound it. And after a while they became authorities both on text
and exposition, and from them originated the meaning of the degree LL. D., the
word "laws" being plural, that is, one being skilled in both civil
and canon law. In all countries where there is a union of church and state
there are two forms of law, one applying to ecclesiastical matters and the
other to civil matters. Oftentimes the two blend. A matter can be both civil
and ecclesiastical.
It is quite important here to note the precise form of the question they
propound. Following the Greek literally this is the question: "What sort
of commandment is great?" We usually understand that the question seeks to
find a distinction between the various commandments of the moral law, as to
relative importance. This seems not to have been their idea. There would not
have been a snare in such a question. Let us see if we can find just what was the
snare. They themselves continually distinguished between a commandment that was
written and a commandment that was oral or traditional. And they were
accustomed to put the traditional law above the written law. One of themselves
had said, "The commandments of the written law are sometimes weighty, and
sometimes little, but the commandments of the scribes are always weighty."
So when they put the question in this form, "What sort of commandment is
great?" they want to commit him either for or against the oral law. If he
decides against the oral or traditional law they hope to make capital out of it
before the people, who were very much devoted to the traditional law. Now, from
the very beginning there had been a marked difference between them and him on the
meaning of law. When he says law he means only the written law. When they say
law they mean both the written and the oral law. All through the Sermon on the
Mount we see how he magnifies the written law, and throws contempt upon their
traditional law. He shows that in their construction of traditional law they
oftentimes set aside the written law entirely. We have considered a case
already where they set aside the commandment, "Honor thy father and thy
mother," by following the traditional law, to the effect that if a man
said to himself that the money with which he ought to help the aged, feeble
parents was in his mind consecrated to something else, that would exclude him
from piety toward his father and mother, that is, relieve him from the burden
of taking care of them. All along he has been setting aside their conception of
law. Now their hope is that if he takes his old ground, that only written law
is great, it would turn away from him the people who believed in the oral law.
We have a passage in Mark often quoted in baptismal controversies showing how
punctilious they were in their observance of their traditional law, the
diligent washing of their hands and, when they returned from the market, the
dipping of themselves lest they had contracted ceremonial defilement by touch
with unclean people. And even the dipping of their tables and beds, and
anything that might by a possibility have become ceremonially defiled. Hence
the form of this question: "What sort of commandment is great?" In
other words, "Do you say that only the written law is great, or do you
agree with us that the traditional law is even greater?" He replies by a
quotation from the Pentateuch. The first part of his answer is from Deuteronomy
6:4, the second part from Leviticus 19:18. He says, "Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind,
and with all thy strength. This is the great and first commandment. The second
like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Here he accepts
the condensation of all the first table of the law by Moses into one
commandment and his condemnation of the second table of the law into another
commandment.
Spurgeon, while seeming to misapprehend the precise point of this question
propounded to Christ, has a great sermon on the text, "The first and the
great commandment." To love God supremely is first in order of position in
the Ten Commandments. It is first in order of importance. It is first and
greatest because it includes the second. That is to say, unless we love God
supremely we can never obey the second commandment to love our neighbor as
ourself. Some magnify the first table of the law and disregard the second. They
think that if they pray and pay tithes to God, and do not worship images) and
keep the sabbath day, it makes little difference how they do toward their
neighbors. They may refuse to honor their parents, steal, lie, commit adultery,
if only they comply with what they think is the .First Commandment. On the
other hand it is the custom of the world to utterly disregard the First
Commandment and magnify the Second. Businessmen on the streets conceive of law
simply as it relates to our fellow man. They think if we kill nobody, do not
wrong our neighbor in any respect, we are all right. Their stress is on
morality, but our Lord shows an indissoluble connection between the two
commandments: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and thy
neighbor as thyself. He conceives of no sound morality apart from supreme love
of God.
This representative LLD who propounded this question was much interested in our
Lord's answer. It becomes evident that he is a better man than those who loaded
him with the question. He expresses hearty approval of Christ's answer, and our
Lord said that he was not far from the kingdom.
As usual, our Lord follows up his victory. He puts a question before the
Pharisees are scattered. They still stand grouped where they had consulted to
determine what question should be propounded to him. So he propounds a counter
question. "What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he?" They readily
answered as any Jew would have answered, "The Son of David." Then he
puts a question with a barb on it: "If he is only the Son of David, how is
it that David, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, calls him Lord, in
Psalm 110, to wit: The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand?"
The object of his question is to correct their limited conception of the
Messiah. They were disposed to look at him as a mere human Jewish king establishing
an earthly government and raising the throne of David so as to bear reign over
the whole Gentile world. His object is to convince them that the Messiah
foretold in their Old Testament was not merely a man. and to prove it by David:
"The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand." He wants to
bring out the thought which he himself later expressed to John in Revelation:
"I am the root as well as the offspring of David." In the divine
sense he is the source of David; in the flesh he is the offspring of David.
This statement of our Lord is of incalculable value in its bearing on the
radical criticism. They do not hesitate to say that David never wrote Psalm
110. Jesus says that he did. He explicitly ascribed that psalm to David. They
say the psalms are not inspired. Jesus says that David wrote that psalm in the
Spirit. They deny any reference to a coming One in that psalm. Jesus shows that
there is a reference to himself, the coming Messiah. It is a little remarkable
that this particular psalm is quoted oftener in the New Testament as messianic
than any other passage in the Old Testament. Our Lord himself quotes it more
than once. Peter quotes it in his great address recorded in Acts 2, and yet
again in his first letter. Paul quotes it expressly in his first letter to the
Corinthians, and again in the letter to the Ephesians and four times in the
letter to the Hebrews, and all of them say that David wrote it; that David
wrote it by inspiration; and that David wrote it with reference to the coming
Messiah. And so we come to the end of the great catechism. It has been a duel
to the death.
THE LAST PUBLIC
DISCOURSE OF OUR LORD
We do not mean to intimate that Christ will not hereafter speak to his
disciples. We mean that this discourse that we are now to consider ends his
public ministry to the Jews. He considers the battle ended. They have rejected
him, and now he makes the most serious indictment against the nation and its
rulers known in the annals of time. It is the sharpest arraignment and the
deepest denunciation to be found in the whole Bible.
This discourse consists, first, of a great indictment; second, the denunciation
of a great penalty; third, the suggestion of a great hope. Let us see then what
is the indictment.
We have already learned from the preceding discussion that the chief item of
the indictment is their rejection of the Messiah and their purpose to murder
him. Then follows the other items of the indictment relating particularly to
the leaders: First, sitting in the seat of authority, they bind heavy burdens
and grievous to be borne upon the people, which they themselves will not move
with their finger. Second, all their works are done to be seen of men, hence
they make broad their phylacteries, enlarge the borders of their garments, love
the chief places at feasts and the chief seats in the synagogues, and
salutations in the marketplaces to be called rabbi. Third, they shut up the
kingdom of heaven against men, themselves not entering nor suffering those to
enter who would enter. Fourth, they compass sea and land to make one proselyte,
and when he is become so, he is made twofold more a son of hell than
themselves. Fifth, they swear by the lesser things, disregarding the greater,
swearing by the gift on the altar as more than the altar which sanctifies the
gift, swearing by the gold of the Temple as more than the Temple itself. Sixth,
they tithe mint and anise and cummin and ignore the weightier matters of the
law judgment, mercy, and faith strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.
Seventh, they cleanse the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within are
full of extortion and excess, as whited sepulchres, outwardly appearing
beautiful, while inwardly they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness,
so they outwardly appear righteous unto men, but inwardly are full of hypocrisy
and iniquity. Eighth, they are as monument-builders garnishing the tombs of the
righteous, as if they thus said, "We would never have been partakers in
the blood of the prophets." All the time they are sons in spirit, as well
as in flesh, of them that slew the prophets. In this way they fill up the
measure of their fathers. And now comes
THE PENALTY
"Upon you shall come all the righteous .blood shed on the earth, from the
blood of Abel, the righteous, unto the blood of Zachariah, son of Barachiah. .
. . Your house is left unto you desolate." It has long been a puzzle to
the thinker how the blood of Abel should came on the Jewish people, who, in
their father Abraham, originated so many years subsequent to Abel. The answer
to the puzzle is this: Abel and all subsequent martyrs believed in salvation by
a coming Messiah. This doctrine was the hope of the whole world. And when the
Jewish nation was established they were made the custodians of this doctrine.
To them were committed the oracles of God. If, therefore, when the Messiah
comes, to whom Abel and every martyr had looked forward, and the Jews rejected
and killed that Messiah, they sin, not only against the Messiah, and not only
against themselves, but they sin against the whole world. They sin against the
hope of the world. If their attitude toward the Messiah is true, then Abel died
in vain. If they alone of all the nations were entrusted with the doctrine of
Abel's saving faith, and they repudiate that doctrine, on them comes the blood
of Abel. The penalty denounced is not merely the destruction of the Holy City
and the sacred Temple, and the dispersion of the Jewish nation, but it is a
desolation a tribulation that shall last through all the ages until the
coming of the Gentiles be fulfilled. Therefore, as we learn later, it is called
a trouble such as the world had never known before and would never know again.
It is surprising that commentators, in discussing "the great
tribulation" set forth in our Lord's great prophecy, make it a general
tribulation bearing upon Gentile nations. It is exclusively a Jewish
tribulation, which has already lasted about 1900 years. Nor is the end yet in
sight. They were on probation twenty centuries as the bearers of the oracles of
God. Their tribulation has already lasted nearly twenty centuries.
The great hope is suggested in this final word of his discourse, "Ye shall
not see me henceforth till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name
of the Lord." So, that the last word to the Jews, the last public message,
touches the second advent of our Lord.
Following this discourse we have an account of Jesus seated over against the
treasury and beholding how men put money into the treasury. What a lesson is
here! Christ watching the contributions, noting the amount, noting the motive,
measuring the relative importance of the contributions, not by the amount, but
by the unselfish sacrifice in the donation.
In my young days I preached a sermon to the Waco Association on this text, on
the theme, "The Treasury of God's People, and Christ's Observation of the
Contributions to This Fund." The association called for its publication.
The discussion was an epoch in the history of the association. From that time
on enlargements in both spirituality and gifts, and broader fields came to Waco
Association. Always before God's people should be this picture of Christ
sitting over against the treasury watching how men put money into the treasury.
(The author's sermon to which references are here made will be found in his
first book of sermons.)
QUESTIONS
1. What was the Pharisees'
last effort to entangle Christ by questioning him, how did they proceed and
what two points upon which they consulted?
2. What is the meaning and
usage of the words "lawyer" and "doctor"?
3. What was the form of the
question they propounded to Christ and why important to note its form?
4. What difference between
the Pharisees' use of the word "law," and Christ's use of it and in
what did the trap here set for our Lord consist?
5. What was Christ's
attitude toward their oral law, what example of their setting aside the written
commandment cited, and what example of their punctiliousness in the observance
of their oral law given?
6. State clearly the
question as they propounded it to him and give his answer verbatim.
7. What sermon cited on this
passage, what is the substance of it, and what application of this
interpretation to our own generation?
8. What evidence here that
this lawyer was better than those whom he represented?
9. How does Christ follow up
his victory in this instance?
10. What was their answer to
his question, what his second question and what the purpose of our Lord in
these last questions?
11. What is the value of
this statement of Christ in its bearing on radical criticism and what is the
fallacy of the position of the radical critics in this case?
12. Of what does our Lord's
last public discourse consist?
13. What items of the
indictment?
14. What penalty denounced
and its meaning and application?
15. What great hope
suggested and its far-reaching meaning?
16. What great lesson of Christ
and the treasury?
OUR LORD'S GREAT PROPHECY HIS SECOND
COMING
Harmony, pages 160-166 and Matthew 24:1-51; Mark
13:1-37; Luke 21:5-36.
This section commences on page 160 of the Harmony. But first, by way of review,
let me recall attention to the greatest indictment ever written against a
nation; and, second, the greatest penalty ever assessed against a nation; and
third, the greatest hope ever suggested to a nation. This indictment, this
penalty, and this hope, together with the questions they invoked, introduce our
Lord's great prophecy and constitute the occasion of it.
Certain passages in Matthew 21-23 contain the indictment, the penalty, and the
hope. In Matthew 21, commencing at v. 23, we find the parable of the
householder who planted a vineyard and set a hedge about it, and digged a wine
press in it and built a tower) and let it out to husbandmen and went into
another country. Then he sends his servants from time to time for the fruits of
that vineyard. His servants are maltreated some of them put to death. He
keeps sending them as the years roll by. They keep on persecuting and killing
them. Finally he sends his son and they kill his son. This parable is an
indictment against the Jewish nation, and closes with the penalty, "When
therefore the Lord of the vineyard shall come he will miserably destroy those
miserable men, and will let out the vineyard to other husbandmen, who shall render
him the fruits in their season."
We cannot mistake here either the people indicted, the severity of the
indictment, or the double character of the penalty assessed. And we should mark
well that the enforcement is more than once called a "Coming of the
Lord." The second part of the penalty is the giving of the oracles and
kingdom of God to other peoples. In chapter 22, and also in the form of a
parable, we find a restatement of both the indictment and the penalty. The
indictment is their rejection of invitations to a marriage feast and
maltreatment of his messengers. The vineyard represents the kingdom of God and
the marriage feast his gospel. The penalty here is also twofold. First, others
obtain what they reject and "The king was wroth and sent his armies and
destroyed the murderers and burned their city."
Having thus veiled indictment and penalty under the form of parables, in
chapter 23 he openly arraigns them thus: "Ye shut up the kingdom of heaven
against men; for ye enter not in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are
entering in to enter. Ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when
he is become so, ye make him twofold more the son of hell than yourselves. Ye
swear by the minor things and ignore the greatest: For example, ye swear by the
gold of the temple instead of the temple which sanctifieth the gold, and by the
gift upon the altar instead of the altar which sanctifieth the gift. Ye tithe
mint and anise and cummin and have left undone the weightier matters of the law
judgment, mercy, and faith. Ye cleanse the outside of the cup and of the
platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Whiled sepulchers
outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men's bones and all
uncleanness. Wherefore do ye also outwardly appear righteous unto me, but
inwardly are ye full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Ye build the sepulchers of the
prophets and garnish the tombs of the righteous, as if to say, If we had been
living in the days of our fathers we would not have participated in their
martyrdom. Fill ye up the measure of your fathers, ye serpents, ye offspring of
vipers. How shall ye escape the judgment of hell? And, behold, when afterwards
I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of them ye shall kill and
crucify and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute
from city to city, that upon you shall come all the righteous blood shed on the
earth from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, the son of Barachias,
whom ye slew between the porch and the altar. Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that
killeth the prophets and stoneth them that are sent unto her, how often would I
have gathered your children together even as a hen gathers her chickens under
her wings, and ye would not. Behold your house is left unto you desolate. Not
one stone shall remain standing upon another. Ye shall not see me henceforth
until ye say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."
We see the nature of this indictment that it covers the whole period of the
Jewish history, in all the probations of mercy. From the call of Abraham to the
settlement in Canaan was 490 years; from the settlement in Canaan to the
establishment of the Jewish monarchy was 490 years; from the establishment of
that monarchy to its downfall was 490 years; from the going forth of the
commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the coming of the Messiah
the first time, was 490 years nearly twenty centuries of separate periods of
mercy. In every probation they failed. They failed in their pilgrimage. They
failed in the land under a theocracy. They failed under the monarchy. They
failed in the interval between the return from exile and the coming of the
Messiah. They grossly fail when Messiah comes. They shut up the kingdom of God,
murdering the messengers of God prophets, evangelists, martyrs.
The penalty is: "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." The
duration of the desolation is "Until ye shall say, Blessed is he that
cometh in the name of the Lord," that is, until their reception of the
rejected Messiah. And this is the Great Hope held up before them their
salvation through Messiah on their conversion, which conversion precedes and
introduces the millennium. What an indictment! What a penalty I What a hope!
Two things in this last passage call for explanation and emphasis:
1. How could a nation organized at Sinai 1491 B.C. be held guilty of all the
righteous blood shed from Abel's time long anterior even to Abraham's call,
much less their later national organization? The answer is: Salvation through
sacrificial, vicarious blood was the one heritage of hope for a lost world
after man sinned. Abel was the first martyr. This heritage of hope for the
world was committed to them; their murder of the Messiah, who was the object of
Abel's hope, was an endorsement of Cain and of every succeeding persecutor who
walked in "the way of Cain."
2. It was a sin against their own unity. Mark the word, "together":
"How would I have gathered you together!" Jesus was the true patriot
working for the preservation of national unity in the only way by which it
could be obtained. As a hen who sees the hovering hawk ready to swoop down upon
the scattered brood, would call them by a warning cluck to run to the shelter
of her wings, so Jesus, seeing his people helpless, scattered, a present prey
to division and internal strife, and doomed to become the prey of the Roman
hawk, sought to unite and shelter them.
When, therefore, he said in the Temple after his rejection: "Not one of
these stones shall be left upon another," his disciples come to him
privately at Olivet, saying, "When shall these things be? and what shall
be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" This threefold
question has a sevenfold answer. Often our Lord answers more questions than are
propounded, and these are the questions that he really answers:
(1) When shall Jerusalem be destroyed?
(2) What the sign of this destruction?
(3) What the extent of this tribulation introduced by this destruction?
(4) When the conversion of the Jews, and its relation to the final advent?
(5) When the final advent of our Lord?
(6) What is the sign of that advent?
(7) What the purpose of that advent, or in what office does Jesus come the next
time?
I answer, in exposition of our Lord's great prophecy, these seven questions,
because he answers them. This prophecy is found in Matthew 24-25, Mark 13, and
in Luke 21, presented in the form of a harmony in the textbook. It is the
longest prophecy in the New Testament except the book of Revelation. It has
awakened more interest, stirred up more curiosity, called forth more comment,
and developed a greater bulk of literature than any other one passage in the
Word of God. I know of no part of the Word of God, except that relating to the
crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ, of greater interest to the Bible student.
In discussing this great prophecy I know that I shall, in my interpretations,
run counter to the views of many good brethren, but not upon a point which
raises a question of fellowship. Always among the Baptists, and indeed other
denominations, variant views as to the final advent of our Lord have not been
allowed to raise a question of fellowship. A man may be an unquestioned member
of the church, whether he be premillennialist or postmillennialist.
Let us now take up these questions in order. I have never yet seen a comment on
this entire prophecy that did not evince great difficulty in determining how
much of it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, and how much of it to the
final advent. Even so great a commentator as Dr. Broadus balks at that. Some,
in order to harmonize, dislocate and rearrange parts of the text. This is
wholly unnecessary. Indeed, it is easier to understand in its natural
arrangement, without any change in the order of the several historians. It does
not need a single word or sentence in it to be put in another place. It comes
exactly right where it should. It is an amazing thing to me that anybody ever
had any difficulty on the subject. After hedging carefully against several
points upon which they were likely to be deceived, viz.:
(1) Against false christs
(2) Against false signs
(3) Against any idea of his speedy coming
(4)Warnings against persecutions Our Lord first answers the questions when
Jerusalem would be destroyed, what the sign of it, how long the tribulation
which that destruction would introduce; then when the conversion of the Jews
and its relation to the final advent, what its sign and for what he would come.
Now let the reader take the Harmony, page 162, and draw a pencil mark across
the page just above Matthew 24:15. All the matter of prophecy preceding this
mark is devoted to corrections and misapprehensions, and warnings against being
deceived on the several points enumerated above. Draw next a pencil mark across
page 164 just under Matthew 24:28. In that space he gives the double sign of
the destruction of Jerusalem, the duration of the tribulation it introduces,
and a second caution against false christs. Draw next a pencil mark across page
165 just under Matthew 24:31. In that space he gives the general time and sign
of his final advent and the advent itself. Draw the next line lower down on
page 165 just under Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33. The only difficulty
in arrangement comes in this section. This difficulty arises from construing
"this generation." But no matter what the construction, the order is
all right. The section comes just where it should come. Dr. Broadus insists that
"this generation" shall have its ordinary meaning, the average period
of life for the living, thirty or forty years. If his contention be tenable,
then the section answers the question, "When shall Jerusalem be
destroyed," and what follows must be applied to the final advent. But
certainly the Greek phrase, e genea aute, does sometimes mean "this
race" of people, i.e., here "the Jewish race." And it should be
so rendered here if the context demands it. And, in my judgment, all the
context does demand it. If we look back to the indictment (Matt. 23:31-35) it
is race guilt. If we look at the penalty and its destruction (Luke 21:24) it is
race penalty. If we look back to the great hope suggested (Matt. 23: 39) it is
race hope, certainly not to be realized by that generation in the ordinary
sense of the word, nor, in fact is it even yet realized. Why then may we not
render the phrase, e genea aute, this race of Jews shall not pass away,
shall not be blotted out as other conquered peoples have been, but shall be
preserved as a monument of wrath, as Moses foretold, until after the fulness of
the Gentiles, and thus become earth's greatest monument of mercy in the way of
their salvation? This puts our Lord in harmony with Moses (Deut. 28:15-68;
30:1-10) and with Ezekiel (36:21 to 37:14) and with Paul (Rom. 11:1-36). With
this interpretation all difficulty vanishes. No word or sentence is out of its
proper order, and we do not need the last two cross lines of divisions, for
everything in the prophecy from the previous line drawn just under Matthew
24:28 relates to the final advent. The destruction of Jerusalem stops squarely
with Matthew 24:28 and Luke 21:24. We now take up the questions answered by our
Lord:
If Dr. Broadus be right about the meaning of "this generation," when
shall Jerusalem be destroyed? The answer to it is, in the lifetime of
"this generation." "All these things shall come upon this
generation." This prophecy was uttered A.D. 33; Jerusalem was destroyed
A.D. 70. Men then living, before they died, saw the fulfilment of all that part
of it which relates to the destruction of Jerusalem. If he be not right, our
Lord leaves it vague like the time of his advent.
The next question: What shall be the sign of the destruction of Jerusalem? His
answer is: "When you shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by
Daniel, the prophet, standing in the holy place, where it ought not to be, and
when Jerusalem is encompassed with armies," for this setting up is
connected with the encompassing of Jerusalem with armies. Those two things must
come together. "When ye shall see Jerusalem encompassed with armies and
then shall ye see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel, the
prophet, set up where it ought not to be;" that is the sign of the
destruction of Jerusalem. Abomination, Greek, bdelugma, means an
"idol," a graven image, and therefore an abomination. Abomination is
a derivative meaning. It is an abomination because it is a graven image,
contrary to the Second Commandment: "Thou shalt make no graven image to bow
down before it." The first abomination of desolation set up in the holy
place was by Antiochus Epiphanes when he entered in the Temple a statue of
Jupiter Olympus and demanded that it should be worshiped.
Now, this second abomination of desolation is a desolation of desolations. This
brings greater desolation upon the Jewish people than Antiochus had brought.
What was that graven image? We know exactly what it was. We first get
acquainted with it when Jerusalem was not encompassed with armies and Josephus
gives us the account. This same Pilate, at that time Roman Procurator, sent
from Caesarea, the seaport of that country on the Mediterranean Sea, a legion
of Roman soldiers and had them secretly introduced into the city and sheltered
in the tower of Antonio overlooking the Temple, and these soldiers brought with
them their ensigns. The Roman ensign was a straight staff, capped with a
metallic eagle, and right under the eagle was a graven image of Caesar. Caesar
claimed to be divine. Caesar exacted divine worship, and every evening when
those standards were placed, the Roman legion got down and worshiped the image
of Caesar thereon, and every morning at the roll call a part of the parade was
for the whole legion to prostrate themselves before that graven image and
worship it. The Jews were so horrified when they saw that image and the
consequent worship, they went to Pilate, who was at that time living in
Caesarea, and prostrated themselves before him and said, "Kill us, if you
will, but take that abomination of desolation out of our Holy City and from the
neighborhood of our holy temple." While that was an abomination, Jerusalem
at their time was not encompassed with armies. "When ye shall see the
abomination which makes desolation spoken of by Daniel, the prophet, set up
where it ought not to be, and see Jerusalem encompassed by armies," that
is the sign of the destruction of Jerusalem. The greatest desolation ever
wrought in the world on a people, was made under that standard and by the Roman
power. Therefore, it was the abomination that maketh desolation. The Christians
saw that sign and profited by the advice of their Lord, as contained in this
very prophecy. If a man was on top of the house he did not come down the
stairway on the outside to go back in the house for anything; if he was out in
the field, he did not go back to the house, but fled to escape the awful doom
assessed upon the Jewish nation. And it is a matter of history that the
Christian people did recognize that sign and did flee across the Jordan to
Pella, in the mountains of Moab, and did escape, by following the suggestions
of their Lord, the doom that came upon that nation. So, two of the questions
have been answered: When shall Jerusalem be destroyed? and What shall be the
sign of its destruction?
We will take up the third question in the next discussion.
1. Where is our Lord's great prophecy found?
2. What constitutes the occasion of this great prophecy?
3. What is the form and substance of the gravest indictment ever drown against
a nation?
4. What is the double character of the severest penalty ever assessed against a
nation, where do we find a restatement of both the indictment and penalty, what
do "the vineyard" and the "marriage feast" represent and
how is the twofold penalty here brought out?
5. Having veiled the indictment and penalty in the form of parables, how does
he openly arraign them?
6. What does this indictment cover and what are the great periods of Jewish probation
in which they failed?
7. What was the duration of the penalty?
8. What was the brightest hope ever suggested to a nation?
9. How could a nation organized at Sinai be held guilty of all the righteous
blood shed from the time of Abel?
10. What was the nature of their sin and what Jesus' effort to prevent the very
judgment that came upon them for this sin?
11. What threefold question did the announcement of this awful penalty evoke
from the disciples and what is the sevenfold answer?
12. What can you say of the importance of this prophecy and the interest
excited by it?
13. What of the difficulty of interpretation by commentators and their method
of solution?*
14. What points upon which they are likely to be deceived does our Lord hedge
against in the first part of this prophecy and he answers what questions
immediately following?
15. Where draw the lines in the Harmony and what does each line separate?
16. What paragraph contains the difficulty of this arrangement and what phrase
is its crux?
17. What is Dr. Broadus' interpretation of "this generation"?
18.. What is the contextual argument for a different meaning?
19. Assuming that in Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32; the Greek phrase, e
genea aute, means "this race" of people, i.e., the Jews,. give
outline of the prophecy.
20. If Dr. Broadus be right about the meaning of "this generation,"
when should Jerusalem be destroyed? If he be not right, then when should
Jerusalem be destroyed, and how does either interpretation obviate the
necessity of changing the order of the words?
21. On what one point of inquiry does our Lord here, as always elsewhere,
refuse a specific answer and in what way does the New Testament ever answer a
question of this kind? Answer: The inquiry as to time or date. Answers on
inquiries of this kind are given by showing the order of events and their
relation
22. What was the sign of the destruction of Jerusalem and what was the
explanation of it?
23. For whose benefit was this sign given, what its attendant warnings, and
what the historical proof that they recognized it and profited by the warnings?
OUR LORD'S GREAT PROPHECY HIS SECOND
COMING (CONTINUED)
Harmony, pages 160-168 and Matthew 24:1 to 25:46; Mark
13:1-37; Luke 21:8-36.
This discussion begins with the third question: What shall be the extent of the
tribulation of the Jews, commencing with the destruction of Jerusalem?
Jesus answers, "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the
times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." That is his answer.
A great many people, in commenting upon this, try to make out this great
tribulation to be a Gentile tribulation. There is no Gentile tribulation in it
at all; it is a Jewish tribulation altogether, and the "elect" spoken
of, for whose sake the days were shortened, are not elect Gentiles, but elect
Jews. Now, as their probation had lasted nearly twenty centuries, so that
penalty has already lasted nearly twenty centuries, and no man now can see the
end of it. There is no discernible sign yet upon the spiritual horizon of the
fulness of the Gentiles. The kingdom of heaven was turned over to them and they
pushed it through Asia into Africa, into Europe, across the ocean into America,
across that continent and into the Pacific and into its islands, and then to
the thick-peopled Orient again, and they are still pushing out the boundaries
of the kingdom of God, and triumphantly preaching the gospel of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and the Jewish tribulation has not yet ceased. Moses, with very great
particularity, anticipating the very declaration of Jesus Christ, describes
this Jewish tribulation. He says, "If you shall break my covenant, and
will not hear the prophet that is to come, like unto me, then you shall be
destroyed as a people. You shall be sent captive among all nations, and nowhere
shall ye be kindly received. And so great will be the persecution against you
that the heavens above shall seem brass and the earth beneath seem iron, and
when it is evening you will say, Would to God it were morning, and when it is
morning, you will say, Would to God it were evening." Our Lord further
says that this tribulation shall cease when they shall say, "Blessed is he
that cometh in the name of the Lord," that is, when they shall hear the
Gentile messengers bearing the gospel of Jesus Christ. Then, as Zechariah puts
it, "In the last days, saith the Lord, I will pour out upon the house of
Israel and upon the house of David, the spirit of prayer and supplication, and
they shall look upon him whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him
as one mourneth for his first-born son, and in that day a fountain for sin and
for uncleanness shall be opened for the house of Israel and for the house of
David." So that the tribulation ends, just as Paul, in Romans II, says it
will end, by the conversion of the Jews. He says, "I say then, Did they
stumble that they might fall? God forbid: but by their fall salvation is come
unto the Gentiles, to provoke them to jealousy. Now, if their fall is the
riches of the world, and their loss the riches of the Gentiles; how much more
their fulness? . . . For, if the casting away of them is the reconciling of the
world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?" (Rom.
11:11-12, 15.)
To like purport speaks Ezekiel in 36:16-27; 37:1-14. He saw a valley of dry.
bones. They represented dispersed and afflicted Israel. He prophesied over
them, and they came together, and articulated into skeletons, and were clothed
with flesh. He prophesied to the Spirit: "Come from the four winds, O
Spirit, and breathe on these slain that they may live." And they lived.
Thus, under the figure of a physical resurrection, he sets forth the spiritual resurrection
of Israel in the day of their conversion. The house of Israel had gone away to
the nations in captivity and this is the promise of God that they shall be
revived and restored, so that a very important question arises what is the
relation of the conversion of the Jews to the final advent of our Lord? Peter
answers that question. He says to the Jews: "Ye crucified the Lord of
glory. I know, brethren, that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your
rulers, and now repent ye and turn so that your sins may be blotted out, so
that God may send Jesus, whom the heavens must receive until the time of the
restoration of all things."
There is not in the Bible one thought more clearly taught than this, viz.: The
Jews must be converted before Messiah comes again. The salvation of the Jews in
one day, as set forth in many prophecies, and many other events lasting at
least a thousand years, will intervene between the end of the tribulation and
the advent of our Lord, as is shown in his second great prophecy Revelation.
We now take up the next question: When, then, will Messiah come? And here is
Jesus' answer to that. On page 164 of the Harmony, Matthew says, "But
immediately, [mark that comma] after the tribulation of those days, the sun
shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall
fall from heaven." Notice how Mark puts it: "But in those days, after
the tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her
light, and the stars shall be falling from heaven." Luke says, "And
there shall be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth distress
of nations, perplexity for the roaring of the sea and the billows: fainting for
fear, and for expectation of the things which are coming on the world; for the
powers of the heavens shall be shaken." Notice that word
"immediately." You see from the punctuation that it does not connect
with tribulation, so as to make it read without comment, "immediately
after the tribulation." It does not connect with that. It connects with
the darkening of the sun "after the tribulation of those days"
how long after, he does not say: "the sun shall be immediately
darkened." That means not gradually, as in an eclipse, but instantly every
light shall be put out. Is that the sign of his advent? He says,
"No."
The next verse says: "Then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in
heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see
the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
What, then, is the last event antecedent to the sign? It is this instant
darkening of all the heavenly bodies. That is the background for the sign
total darkness, darker than Egypt, darker than the darkness of Byron's dream,
so dark it could be felt, the whole world dark 'and not an eclipse not a
gradual and partial darkness, but immediately the sun shall be darkened and
totally. Then, right in that darkness, shall appear the sign of the Son of man.
What is that sign? He answers that question very plainly. He says (Matt.
25:31), "When the Son of man shall come in his glory" not in his
humiliation, as he did the first time, but in his glory "then shall he
sit upon the throne of his glory." John says (Rev. 20:11), "And I saw
a great white throne." Now, that is the sign; a great white throne, right
in the heart of that darkness. When he came the first time he said to the
shepherds through the angels, "This shall be a sign unto you." What
was the sign the first time? "A babe in swaddling clothes and cradled in a
manger;" that was the sign of the first advent, the sign of the coming of
his humiliation, when he stooped, when he condescended, when he took upon
himself human nature, when he came in the feebleness of infancy, exposed to
hunger and cold and thirst and poverty that was the sign then. The next time
he comes he does not come in his humiliation: he comes in his glory, and we
must look for a sign as far distant from a baby in a horse trough as possible,
and that sign is a throne, and it is a white throne of dazzling whiteness. From
the manger to the throne! And mark well, it is not the throne of a continuing
priesthood. It is not the throne of the inauguration of a king. The priest has
left forever the most holy place of intercession, and kingship ends with the
second coming. The King is just about to abdicate and turn the kingdom over to
the Father (1 Cor. 15:24-28). It is the throne of the judge, the last office of
our Lord. That is the sign of his coming, viz.: The appearance of a great white
throne of judgment.
Picture the scene. Imagine that the expanse above the horizon and all around
the world is as dark as the world was in its chaos, when darkness was upon the
face of the deep, and right in the midst of that darkness a center spot of
whiteness is seen, the whitest thing the eye ever looked at, coming, coming,
coming, larger, whiter) until we can see him that is sitting on the throne.
Now, that white throne is the sign of the final advent of our Lord. But we are
not left to that identification alone. We are told in this very prophecy that
at his coming he shall send forth his angels with a great sound of a trumpet.
The trumpet and the throne come together. Earth never heard it but once before.
When the law was given at Mount Sinai, when God came down and Sinai smoked and
trembled and thundered, Moses says that there came a sound of a mighty trumpet
that waxed louder and louder and louder, and the people fell at the sound of
that terrible blast blown by no human lips. Now, that trumpet sound will come
in connection with that white throne. But don't make the mistake that this is
Gabriel blowing his horn for the raising of the dead. That is Negro theology.
Gabriel doesn't blow that horn. Michael blows it. The object of it is not to
raise the dead, but to marshal the angels that come.
He shall send forth his angels with this trumpet sound. It is their signal to
fall into line and forward march: "When the Son of man shall come in his
glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his
glory." Nor is that all. There is a signal to the saints on earth.
"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout," says
Paul. He shall come with a great shout. The earth never heard that voice of the
archangel (1 Thess. 4:16). Earth never heard that shout before, and we know
just what it is. Jesus tells us here in this prophecy. He says, "And at
midnight there was a cry made, Behold the Bridegroom; go ye out to meet
him." There can be no mistaking in any of these things. We can't mistake
that darkness for any other darkness, that whiteness for any other whiteness,
nor that trumpet for any other trumpet, nor that shout for any other shout.
To complete the intensely dramatic and artistic power of the application,
imagine that whiteness to be fringed with fire whiteness fire-fringed,
outlined in darkness. His angels are flaming spirits, ministers of fire, and
they come surrounding that white throne on which the Master, the Judge, is
sitting. Darkness, white throne, fire-fringed, trumpet, and shout. Two men
shall be out in the field that very day. They get their breakfast and start out
to work, maybe plowing side by side, but there are two of them, and all at once
they can't see the plow handles nor each other. There is total darkness. Then
that whiteness, that fire fringe, then that trumpet, then that shout comes. A
part of that fire fringe separates itself. It is an angel swooping down upon
the earth and one of these men is taken, and the other is left. "He shall
send his holy angels and gather up his elect from all the ends of the
earth." Now imagine the man whom the angel took and the man whom the angel
left. But that man is not left long. Another angel swoops down and that man is
taken. He (Jesus) says in the parable of the tares, "At the end of the
world he shall send his angels and they shall gather out of his kingdom
everything that offends." They shall pick up these tares and bind them for
the burning. Notice again that he says, "Two women shall be grinding at
the mill." It is a handmill. They will be pounding their corn with a maul.
We see that in Mexico today, just as they did then, and these two women will be
working together. They will be getting ready the material for dinner, pounding
the grain. All at once the darkness, the whiteness, the fire fringe, the
trumpet, the shout, "Behold the Bridegroom; go ye out to meet him,"
and an angel swoops and one woman is taken, and the other is left. Another
angel swoops, and the second woman is taken. He then brings out another thought
so intensely tremendous that it will stagger the credulity of some. He says
that the kingdom of heaven at that time shall be likened unto ten virgins.
These are all professing Christians, all church members, five of them are real
Christians. They have oil in their lamps. Five of them are only nominal
Christians. They took no oil with their lamps, and suddenly that cry was heard,
"Behold, the Bridegroom!" and the five that were ready were caught
away with the Lord. The other five, what? Mark it. They tried then to get
ready. They go out to buy oil, and what is the reply? "Too late, too late;
ye cannot enter now.
After Jesus comes in his final advent, the soul-saving time is ended forever.
Whoever is not ready will then never be ready. The idea of Christ coming and
thousands of years passing on after he comes and men living and dying, and the
gospel being preached or men being saved by some other means, is wholly foreign
to the teaching of our Lord. No one can get ready then. His coming is a windup.
The prodigies are not exhausted. One great tragedy remains, more momentous than
Noah's flood, its great prototype. We recall that when Noah was ark sheltered,
then on the wicked came the deluge. As soon as the saints, soul and body, are
caught into the clouds unto the Lord, another deluge comes, not of water, but
of fire. The whole world, land and sea, is an ocean of flame. In this literal
world the living wicked perish. Their bodies are actually consumed in this
fire. They cannot escape physical death as do the living saints. There is for
them no transforming change as comes to the righteous (1 Cor. 15:51-55). They
must die by fire in the day of that fire. Carefully read in this connection the
following scriptures: Malachi 4:1-3; 2 Peter 3:1-10; 1 Corinthians 3:11-15; and
especially the parable of the tares, Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43. While the foolish
virgins vainly seek to get ready, vainly knock when it is forever too late, the
fire comes, the deluge of fire, and their bodies are consumed.
Let us now proceed to his next question: What is the purpose of his coming, and
in what capacity does he come? When he came the first time he came as a prophet
teaching the way of life. He came as a sacrifice expiating sin. He ascended to
heaven, assuming his kingdom and reigning in heaven for his people, and
exercising his priesthood in heaven, ever living to make intercession for them,
but when he comes the next time he does not come to teach; no gospel then; he
does not come as a sin offering. Paul says, "When he comes the next time,
he comes apart from a sin-offering unto salvation." There is no salvation
in his second coming. He does not come next time as a king, for when he comes,
says Paul, he comes to turn over the kingdom to the Father, and then will be
the end. As he says further in 1 Corinthians 15, he reigns up yonder until the
last enemy is put under his feet, and the last enemy that shall be destroyed is
death, and then he turns over the kingdom to the Father, and God is all in all.
Then, if he comes, not as prophet nor as' sacrifice, nor as king, does he come
as priest? Nay, verily. When he comes he vacates the high priesthood function
in the court of heaven, for in the New Jerusalem that is seen, says John,
"I saw no temple therein." He does not come as a priest; he comes as
a Judge: "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels
with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory, and before him shall
be gathered all the nations; and he shall separate them one from another, as
the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats; and he shall set the sheep on
his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then he says to those on the right
hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from
the foundation of the world, and to those on his left hand, Depart, ye cursed,
into everlasting fire." These shall go into eternal life and those shall
go into the place prepared for the devil and his angels.
There is no teaching about that; there is no explanation about that; there is
no ruling about that; there is no high priesthood about that. That is the
function of a judge. Now here is John's statement of it: "I saw a great
white throne, and him that sat upon it, from whose face the earth and the
heavens fled away. . . . And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before
the throne. . . . The sea gave up its dead, death and hell gave up their dead,
and they were judged." That is the purpose of his coming. You never can be
a sound theologian until you master the purpose of Christ's first coming and
what he did; his ascent into heaven, why he went, how long he stays, and what
he does while he is up there; then the purpose of his final advent. "The
Lord said unto my lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies
thy footstool." And he is going to stay up there until he does make his
enemies his footstool. "We have left all to follow thee," says Peter,
"What shall we have?" "You who have followed me, when the
regeneration comes," that is, the regeneration of the earth, when the great
fire sweeps the earth, and it is purified, "then you shall sit upon twelve
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Those that are placed at
his right hand aid him and voice his word when he pronounces the sentence of
death upon the wicked and upon the lost angels: "Know ye not that the
saints shall judge the world?" says Paul, and "Know ye not that the
saints shall judge angels?" What poetic justice is there in thinking that
Peter and Job shall sit upon this throne at the right hand of Jesus Christ and
judge the devil that worried them so much while they were here upon the earth I
All Christians will participate in that judgment. They will take their place at
the right hand of the Lord: "They shall sit with me upon my throne, as
when I had overcome and took my seat on my Father's throne, and they shall
judge all nations."
1. What was Jesus' answer to the question, "What is the extent of the
tribulation commencing with the destruction of Jerusalem"?
2. Was it a Gentile, Christian, or strictly Jewish tribulation?
3. How long was it to continue?
4. The elect for whose sake it is shortened, are they Jews, Gentiles, or
Christians?
5. What is the description of this tribulation given by Moses?
6. What is the description given by Hosea? See Hosea 3:4.
7. How long has it already lasted and are there yet clear indications of its
speedy cessation?
8. What event will terminate it?
9. What is Zechariah's description of it?
10. What is Paul's description of it?
11. What is Ezekiel's description of it?
12. What is Isaiah's description of it? Answer: Isaiah shows that the judgments
of God upon Israel continue until their conversion, 65:17-20; that this
conversion introduces the millennium, 65:25; that this national conversion
shall be in one day, with glorious results to the Gentiles, 66:8-10.
13. In what dispensation, by whom & what means will all this take place?
14. What is the relation this event to the final advent according to Peter?
15. What were the mighty attendant events according to Revelation? Answer:
Revelation 11:19-21; 20:1-3.
16. What glorious world triumph of the gospel do these events introduce?
17. How does Christ answer the question, "When is the final advent and the
end of the world?"
18. What great supernatural prodigy precedes the sign, and how do you connect
and construe the "immediately" of Matthew 24:29?
19. What is not the sign?
20. When and what is the sign of the second advent?
21. What is the sign of the first advent?
22. What is the contrast of the signs of the two advents and what is the
fitness of each to the event?
23. What sound accompanying the sign, who sounds it, when heard before,
negatively and positively what is this sound for, what appearance of those
summoned by this sound, and what their double office on this occasion?
24. What shout attending the sign?
25. What two other supernatural prodigies precede the gathering of the elect by
the angels? Answer: The resurrection of the righteous dead and the transfiguration
of the living saints.
26. Describe in the case of the two women grinding at mill, the two men in the
field and the ten sleeping virgins, this rapture, or catching up of the elect.
27. In view of the universal darkness, the appearance of the great white throne
in the darkness, the fire fringe of the angels around the throne, the loud
sounding trumpet, the great shout, the resurrection of the righteous dead, the
transfiguration of the living saints, the instant separation of people close together,
as in the case of the two women the two men the ten virgins is it
possible, as some teach, that these stupendous events shall be secret,
invisible, and inaudible to the wicked?
28. What convincing Scripture proof to the contrary?
29. What stupendous mistake was made by the foolish virgins, and what
present-day teaching tends to perpetuate their mistake?
30. Instead of opportunity to then get ready, what overwhelming supernatural
disaster befalls sinners and the world, and what office of the angels toward
them is instantly executed?
31. What parable sets forth this angel office to the wicked?
32. Where according to this prophecy, do the angels in the double office of
catching up the "elect" and the "tares" gather them?
33. How does our Lord in an earlier teaching concerning Nineveh and the Queen
of Sheba show that good and bad are gathered together at one time and for one
judgment? Answer: See Matthew 12:41-42.
34. How does his last Revelation to John show the same thing?
35. How does Paul show that when he comes to be glorified in his saints is the
very time that the wicked are punished with everlasting destruction? Answer:
See 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10.
36. What paragraph of this prophecy shows the purpose of final advent?
37. What are the Messiah's several offices, when and where each exercised and
in which does he come last?
38. Show from the Scriptures that in the final advent he does not come as a
prophet, sacrifice, priest, or king, but only as a final, supreme judge, and
that after this coming there can be no increase in the number of the saved. 39.
What three things essential to know in order to be a sound theologian? 40. What
part do the saints have with Christ in the judgment?
OUR LORD'S GREAT PROPHECY HIS SECOND
COMING (CONCLUDED)
Harmony, pages 160-168 and Matthew 64:1 to 25:46; Mark
13:1-37; Luke 21:5-36.
The whole prophecy of our Lord, as contained in Matthew 24-25, in Mark 13, and
Luke 21, has been considered in its general terms in the preceding discussions.
Some details call for special attention in this discussion.
1. False christs. On page 160 of the Harmony, v. 45 of Matthew and the
corresponding verses of the others there is a warning against false christs who
will come before the advent of the real Christ. It was such a difficult matter
to keep the disciples from expecting the final advent of our Lord speedily, as
they call "speedily." He knew they would misunderstand and be all the
time on the lockout for the coming, so would increase the danger of being
deceived by false christs. If one is confidently looking for the final advent
of our Lord tomorrow, and he does not come, and somebody else comes claiming to
be Christ, he would very likely take the one that comes. Hence these warnings
on that subject, "Take heed that no man shall lead you astray. For many
shall come in my name, saying, I am the Christ; and shall lead many
astray." Yet again in a much later stage of the prophecy he warns: "Then
if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is the Christ, or, Lo, there; believe
it not, for there shall arise false christs and false prophets, and shall show
great signs and wonders; so as to lead astray, if possible, even the
elect." Now, these false christs commence coming before the destruction of
Jerusalem, and have been coming ever since, and they will multiply as the time
approaches for the real advent of our Lord: but as we learn from 2
Thessalonians and Revelation, immediately preceding the advent of our Lord the
man of sin will be revealed claiming that he is the Christ.
2. Warnings against false signs. "And ye shall hear of wars and rumors
of wars; see that ye be not troubled: for these things must needs come to pass;
but the end is not yet, for nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom
against kingdom, and there shall be famines and earthquakes in divers places.
But all these things are the beginning of travail." Notwithstanding that
solemn caution of our Lord, in every age of Christian history some disciples
have found these events to be signs presaging the immediate coming of the Lord.
In Bulwer's romance, The Last Days of Pompeii, he, true to
history, gives us an account of how the Christian people in those cities
misunderstood the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. When they saw that eruption, its
smoke, its ashes, its lava, its fire, its overwhelming destruction of the
cities, they said, "Behold the sign of the Son of man; the end of the
world is at hand." This misconception was prevalent in the early centuries
and held by what, in church history, is known as the Chiliasts, that is,
literally, the "thousand year" people. It was repeated later in the
history of Germany by the "Mad Men of Munster," who pointed to the
signs of the times as indicating the approach of the Son of man, and taught
that he would, on this earth, set up a kingdom, and they were to begin that
kingdom, and history tells us how the strong arm of secular power had to put
down the madness of these superstitious, crazed people.
In the days of Oliver Cromwell, as English history informs us, a large part of
his army was composed of what is known as the "Fifth Monarchy Men,"
that is, as there was the kingdom of Babylon, the kingdom of Persia, the
kingdom of Greece, the kingdom of Rome, so the Fifth Monarchy Kingdom would be
the kingdom of the little stone; hence they were called the Fifth Monarchy Men
because) judging from the signs and commotions in England at the time, they
thought that the Messiah would speedily be at hand, and they were to set up
that fifth monarchy on earth. In the United States there arose the Millerites
who believed in the speedy coming of our Lord, and who fixed the very day of
his appearing. Edward Eggleston, true to history, has written a romance called,
"The End of the World." He tells how these Millerites, having fixed
the time for Christ to come, quit their business, gave away their property, and
assembled on the day appointed with their ascension robes ready, expecting
before that day closed to go right up to heaven) if only they could get the
right flop, and when the day passed and no Christ came, then infidelity took
the place of superstition concerning his coming at all.
In 1833, just ten years before I was born, there occurred a marvelous meteoric
display, commonly known as the falling of the stars. Several books have been
written upon this falling of the stars. Whenever you see a star fall you may
know it is not a star. Stars do not fall. But when this great meteoric display
occurred it seemed as if every star in the heavens were falling. So white men,
black men, lawyers, doctors, preachers, and all classes alike, ran out in the
street or in the road, and cried, "Behold, the sign of the Son of man; the
end of the world is at hand." Our Lord here is warning against that kind
of belief. Notwithstanding his warning, every generation sees some people led
astray in just that way.
3. Persecution. Let us consider the paragraph of Matthew 24:4-14, Harmony
pages 160-162. Here he tries to make them understand that Christ's coming is
not imminent, because a long series of events must precede it, and he gives the
series here. There will be false christs, false signs, earthquakes,
long-continued persecutions of Christians. They shall be accused before synagogue
and Sanhedrin) before Gentile judges and kings until the gospel of the kingdom
has been preached in all the world. All these things must precede the coming of
the Lord, and therefore that coming cannot be speedy in man's sense of the
word. As Peter taught, replying to an objection about the coming of Christ
based on that fact, he says, "The Lord is not slack concerning the promise
of his speedy coming as men count slackness, but it is speedy in God's sight,
for a thousand years are with God as one day." It is speedy to him. It is
not speedy to us.
I called attention in the previous discussion to the statement of the apostle
Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2. Let us read that again in order to see that Christ's
coming cannot take place until every foretold, preceding event has taken place.
Hence he says, "Now we beseech you, brethren, touching the coming of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him; to the end that ye be
not quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by
word, or by any epistle as from us, as that the day of the Lord is just at
hand; let no man beguile you in anywise: for it will not be except the falling
away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition."
4. The great Jewish tribulation. In Matthew 24:15-22; Mark 13:14-20; Luke
21:20-23, we have the sign of the destruction of Jerusalem, and the great
age-long tribulation of the Jews, shortened for the sake of some elect Jews.
Then in Luke 21:24 we learn how long this tribulation shall last, viz., to the
fulness of the Gentiles. But the sign of our Lord's advent follows that
tribulation. So we have no right to expect the coming of Jesus Christ until
after the fulness of the Gentiles, until the end of the tribulation of the
Jews, and until the conversion of the Jews.
When, then, is that sign to appear? "But in those days after that
tribulation." It must be after the cessation of the Jewish tribulation. It
must be after the great darkness that follows that tribulation. I have already explained
what the sign was the white throne of glory in the judgment as compared with
the sign of the first advent a baby wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in
a manger. Then comes the advent itself, then they shall see the Son of man
coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. All three of the
witnesses testify as to the personal, visible, audible, tangible advent of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and every time, he is represented as coming in the clouds:
as, "That same Jesus whom ye saw taken up into heaven shall so come again
in like manner." No man with a Bible before him can seriously question a
personal, real, visible, audible, palpable, tangible coming of the Lord Jesus
Christ. We don't preach on it enough. While the premillennialist preaches too
much on the time feature of it, the postmillennialist preaches too little on
the reality and certainty of it. Whoever puts the time too soon, or makes it
always imminent prepares for infidelity in the reaction of disappointment.
Whoever leaves it out of his preaching altogether, leaves out the great hope of
the gospel.
5. The parable of the fig tree. We come now to the parable of the fig tree in
Matthew 24:32 and parallel places in Mark and Luke. They all tell about it. It
is preceded by this statement in Luke, "But when these things begin to
come to pass, look up and lift up your heads; because your redemption draweth
nigh." Certain indications in the fig tree tell us when to look for the
fruit. So when we begin to see the conversion of the Jews, the end of the
fulness of the Gentiles, then we may rejoice and lift up our heads, for our
redemption is nigh.
The crucial difficulty of interpretation is Matthew 24:34: "This
generation shall not pass away until all these things be accomplished." That
the commentators differ on this passage is true. Some claim this as proof that
Christ himself believed and so taught his disciples to believe that his final
advent would be in that generation, i.e., in an ordinary lifetime. But this
claim is utterly irreconcilable with his previous, explicit teaching of the
long series of events that must intervene. It utterly contradicts all his
careful hedging against this very delusion. We are compelled therefore to
construe this verse as referring exclusively to the question, "When shall
Jerusalem be destroyed?" and then to account for its order in the
discussion, or we must construe the Greek phrase e genea aute to mean
"this race" these Jews as a distinct people, shall not pass away
till all these things be accomplished. It would thus become a prophecy, and a
very remarkable one, of the persistence of this people through all their
tribulation until the coming of the Lord.
In the preceding discussion I have given Dr. Broadus' contention that it means
an ordinary lifetime, and allowing that his contention accounted for its order
in the discussion. In the same discussion also I have given my own contrary
conviction of the meaning of the phrase and justified it by the context, which
renders any explanation of the order wholly unnecessary. I trust the reader may
understand this matter as explained, but I restate to make sure:
First explanation: "This generation" means an ordinary lifetime, and
answers the question, "When shall Jerusalem be destroyed?" Our
problem then is to account for its order in the prophecy, following as it does
the unmistakable reference to the final advent. We thus account for it. Our
Lord answers all the questions propounded by his disciples and comes to a pause
at Matthew 24:31; Mark 13:27; Luke 21: 28. In the general sense the discussion
is ended. But in order to give clearness on some points he resumes the
discussion of both the destruction of Jerusalem and of his final advent. This
resumption begins where the general discussion closed, and is introduced by the
parable of the fig tree, which in that case refers exclusively to the
destruction of Jerusalem. This Jerusalem reference stops at Matthew 24:34; Mark
13:30; Luke 21:32.
The resume has no more to say about Jerusalem, but takes up the second topic,
our Lord's final advent, commencing, "But of that day and hour knoweth no
one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only"
(Matt. 24:36; Luke 13:22). To this topic is devoted all the rest of the
discourse. On Dr. Broadus' theory of the meaning of "this generation"
there is no other explanation of the order in which the fig tree parable
occurs.
On the other theory of what "this generation" means there is no need
to strain an explanation of the order of the fig tree. From beginning to end
the whole prophecy proceeds in order and without a pause. From Matthew 24:29 to
the end the advent only is discussed. Let us consider this theory. The Greek is
e genea aute, and may mean this generation or this race of people. There
is no question but that e genea aute sometimes means this race of people
as well as this generation. And the context, notwithstanding Dr. Broadus'
declining to accept this meaning in his commentary (and I have more deference
for him than any other commentator I ever studied), notwithstanding that he
says that we should not put this meaning on it, I can take the context and
prove that we should put this meaning on it. He doesn't deny that the phrase
sometimes means this race of people. Then, if it sometimes means that, if that
is a correct translation in some connections, may it not in this connection
mean that, and does not this connection demand it?
The signification then would be that other nations will rise and fall and pass
away, but this race of people, the Jews, will not pass away. They will be here
when Jesus comes. It becomes a prophecy of the perpetuity of the Jewish people.
Since the call of Abraham until the present time, while Assyria, Egypt,
Babylonia, Persia, Greece, Rome, and scores of other nations have passed away,
this people has persisted in continuity of being.
The argument from the context appears in a preceding discussion. The next
thought is v. 35.
6. The certainty of the advent. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but
my word shall not pass away." Put the word of Jesus Christ against the
heavens above and the earth beneath us. They may pass away, and they will, but
"thus saith the Lord" is indestructible. He says that he is coming
back. He will come back. No matter what the course of nature teaches as set
forth in the second letter of Peter, when man looking at it stated, "Since
the fathers fell asleep all things continue as they have done from the
foundation of the world:" Spring, summer, autumn, winter, a series of ever
recurring events is called the course of nature. They say that has been from
the beginning. Jesus says that if he puts in a word against that course of
nature, the course will fail, but his word will stand, and he says he is
coming.
7. The time of his coming. Take v. 6, "But of that day and hour knoweth
no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father
only."
The Son, in the limitation of his humanity, as a man, did not know. Michael
doesn't know; Gabriel doesn't know; the angels in heaven do not know the day of
the coming of the Son of man. God knows.
"God the Father hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world
in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained." (1) It is all
important to fix the mind on this capital point, viz.: It is not liable to come
any day. As the first came only in the fulness of time, so the second. The day
of his first coming was like the day of his second coming will be. It is as
fixed and immovable as the day of his first coming. Never forget the words of
Paul, to the Athenians: "God hath appointed a day" (2) Certain
pessimists reverse Daniel's stone image of the growth of the kingdom and our
Lord's parable of the mustard seed. They have a tadpole interpretation of the
kingdom, big at the head and "petering out" at the tail. They hold
that matters will wax worse and worse until at the advent only a handful of
saints will be in the world, and claim this passage as a proof text. They argue
from the few saved in Noah's day to the few when Christ comes. They utterly mistake
the point of likeness.
The day of the advent is not like the day of the flood in the fewness of the
saved) but in the suddenness of the coming in each case. In both cases the
wicked are surprised and are swept away unprepared.
8. Noah and the flood. This paragraph finds a point of likeness between the
coming of the flood and the final advent. It is our business to make no mistake
on what is the likeness in point:
"In that day they were eating, drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage
until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and they knew not until the flood
came and took them all away. So shall be the coming of the Son of man."
That is, it shall be as unexpected as the coming of the flood. That very day
when the flood came the wicked were buying, selling, and marrying, and giving
in marriage, and going right along, not believing that there would be any
flood. The point of likeness there then is the suddenness and unexpectedness of
that coming to the wicked. The coming is like a flash of lightning, startling
even those who are watching the clouds.
In the text (w. 40-41) he shows that it will be unexpected to the righteous. He
does the same thing in the parable of the ten virgins. They are all of them,
the true and the false alike, asleep. They were startled by that coming. That
separation the angels make will be utterly unexpected to the good man that was
taken and the bad man that was left, to the good woman that was taken and to
the bad woman that was left.
9. The warning of the parables. Four parables follow in succession, all of
them bearing on the suddenness and unexpectedness of his coming. The first is
the parable of the man sojourning in another country, who before he went away
gave authority to his servants, just as Jesus, before he goes up to heaven,
will say to his disciples, "All authority in heaven and in earth is given
unto me. I give it unto you, and I tell you what to do: go and preach the
gospel to every creature and make disciples of all nations." The parable anticipates
the fact. The man sojourning in a far country does not tell his servants the
day of his return. So the second parable, that of the householder, leaves the
master of the house ignorant of the time when the thief comes. The thief does
not write a letter to this householder saying, "On next Thursday night I
am coming to burglarize your house," nor does he, on arrival, ring the
bell and send in his card.
The parable of the ten virgins is of like purport to good and bad. It matters
not that one be awake at the time of the advent. All the ten slept. The thing
that matters is preparedness. Get ready and keep ready. A soldier, though
asleep, is ready, if, when the sentry fires at midnight and the drum beats, he
can put his hand at once on his clothes, musket, and cartridge box. He is
unready, if, when the alarm awakes him, he must in the dark hunt up things,
clean his musket, and fill his cartridge box. These five wise virgins, though
sleeping, were ready, because they had bought oil for their lamps. The five
foolish virgins were unready, because they had not made this provision.
The great point of this parable is: There can be no preparation after Jesus
comes. The time for preparation is then forever gone. John the Baptist came to
prepare men. Jesus, at his first advent, came to prepare men. At the final
advent he comes not to save, but to reward and judge.
10. The purpose of the final advent. This purpose is clearly taught in the
parable of the talents, so far as his professed servants are concerned. Going
away, he made them stewards of his goods. But "now after a long time the
Lord of these servants cometh and maketh a reckoning with them." If
hypocrites, they utterly perish. Why does he come, so far as they are
concerned? What is the purpose of his coming? To make a reckoning with them
their stewardship ceases. So far as the Christians are concerned the purpose of
the final advent is, by their works, to show what fidelity as Christians they
have exercised in the service of the Lord. If they have done well they receive
a reward; if they have done unrighteously they suffer loss, but they are saved,
yet as by fire, says Paul. The object of the coming, then, so far as Christians
are concerned, is to reckon with them as to their Christian stewardship. But
the fulness of the purpose appears in the last paragraph of the prophecy:
"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him,
then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory and all nations shall be
gathered before him." Why gathered? That tells us why: They are separated
instantly. The righteous take the place at the right hand and participate with
him in the judgment. The wicked are sent away into everlasting punishment.
And every time the coming of the Lord as to its purpose is expressed, that same
lesson is taught that he doesn't come to teach; he doesn't come as a
vicarious sacrifice for sin; he doesn't come to make intercession for his
people in his priesthood ; he doesn't come to rule as a king, but he comes to
turn over the kingdom. He does come to judge.
I want to get the thought of that judgment before you. Revelation 20 says,
"I saw a great white throne and him that sat on it, before whom the
heavens and the earth fled away and there was found no place for them."
The earth will be regenerated by fire. There will be a new heaven and a new
earth. He winds up the present earth and the present heavens at his coming,
"and the dead, small and great, stand before him," for judgment,
"and the books were opened." Now notice: "And the dead were
judged out of the books according to their works."
11. Some questions.๙1 very briefly answer some questions. If Christ's first
advent was a far-off, fixed time and not a sliding scale of possibilities, then
is it true that Christ may come at any time? It is not true. He couldn't come
before the Spirit was given, as he promised. He couldn't come before Jerusalem
was destroyed, as foretold. He couldn't come before the fulness of the Gentiles
and the conversion of the Jews, as he foretold. He couldn't come before the
great apostasy and the revelation of the man of sin, as he foretold. Then why
exhort everybody to watch? I wouldn't know how to answer that question at all
if Christ was liable to come at any time, but I do know how to answer it if the
day of his coming is fixed and far away. I know how to reply to it.
It is quite important to answer this question fairly, for three things are
clear from our Lord's teaching: (1) the final advent is a fixed, definite date;
(2) the series of foretold intervening events necessitates a far away date; (3)
yet every man is exhorted to look for it, in his day, and be ready.
The first part of the answer consists of this fact: There are many comings of
the Lord, and each is related to the final coming:
The Lord comes in the Holy Spirit: "I will not leave you orphans: I will
come to you" (John 14:18). The relation of this advent to the final advent
is shown in Acts 2:19-20.
The Lord comes in judgments, as at the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt.
21:40-41). And this coming, like the flood, is related to the final coming, as
in the prophecy.
The Lord comes at the Christian's death (John 14:3; Acts 7:56; Matt. 24:44-51).
Otherwise the warning in Matthew 24:44-51 would be only a scare to all but the
generations living when Jesus comes.
The second part of the answer consists in this: That while the final advent is
a long way off to the race of man, between that advent and the individual of
the race there is only the time till the individual's death. With death his
watching and his preparation cease. If he dies tomorrow unready, he will be
unready when the advent comes to the race, though that may be centuries hence.
When I die I will get out of time into eternity. I am not charged or credited
with anything that I do after I die. All that the judgment takes cognizance of
are the deeds that are done in the body, not after one gets out of his body.
The only time for me to prepare for the second advent is while I am living, and
though that advent to the race may be a thousand years off, it isn't a thousand
years to me; it is just a number of days till I am dead. The only time I can
watch, can pray, can get ready, is before I die. Therefore, he says, "I
say unto you all, Watch, be ready."
We must keep before us distinctly these two points: The coming of Christ
historically to the race at a fixed day far away, and the coming of Christ to
the individual when he dies; at the depot of death he meets us if we are
Christians. The purpose of the advent is to judge both the righteous and the
unrighteous.
12, The one ground of judgment. That is the treatment accorded to Christ in
his gospel and in his people. That is set forth in the end of the lesson. Jesus
says to those on his right hand, "Come, ye blessed of my Father. Because I
was sick and ye visited me, I was hungry and ye fed me, I was in prison and ye
ministered unto me." Then shall they say, "Lord, when did we do this?
You were not on earth while we were living." "Inasmuch as ye did it
unto the least of these, my brethren, ye did it unto me. I identify myself with
my gospel, my cause, my people."
Look at the wicked. They are condemned now, but at the judgment there will be
taken into account their deeds done in the body: "How did you treat Christ
offered to you as a Saviour in his gospel? How did you treat his cause, his
people?" And when he tells them that they did not come when he was sick,
they did not give him food when he was hungry, they did not clothe him when he
was naked, and did not minister unto him, they will say, "When, Lord? We
don't remember ever seeing you." He answers, "Yes, but you saw my
people, you had my gospel preached to you." And in the same way the good
angels will be confirmed, the evil ones with the devil condemned, and their
treatment of Christ will be taken into account.
1. Why the necessity of warning against false christs?
2. What is Christ's warning on this point?
3. Has history verified the wisdom of this caution of Christ? If so, howl
4. Who is to be the culmination of all the antichrists?
5. What was Christ's warning against false signs?
6. What is the historical proof that men have mistaken natural phenomena for
the sign, erred in fixing a date, and have misconceived the nature and time of
the kingdom, with grievous results?
7. What are the events outlined by our Lord in Matthew 24:4-14 which show that
the coming of Christ is not imminent?
8. What does Paul say must come first?
9. What is the importance of the doctrine of the advent and the preacher's duty
with respect to it?
10. What is the lesson of the parable of the fig tree according to the
construction of Matthew 24:34?
11. Restate the two theories of interpretation and show the argument for the
author's position.
12. In what statement does our Lord show the certainty of his coming and how
does this answer the objection offered by the mockers referred to in 2 Peter
3:4;47
13. What does Jesus say as to who knows the time of his coming and how explain
this statement as it applies to Christ?
14. Cite positive proof that the day of his final advent is not a sliding scale
of possibilities, always imminent, but a definitely fixed and unalterable date,
and compare it, in this respect, with the date of his first advent.
15. Two opposing views are preached: one, pessimistic as to the world
prevalence of the gospel under the Spirit dispensation presenting the gospel
kingdom as a tadpole, i.e., big at the head but tapering into a fine-pointed
tail; the other, optimistic, as to the world prevalence of the gospel, as a
little stone in its beginning and growing into a mountain and finally filling
the whole earth. Which of these is the scriptural view and the proof?
16. What, then, is the explanation of Matthew 7:13-14; Luke 13:23-24; 17:26;
18:8?
17. What four parables follow bearing on the suddenness and unexpectedness of
his coming and what the point illustrated in each respectively?
18. What is the purpose of his coming with reference to hypocrites? With
reference to Christians?
19. If a justified man goes immediately to heaven when he dies and an
unjustified man to hell, why bring them from these places of joy and torment
before a judgment seat at the end of the world?
20. What reference to this is in the book of Revelation and what are the books
to be opened at the judgment? Answer: For the answer to the last part of this
question see sermon, "The Library of Heaven"; first volume of sermons
by the author.
21. If Christ's first advent was a far-off, fixed time and not a sliding scale
of possibilities, then is it true that Christ may come at any time?
22. What events must come first as foretold?
23. What three things are clear from our Lord's teachings on this point?
24. Then why exhort everybody to watch?
28. What is the one ground of the judgment? Illustrate in the case of the
Christians, the sinners, and the angels, respectively.
THE BETHANY SUPPER; THE PASSOVER SUPPER;
WASHING THE DISCIPLES' FEET; PETER AND JUDAS AT THE LAST SUPPER
Harmony, pages 169-177 and Matthew 26:1-25, 31-35;
Mark 14:1-8, 27-31; Luke 22:1-16, 21-38, John 12:2-8, 13:1-38.
This section is taken from the events from our Lord's great prophecy to his
betrayal by Judas. The principal events in their order are: (1) Jesus predicts
and the rulers plot his death; (2) the three great suppers at Bethany, the
Passover, and the Lord's Supper; (3) the farewell discourse of comfort to his
disciples; (4) Christ's great intercessory prayer; (5) Gethsemane.
Their importance consist not only in the signification of the events
themselves, but also in the sharp contrasts of character in the light of the
presence of Jesus, and their bearing upon the meaning of all the rest of the
New Testament. The space devoted to them by the several historians is as
follows: Matthew, Mark, and Luke give less than one chapter each; Paul a single
paragraph; John four full chapters. Here we note the value of John's
contribution to this matter, with similar instances, and his great silences
sometimes where the others speak, and the bearing of the facts on two points:
Did he have the other histories before him when he wrote, and what one of the purposes
of his writing? John's large contribution to this matter, with similar
instances for example, the early Judean ministry and the discourse on the
Bread of Life in Capernaum, and his silences in the main concerning the
Galilean ministry, clearly show that he did have before him the other histories
when he wrote, and that one of his purposes was to supplement their story.
According to Dr. Broadus these intervening events between the prophecy and the
betrayal are but successive steps through which our Lord seeks to prepare both
himself and his disciples for his approaching death and their separation. They
did prepare Christ himself but not his disciples, who did not understand until
after his resurrection, nor indeed, fully, until after the coming of the Spirit
on the day of Pentecost.
The Bethany supper. Bethany, the village, and Jerusalem, the city, are
brought in sharp contrast. The Holy City rejects the Lord, and the little
village entertains him by a special supper in his honor.
Two persons also are contrasted, viz.: Judas and Mary. This revealing light of
places and persons was in Jesus. The revelations of Mary in her anointing were:
(1) Her faith in the Lord's words about his approaching death, greater than
that of any of the apostles. They were surprised; the great event came upon
them as a surprise, but later they understood.
(2) It is a revelation of the greatness of her love, selecting the costliest
and best of all she had without reservation to be used as an ointment for her
Lord a preparation for his burial.
(3) It is a revelation of the far-reaching effect of what she did; as the
ointment was diffused throughout the house, the fame of her glorious deed would
be diffused throughout the world and to the end of time. Such love, such faith,
no man has ever evinced.
This incident reveals Judas as one who had become a disciple for ambitious ends
and greed. He, like Mary, is convinced now that Christ will not evade death, and
that his ambitious desire of promotion in a worldly government will not be
realized. The relation between Mary's anointing and his bargain to sell his
Lord arise from the fact that as he was treasurer of the funds, mainly
contributed by the women who followed the Lord, and was a thief accustomed to
appropriate to himself from this fund, and as Mary's gift, in his judgment,
should have been put into the treasury and thus increase the amount from which
he could steal, he determined to get what he could in another direction. This
treasury being about empty, and under such following as that of Mary was not
likely to be increased, then he must turn somewhere else for money.
In the same way the light of the Lord's presence revealed by marvelous contrast
all other men or women who for a moment stood in that light. We would know
nothing worth considering of Pilate, Caiaphas, and Herod, or the thieves on the
cross, except as they stand revealed in the orbit of Christ's light, in which
they appear for a short time. On them that light confers the immortality of
infamy; as in the case of others like Mary, it confers the immortality of
honor.
The Passover supper. Our Lord's intense desire to participate in this
particular Passover arises from his knowledge of its relation to his own
approaching death, he being the true Passover Lamb, the antitype, and because
at this Passover supper is to be the great transition to the Supper of the New
Covenant. Here the question arises: In the light of this and other passages, did
he in fact eat the regular Passover supper? His words, "I will not eat
it," being only a part of a sentence, do not mean that he did not
participate in the last Passover supper, but it means that he will not eat it
again. That he did partake of this supper the text clearly shows. See the
argument in Dr. Robertson's note at the end of the Harmony. But the clause,
"Until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God" (Luke 22:16-,
22:29-30), needs explanation. Both the Passover supper and the Lord's Supper,
instituted thereafter, are shadows of substances in the heavens. There will be
in the glory world a feasting, not on earthly materials, but on the spiritual
food of the kingdom of God.
Our Lord washing the feet of the apostles. When we carefully examine Luke 22:24-30
and John's account, we find that the disciples, having complied with the
ablutions required by the Levitical law preparatory to the Passover, knew that
when they got to the place of celebrating, somebody must perform the menial
service of washing the feet which had become defiled by the long walk to the
place. Hence a controversy arose as to greatness and precedence; each one, on
account of what he conceived to be his high position in the kingdom, was
unwilling to do the needed service. This washing of feet was connected with the
Passover, an Old Testament ordinance, and not with our Lord's Supper, a New
Testament ordinance. A Southern theologian, Rev. John L. Dagg, preached a
brief, simple, but very great sermon on this washing of feet, found in the Virginia
Baptist Pulpit, an old book now out of print. That sermon gives two classes of
scriptures, and analyzes this washing of feet, giving its lessons and showing
how it cannot be a New Testament church ordinance, as follows: The two classes
of scriptures are: (1) Those which refer to the purifications required before
entering the Passover proper, or its attendant seven-day festival of unleavened
bread, e.g., Numbers 9:6-10; 2 Chronicles 30:2-4, 17-20; Luke 22:14-30; John
13:1-26; 18:28. (2) Those referring to the ablution of feet, before an ordinary
meal and as an act of hospitality, e. g., Genesis 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; 43:24;
Judges 19: 21; I Samuel 25:41; Luke 7:38-44; John 12:2-3; 1 Timothy 5:10,
counting, particularly, I Samuel 25-41 with Luke 7:3844 and 1 Timothy 5:10.
The feast of John 18:28 is the feast of unleavened bread following the Passover
supper. Here we need also to explain John 13:31-32 and the new commandment,
13:34, in the light of 2 John 5, where it is said to be not new.
(1) The going out of Judas to betray his Lord through the prompting of Satan,
Jesus knowing it to be the last step before his person should pass into the
hands of his enemies that would result in that expiatory death which would
bring about his own glory, used the words, "Now is the Son of man
glorified and God is glorified in him."
(2) When Jesus says in John 13:34, "A new commandment I give unto you,
that you love one another," it was indeed new to their apprehension at
that time, but when very many years later, John, in his second letter, declares
it to be not a new commandment, but one they had from the beginning, he means
by the beginning, this declaration in John 13:34. But since that time the Holy
Spirit had come, and many years of intervening events in which the disciples
had understood and practiced the commandment until it was no longer new, when
John wrote his second letter.
Peter and Judas (it the last Passover. These two persons are revealed, in the
light of Christ's presence at this last Passover. Peter, standing in the light
of Christ, is shown indeed to be a sincere man and true Christian, but one
greatly ignorant and self-confident. He is evidently priding himself upon the
special honor conferred upon him at Caesarea Philippi, and has no shadow of
doubt about his own future fidelity. In this connection Christ makes a triple
prediction, which is a remarkable one. This we find set forth on pages 176-177
of the Harmony. He predicted that Judas would betray him; that every one of
them would be offended at him, and that Peter would deny him outright three
times. What a remarkable prediction! that with those chosen ones before whom he
had displayed all of his miraculous powers and with whom he had been intimately
associated so long, and who had received such highly responsible positions and
who had been. trained by him, to whom he had expounded the principles of the
kingdom of God that he would say to them, "All of you shall be offended
in me this night." It was very hard for them to believe that this could
take place, and when he went beyond that to predict that Peter would deny him
outright, Peter just couldn't believe it.
In Luke 22:3-32; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; John 10:15, 28-29; 1 John 5:18; Jude 9, are
five distinct limitations of Satan's power toward Christians, with the
meritorious ground of the limitations. Looking at Luke's account, Harmony, page
176 near the bottom: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan asked to have you"
"you" being plural, meaning all the apostles "by asking."
To give it literally, "Satan hath obtained you by asking that he might
sift you as wheat." That is one of t~e greatest texts in the Bible:
"Satan hath obtained you apostles by asking that he might sift you as
wheat, but I have prayed for thee," using a singular pronoun and not a
plural, "that thy faith fail not: and when thou art turned, strengthen [or
confirm] thy brethren." Thus is expressed one of the limitations of
Satan's power.
By looking at Job I we find that Satan has to make stated reports to God of all
that he does, wherever he goes. I have heard ministers preach on that text
"When the sons of God came, Satan appeared among them," and they
seemed to misunderstand altogether the signification of it. Satan did not make
any appearance there because he wanted to, but because he had to. Not only good
angels, but evil angels, are under the continual control of God, and they have
to make stated reports to God. God catechized Satan: "Where have you
been?" Satan replies, "Wandering up and down through the earth."
"Did you see my servant, Job?" "Yes." "Did you
consider him?" "Yes, walked all around him. Wanted to get at
him." "What kept you from getting at him?" "You have a
hedge built around him, and I couldn't get to him." "What is your
opinion of him?" "Why, I think if you would let me get at him I would
show you there is not as much in him as you think there is." Let the
Christian get that thought deep into the heart, that Satan is compelled to come
before God with the holy angels and make his report to God of every place he
has been, of every Christian he has inspected and what his thoughts were about
that Christian, what he wants to do with that Christian that he has to lay it
all before God. That is the first limitation.
Let us take the second limitation: "Simon, Satan hath obtained you by
asking." The second limitation is that he can't touch a Christian with his
little finger without the permission of God. That is very comforting to me.
Satan walks all around us, and it is in his mind to do us damage, for he would
destroy us if he could, and if he can't destroy us, he will worry us. So a wolf
will prowl around a fold of sheep and want to eat a sheep mighty bad, but
before Satan can touch that Christian at all he has to ask permission has to
go to Jesus and ask permission.
The third limitation is that when he gets the permission, it is confined to
something that is really beneficial to the Christian: "Satan hath obtained
you by asking that he may sift you as wheat." If he had asked that he
might burn them like chaff it would not have been granted, but he asked that he
might sift them as wheat. It doesn't hurt wheat to be sifted. The more we
separate the pure grain from the chaff the better. So you see that limitation.
Satan made that request on this account: He thought God loved Peter and Jesus
loved Peter, so that if Jesus sifted him he would not shake him hard. But Satan
says, "I have been watching these twelve apostles. You let me shake them
up." And at the first shake-up he sifted Judas out entirely, and Peter got
an awful fall. Don't forget in your own experience, for the comfort of your own
heart, that the devil can't touch you except in the direction of discipline
that will really be for your good.
The fourth limitation: Even when he obtains permission to act for God in a lesson
of discipline, he can't take the Christian beyond the High Priest's
intercession: "But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not."
"Now I will let Satan take you in hand. You need to be taken in hand by
somebody. You have very wrong notions. You think that a man's salvation depends
on his hold on Christ, while it really depends on Christ's hold on him, and you
are sure that if everybody else turns loose, you will stand like a rock till
you die." In other words, Peter says, "I keep myself." Jesus was
willing for Satan, by sifting Peter, to discover to him that if his salvation
depended on his hold on Christ, the devil would get him in a minute. It
depended on Christ's hold on Peter. So we have that limitation that Satan is
not permitted, even after he obtains permission to worry or tempt a Christian,
to take him beyond the intercession of the High Priest; Christ prayed for
Peter. We will, in a later discussion, see how he prays for all that believe on
him, and all that believe on him through the word of these apostles, and he
ever liveth to make intercession for us, and that is the reason we are saved
unto the uttermost. He is able to save unto the uttermost because he ever
liveth to make intercession.
The last limitation of Satan:
Satan cannot cause a Christian to commit the unpardonable sin. He can't touch
the Christian's life.
When Satan asked permission to try Job, God consented for him to take away his
property and bring temporal death to his children, but not to touch Job's life.
And John (1 John 5:16), in discussing the two kinds of sin the sin which is
not unto death and the sin which is unto death says, "When you see a
brother sin a sin which is not unto death, if you will pray to God he will
forgive him, but there is a sin which is unto death. I do not say that you
shall pray for it." Prayer doesn't touch that at all. "And whosoever
is born of God does not commit sin [unto death], and cannot, because the seed
of God remains in him and he cannot sin it, because that wicked one toucheth
him not." Satan never has been able to destroy a Christian. As Paul puts
it: "I am persuaded that neither angels, nor principalities, nor powers,
shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our
Lord." Or, as Jesus says, in talking about his sheep, "My father is
greater than all, and none can pluck them out of his hand." To
recapitulate: The first limitation of Satan he must make report statedly to
God; second limitation he must ask permission before he touches a Christian;
third limitation he can then only do to a Christian what is best for the
Christian to have done to him; fourth limitation he cannot take a Christian
beyond the intercession of the High Priest; fifth limitation he cannot make
the Christian commit the unpardonable sin.
Let us set over against that the revelation of Judas in John 12:4-6; Luke
22:3-6; Matthew 26:23; Luke 22:48; Matthew27:3-5; Acts 1:16-20, showing the
spiritual status, change of conviction, and trace the workings of his mind in
selling and betraying Jesus, his subsequent remorse, despair and suicide, with
no limitations of Satan's power in his case. When we carefully read in the
proper order the statements concerning Judas in John 12:4-6, we behold him
outwardly a disciple, but inwardly a thief. In the subsequent references to him
(Luke 22:3-6; Matt. 26:23; Luke 22:48; Matt. 27:3-5; Acts 1:16-20), the whole
man stands clearly before us. Evidently he expected, when he commenced to
follow Christ, that he would be the Messiah according to the Jewish conception
a king of the Jews and a conqueror of the world and that there would come
to him high position and great wealth as standing close to the Lord, but when
subsequent developments made it plain to him that Christ's kingdom was not to
be of this world, and that his enemies were to put him to death, and that
neither worldly honors nor wealth would come to his followers, then he
determined to sell and betray his Lord. We are indeed surprised at the small
price at which he sells his Lord and himself, but our only account for it is
that he was under the promptings of Satan, and as Satan, having used a man and
wrecked him, leaves him to his own resources, it is quite natural that remorse
and despair should come to Judas. If there be something worth having in the
spiritual kingdom, he has lost that. He has gained nothing by betraying and
selling his Lord, and now in his despair, there being no limitation of Satan's
power over a lost soul, he is goaded to suicide. We cannot account for Judas
and leave Satan out.
Arminians apply the doctrine of apostasy to both Judas and Peter. They say that
Peter was truly converted and utterly fell away from the grace of God, and
after the resurrection was newly converted. They say that Judas was a real
Christian and fell from grace, and was finally lost. Though Adam dark, the
noted Methodist commentator, contends that Solomon was a Christian and
apostatized and was lost, he contends that Judas, after his apostasy, repented
and was saved.
Somewhere about 1875 there appeared a poem in the Edin- burgh Review, which
gave this philosophy of the betrayal of Judas: It affirms that Judas was a true
Christian and did not mean to bring about the death of Christ, but thought that
if he would betray Christ into the hands of his enemies that the Lord would at
the right time, by the display of his miraculous power, destroy his enemies and
establish his earthly kingdom. But when he found that the Lord refused to
exercise his miraculous power to avert his death, then he was filled with
remorse that he had precipitated this calamity. The poem is a masterly one, but
attributes to Judas motives foreign to any revelation of him in the New
Testament. The New Testament declares him to be a thief, and that what prompted
him to sell the Lord was the waste of the ointment on Jesus that might have
been put into the treasury, which he not only disbursed, but from which he
abstracted what he would.
It is seen in Luke 22:32 that Peter did establish the brethren. "When once
thou hast turned again, establish thy brethren." The word convert in the
King James Version, "when thou art converted," does not mean
"when thou art regenerated." It is used there in its etymological
sense. Here is a man going through temptation. He has a wrong notion in his mind.
"Now, when thou art turned, establish thy brethren." He is to
establish them on the same point where he has been wrong, and got into trouble
by it, and now he is to consider that the other brethren will have the same
weakness, and he must, as a teacher, confirm them upon that weak point.
If we turn to 1 Peter we will see how he did establish the brethren on that
very point. He thought then he could keep himself that he could hold on to
Jesus, while weak-kneed people, weak-handed people, might turn loose, but he
would not. Now, Jesus says, "When you are turned from that error,
establish your brethren on that very point." In 1 Peter 1, he says,
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to
his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that
fadeth not away, reserved in the heavens for you, who, by the power of God are
guarded through faith." How long and unto what? "Unto salvation,
ready to be revealed in the last time." "You who are kept through the
power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last
day."
You have learned a great lesson if you will take into your heart all of the
thoughts in connection with Peter that we have been discussing here, for every
point that you can get clear in your mind that touches the devil, will be very
helpful to you.
On page 177 of the Harmony we come to this statement: "And he said unto them,
When I sent you forth without purse and wallet and shoes, lacked you
anything?" They said, "Nothing." By reading Matthew 10 and Luke
10 you will find that the Lord there ordains that they that preach the gospel
should live by the gospel: "The laborer is worthy of his hire."
You don't have to furnish out of your own pocket the expenses of your living
while you are preaching for Jesus Christ. Ha is to take care of you. You are to
live of the gospel.
And now he puts a question, "When I sent you forth without purse and
wallet and shoes, lacked you anything?" A great deal is involved in that.
Christ promised to take care of them. "I send you out like no set of men
were ever sent before on such a mission in the world." A soldier does not go
to war on his own charges. The government takes care of him: "I send you
out that way."
But this commission was temporarily suspended at this Passover: "And he
said unto them, but now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a
wallet: and he that hath none let him sell his clothes and buy a sword. [He
that hath no sword, let him sell his clothes and buy a sword.] For I say unto
you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in me. And he was reckoned
with the transgressors: for that which concerneth me hath fulfillment. And they
said, Lord, behold, here are two swords, and he said unto them, it is
enough" (Luke 22:36-38).
Now, I will give you some sound doctrine. Christ had ordained that they who
left everything and committed themselves with absolute consecration to his
service, that he would take care of them, and he established and ordered that
they who preach the gospel should live of the gospel. Now he comes to a time
when he is going to reverse that: "There is just ahead of you and very
near to you a separation from me, and as much as you are separated from me,
i.e., as long as I lie in the grave dead, you will have to take care of
yourselves. If you have a purse, take it, and you will not only have to take
care of yourselves, but you will have to defend yourselves. If you haven't a
sword, buy one." But that suspension was only for the time that he was in
the grave.
Peter applied it both too soon and too late. This is a peculiarity of Peter.
See my sermon in my first book of sermons called, "From Simon to
Cephas." "Simon" means a hearer, and "Cephas" means
established a stone. But Peter here was both too short and too long in
getting hold of what Christ meant. He was too short in this, that he used that
sword before Christ was separated from him. He cut off the ear of the servant
of the high priest. He was not to depend on the sword and not to defend himself
as long as the Master was with him. As long as Jesus is alive, we don't use our
swords to take care of ourselves. When Jesus is dead, we may. Peter was too
short. He commenced too soon and used the sword. Now I will show that be was
too long. After Christ rose from the dead, Peter says, "I go a
fishing." In other words, "I go back to my old occupation; I must
make a living, and my occupation is fishing, and times are getting hard. I go
back to my fishing." It did not apply then, because Jesus was risen and
alive. So he took that too far. He commenced too soon, and he carried, it too
far.
Whoever opposes ministerial support, and I mean by ministerial support the
support of a man who consecrates himself in faith, who does like Peter said
they did, "Lord, we left all to follow thee," and whoever opposes the
ordinance of Jesus Christ, that they that preach the gospel should live of the
gospel, virtually put themselves under a dead Christ. They virtually say that
Jesus has not risen from the dead.
They go under this temporary commission: "He that hath a purse, let him
take it, and a wallet, let him take that, and he that hath no sword, let him
take his coat and sell it and buy one to defend himself with. Let the preacher
do like other people do." They that take that position virtually deny the
resurrection of Christ, and virtually affirm that Jesus Christ is not living.
Just as soon as Jesus rose from the dead he said, "Now you can put that
sword away, Peter. There was a time when you could defend yourself and make
your own living, and that was while I was dead." But we believe that
Christ is now alive. He is risen indeed: "I am he that was dead) but am
alive to die no more."
The man who believes that God has called him to preach ought to burn the
bridges behind him.
A deacon got up once, when we were ordaining a preacher and said, "I am
leaving it to the presbytery here to ask the things on doctrine, but I have a
question to ask: 'Do you, in seeking this office and submitting to this
ordination, burn every bridge between you and the secular life, or do you leave
that bridge standing, thinking in your mind that if you don't make a living you
will go back and take up the secular trade?' " "Well," the
candidate said, "I will have to study about that." The deacon
replied, "I will have to study about voting for your ordination until you
are ready to answer that question." One of the sharpest sentences I ever
made in my life was a declaration that:
No man on earth that God called to preach and who burned absolutely all the
bridges behind him and really trusted in Jesus Christ to take care of him, ever
failed of being taken care of.
That is a hard saying and a broad one, but it is the truth. And whenever a
preacher is disposed to question that, let him remember the words of Jesus
Christ, "I sent you out without purse or wallet, or sword. You just took
your life into your hands. You went out as sheep among the wolves. Did you lack
anything?" You won't lack anything that is good for you. Sometimes you
will get mighty hungry. I don't say you won't get hungry. Sometimes you will
get cold. I don't deny that.
But I do affirm before God that whoever puts himself unreservedly upon the
promise of the Lord Jesus Christ and keeps himself on that, either God will
take care of him, or it is the best for him to die, one or the other. Never any
good comes from doubting.
1. From what great division is this section taken?
2. What are the principal events in their order?
3. What is their importance?
4. What space devoted to them by the several historians?
5. What value of John's contribution to this matter?
6. According to Dr. Broadus what successive steps do we find in this group of
events?
7. Did they prepare Christ himself but not his disciples for his approaching
death?
8. What two places are revealed in sharp contrast by the Bethany supper?
9. What two persons are also contrasted?
10. In whom was this revealing light of places and persons?
11. What revelations of Mary in her anointing?
12. What revelation of Judas and the relation between Mary's anointing and his
bargaining to sell our Lord?
13. Show how the light of our Lord's presence revealed others also.
14. Explain our Lord's intense desire to eat this particular Passover (Luke
22:15).
15. Explain "I will not eat it" (Luke 22:16).
16. Explain "until it be fulfilled, etc." (Luke 22:16; 22:29-30).
17. What was the occasion of the foot-washing in John 13?
18. Was it connected with the Passover or the Lord's Supper?
19. What sermon on it is commended?
20. What two classes of scriptures cited and what are the lessons?
21. What was the feast of John 18:28?
22. Explain John 13:31-32; 13:34 in the light of 2 John 5.
23. What two persons are revealed in the light of Christ's presence at this
last Passover?
24. Analyze the revelation of Peter.
25. What triple prediction did Christ set forth in this connection, and what
makes it a remarkable prediction?
26. Give five distinct limitations of Satan and the scriptures therefore.
27. Correlate and analyze the scriptures on Judas.
28. How do Arminians apply the doctrine of apostasy to both Judas and Peter and
what was the reply?
29. What was the explanation of Judas' betrayal of our Lord, in the Edinburgh
Review)
30. What the meaning and application of Luke 22:32 and what the evidence from
his letter that Peter did this?
31. What is the law of ministerial support?
32. What was the reason of its temporary suspension at this Passover?
33. How long was the suspension?
34. How and wherein did Peter apply it too soon and too late?
35. What does one who opposes ministerial support virtually say, and what the
lesson for the preachers?
THE LORD'S SUPPER
Harmony, pages 178-179 and Matthew 26:26-29; Mark
14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26.
The Passover furnishes the Old Testament analogue of this ordinance. As the
Passover commemorated the temporal redemption of the Old Covenant, so this
ordinance commemorates the spiritual redemption of the New Covenant. The proof
is as follows:
Christ the antitype of the paschal lamb (1 Cor. 5:7).
Christ crucified at the Passover feast (Matt. 26:2; John 18:28).
This supper instituted at the Passover supper and of its materials.
The analogy discussed by Paul (1 Cor. 5:6-13; 10:1-22;.
The preliminary study essential to a full understanding of this institution is
the Old Testament teaching concerning the Passover. The principal classes of
New Testament scripture to be studied are:
Those which tell of its institution.
Those which tell of its later observance.
Those which discuss its import, correct errors in its observance, and apply its
moral and spiritual lessons.
The historians of its institution and observance are: (1) Paul, who derived his
knowledge by direct revelation from the risen Lord (1 Cor. 11:23); (2) Luke,
who derived his knowledge from inspiration, from Paul, and others who were
eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2); (3) Mark, who derived his knowledge from inspiration,
from Peter, an eyewitness; (4) Matthew, an inspired eyewitness and participator
(Matt. 26:20f).
The record of its institution is found in (1) Matthew 26: 26-29; (2) Mark
14:22-25; (3) Luke 22:19-20; (4) 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. The three historic
observances are recorded in Acts 2:42; 20:7; and the case at Corinth, 1
Corinthians 11:20-22. We find the discussions of its import and the application
of its teachings in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8; 10:14-22; 11:17-34.
Jesus instituted the ordinance on the night before his death, at the last Passover,
in an upper room in Jerusalem. All the apostles, except Judas, were present and
participating. Judas was not present because he was sent out by our Lord before
its institution (see Matt. 26:25; John 13:23-26). The apostles receive it as
representing the church. The elements used were unleavened bread and
unfermented wine, or grape juice, (1) "bread" meaning one loaf not
yet broken; (2) "cup" meaning one vessel of wine not yet poured out.
The proof of this rendering is found in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, the exposition
of which is as follows:
The one loaf of unleavened bread represents the one mortal but sinless body of
Christ yet living, but appointed and prepared as a propitiatory sacrifice for
sin (Heb. 10:4-9). It also represents the mystical (body of Christ, the church)
(1 Cor. 10:17).
So the one vessel of wine represents the body of Christ yet living, the blood
of which is the life and yet in the body. The first scene of the drama
displayed in this ordinance then, is what we behold first of all, in each of
two succeeding symbols, the loaf and the cup, the appointed and accepted Lamb
of sacrifice. Whether we look at the loaf or the cup, we see the same thing, as
in the doubling of Pharaoh's dream (Gen. 41:23,32).
In the second scene we behold the appointed sacrifice "blessed," or
eulogized, and thus consecrated by the benediction, or set apart for the
sacrifice (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14: 22), with thanksgiving (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor.
11:24), that an acceptable sacrifice has been found. This second scene is
repeated in both "blessing" and "thanksgiving" in the case
of the "cup" (Matt. 26:27; Mark 14:23; Luke 20:22; 1 Cor. 11:25). The
import is one, but the scene is double, to show that "God hath established
it."
In the third scene: (1) The consecrated loaf is broken to show the vicarious
death, i.e., for them, of the substitutionary Lamb (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22;
Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24). (2) The wine is poured out from the cup into the
distributing vessels (Luke 22:20) to show the vicarious death of the sacrificial
Lamb by the shedding of his blood for the remission of sins. The scene is one,
but doubled.
In the fourth scene: (1) The distribution of the broken loaf to all the
communicants present and their participation, each by eating a fragment,
signifying their appropriation by faith, of the vicarious body given for them.
(2) The distribution of the outpoured wine to all the communicants present and
their participation, each by drinking a sip, signifying their appropriation by
faith, of the expiating, sin-remitting blood. The scene is one, but doubled.
This ordinance is pictorial) showing forth by pictures, or scenes, earth's
greatest tragedy. To make the "showing forth" complete, four double
scenes must be exhibited, or made visible to the eye: (1) The appointed
spotless Lamb; (2) The consecration to sacrifice with thanksgiving; (3) The
sacrifice itself of vicarious death "broken" "poured
out"; (4) Participation of the beneficiaries, by faith, in the benefits of
the sacrifice. The order of the scenes must be observed. The visible
consecration and thanksgiving must follow a view of the appointed and suitable
substitutionary victim; the visible sacrifice must follow the view of
consecration with thanksgiving; the visible participation must follow a view of
the sacrifice.
The modern provision of many tiny glasses for sanitary reasons does not violate
scriptural order or symbolism: (1) Certainly not in the number of distributing
cups. Those cups, like the plates, are for distribution. Whether one plate,
two, or a dozen; whether one cup, two, or a hundred are used for distribution
is immaterial, a matter of convenience, provided only that there has been one
vessel of wine "blessed," or eulogized, before the outpouring into
the distributing vessel or cups. (2) It is against the symbolism if the
outpouring into the distributing vessels is private and not visible to the
congregation, since the outpouring does not come in its order, the blessing and
the thanksgiving coming after the outpouring and not before.
Perhaps this construction of the symbolism is too rigid, yet it is true that
the order in the record of the institution best shows forth the successive
scenes of the tragedy.
The name of the institution is "The Lord's Supper"; proof is found in
1 Corinthians 11:20. This title is further shown by the expression, "The
cup of the Lord . . . The table of the Lord" (1 Cor. 10:21). It follows
from this title that if it be The Lord's Supper, the Table of the Lord, the Cup
of the Lord, then he alone has the right to put the table where he will, to
prescribe its elements, to impose the order of its observance, to define its
import, and to prescribe who shall be invited to its participation, and indeed
to fix authoritatively all its rules and conditions.
The import of the word "communion," in 1 Corinthians 10: 16, is as
follows: (1) It means participation rather than communion; (2) it is a
partaking of the body and blood of Christ, and not communion of the partakers
with each other. They do not partake of each other, but of Christ. The design
is: (1) To show forth pictorially or to proclaim the Lord's death for the
remission of the sins of his people; (2) to show forth our participation by
faith, in the benefits of that death; (3) to show that our spiritual nutrition
is in him alone, since he is the meat and the drink of his people; (4) to show
our hope of spiritual feasting with him in the heavenly world; (5) to show our
faith in his return to take us to that heavenly home; (6) to show that the
communicants constitute one mystical body of Christ.
The nature of the ordinance: (1) It represents a new covenant between Jehovah
and a new spiritual Israel (Matt. 26: 28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor.
11:25). (2) It is a memorial ordinance: "This do in remembrance of me. . .
. This do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me" (1 Cor. II:
24-25). (3) It is an emblematic ordinance, representing both spiritual
nutrition here, and a heavenly feast with Christ (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25). (4)
It is a mystical ordinance showing that communicants, though many, constitute
one body. (5) It is a church ordinance to be observed by a church assembled and
not by an individual (1 Cor. 10:17; 11:17-22; Acts 20:17). (6) It is an
exclusive ordinance: "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of
demons. Ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of
demons."
The faculties employed in the observance of this ordinance are memory, faith,
hope. We remember (1) Jesus only; (2) Jesus dying on the cross; (3) Jesus dying
on the cross for the remission of our sins; (4) Samuel Rogers, an English poet,
wrote a poem on "The Pleasures of Memory." Faith apprehends and
appropriates Christ in the purposes of his expiatory and vicarious death, and
finds in his sacrifice the meat and drink which constitute the nutrition of our
spiritual life. Hope anticipates his return for his people, and the spiritual
feasting with him in the heavenly world; the poet, Thomas Campbell, an
Englishman, wrote a poem on "The Pleasures of Hope."
The appointed duration of the ordinance is "Till he come" (1 Cor.
11:26). But will we not eat the bread and drink the wine anew in the kingdom of
heaven? If not, what is the meaning of Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25? Is it not,
"I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine, until that day
when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom," but "when I
drink it new." Here we drink the material wine; there it will be a new
thing spiritual wine. The feasting on earth, in its meat and drink, represents
the everlasting joy, love, and peace of our heavenly participation of our Lord,
as he himself foretold: "Many shall come from the east and the west and
the north and the south and recline at the table with Abraham and Isaac and
Jacob in the kingdom of heaven." See the account of angels carrying the
earth-starved Lazarus to Abraham's bosom (Luke 16) and the marriage supper of
the Lamb (Rev. 19:9).
How often must we observe this ordinance the record does not say. Its analogue,
the Passover was once every year, but that was strictly prescribed in the law.
There is no such prescription in the New Testament law of this ordinance.
"But," says one, "does not the New Testament require its
observance every Lord's Day?" There is no such requirement. At Troas,
indeed, the disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread
(Acts 20:7), but even in that case the ordinance was not observed until the
next day (Acts 20:7-11). The other record of observance (Acts 2:42) seems to
imply that in this great Pentecostal meeting it was observed every day. Some
things are not prescribed, but left to sound judgment and common sense. In a
great meeting like that following Pentecost, when thousands of new converts
were added every day, and all of every day was devoted to religious service,
there was a propriety in and sufficient time for a daily observance of this
ordinance. Under ordinary conditions the observance every Sunday, if
administered with due solemnity, would shut off much needed instruction on
other important matters, at the only hour at which older Christians can attend
public worship, and the only hour at which many others do attend.
The main points of the Romanist teaching and practice on this ordinance are:
(1) They call it the sacrifice of the mass. (2) That when the priest pronounces
the words, "This is my body . . . this cup is the New Testament in my
blood," the bread and the wine (though not to sight, taste, or touch) do
really become the actual body and blood of Jesus, yea, Jesus in body, soul, and
deity; this miraculous and creative change, not only of one material substance
into another; not only of inert into living matter, but of matter into both
spirit and deity, they call transubstantiation. (3) Being now God, the priest
kneels to it in adoration. (4) It is then lifted up that the congregation may
adore it as God; this is called "The Elevation of the Host." (5) That
so changed to God it may be carried in procession, and so carried, the people
must prostrate themselves before it as God; this is called the "Procession
of the Host." (6) That the communicant does literally eat the flesh and
drink the blood of Jesus. (7) That the efficacy of the sacrifice is complete in
each kind, and so in the exercise of its heaven-granted authority the church
may and does withhold the cup from the laity. (8) That eating the flesh and
drinking the blood of Jesus is essential to eternal life. (9) That the words
"eat ye" and "drink ye" are a divine appointment of the
priesthood, widely distinguishing them from the laity, and making their
ministration of the ordinance exclusive and essential to the ordinance itself.
(10) That this is, whensoever, wheresoever, and how oftensoever performed, a
real sacrifice of our Lord, who as a High Priest forever must offer continual
sacrifice. (11) That it is a sacrifice for both the living and the dead,
available at least for the dead who are in purgatory, hence in application,
their "masses for the dead." (12) That in another sacrament called
"Extreme Unction," this consecrated "wafer" is put on the
tongue of the dying as a means to remission of sin. (13) That the church has
authority to prescribe all the accompaniments of order, dress, language, or
other circumstances prescribed in their ritual of observance. (14) That the
belief of this teaching in whole and in every part is essential to salvation,
and whoever does not so believe let him be accursed.
This Romanist teaching is the most sweeping, blasphemous, heretical perversion
of New Testament teaching known to history. As a whole, and in all its parts,
it subverts the faith of the New Testament and substitutes therefore the
traditions of men.
1. The Lord's Supper is not a real, but a pictorial sacrifice: (a) The
sacrifice of our Lord was once for all, because real, and not often repeated,
as the typical sacrifices were. (b) This error gives the officiating priest
creative power to transubstantiate inert matter into living matter, both soul
and deity, though not even God in creation formed man's soul from. matter, (c)
The alleged transubstantiation is contrary to the senses, for the bread and
wine are still bread and wine to sight, touch, and taste, unlike when Christ
transmitted water into wine, for it then looked like wine, tasted like wine,
and had the effect of wine. (d) Christ said, "I am the living bread which
came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread he shall live forever, and
the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the
world," and "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his
blood, ye have no life in yourself," and is careful thus to explain,
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words
that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some
of you that believe not," and thus he shows that to believe on him is what
is meant by the figurative language "eating his flesh" and
"drinking his blood." (e) This error controverts philosophy, in that
the body of Jesus cannot be in more places than one at the same time. (f) It
controverts many scriptures that explicitly teach that the body of Jesus
ascended to heaven, and must there remain until the final advent and the times
of the restoration of all things. (g) It is idolatry, in that mere matter is
worshiped and adored as God.
2. It violates the New Testament teaching of the eternal priesthood of Jesus
Christ, who does not continually repeat his sacrifice, but continually pleads
the efficacy of the sacrifice offered once for all, and continually intercedes
on the ground of the one offering. As a high priest he does indeed continue to
present the spiritual sacrifices of his people, such as prayer, praise, and
contribution.
3. It subverts the New Testament teaching of the mission and office of the Holy
Spirit, who was sent as Christ's vicar because he was absent, and whose office
continues until Christ returns.
4. It re-establishes the Old Testament typical order of priests, abrogated by
the cross, and separates by a greater distance than in the Old Covenant the
priest from the laity, and thereby nullifies the New Testament teaching that
all believers are priests unto God. It thus sews together again the veil of the
old Temple which at Christ's death God rent in twain from top to bottom.
5. It makes the Pope at Rome Christ's vicar instead of the Holy Spirit.
6. It makes the church a savior instead of the Lord himself, and confers on it
legislative powers instead of limiting it to judicial and executive powers.
Yea, it may change or set aside Christ's own legislation.
7. It substitutes a sacerdotal salvation, and a salvation by ordinances for the
New Testament salvation.
8. It destroys the church character of the ordinance by the administration of
it to individuals.
9. It withholds the cup from the people, though Christ said, "All ye drink
of it."
10. It destroys the unity of the ordinance by affirming that the bread alone is
sufficient, though Christ used both symbols to express his meaning.
11. It makes the ordinance for the dead as well as the giving, thus not only
extending probation after death, but giving its supposed benefits to those who
did neither eat nor drink, thus contradicting their own previous teaching, as
well as the words of our Lord which they misapply and pervert.
12. It bases its defense more on ecclesiastical history and tradition, than on
the Word of God, and limits that Word to a Latin translation, and to the church
interpretation of that translation, rather than its text.
13. It makes belief in the whole and in all parts of this complex, self-contradictory,
crude mass of human teaching essential to salvation instead of simple faith in
Christ.
While Luther rejected the Romanist doctrine of transubstantiation, he advocated
a doctrine which he called consubstantiation, by which he meant that while the
bread and wine were not the real body and blood of Christ, yet there was a real
presence of Christ in these elements. His illustration was this: Put a bar Of
iron into the fire until it is red hot, then there is heat with that iron,
though the iron itself is not heat. The trouble about Luther's
consubstantiation is, that according to his illustration, there must be some
change of the elements that could be discerned by the senses. A man can see
with his eye the difference between a cold iron and a red hot iron. And he can
tell the difference by touching it, none of which phenomena appeared in the
elements of the bread and wine.
The Genevan doctrine was that the Lord's Supper was a memorial ordinance, this
being the principal idea in it; that it exhibited or showed pictorally, not
really, certain great doctrines; that the bread and wine remained bread and
wine, so that they neither were the real body and blood of Jesus, nor held the
presence of Jesus, as iron put into the fire contained heat.
There is a thrilling story of the vain effort by Philip of Hesse to bring
Luther and the advocates of the Genevan doctrine into harmony on the Lord's
Supper. When the question came up in the Reformation as to whether Christ's
presence was really in the bread and wine, Philip of Hesse, who loved Luther,
and who also loved the Genevan reformers, invited two of the strongest of each
to meet at his castle and have a friendly debate. Luther contended for
consubstantiation, or the presence of Christ in the bread and wine, and the
Genevan reformers insisted that it was simply a memorial ordinance. So for the
debate were chosen Luther and Melanchthon on one side and Zwingli and
Cecolampadius, on the other side. Luther was the fire on the one side and
Zwingli was the fire on the other side. Philip placed Luther against
Cecolampadius, and Zwingli against Melanchthon. But after they had debated a
while, Cecolampadius and Melanchthon dropped out, and the two fiery men came
face to face. In the course of the discussion Luther wrote on the wall a verse
from his Latin Bible: "Hoc meum est corpus," "This is my
body," and Zwingli said, "I oppose it by this statement," and he
wrote under it, "Ascendit in coelum," "He ascended into
heaven." "The heavens must retain him; therefore," said he,
"Christ cannot be in his body in heaven and on earth at the same
time."
A theological seminary, a district association, a state, national, or
international convention, cannot set out the Lord's Table and observe this
ordinance, because it is strictly a church ordinance. The spiritual
qualifications of the participants are: (1) On the divine side, regeneration.
(2) On the human side, repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus
Christ. The legal qualifications are justification, redemption and adoption,
while the ceremonial qualifications are: A public, formal profession of faith
in Christ, or, in other words, the relating of one's Christian experience
before a competent official authority; baptism by that authority in the name of
the Trinity; formal reception into a particular church, which is the authority
to pass upon the credibility of the profession of faith, to administer the
baptism, to judge of the Christian life, and the only body that may lawfully
set the Lord's Table. Certain passages show that though one has all the
qualifications enumerated above, whether spiritual, legal, or ceremonial, and
yet is living an unworthy Christian life, the church of which he is a member
may judge him and bar him from participation in this Supper, viz.: 1 Corinthians
5:11-13; 10:21. These qualifications may all be condensed into one brief
statement, thus: A baptized child of God, holding membership in a particular
church and walking orderly in Christian life.
The officers of the church cannot carry the elements of this Supper to a member
who, for any cause, was absent at the assembly observance, and administer them
to him privately. Here are two well-known historic cases:
First case. A member of a church, who had been living far from God, attending
church seldom and never remaining when the Supper was observed, was now
penitent, and in his last illness, knowing death to be at hand, dictates a
penitential letter to the church, avowing the faith originally professed, but
confessing all the irregularities of his life, claiming to have received the
divine forgiveness, and asks forgiveness of the church. The letter expressed
deep regret that the writer had never once obeyed his Lord in observing this
ordinance and an intense desire to obey him one time in this matter before
death, carefully assuring the church that he attributed no magical value to the
ordinance, being himself already at peace with God, but longing to have God's
people with him one more time, to hear them sing and pray and to partake of
this Supper, so that when he passed to the heavenly feast, he could say,
"Lord, though unworthy, I did obey your solemn commandment one time on
earth." Whereupon the church voted forgiveness to the penitent brother,
adjourned the conference to meet in the sick man's house that night, and there
convened pursuant to adjournment, and did there observe the Lord's Supper as
the assembled church, and allowed -the sick man to participate. The members had
come for miles in buggies, wagons, and on horse-back. The conference was
unusually large. The house seemed to be filled with the glory of God. Others
confessed their sins; alienated members were reconciled. A marvelous revival
prevailed, and the dying brother passed from the earthly feast to drink the
wine at the heavenly feast. I was present and officiated as pastor.
Second case. A wife, professing to be a Christian, though not a church
member, appealed to a Baptist preacher to come and administer the Lord's Supper
to her dying husband, himself not a member of any church, but who desired to
partake of the Lord's Supper before death. This preacher, of his own motion and
alone, carried bread and wine to the house and there administered to the dying
man the elements of the Lord's Supper. I knew this pastor and wag instrumental
in his confession and recantation of his error.
If the church, according to Christ's law, must judge as to a participant's
qualification, what then the apostle's meaning of "Let a man examine
himself and so let him eat?" The man who is commanded to examine himself
is not an outsider, but a member of the church, already qualified according to
church judgment, yet on whom rests the personal responsibility to determine
whether by faith he now discerns the Lord's body.
What is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:27? This passage does not say,
"Whosoever is unworthy," but who partakes "unworthily,"
i.e., whose manner of partaking, like these Corinthians, was disorderly. They
ate and drank to satisfy physical hunger and thirst. They feasted separately
without waiting for the assembly.
What is the meaning of v. 30: "For this cause many are weak and sickly,
and not a few sleep"? This has no reference to physical weakness, sickness
and sleep, as if a judgment in this form had come on them for a disorderly
manner in partaking of the Supper. The meaning must be sought in the purpose of
the ordinance. We have houses in which to eat ordinary' food when we seek
physical nutrition and from that, bodily strength and health. The taste of
bread and the sip of wine in this ordinance cannot serve such a purpose. These
represent a different kind of nutriment for the saved soul, which we
appropriate and assimilate by faith. If we do not by faith discern the Lord's
body, then missing the spiritual nutrition, the soul becomes weak, or sick, or
sleepy: "Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ
shall shine upon thee."
I here expound the Old Testament analogue in Exodus 24: 9-11. This is the
passage: "Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of
the elders of Israel: and they saw the God of Israel; and there was under his
feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and as it were the very heaven
for clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his
hand: and they beheld God. and did eat and drink." This is the ratifying
feast of the Old Covenant, as the Lord's Supper is the feast of the New
Covenant. In Exodus 19 God proposes a covenant which they agree to accept and
prepare themselves for it. God himself then states the three great stipulations
of the covenant binding upon Israel: (1) The Decalogue, or God and the normal
man (Ex. 20:1-17); (2) the law of the Altar, or the way of a sinner's approach
to God; in other words, God and the sinner (Ex. 20:24-26), with all its developments
in Exodus 2531; 35-40, and almost the whole of Leviticus; (3) the judgments, or
God, the state and the citizen (Ex. 21-23), with all developments therefrom in
the Pentateuch.
These three make the covenant with national Israel. Then in Exodus 24:3-8, this
covenant, so far only uttered, is reduced to writing, read to the people and
solemnly ratified. Following the ratification, comes this passage, which is the
Feast of the Covenant (Ex. 24:9-11). Here Moses records the institution of this
feast of the ratified Old Covenant as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul record the
institution of the feast of the New Covenant, in which Jesus says, "This
cup is the New Covenant in my blood." It is noteworthy that in the
institution of both feasts (not in subsequent observances) the partakers are
few, acting in a representative capacity. Moses, Joshua, Aaron, Aaron's two
sons, seventy elders, seventy-five in all, in the first case; Jesus and the
eleven apostles in the other case. In both cases the communion, or participation,
is with God, who is present: "They saw God and did eat and drink."
But they saw no similitude. They saw symbols. They saw him by faith. They saw
the symbols of God's presence with a natural eye, and tasted of the symbol,
i.e., the Lamb of sacrifice, with the natural tongue. The symbol was not God;
it represented him; nor was it changed into God. God was neither the symbol,
nor in the symbol, nor with, by or under the symbol. He was there himself and
with his covenant people. They saw him as propitiated through the sacrifice.
Hence they saw him in the holy of holies, the paved work like sapphire stones
under his feet (v. 10), which is the sign that they saw him on his throne of
grace and mercy, as appears from a comparison of kindred passages (see Ezek.
1:26; Rev. 4). Hence it is said (v. 11), "And on the elders of the
children of Israel he laid not his hands," i.e., to smite them. Seeing God
out of the covenant the men would have died. But in the covenant they were
safe, because he was propitiated.
The Lord's Supper is not the holy of holies, but in faithful observance of the
Covenant feast, we by faith approach and commune with him in the holy of
holies. That is, the blood of the everlasting Covenant propitiates God, so that
we may approach him and commune with him, and by faith see him and yet not die,
for the blood turns away his wrath.
To further illustrate this thought, the tabernacle was God's house, or dwelling
place, whose innermost chamber was the holy of holies. There, over the mercy
seat between the Cherubim, the symbol of the Divine presence appeared as a
Shechinah, the sword flame (Gen. 3:24), or pillar of cloud, or fire, and was
the oracle to reveal and to answer questions; hence the most holy place is many
times called the oracle, i.e., the house of the oracle. So in the Temple. But
the tabernacle and the Temple fulfilled their temporary mission, and the veil
was rent when Christ died. So a new house or Temple succeeded, namely, the
church, a spiritual building (1 Cor. 3:9, 17; Eph. 2:21, American Standard
Version, 1 Peter 2:5), and this new temple was anointed with the Holy Spirit
(Dan. 9:24; Acts 2:1-4), as the first was (Ex. 30:25-26), with the holy oil
which symbolized the Spirit. Now, in this new temple, the church, is a most holy
place, the place of the real Divine presence, in the person of the Holy Spirit,
and in the Supper as a covenant feast, when faith is exercised, we approach and
commune with a propitiated God. We see him and eat and drink in his presence.
The hiding veil in this case was Christ's flesh. When he died, whose death is
commemorated in the Supper, the veil was removed, and the way into the most
holy place is wide open to the believing communicant. But in the church in
glory, which is an eternal temple, hieron, there is no naos or
symbolic shrine, most holy place, or isolated, inner chamber (Rev. 21:22), for
God and the Lamb constitute the naos, and the tabernacle (21:3) with all
the inhabitants of the Holy City, who see God directly, face to face not by
faith. The days of propitiation are ended then, and the glorified ones need no
intercession of the High Priest. Their salvation in body, soul, and spirit is
consummated forever. But they feast with God forever. They sing indeed, but
they do not "sing a hymn and go out."
1. What is the Old Testament analogue of the Lord's Supper?
2. What is the proof?
3. What preliminary study essential to an understanding of its institution?
4. What are the principal classes of New Testament scriptures to be studied?
5. Who were the historians of its institution and observance?
6. Where and what record of its institution?
7. What the three historic observances?
8. Where do we find the discussion of its import and the application of its
teachings?
9. Who instituted the ordinance and when and where?
10. Who were present and participating?
11. Why was Judas not present?
12. In what capacity did the apostles receive it?
13. What elements used?
14. What is the meaning of "bread" and "cup"?
15. What is the proof of this rendering and what the exposition?
16. What then was the first scene of the drama of this ordinance?
17. What was the second scene?
18. What was the third scene?
19. What was the fourth scene?
20. What kind of an ordinance then is this, and what is necessary to convey its
full meaning?
21. Is the order of the scenes important?
22. What of the modern provision of many tiny glasses?
23. What is the name of this ordinance and what the proof?
24. How is this title further shown?
25. What follows from this title?
26. What is the import of the word "communion" in 1 Corinthians
10:16?
27. What is the design of this ordinance?
28. What is the nature of the ordinance?
29. What faculties do we employ in the observance of this ordinance?
30. Whom do we remember, where and why, and who wrote a poem on "The
Pleasures of Memory"?
31. Faith does what?
32. Hope does what, and who wrote a poem on "The Pleasures of Hope"?
33. What was the appointed duration of the ordinance?
34. What was the meaning of Matthew 26:29 and Mark 14:25?
35. How often must we observe this ordinance?
36. Does not the New Testament require its observance every Lord's Day?
37, What were the main points of the Romanist teaching and practice on this
ordinance?
38. What was the reply to this Romanist teaching?
39. What is Luther's doctrine of consubstantiation?
40. What is the Genevan doctrine?
41. Recite the story of Philip of Hesse?
42. May any religious organization except a church celebrate the Supper?
43. What are the spiritual qualification of the participants?
44. What are the legal qualifications?
45. What are the ceremonial qualifications?
46. What scriptures show that a man with all these qualifications may be barred
from the Supper by the church?
47. Condense these qualifications into one brief statement.
48. May the officers of the church administer this ordinance to an individual
in private?
49. State the two cases cited and show which was right and why?
50. What is the meaning of "Let a man examine himself, etc."?
51. What is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:27?
52. What is the meaning of 1 Corinthians II :30?
53. Expound the Old Testament analogue in Exodus 24:fr-11.
54. Is the Lord's Supper the holy of holies?
55. How further illustrate the thought?
THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOK OF COMFORT,
INCLUDING THE GREAT INTERCESSORY PRAYER
Harmony, pages 179-183 and John 14-17.
We now take up the great subject presented commencing on page 179 and found in
John 14-17. These chapters have two great divisions. First division is Christ
comforting his disciples, and that is set forth in chapters 14-16. And the
other division is Christ's great intercessory prayer for his people, and that
is in chapter 17.
The comforts that are set forth in 14-16 are six in number: (1) He comforts
them concerning the place that he goes to prepare for them. (2) His promise to
come and take them to that place. (3) That they shall perform greater works
than he did. (4) His promise of another Paraclete when he is gone, or an
Advocate, or Comforter, as he is called here. (5) Intimate and indissoluble
union between Christ and his disciples, like that between Christ and God. (6)
The marvelous access in prayer through Christ's name. That is an outline of
what appears in these three chapters.
The occasion which called forth these great comforting words from Christ was
the sorrow of the disciples at his prediction of his speedy death and long
separation from them, and also his prediction that every one of them would be
offended at him; that Peter would deny him three times. They were in great heaviness
of heart. He had been with them for three and a half years. When they were
perplexed they came to him and he relieved their perplexity of mind. When they
were in trouble he delivered them; when they were in danger he guarded them. He
was everything to them. When they were ignorant he taught them. They left all
the world to follow him. Now in a day he is to die, and a memorial ordinance
concerning that death has just been established, therefore their sorrow.
The object of these three chapters is to comfort his disciples in view of his
pending separation. He says, "Let not your hearts be troubled. You are
greatly cast down. But your sorrow is unreasonable. It is true I go away, but
first, I go to prepare a place for you. In my Father's house are many mansions.
If it were not so I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you that
where I am there you may be also."
Imagine a family in the old country, unable to buy a little spot of ground,
unable to have a home, living in a tenant house, ground to powder under the
heel of the oppressor, and groaning under the harsh stroke of the pitiless
lash, hungry all the time, half clad, and the father tells them all good-by. He
is going across the sea. And the wife begins to weep and the children begin to cry,
and he says, "Why, it is true that I am going away; I will be gone a long
time, but I am going to prepare a place for you where you can have a home of
your own; where you will be relieved from all the burdens of this life
here." We can see the comforting power of that thought, and above all
things we must remember this, that as our conception of heaven is vague, so
will our comfort on earth be unsubstantial. When our conception of heaven is
clear and When
I can read my title clear To mansions in the skies, Ill bid farewell to every
fear And wipe my weeping eyes.
The miserable life that most Christians live, their guilty distance from God,
arises in a great measure from the fact that hazy and indistinct are all of
their ideas of the world to come, and the powers of the world to come do not
get hold of them.
Dr. Chalmers, the great Presbyterian preacher, in the greatest sermon that he
ever preached, on "The Expulsive Power of a New Affection," used
somewhat this language, "Oh, if some island of the blessed could be loosed
from its heavenly moorings and float down on the stream of time and pass just
once before our view, that we might see the serenity of its skies and inhale
the fragrance of its flowers, and catch the sheen of the apparel of its inhabitants,
and be enchanted by the inexpressibly sweet melodies and songs of that glorious
country, then never again would we be satisfied with this world."
In other scriptures the thought that heaven is a place is clearly presented.
That is what upheld Abraham: "He sought a city which hath foundations
whose builder and maker is God." And all of the Old Testament saints by
faith declared that they sought a country, that is, a heavenly country. That
they were only pilgrims and sojourners here, and so we must fix this thought in
our minds, that every finite being must have a locality. Only the infinite is
omnipresent, can be everywhere. An angel is finite. An angel must have a place.
The soul is finite; it must have a locality. When it leaves the body it must
have another locality. Notice how Paul speaks about that thought, and what a
great comfort it has always been: "We know that if the earthly house of
our tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with
hands, eternal, in the heavens." Notice how sweet that thought was, as
Christ presented it to the dying thief: "Today shalt thou be with me in
paradise." A place prepared prepared for a prepared people.
As Jesus goes to fix up a grand room to be our own in the mansions of his Father
above, and then promises to come back after us and take us where he is and give
us our place up there, doesn't that help to soften the sorrow of the temporary
separation, that being the object of his going? When he says again, "I
will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am there ye may be
also," it is a great mistake to attribute that exclusively to the final
advent of our Lord, for at the final advent of our Lord he doesn't come for the
souls of any of us who die; he brings them with him. He comes indeed for our
bodies and for Christians living at the time. We shall have already been up
there; he comes bringing the spirits of the prepared saints with him at his
final advent. His coming is when the Christian dies. At the station of death
Jesus meets us and takes us to his place in the Father's house. He said to the
thief, "To-day," not at the final advent, "shalt thou be with me
in paradise." Stephen dying, said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened
and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God. Lord Jesus, receive my
spirit," and he fell asleep.
Paul says, "To be absent from the body is to be present with the
Lord." We see the thought here of his coming. "I will come,"
says Jesus. "When death summons you I will be there." Just as the
poor man, Lazarus, that died starving at the rich man's gate, was instantly
carried into Abraham's bosom and Abraham is in the kingdom of heaven. So these
are two of the comforts: the preparing of the place, and the coming again.
In Hebrews 12 Paul says, "You are coming unto Mount Zion, the city of the
living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to God the Father, to an innumerable number
of angels, to the church of the first-born, which are in heaven, to the spirits
of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant, and you
will see that glorious place where the blood of sprinkling of our Lord Jesus
Christ was sprinkled in the holy of holies, in heaven." It is said that
the tide rises very high in the Bay of Fundy on the Atlantic coast of the
western continent; that it rises seventy feet high there, and the theory is
that the moon's attraction, incalculable moonbeams, lift the mighty waves with
an incalculable weight, seventy feet high.
In my own experience the brightest hour was when I got my first glorious
conception of heaven, and it has been the power of my Christianity ever since.
I had always said that if I ever was converted, the first book I would read
would be Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, and the day I was converted, I sat down
by my mother's bed while she slept, and read that book clear through that
night, and when I got to the place where Christian comes to the Delectable
Mountains, from whose summit he can see the Holy City and the shining ones, and
the joyous ones of the eternal world across the river, and they meet him, I
could have shouted. That is why those hymns that touch the subject, the
heavenly inheritance, thrill our hearts so.
I gathered a crowd around a poor, wronged, maltreated Christian woman when she
was dying. She said, "I don't ask you to come, my old friend, to show me
how to die. I know; but I just want you to gather the brethren and sisters
together and have them sing." We asked, "What do you want us to
sing?" "Sing that song: "Oh, sing to me of heaven When I am called to
die."
We sang that hymn, and when we got through, with faltering tongue she took up
the last stanza and sang it herself; and as her voice sank into a whisper at
the last word her soul took its exit to heaven.
I oftentimes condemn my Methodist brethren for taking out of their song book
that grand old hymn, which, when I hear two thousand people sing, I can hear
the rustling of the wings of angels: Have you heard, have you heard of that sunbright
clime, Undimmed by sorrow and unhurt by time, Where age hath no power over the
taintless frame, Where the heart is a fire and the tongue is a flame, Have you
heard of that sunbright clime?
That is the way our Lord comforts. When we see by faith -the invisible things
of heaven, it has an uplifting power, it has an attracting power, higher above
the earth, nearer to God all the time. That is what made Jacob so happy when in
his dream he saw a stairway that reached from earth to heaven, one part
touching the earth and one part touching the throne of God.
At this point one of the brethren came to Jesus with a question. Jesus had just
said, "Now that is the place to which I am going, and the way you know
whither I go ye know and the way ye know." He had made it all very plain
in his teaching. But Thomas says, "We don't know the way, and we don't
know where you are going." Jesus replied, "I am the way, and the
truth, and the life." An old-time father, Thomas a Kempis, who wrote in
Latin a great book called the Imitation of Christ, paraphrases this language of
Christ, and I will give it to you in Latin and in English:
Sine via
non itur: Sine veritale non cognoscitw; Sine vita non vivitur. Ego via quam
sequi debes Veritas cui credere debes: Vita quam sperare debes. IMITATIO.
Without the way, we cannot go; Without the truth, we cannot know; Without the
life, we cannot live. I am the way which you ought to follow; The truth which
you ought to believe; The life which you ought to hope for.
Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. And he said to Martha, "I am
the resurrection and the life." Turn to Acts 4:12: "And in none other
is there salvation; for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is
given among men, wherein we must be saved." "I am the way and the
only way." Because men are sinners, the only way to the eternal life is
through Christ; because men are sinners, they are ignorant, and Christ is the
only knowledge, the only revelation of the way of life, and he is the source of
that life. Christ is the way to God; Christ is the revelation of God; Christ is
the source of life with God. "None cometh unto the Father except by
me." Philip says, "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth
us." Jesus says, "Have I been so long time with you, and dost thou
not know me, Philip? He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father." Christ
is the revelation of the Father. He is the express image of his person. Christ
is the visible of the invisible God.
The next comfort was in this: What had attracted these masses to Christ was his
tremendous power. The elements obeyed him; fire, sea, air, earth, disease
obeyed him. They saw his marvelous works, and on account of that they hated to
be separated from him. Now he wants to comfort them on that ground: He says,
"I go away, but you shall do greater works than I have done."
I come now to the cream of his comfort: "Ye have had me with you all along
and you are just heartbroken because I am going away." Now he says,
"I will not leave you orphans. I will pray the Father and he will send you
another Paraclete" (which is the Greek word). Christ is one Paraclete, and
he goes away, and they are sorry about his going away, and he says, "I
will pray the Father that he will send you another Paraclete, and that one will
stay with you: he will stay with you all the time." Now, what does the
word "paraclete" mean? "Comforter" is an unfortunate
translation. "Advocate" is a better rendering. Christ is our Advocate
now with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous up in heaven. Now here, it is
Christ: "It is expedient that I go away. You need an Advocate up yonder.
You Christian people will go on sinning and struggling, and you will need an
Advocate up yonder to plead for you, to deliver, to pray for you, and then I
will pray the Father and he will send another Advocate, to stay with you down at
this end of the line."
There was a very dear friend of mine when I was a young man, a Methodist
preacher, and it is perfectly delightful to be on such spiritual terms with a
man of another denomination that you can discuss the matters at issue between the
two denominations with satisfaction. We had up the question, "Final
perseverance, versus falling from grace," and I was digging him up on
that, and he said, "Look here, I will admit that if there was any way to
keep a Christian's faith from failing he could not be lost." Well, I
brought in Christ's intercession in heaven: "I have prayed that thy faith
fail not." "He ever liveth to make intercession for us."
"But," he said, "here is the trouble: when a Christian goes
wrong he does not feel like praying or confessing his sins, or going to church,
or seeing the preacher. He is a perfect dodger, and I know if he would confess
his sins and put his sins in the hands of that Advocate, he would be all
right." I said, "Do you think that the Lord Jesus Christ, when he
went to heaven to be our Advocate up there, left this end of the line vacant?
He sent an Advocate to represent this end of the line. 'The Holy Spirit helpeth
our infirmities,' because we don't know what to pray for, nor how to pray for
it, and he takes charge of prayer in the Christian's heart at this end of the
line, and the Lord Jesus Christ takes charge of the prayer when it gets up
yonder. The Spirit approves it down here, and Christ approves it in lines
written in his own blood, and the Father accepts what the Spirit and Christ
approve." "Well," he says, "I never had thought of it that
way before. I never thought of that intercession down here on the earth before
in my life." I said, "Look here; you are an old-time Texas man; did
you ever in the drouthy times, when the heavens seemed like brass, and the
earth like iron, and the dust choked you, and your throat swelled because you
were so thirsty, riding along in the dust, see a well by the roadside with an
old-fashioned pump?" "Yes." "What did you do?"
"Why, I leaped down from my horse and went to the pump and commenced
working the pump handle as hard as I could." "But," I said,
"sometimes that would not do. It would just rattle. Why?" I asked.
"Because the valves in it had become so dry and shrunken that they would
not make any suction, and hence they wouldn't pull up any water."
"How did you cure that defect?" "I poured water in from above
until those valves swelled out, then it brought the water." I applied:
"Where do we get that water poured into the drouthy soul and backslidden
Christian? He can't get it out of the well. That is his trouble. Here is the
scriptural answer: 'Thorns and briars shall come upon my people until the
Spirit shall be poured out from on high, and it shall come to pass in the last
days, saith the Lord, that I will pour out upon the people my Spirit.' What is
it that brings that backslider back home? He may work that pump until he gives
out. He may kneel down and pray and his prayers seem not to rise above his
head. He finds another Advocate down here who comes to the help of the saints
on earth, and when the old pump gets dry that way it doesn't work any until the
Spirit revives it, then it sends forth refreshing streams."
"Well," said he, "that is the strongest argument for the final
perseverance of the saints I ever heard."
Christ says here, "I promise to send you another Advocate. What is he to
do besides help you to pray? He is to teach you all things and guide you into
all truth." Well, hadn't Christ taught all things? No, many things he
wanted to teach but they were not prepared. "But when the Spirit shall
come, he will continue the teaching work, and every truth you need he will
guide you to. You don't understand about what has been previously taught; he
will expound to you by illumination. He will open your heart to understand ; he
will illumine your mind that you may see the wonderful things that are in the
law of God. Not only that, but he will act on your memory. He will bring all
things to your remembrance." How do you suppose the apostle John could
report, over sixty years after the event, Christ's speeches as he does, giving
the very words? Why, "the Holy Spirit will bring all things to your
remembrance. He will just put you right back there as if listening to Christ,
right at the time, and you will catch every word." One of the powers of
the Spirit is to enable the mind to remember.
What else will he do? He will be a witness of Jesus as Jesus was of the Father.
Jesus never bears testimony to himself, but he bears testimony to the Father,
and he tells of the Father, tears the dark veil off the Father's loving heart,
and enters into the very soul of the Father, and how much he loves you!
"Now," says Christ, "I am going away. You did not understand the
things I said to you awhile ago, while I was here. But when the Comforter is
come, he will take the things of mine, and he will not speak of himself. He
will present the things of mine to your soul in a more powerful way than I
myself present them. You want me here, and you are weeping because I am going
away. Now look at my three and a half years, and the comparatively small
results of my preaching. But I tell you when the Spirit is come, he will
convict the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment." And to
show just what occurred after the Spirit did come) on the day of Pentecost,
three thousand souls were converted under one sermon, because the Spirit had
come. He will make the words that you preach more powerful than the words of
Christ himself, when he preached, because he will touch the heart of the
hearer.
Notice the next comfort. He says, "Hitherto you have asked nothing in my
name. You prayed directly to the Father. Now I finish the work on earth and go
up to heaven. Hereafter you shall ask whatsoever you will in my name and I will
do it." What a broad statement! It has only one limitation, and that limit
is safe-guarded: "If," says John, "we ask anything according to
his will he heareth us." "Anything in the world according to the will
of God you will get if you ask in Christ's name. Well, how do I know what is
according to the will of God? The Holy Spirit knows what is the will of God,
prompts your prayers, leads you to pray for things that are according to the
will of God, and therefore whatever you ask in my name under the guidance of
the Spirit, receives its answer."
We now come to Christ's great prayer (John 17). It is divided into three parts:
First, what he asks for himself. Second, what he asks for his immediate
disciples. Third, what he asks for those that should hereafter believe on him.
Let us see what the things are he asks for himself: "Glorify thy Son, that
the Son may glorify thee." A little farther down, "Glorify thou me
with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world
was." He asks for himself, glorification. Glorification consists of the
following things: (1) That the dead body should be made alive. (2) That it
should be raised from the grave. (3) That it should be reunited to the spirit.
(4) That it should be taken into the final glorious home. (5) That it should
there be in possession of all the promises made concerning it. This is
glorification.
When the body dies, it dies in weakness. But it is raised in strength. It dies
in dishonor; it is raised in honor. It dies in corruption; it is raised in
incorruption. (But Christ's body never did see corruption.) It dies a mortal
body, is raised an immortal body. It dies a natural body, and is raised a
spiritual body. All this is involved in the resurrection of the dead; and the
resurrection is. a part of glorification not all, but part of it.
Christ's prayer was that he might be glorified with the glory that he had with
the Father before the world was made. What a remarkable proof of the divinity
of Christ; to his antecedent deity! "In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God." God Elohim subsisted
eternally as Father Elohim, Son Elohim, and Holy Spirit Elohim. "Now,
glorify me with the glory that I had with thee before the world was." He
prayed that this might take place, and the reason that he prayed it is
explained in Philippians: that when salvation was undertaken he could not
remain on an equality with God, but laid aside his heavenly glory, stooping to
take the form of a servant in the fashion of a man; that in the fashion of a
man he might work out redemption, and then carry that raised and glorified man
up to the throne of the universe, up to the right hand of the Father.
He prayed for them, but not for the world. I stop to ask a question: Did not
Christ pray for sinners? He is not talking to them here; he is talking to
Christians. "I pray for them, my disciples, whom God gave to me." My
question is, Does it mean that Christ never did pray for sinners? Did Christ
ever pray for sinners? On the cross Christ said, "Father, forgive them,
for they know not what they do." And in Isaiah 53 it is said, "He
made intercession for the transgressors." Some hyper-Calvinists claim that
praying for sinners is foolish. It once went sweeping over Texas and came nigh
capturing it. In sweeping away the mourners' bench and some of the hurtful
methods used in carrying on protracted meetings, it swept away the mourner
himself. These heretics taught that the sinner had no right to pray for
himself, and that Christians had no right to pray for him, and that Christ did
not pray for them. Praying for sinners is not in print here, because this is an
intercessory prayer for his people. But it does not contradict other passages,
which show that he prayed for his persecutors, and all transgressors. Samuel
prayed, "God -forbid that I should so sin as not to pray for them."
Here he says, "Holy Father, keep in thy name them whom thou hast given me,
that they may be one, etc."; that is, "Keep now the gift." When
he was in the world, he kept them. He is now going out of the world. Christians
are those who are kept (See 1 Peter 1:5). Then he prays, "Keep them, that
they may be one, even as we are one." Here he prays for their unity. Next
in order, he prays that his joy may be fulfilled in them (v. 13). He will be
satisfied when he shall see the travail of his soul. He who had been the
saddest man in the world is anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows,
the Good Shepherd that rejoiced over the lost sheep found. That was his joy,
his express joy, and the Father's joy. "Now, Father, I pray that they may
have my joy fulfilled in them."
Notice again in v. 15 a negative form of prayer: "I pray not that thou shouldest
take them out of the world." He was unlike Elijah, who, getting whipped so
bad he ran off into Arabia, and never stopped until he reached Mount Sinai. He
thought it was better for him to die, when battle came on, better to get out of
the world. "Father, I do not pray that thou shouldest take them out of the
world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one," that devil,
who goes about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Keep them from
him. Just like that other prayer of his, "deliver us from the evil
one."
The next thought is in v. 17: "Sanctify them through thy truth." Here
we come to the doctrine of sanctification. The instrument of sanctification is
the word of God, the medium is faith, "sanctified by faith that is in
me," and the purpose of sanctification is to take the regenerate soul and
make it more and more like God until it is perfectly like God. He prays for
their sanctification, but he did not pray that they should be sanctified before
the time.
The next element of the prayer is in v. 20: "Neither for these only do I
pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word."
"Whatever I have prayed for the apostles, I have prayed for everybody who
through their preaching may be converted, and everybody who may believe on me
through any preaching: I pray for them." This is where we come in. We may
rest assured that if God numbers the hairs of our heads, he numbers the heads;
and if he numbers the heads, he knows one head from another, and as he brought
salvation, he prays for us. Not like the boy who said, "God bless papa,
mama, little brother and sister, Aunt Jane, etc.," calling the names of
the immediate friends and relatives. Not so with God; Jesus prayed for us
before we were born.
I will now call attention to the last element of this prayer, v. 24: "I
will that where I am they also may be with me, that they may behold my
glory." Jesus wants us to know what he prays for concerning us. He does
not pray for us to be taken out of the difficulties and the battle of life, but
that in these trials we may be kept from the devil, and that our sanctification
may be progressing, and that we may be glorified, that we may be with him and
share his inheritance. But a brother asks, "Why do certain scriptures
represent the Christian as already sanctified if our sanctification is not yet
complete?" This is a pertinent question. The answer is,
The word "sanctify" has several meanings: "One of them, to set
apart, to consecrate, and in this sense a Christian is already sanctified.
God sees us as complete in Christ, and so beholds us as if all the blessings in
Christ were already fulfilled in us: "Ye are complete in him." In
this sense a Christian is reckoned already sanctified.
But in fact the full salvation secured for us by Christ is not yet fulfilled in
us. We have not yet laid hold of all the things for which Christ laid hold of
us (see Phil. 3:12-14). Everybody ought to read that old Puritan book by Flavel
on The Methods of Grace. Sanctification is not applied like
justification. Considered legally in Christ we are complete now, but in us the
work commenced in regeneration must be carried on until the day of Jesus
Christ.
1. What is the section, John 14-16, called, and of what does chapter 17
consist?
2. How many and what are the comforts set forth in these chapters?
3. What was the occasion which called forth these comforting words of Christ?
4. What is the object of these three chapters of comfort and what is the
unreasonableness of their sorrow? Illustrate.
5. What is the cause of the miserable life most Christiana live and what is Dr.
Chalmers' illustration of this thought?
6. What scriptural proof that heaven is a place?
7. What coming of Jesus is referred to in John 14:1-3 and what is the
comforting power of this thought?
8. What does Paul say that the Christian is coming to, what the influence of
this vision on the life as illustrated by the great tides in the Bay of Fundy,
what English allegory most beautifully illustrated it, and what illustration of
the comfort to a dying saint?
9. What hymn. mentioned in this connection and what is the first stanza?
10. What question did Thomas ask here, what was Christ's answer and what is
Kempis' paraphrase of this language of Christ?
11. What is the meaning of "I am the way, the truth and the life,"
and "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father"?
12. What comfort in the "greater works" which they should do?
13. What is the greatest comfort and what the application?
14. What point illustrated by the author's controversy with the Methodist
preacher, what, in detail, the argument and illustration?
15. What great work of the Holy Spirit besides that of comforting, and what was
the special application to the apostles?
16. What is the Spirit's witnessing work, and what is the great result?
17. What is direction for prayer in this connection, what is the comfort of it,
what is the limitation, and how may we know it?
18. What the three parts of Christ's prayer in chapter 17?
19. What does he ask for himself, and of what does it consist?
20. What proof, in this connection, of the divinity of Christ and why did
Christ thus pray?
21. Did Christ ever pray for sinners, what proof, what hurtful teaching on this
question, and why is not the statement of Christ here applicable?
22. What does he ask for his immediate disciples, both negatively and
positively?
23. What instrument, medium, and purpose of sanctification?
24. What does he ask for them who should believe on him afterward?
25. If our sanctification is not yet complete why do certain, ecripturci
represent us as already sanctified?
JESUS IN GETHSEMANE
Harmony, pages 183-186 and Matthew 26:30; 36-48; Mark
14:26; 32-42; Luke 22:39-46; John 18:1; Hebrews 5:7-8.
This section commences on page 183 of the Harmony, introducing us at once to the
Gethsemane scene. It is of vital importance that the interpreter of the Bible
should know what significance to attach to this scene in the garden. We have
four accounts Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul. You will observe that while John
touches the other historians on some things, he has nothing to say about this
garden scene. His Gospel was written so much later than the others, and the
others had so clearly set forth all the necessary facts about the garden of
Gethsemane that he does not mention it at all. And when we confine ourselves to
the accounts given by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul, we get at results about
which I will now speak in their order.
The word, "Gethsemane," means an oil-press. The word,
"place," as Matthew calls it "He came to a place" means
an "enclosed place." In this were olive trees, other trees, and
flowers. Just as you cross the brook Kidron, which separates that part of
Jerusalem near the Temple from Mount Olivet, and right at the base of Mount
Olivet, was this enclosed space. If you were there now you would see about an
acre of ground with old olive trees in it, centuries old, but you are not to
understand that this enclosure represents the enclosure of the text, or that
these very trees were there when Christ spent this night of agony in that
garden. We know from history, Josephus among others, that all of the trees of
every kind for miles were cut down by the Romans when they were besieging
Jerusalem about forty years after Christ's entrance into the garden of
Gethsemane.
Right at the foot of the mountain three roads went over or around Mount Olivet.
They centered in that garden, and Jesus was accustomed to stop there. Our
record tells us that he was accustomed to stop in that garden, either going to
Jerusalem from Bethany; or going to Bethany from Jerusalem; and Judas, we
learn, was sure that there Jesus could be found, if he had left the upper room
where the Lord's Supper was celebrated. You will remember that just at the
close of the Passover supper, Judas "went immediately out," and
gathered the crowd unto whom he wished to betray him. He knew he would find
Jesus either where he left him, in that upper chamber, or in that garden on his
way back to Bethany, which was his headquarters. So much, then, for the place.
The next item is that when he came to that garden he stopped eight of the
apostles at the gate: "You stay here." He took three with him Peter
and the two sons of Zebedee, James and John, and with these three he entered
deeper into the garden. Then he stationed the three, and went deeper still into
the garden, as far as you can throw a stone say fifty paces. Those at the
gate, and particularly these three, were commanded to watch and pray; to watch,
because he wanted to be informed when his betrayer was coming; to pray, lest
they should enter into temptation when they saw him openly captured by his
enemies. He knew that it would greatly shake them, and that they ought to be
praying.
It was very late in the night, and being in the time of the Passover, it was full
moon, but they were weary and sleepy. As he said of them, "The flesh is
weak; your spirit is ready, but your flesh is weak." These three that
entered with him are mentioned on two other special occasions in the Gospels.
Peter, James, and John were selected from the twelve apostles to be witnesses
of his power when he raised the daughter of Jairus from the dead, as we learn
from Mark 5. Peter, James, and John were selected to witness his glory on the
Mount of Transfiguration, as we learn from Matthew 17, and now Peter, James,
and John are selected to witness his agony in this garden. They became very
important witnesses to all of these events.
We notice the next point. He said, as Matthew expresses it, "My soul is
exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." Mark says the same thing. This
language evidently teaches that Jesus really had a human soul. There is an old
heresy to the effect that he had only a human body, and that the Deity
inhabited that body. But Jesus was a man in the true sense of the word. He took
upon himself our nature, apart from any sin, but yet it was fully human nature,
soul and body. Or, if you want to express it in a trichotomous way body,
soul, and spirit. He was fully human. This sorrow proves that he was human in
every true sense of the word. "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto
death." The agony described here is mental and spiritual. The effect is
shown in his body, in that he sweats, as it were, great drops of blood. This is
the most thrilling description in literature of the intensity of spiritual
suffering under the preparation of the coming evil, and how that suffering
evidences itself in the body. The body and the soul are intimately connected.
When Belshazzar saw the handwriting on the wall, his knees shook, the terror in
his soul was connected with his body. Or, as a man in reading a letter, or
receiving a telegram of awful news, becomes so transfixed with pain that he has
a tendency to faint. That is the reaction of the inner man on the outer man.
The next thought is what caused that sorrow even unto death? A young
preacher, and a very brilliant one, preached a sermon on this subject in which
he took the position that the devil, as a person a visible, tangible person
that night tried to kill Jesus, as he had first tried to have Jesus killed when
he was a baby. So there was a wrestle between Christ and Satan, and that when
Jesus prayed, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me,"
he meant, "If it be possible, don't let the devil kill me before I go to
the cross and expiate human sin."
It was a very ingenious thing that young preacher preached, but it was very
unscriptural. The sorrow that came over Jesus the trouble of his soul, of his
spirit, was that he was very near the time of dying on the cross, not as a
martyr for a martyr has no such sorrow as that; not as a guilty person in
view of pending execution, for he was without sin; but it was a sorrow caused
by the thought that in dying he was to die alienated in soul from God; to die
as a sinner, though no sinner; to die the death of a felon, and, for the time
being, pass under the power of Satan. He knew that when that sacrifice was made
the Father would forsake him; that he would have to die the spiritual death,
and the spiritual death is absence of the soul from God.
You get at a fine idea of the thought a very fine idea indeed when you
consider the petition of Major John Andre to George Washington,
commander-in-chief of the American armies. He prayed that he might be shot as a
soldier, and not hanged as a spy. His agony was not the thought of death, for
he was a very brave man, but the thought of a felon's death. To die by a
hangman that constituted the agony of Major Andre. He did not want to die
that death.
The humanity of Jesus, not merely his body, but his soul and spirit, suffered
vicariously the spiritual death. His soul shuddered unspeakably at the thought
of passing away from God and going under the power of Satan, and to feel the
stroke of the punitive sword of the divine law won him. That was his trouble.
Paul's statement of the case is thus expressed: "Who in the days of his
flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears
unto him that was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his
godly fear, though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he
suffered" (Heb. 5:7-8).
The next thought is this that in that agony of approaching separation from
his Father, he prays to his Father, that if it be possible, to let this cup pass
from him. That means this: "I came to the earth to save men; to do
anything that is necessary to their salvation, and the means appointed for
their salvation is that I should take the sinner's place; die the sinner's
death; die under God's judgment; die under the sword of the divine law."
Now when he says, "Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from
me," he means this: "If there is any other way to save men, then let
this cup pass from me; it is so bitter."
The theology involved in that prayer has a depth that has never yet been
sounded. It is the strongest possible proof of the sinner's destiny; of the
enormity of the sinner's death. It is the strongest proof that I know that the
only available way to save men was by substitution.
In other words, the law of God, which is holy, just, and good, must be
vindicated. That law says, "The soul that sinneth it shall die."
"Man has sinned. If I came to redeem man, and to take the place of man, I
must pay man's debt to the law. I must die the death of the sinner, or God can
never be just in justifying man in forgiving man." The claim of the law
must be met, and if you just think a moment, when a man talks about your being
saved without the expiation of sin by Jesus Christ upon the cross, remember that
Jesus prayed: "If it be possible, i.e., if there be any other way under
heaven among men whereby man can be saved, apart from vicarious and
substitutionary death in his behalf, then let this cup pass from me." And
the cup was not allowed to pass.
Let us suppose that some one takes the position: "I believe in God; I
believe in his love and in his mercy, but I reject this idea of Jesus Christ as
a Saviour, and whenever I come to stand before the judgment bar of God my
petition will be: 'Lord have mercy on me and save me.' " The answer will
be: "If it had been possible for man to have been saved in that way, then
the petition of Jesus would have been answered." The omniscience of God
could see no other way; the omnipotence of God could work out no other way; the
omnipresence of God could get in touch with no other way; the holiness and
justice of God could find no other way. And, therefore, Peter, who witnesses
this, says, "There is no other name given among men whereby we can be
saved, but by the name of Jesus," and the name of Jesus avails only as
Jesus died in our behalf. "God made him to be sin, though he knew no sin,
that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." In the Old
Testament we have his words, as given, not by these Gospel historians, but by
prophetic historians, and one of his words is, "Save me from the
sword," not the sword of man, but the sword of divine justice. And the
reply that came to that petition was: "Awake, O sword, and smite the
shepherd." Another one of his prayers, as given by the prophetic
historian, is, "Lord, save me from the lion." The lion is the devil.
He is the one who goeth about like a roaring lion. He was not saved from the
lion. In other words, he was to be the live goat; the goat laden with the sins
of the people; the goat that was to be sent into the wilderness to meet Azazel;
he was "set alive before Jehovah to make atonement for him, to send him
away to Azazel into the wilderness." So Jesus must meet the prince of evil
and there fight out the battle in which Jesus would be bruised in the heel and
Satan would be crushed in the head, and in which Jesus' body would die, but his
soul would be triumphant and Satan be cast out.
The devil knew that Christ was near the cross; he knew that if Christ got to
the cross and died on the cross, what would be the effect of that death. And
what he was trying to effect here (for this was a real temptation of Jesus),
was not to bring about the physical death of Jesus, as that young preacher
taught, but it was to get Jesus to so shrink back from this suffering that he
would not undertake it. That was his point. And Jesus felt all of the agony, so
deeply felt it that he prayed, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from
me." But he said, "Not my will, but thine be done." It was the
will of God that the sufferer for sinners must die for sinners.
It is noticeable in all cases of this kind, that the great internal fight is
made before we get to the actual reality. I never undertook a great enterprise
that I did not first pass through all of the agony before I started out. I had
my battle then, and after I had fought the battle out, I never fought it the
second time. And when Jesus fights it out here in Gethsemane, he is as serene
and equable from this time on as he ever was in his earlier life, when this
dark shadow was yet a long way off. Notice that while the Father does not
remove the curse, and could not remove it and save man, that he does send an
angel to strengthen Jesus to hold up his fainting head.
I ask the reader to notice in the next place that these prayers of Jesus were
threefold. He prayed, and the hardest of the fight was in the first prayer; he
prayed again, a prayer which was not such a terrible prayer as the first one;
he prayed the third time, and in the last prayer peace came to him. He had
asked these men to watch, and they slept; he had asked them to pray, not for
him, but lest they enter into temptation when they saw their Captain taken, and
their hopes, as they understood them, blasted, but they slept. And how pathetic
were his words to Peter: "Simon, could not you have watched with me one
hour? You have been up a good deal and it is now midnight; the flesh is weak,
but your Lord is going through a death agony. Could you not hold out just one
more hour?" What a great text! He felt the need of human sympathy. But he
was alone in Gethsemane, as we will see him later alone on the cross.
I ask the reader to notice also three prayers of Jesus: First, the prayer that
he taught his disciples to pray, commencing, "Our Father, who art in
heaven, hallowed by thy name." Next, the prayer that we discussed in our
last chapter, in which he prayed for the disciples. And now this prayer in
which he prays for himself. From these prayers we learn what he prayed for, and
how he prayed for himself.
I also note in this connection, the three gardens: The garden of Eden, in which
the first Adam was tempted and fell; the garden of Gethsemane, in which the
Second Adam resisted all of the wiles of the devil, the weakness of the flesh,
and the mental despondency that comes from the contemplation of the felon's
death, and, finally, the garden of Paradise, in the last chapter of the Bible
that as Adam in the first garden of Paradise turned it into a desert of sin,
Jesus in Gethsemane turned the desert into a garden of flowers; that by the
preparation here for that which must be accomplished for man's redemption,
viz., to die on the cross, he made possible our entrance into the garden of
Paradise. The last chapter in the Bible says, "Blessed are they that wash
their robes, that they may have the right to come to the tree of life, and may
enter in by the gates into the city."
Please notice again in what the essence of prayer consists: "Not my will,
but thine be done." As it is expressed later: "If we ask anything
according to his will," and John got the thought right here, when
witnessing that agony; so he afterward wrote, "If ye ask anything
according to the will of God, he heareth us." This shows the limit there
is upon prayer. I could not pray that God would enable me to steal from a man,
or kill a man. I could not rightfully pray for anything in order that I might
consume it upon my lusts and passions. James says that is asking amiss; that is
asking not according to the will of God. That is the limitation upon all
prayer. And Jesus hedged upon that point, "Not my will, but thine be
done."
I heard Major Penn one hundred times, standing up before great crowds of
people, when he had invited hundreds not to come and take -the mourner's bench,
but to come up as inquirers to investigate; and he would stand up, and pointing
his finger at them, say, "Now have you come to this point: the will of the
Lord be done? Have you come to the point that you can say, 1 want that to be
undergone because it is the will of God?' Are you willing for the will of God
to prevail in regard to your conversion, whoever should be the instrument? Or,
do you say, I will be converted if a certain preacher should come; or, if it be
at home; or, if God shall convert me some night when they shout; or, when they
do not shout?' Are you ready for the will of God to be done?"
The next point is who were coming to capture him? A statement in John in the
original Greek says, "These saw the band, and the chief captain."
"The band," with the definite article is, in the Greek, "the
cohort," which was that special cohort of Roman soldiers quartered in the
tower of Antonio, which sat over the Temple; and the chief captain there, in
the Greek, chiliarch (chiliarchos), means "chief of the
thousand." The Roman legion usually, at this time, consisted of 6,000 men;
there would be six chiliarchs, six men each over one thousand; and each
chiliarch would have under him ten men, centurions, each over one hundred. The
chiliarch was one who occupied an office similar to our colonel commander of
a regiment; and the legion answered somewhat to our brigade, or division, more
to a division than to a brigade. When it says, "the chief captain,"
or chiliarch, was there, it means the most important Roman officer in the city
a man of great dignity and power and while the legions were not always
full, and therefore the band or number commanded by the chiliarch was not
always full in number, yet it meant that hundreds of trained Roman soldiers had
here come; the colonel of the regiment, and the captains of several companies.
That shows that there was a strong realization, that even in the night people
might wake up and that an attempt might be made to rescue him. For fear of that
very thing the Sanhedrin would not arrest him in the day time. The chiliarch
and the cohort came not to arrest, but merely to prevent a tumult of the people
when the Temple officers arrested Jesus. It is quite important to note not only
the presence of the cohort and the reasons therefore negatively and positively,
and the fact that they did not arrest Jesus, nor carry him to Pilate, nor to
anybody else, but were present to prevent possible disorder. Then the text also
says that the officers of the Sanhedrin, and the partially armed rabbis that
attended them, and their followers carrying staves, were there. The soldiers,
of course, had their swords. The short sword of the Roman soldier was a very
deadly weapon. So that at least, counting the representatives of the Sanhedrin
and the rabbis, and that disciplined band of Roman soldiers, who could not have
been sent without the consent of Pilate, at night were all apparently coming to
arrest a man that never carried a weapon in his life; coming to arrest a man
whose constant followers were twelve, or eleven in this case, unarmed men;
coming by night to arrest a man who had taught every day openly in their Temple
and in their city. Hence his question: "Do you bring out this army here as
if you are going to capture a robber or a thief? Why do you come by night when
you could have found me any time by day in the very heart of the city?"
And notice the traitor: Though it was full moon, this man brought lanterns and
torches. They wanted to identify the Person, and while the lanterns were
shining and their torches throwing out a lurid glare, Jesus says, "Whom do
you seek?" And as he stepped out and said, "Whom do you seek?"
they fell, just as if they were shot. That. was a supernatural event. It showed
how easily he could have blotted the whole band out of existence. And when they
got up he repeated his question, "Whom do you seek?" They answered
him, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus answers them, "I am he: you have
not said you have come seeking these followers of mine. Let them go; do not
arrest them."
1. Who are the historians of the Gethsemane scene and why, in all probability,
was it omitted by John?
2. What is the meaning of the word "Gethsemane," what is the meaning
of the word "place" as used by Matthew in his account and how is
Gethsemane described as to location, its contents, etc.?
3. What was the access to this garden and what made it easy for Judas to find
our Lord here on the night of his betrayal?
4. Upon entering this garden on the night of his betrayal how did our Lord station
the disciples, what command did he give them; why watch and why pray?
5. What hour of the night, who were with him and on what occasions were they
admitted to special privileges with Jesus?
6. What does the expression, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, etc.,"
teach, what heresy mentioned, was Jesus dichotomous or trichotomous, what
proof, what was the nature of the agony which Christ suffered, and what is the
reaction of the inner man on the outer man? Illustrate.
7. What was the young preacher's theory as to the sorrow of Christ in.
Gethsemane, what was the real cause of the sorrow, how does the case of Major
Andre illustrate this? what was the nature of Christ's death and how does Paul
express this Gethsemane suffering?
8. What is the meaning of Christ's prayer in Gethsemane and of what is it a
proof?
9. What is the judgment test of this idea of our salvation, what is the answer
from the standpoint of God's omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, holiness,
and justice? What was Peter's testimony? Paul's? the prophetic historian's?
What Old Testament type of this vicarious work of our Lord?
10. What was the devil's real temptation of our Lord in Gethsemane"
11. What notable fact about this Gethsemane conflict of our Lord?
12. What relief did the Father send to our Lord in this very intense agony?
13. How is Christ's need of human sympathy revealed in this scene, what three
prayers of Jesus cited and what do they teach?
14. What 3 gardens are mentioned here, what were the points of correspondence
and what was the condition of entrance into the garden of Paradise?
15. In what does the essence of prayer consist, what was John's testimony on
this point, what does this show, what was James's testimony, and what practical
illustration of the application of this principle given?
16. Who arrested Jesus, why this great band of Roman soldiers, and in what
consists the ridiculousness of their course?
17. Why did Judas carry lanterns and torches, what supernatural event happened
at this arrest, what does it show and what request did he make for his
disciples?
JESUS BETRAYED, ARRESTED, FORSAKEN; TRIED
BY ANNAS, BY CAIAPHAS, AND BY THE SANHEDRIN
Harmony, pages 186-196 and Matthew 26:47-87, 59-75;
27:1-2; Mark 14:48 to 15:1; Luke 22:47 to 23:1; John 18:2-28.
In the last chapter we considered the sorrow of Christ in Gethsemane, and
dipped somewhat into the account of the betrayal of our Lord. Just here we call
attention particularly to the supplemental testimony of John's Gospel that the
Roman band or cohort, under its own prefect or miltary tribune, or chiliarch,
was present when Jesus was arrested, and participated therein, indeed,
themselves arresting, binding, and conducting Jesus to the Jewish authorities.
This is a little difficult to understand, but we find no difficulty in the
presence of the Temple guard, under the leadership of the Sanhedrin, and the
mixed multitude irregularly armed, that came out for the purpose of arresting
Jesus. Our trouble is to account for so strong a Roman force, under a high
Roman officer, and the part they played in the matter, inasmuch as it was not
an arrest for violating a Roman law, nor did they deliver the prisoner to
Pilate, but to Annas and Caiaphas. From this supplemental story of John
(18:2-14), certain facts are evidenced:
Judas, the betrayer of Christ, and who guided the arresting party,
"received the Roman cohort," usually about 600 men, under its own commanding
officers. This could not have been without the consent of Pilate.
They evidently did not go out to make an ordinary arrest under Roman law, else
would the prisoner have been delivered to Pilate. Yet the facts show that they
did seize and bind Jesus and deliver him to Annas, one of the acting high
priests, and thence to Caiaphas. As it was not customary for Roman legionaries
in conquered states to act as a constabulary force for local municipal
authorities in making an arrest touching matters not concerning the Empire, and
as it is evident there were present an ample force of the Jewish Temple guard,
besides an irregularly armed Jewish multitude subordinate to the Sanhedrin,
then why the presence of this Roman force at all, and more particularly, why
their participation in the arrest? The answer is as follows:
First, both the Sanhedrin and Pilate feared tumults at the crowded feasts when
the city swarmed with fiery, turbulent Jews gathered from all the lands of the
dispersion. Doubtless the Sanhedrin had represented to Pilate the presence in
the city of a dangerous character, as they would charge, yet one so popular
with the masses they dare not attempt to arrest him in the daytime, and even
feared a mob rising in the night.
Second, their presence and intervention was necessary to protect the prisoner
himself from assassination or lynch law. When they came to the garden and found
Jesus there with a following of at least eleven men disposed to resist the
arrest, and when they saw the whole Jewish guard fall before the outshining
majesty of the face of Jesus as if stricken by lightning, and when they saw at
least one swordstroke delivered in behalf of Jesus, then only, it became proper
for the Roman guard to intervene. This necessity might arise from the fact that
they could not trust the turbulent Jews with the management of this case.
"We will arrest this man and protect him from their violence until
delivered to their authorities to be tried for whatever offense with which he
may be charged under their laws." Indeed, humanly speaking, if that Roman
cohort had not been present, he would have been mobbed before he reached any
kind of a trial. The case of Paul (Acts 21:30), and the intervention of Lysias,
the chiliarch, illustrates the grounds of Roman intervention. It must be borne
in mind that the Romans were silent, and did nothing until they saw the Temple
guard unable to face the dignity of Jesus, and that a commencement, at least,
of the struggle had been made by Peter to resist arrest.
As we are now coming to the climax of our Lord's earth life, his betrayal, his
trials, condemnation, execution, and resurrection, the literature becomes the
richest in the world, and the bibliography most important. Particularly do we
here find a unique and most powerful literature from the viewpoint of lawyers.
They do not intrude into the theological realm to discuss the trial of Jesus as
the sinner's substitute before the court of God on the charge of sin, with the
penalty of spiritual death, nor the trial of Jesus as the sinner's substitute
before the court of Satan on the charge of sin, with the penalty of physical
death, but they discuss the legal aspects of his trial before the Jewish
supreme court, the Sanhedrin, on the charge of blasphemy) with the penalty of
stoning, and the trials of Jesus before the Roman courts of Pilate and Herod on
the charges of treason and sedition. They answer the question: Under the Jewish
law, which was not only civil and criminal, but ecclesiastical, was Jesus
legally arrested, legally prosecuted, and fairly condemned, or was the whole
case, as tried by the Sanhedrin, a case of malice, violating all the rights of
the accused, and culminating in legal murder? In the same way these great
lawyers and jurists expound the case before the Roman courts of Pilate and
Herod, and from a lawyer's viewpoint pronounce upon the Judgment of these cases
under a judicial construction of the Roman law.
Under this first head of bibliography I give a list of these books by the great
lawyers, every one of which ought to be in every preacher's library. Do not
waste money on inconsequential and misleading books. Do not fill your libraries
with rubbish. Have fewer and greater books, and study them profoundly.
The Testimony of the Evangelists, by Dr. Simon Greenleaf. He was a law partner
of Chief Justice Story, was for quite a while professor of law in Harvard
University, and the author of that noted book, The Law of Evidence, which has
been accepted in two continents as the highest and safest authority OD this
great theme. Indeed, when we consider this splendid contribution by Dr.
Greenleaf, we may almost forgive Harvard for its erratic infidel president
emeritus, Dr. Charles v. Eliot, and many of its radical critic professors. This
book of Greenleaf's, over 600 pages, is divided into the following distinct
parts:
The legal credibility of the history of the facts of the case, as given by
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, of which there are no known existing autographs,
but only copies. The question he raises is from the lawyer's standpoint:
"Before a human court, could these confessed copies be accepted as legal
evidence of the history of the case?" That part of the case he
demonstrates affirmatively in the first fifty-four pages.
Then he gives a harmony of these histories, pages 55-503, in order to compare
the several histories on each fact given, not only of our Lord's life and
death, but of his resurrection and appearances. The point of this section is to
show that the books, having been accepted as legal evidence, then these are a
legal harmony of the testimony of the books.
He gives on pages 504-549 Tischendorf's discussion of the various versions or
translations of these histories, with notes of variations from the King James
Version, to show that the legal harmony is not disturbed.
Having thus shown the legal credibility of the histories, and their legal
harmony as witnesses, he applies the case by giving his account of the trial of
Jesus before these three earthly courts, demonstrating that it was a case of
legal murder, pages 550-566.
Then on pages 567-574 he gives an account of the trial of Jesus from a Jewish
viewpoint. Mr. Joseph Salvador, a physician and a learned Jew, published at
Paris a work entitled A History of the Institutions of Moses and of the Jewish
People, in which, among other things, he gives an account of the course of
criminal procedure in a chapter on the administration of justice, which he
illustrates in a succeeding chapter by an account of the trial of Jesus, which
he declares to be the most memorable trial in history. This last is the chapter
Mr. Greenleaf publishes. Mr. Salvador ventures to say that he shall draw all of
his facts from the evangelists themselves, without inquiring whether their
history was developed after the event, to serve as a form of new doctrine, or
an old one which had received fresh impulse. This was a daring venture on the
part of Mr. Salvador. Relying upon these historians Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John for the facts, he contends that Jesus was legally arrested, legally
tried, according to all the forms of Jewish law, and legally condemned.
The rest of Mr. Greenleaf's book, pages 575-603, he gives to a reply to
Salvador by the very distinguished French advocate and doctor of laws, M.
Dupin, which is a most overwhelming demonstration of the fallacy of Mr.
Salvador's argument. This sixth section of Mr. Greenleaf's Kook makes it
invaluable to a biblical student.
The late Judge Gaynor, a jurist, and who later became mayor of New York City,
delivered a legal exposition on the trial of Jesus Christ, purely from a
lawyer's standpoint. His conclusions are in harmony with Dr. Greenleaf and Dr.
Dupin.
In two octavo volumes Walter M. Chandler, of the New York bar, has written
perhaps the most critical examination of the whole subject from a lawyer's
standpoint. He devotes his first volume to the Jewish trial, and his second
volume to the trials before the courts of Herod and Pilate. On all substantial
points, and after a most exhaustive investigation of the legal points involved,
he agrees substantially with Dr. Greenleaf, Dr. Dupin, and Judge Gaynor.
In only one point would the author think it necessary to criticize this great
book by Mr. Chandler, and that does not touch the merits of the law of the case
he discusses. I refer to that part of his second volume where, after bearing
his most generous testimony to the many excellencies of the Jewish character
and its many illustrious men and women in history, whether as prime ministers,
financiers, philanthropists, or as contributors to special forms of literature,
and after denouncing the persecution to which the Jewish people have been
subjected by all nations, except the United States, he then seems to deny
national responsibility to God and, particularly, any connection of the
worldwide sufferings of the Jews with their national sin of rejecting the
Messiah.
All my life shows my abhorrence of the persecutions of Jews and my admiration
for their great men and women who have conferred lasting benefits on the race.
The only point upon which I would raise a criticism is that he does not write
as a lawyer when he seems to deny that nations, like individuals, are under
responsibility to God for what is done by them, and through their acknowledged
leaders. That part of his book cannot be sustained in either nature, law, or
revelation. To sustain his contention on this point he must repudiate the
univocal testimony of the entire Jewish Bible, whether law, prophets, or
psalms, as well as the entire New Testament, Christ and the apostles, universal
history, and nature as interpreted by true science.
Among the general works on the trial of Jesus (i.e., not confined to the legal
phases of the case), I commend Edersheim's Life and Times of Jesus the
Messiah, a part of Farrar's Story of a Beautiful Life, with Broadus' Commentary
on Matthew. It would cover the limits of a whole chapter to even name
the books on the cross.
It was a strange episode of the young man in the linen garment: "And a
certain young man followed with him, having a linen cloth cast about him, over
his naked body: and they lay hold on him; but he left the linen cloth and fled
naked" (Mark 14:51-52). Commentators have supposed that this young man was
John Mark, who alone recounts the fact. They account for his presence and state
thus: The upper room in which the Lord's Supper was established was the house
of his mother. When Judas gathered his arresting force he could not yet know
that Jesus had left that room, and so first, he led his armed force to that
house. This aroused the house, and Mark, himself a Christian, threw a linen
robe about him and followed to Gethesame and so was present at the arrest of
Jesus.
It is at least worthy of notice, that Melville, a great Scotch preacher,
preached a sermon on the passage (Mark 14:51f), contending that the young man
in the linen robe was the antitype of the scapegoat (Lev. 16). The sermon is a
classical model in diction and homiletics, but is absolutely visionary. There
is not a hint anywhere in the New Testament that his conjecture is at all
tenable. I cite this fact to show you that preachers, in their anxiety to
select texts that have the suggestion of novelty in them, will sometimes preach
a sermon that will be sensational in its novelty, and yet altogether
unscriptural in its matter, and to warn you against the selection of texts of
that kind.
The next thought is the manner in which Judas identified the person of Christ,
that he might be arrested. They were sure that some of the disciples would be
with him, and they wanted to get the right man. So Judas gave this sign:
"When we get to them I will step out and kiss the One that we want to
arrest: that will be the sign to you. When you see me step out from you and
kiss a certain Man in the group, that is the Man you want." Christ
submitted passively to the kissing of Judas, but said to Judas, "Betrayest
thou the Son of man with a kiss?" And that has gone down into history.
Traitors betray with a kiss. It is to that incident Patrick Henry refers in his
famous speech before the House of Burgesses in Virginia, when he said to them,
"Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss," that the English
government would furnish bouquets in compliments, while mobilizing armies and
fleets for conquest.
The incident of the sword. Some-find, it difficult to reconcile Luke 22:22 with
Matthew 26:51-55; Luke 22:51; John 18:10-11; 18:24. The explanation seems to be
simple. In his charge (Matt. 10), while he was alive and they were in his
service, they must depend upon him for defense and support. But while he was
dead they must defend and support themselves. This, of course, could apply only
after his death and until his resurrection. Peter was both too soon to fight,
for he was not yet dead, and too late to go back to his fishing, for Christ was
then. risen.
Only those preachers whose Christ is dead should use the sword or resume
self-support.
When Christ was arrested, all the disciples, without any exception (and there
were eleven of them), forsook him and fled, and now at midnight he is led
through the silent streets of Jerusalem, hemmed in by a cohort of Roman
soldiers, who are attended by officers of the Sanhedrin and their servants.
They bring him, strange to say, first to the house of Annas. This man Annas is
one of the most remarkable men in Jewish history. He had himself been high
priest; his son-in-law, Caiaphas, is high priest at this time; six of his sons
became high priests. It made no difference to him who was official priest, he,
through sons and sons-in-law, was the power behind the throne. He was very
wealthy, lived in a palatial home, and was a Sadducee, like Dr. Eliot, and
believed in neither angel, spirit, nor resurrection of the dead. He believed
also in turning everything over to the Romans. That is, he aligned himself with
what is called the "Herod party," or "Roman party." The
patriot Jews hated him. Josephus draws an awful picture of him.
Mr. Salvador, in alleging that Christ was tried according to the forms of
Jewish law, forgets that the Jewish law forbade the employment of spies in
their criminal trials, and yet they brought Judas. He forgets that Jewish law
forbade a man's being arrested at night that it forbade any trial of the
accused person at night. He forgets that an accused person should be tried only
before a regular court. And yet the first thing they did was to bring Jesus to
the house of Annas for a private examination, while the guard waited outside at
the door till Annas got through with him. On page 190 of the Harmony we have an
account of what took place in the house of Annas. The high priest catechised
Jesus. Annas is called the high priest as well as Caiaphas. He asked Jesus
about his disciples and about his doctrines. Jesus said, "I have spoken
openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the Temple, where all
of the Jews came together; and in secret spake I nothing. Why asketh thou me?
Ask them that have heard me." So to conduct an examination of that kind at
all; to conduct it at night; to conduct it not in the presence of a full court;
to allow the prisoner to be struck, were all violations of the Jewish law
concerning the administration of justice.
Notice what the Jewish trial is. Dr. Broadus shows the preliminary examination
before Annas; second, the trial before the Sanhedrin that night, in the house
of Caiaphas; third, the meeting of the Sanhedrin the next morning. It was not
proper that a man should be tried except in the place of meeting, the
Sanhedrin, and in this they violated the law. It was not proper that he should
be tried at night, as Jesus is tried this night in the house of Caiaphas.
Let us now see what were the developments that night at the house of Caiaphas.
"Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas, the high priest, where the
scribes and the elders were gathered together" (John 18:24; Matt. 26:57).
That constituted the Sanhedrin chief priests, elders, and scribes. The chief
priests were Sadducees; the scribes were Pharisees. The Sanhedrin, according to
a Jewish account, consisted of seventy-two twenty-four chief priests,
twenty-four elders, and twenty-four scribes. The Sanhedrin was the supreme
court in matters ecclesiastical and criminal. They had some lower courts that
were appointed by the Sanhedrin. Any town of just 100 or 200 population had a
court of three. If it was a larger population it had a court of twenty-three,
but the Sanhedrin was the high or supreme court in all matters ecclesiastical
and criminal. When the Romans conquered Judea, as was usual with the Romans,
they took away from the people the right of putting anybody to death by a
sentence of their own courts. They refer to this, saying, "We are not
allowed by the Romans to put a man to death under sentence of our law."
That is, when Pilate had said to them, "Why do you not try him before your
own law?" they said, "We are not permitted to put a man to death
under our law." That night there were assembled the Sanhedrin, as the
record says: "Now the Sanhedrin was seeking [imperfect tense, denoting
continued action, not only sought, but were seeking] false witnesses against
Jesus." They were seeking these witnesses with a view to putting him to
death. They had previously decreed his death; and now they were simply trying
to find somebody that would swear enough to justify them. Not even that
Sanhedrin, when they heard the multitude of these false witnesses, could find
two of them agreed upon any one point. And the Mosaic law solemnly declared
that there must be two witnesses to every fact. But at last there came two
false witnesses, and here is what they testified: "We heard him say, 'I
will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will
build another made without hands.' "
That is the sum of the evidence, and all the other testimony was thrown out as
incompetent. Both these men lied. He never said that, but away back in his
early ministry, when he first cleansed the Temple, and when he first came into
conflict with these people, he had said these words: "Destroy this temple,
and in three days I will raise it again." He was speaking of the temple of
his body, but he never said that he would destroy that Temple (of Jerusalem)
and in three days build another.
But they were not satisfied with that, so the high priest violated the law by
asking Jesus to speak. It was a principle of the Jewish law that one should not
be forced to testify against himself. A man might testify for himself) but he
is protected by the judge who sits on the bench from giving evidence against
himself. Jesus knew all that, so he paid no attention. So the chief priest had
to get at that matter in another way He did have a right in certain cases, to
put a man on oath before God, and this is what he did: "I adjure thee
[which means to swear by the living God, the highest and most solemn form of
the judicial oath๙1 put thee on thy oath] before the living God that thou tell
us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." To that Jesus responded.
Under the solemn oath before God he swore that he was the Messiah, and that hereafter
that very crowd of people would see him sitting at the right hand of the throne
of God in heaven.
I preached a sermon once from this text: "I adjure thee by the living
God." A young lawyer was present. He had never heard such a thing before.
In the sermon I presented the character of Christ, against whom no man could
prove an accusation; the devil himself found nothing in him; all the enemies of
the great doctrines of the New Testament admitted the spotless character of
Jesus of Nazareth. And yet this Man swore by the living God that he was the
Messiah. All of the latent infidelity in the lawyer disappeared under that
sermon. To this day he will testify that there got on his mind in the
discussion of that single fact that Jesus was the Son of God. Would such a man
swear to a false-hood? Is it credible that he would? He knew what
"Messiah" meant that it meant he was the God-anointed One, to be
the Prophet, the Sacrifice, the Priest, and the King, and he swore that he was.
After his oath they should have tried his claims by the law, the prophets, and
the facts of his life.
When he had given that testimony under oath the high priest rent his robe. The
law required that whenever they heard a blasphemy they were to rend their
clothes, and unless Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God; unless God was his
Father, while Mary was his mother; unless he was the God-anointed Prophet,
Sacrifice, Priest, and King, then it was blasphemy. And therefore Mr.
Greenleaf, who is the author of The Law of Evidence, a law book which passes
current in all the law books on this continent and in Europe, in mentioning the
trial of Jesus Christ, says, No lawyer of any reputation, with the facts set forth in the Gospels,
would have attempted to defend Jesus Christ, except on the assumption that he
was the Messiah and divine, because all through the Book that is his claim. If
he was not divine, he did blaspheme. Therefore when he took that oath, that
court should have investigated the character of his claim as the Messiah, but
instead of that they assumed the thing that they should have investigated and
called it blasphemy.
Another great violation of the law takes place: "What further need of
witnesses have we? We have heard the blasphemy; what think ye?" And now
they vote that he is worthy of death; they condemned him to be worthy of death.
Their law declared that a vote of condemnation should never be taken the day of
the trial. There had to be at least three intervening days, and here at night
they pass sentence on no evidence but the oath of Jesus Christ, and that
without investigating the matter involved. Then they allowed the following
indignities: They spat in his face and buffeted him; they smote him with the
palms of their hands after they had blindfolded him. Then one would slip up and
slap him, saying, "Prophesy who hit you."
I shall omit in my discussion here all this testimony concerning the denial of
Peter, because I want to bring all of the history of Peter together. I pass
that point for the present. I merely remark that the case of Judas and the case
of Peter, connected with the arrest and the trial of Jesus Christ, have an
immensity of pathos in the tragedy of the twelve the first one and the last
one on the list.
That is the Jewish trial except this one additional fact: When it was morning,
or as soon as it was day, they held their final meeting, and confirmed their
night decision. They had a law that the Sanhedrin must come together for a
final meeting in a case of this kind, and that if anybody had voted to acquit
in the first meeting he could not change his vote, but if anybody had voted to
condemn in this meeting he might ratify or he might change his vote and acquit.
There were to be three days between these meetings. Having thus finished the
Jewish trial, which was in violation of all the forms of the law, as soon as
daylight comes they carry Jesus to Pilate.
The first trial of Jesus, then, was before the Jewish Sanhedrin; the accusation
against him was blasphemy; the penalty under that law was to be put to death by
stoning, but they had not the power to put to death. So now they must bring the
case before the court of Pilate. And here Mr. Salvador says that the Jewish
Sanhedrin's condemnation of Jesus Christ on the charge of blasphemy was
confirmed by Pilate. There never was a statement more untrue. Pilate declined
to take into consideration anything that touched that Jewish law. When he tried
him he tried him ab initio, that is, "from the beginning," and he did
not consider any charge that did not come under the Roman law. Therefore, we
see this people, when they bring the case before Pilate, present three new
charges. The other case was not touched on at all, but the new charges
presented were as follows: First, "he says that he himself is King"; the
second is, "he teaches that Jews should not pay tribute to Caesar";
and third, "he stirreth up the people," which was one of the things
that the Roman was always quick to put down anywhere in the wide realm of the
Roman world. A man who stirred up the people should be dealt with in a speedy
manner. Treason was a capital offense. So they come before Pilate and try him
in this court on the threefold charge, viz.: "He says he is King; he
forbids this people to pay tribute to Caesar," interrupting the revenue
coming into Rome, which was false, for he taught to the contrary; and "he
stirreth up the people." We have had, then, the history of his case, so
far as his trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin is concerned. In the next chapter
we will take up his first trial before the court of Pilate.
1. What two facts concerning the arrest of Christ are evident from John's
supplemental story?
2. Why the presence of the Roman legionaries and their participation in the
arrest of Jesus?
3. What illustration in Acts of the intervention of the chiliarch to protect a
prisoner?
4. What unique and powerful literature on the trials of Jesus is mentioned?
5. What question do they answer?
6. What three books from the viewpoint of the lawyer commended?
7. What are the six distinct parts of Greenleaf's Testimony of the Evangelists?
8. On what one point does the author dissent from Mr. Chandler?
9. What general works on the trials of Jesus commended?
10. Who was the young man spoken of in Mark 14:51-52, and how do the commentators
account for his presence and state on this occasion?
11. What noted Scotch preacher preached a sermon on this incident, what was his
interpretation of this young man and what the lesson here for the preacher?
12. How did Judas identify Christ as the one to be arrested, what saying
originated from this incident and what reference to it in the early history of
our country?
13. How do you reconcile Luke 22:22 with Matthew 26:51-55; Luke 22:51; John
18:10-11; 18:24?
14. Upon Christ's arrest what prophecy of his was fulfilled?
15. After his arrest where did they lead him, why to him, and what were the
characteristics of this man?
16. Of what did the Jewish trial consist?
17. Give an account of what took place at the house of Annas.
18. Where did they take Jesus when they left the house of Annas, by what body
was he tried there, of what was that body composed, and what were the
limitations of its power under the Roman government?
19. Describe the trial of Jesus before this court.
20. What was the testimony of Jesus under oath, what should have been their
course after his oath, what charge did they bring instead, and under what
circumstances would their charge have been sustained?
21. What indignities did Jesus suffer in this trial?
22. What two pathetic cases connected with the arrest and trial of Jesus?
23. What the last act of the Jewish trial?
24. After the Jewish trial where did they lead Jesus, how did Pilate try him,
what the threefold charge brought by the Jews against Jesus, and what the legal
name of these offenses?
25. In what great particulars did the Jews violate their own law in the arrest
and trial of Jesus as defined by Mr. Salvador?
CHRIST BEFORE PILATE AND HEROD
Harmony, pages 196-206 and Matthew 27:3-30; Acts
1:18-19; Mark 15:2-19; Luke 23:2-25; John 18:28 to 19:16.
You will understand that our Lord was tried before the Sanhedrin, as we saw in
the last chapter, on the charge of blasphemy, penalty for which was stoning. We
will find in this discussion that Jesus is first tried before the court of
Pilate on the charge of treason, and then differently charged with sedition,
the penalty of these two charges being crucifixion, and on the same two charges
he was tried before the Galilean court of Herod. We have yet to consider his
trial before the court of God on the charge of sin, with the penalty of
physical and spiritual death, and finally, we will consider his trial before
the court of hell on the charge of sin, with the penalty of passing under the
power of the devil.
So that this discussion commences at the last verse on page 196 of the Harmony:
"And they bound him, and led him away, and delivered him up to Pilate, the
governor"; or, as Mark puts it, "They bound Jesus and carried him
away, and delivered him up to Pilate"; or, as Luke expresses it, "And
the whole company of them rose up, and brought him before Pilate"; or, as
John has it, "They led Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the palace; and
it was early."
We have seen in the preceding discussion that Jesus was tried before the
Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish court, on the charge of blasphemy, and condemned.
We have seen that in every step of the proceedings they violated their own
criminal law. Just now the important thing to note is that they also violate
the Roman law. In this particular they had no right to even try a capital
offense. Of course, we know that a capital offense is one of which the penalty
is death. That is, capital offense comes from the word caput (root,
"cap," connected with kephala), meaning "the head."
And capital offense is one in which one loses his head. The right to-try-such
an-offense Rome never granted to the conquered provinces. The position is untenable
that any conquered province might try and condemn, but the Roman representative
had to execute.
On this point Mr. Greenleaf says, "If they (the Sanhedrin) had condemned
him, they had not the power to pass sentence, this being a right which passed
from the Jews by conquest of their country, and really belonged to' the Romans
alone. They were merely citizens of the Roman province; they were left in the
enjoyment of their civil laws, the public exercises of their religion, and many
other things relating to their police and municipal regulations." They had
not the power of life and death. This was a principal attribute of sovereignty
which the Romans took care to reserve to themselves always, whatever else might
be neglected. Tacitus says that the imperial right among the Romans was
incapable of being transmitted or delegated, and that right was the
jurisdiction of capital cases, belonging ordinarily to the Roman governor or
general. The word is praeses, answering to our word president, or
governor of the province, the procurator, having for his principal duties
charge of the annual revenue and the cognizance of capital cases. Some
procurators, like Pontius Pilate, had the jurisdiction of life and death, but
it could not be expected that Pilate would trouble himself with the cognizance
of any matter not pertaining to the Roman law, which consists of an alleged
offense against the God of the Jews, and was neither acknowledged nor even
respected by the Romans. Of this the chief priests and elders were well aware.
To show that Mr. Greenleaf is right in that contention, I will give three
instances from the New Testament upon that point. The first is Acts 18, in the
city of Corinth, and under the Roman governor Gallic. When Paul was accused
under him, and brought before the judgment seat, Gallic says: "If indeed,
it were a matter of wrong or of wicked villainy, O ye Jews, reason would that I
should bear with you, but if they are questions about words and names and your
own law, look to it yourselves; I am not minded to be a judge of these
matters." So a little later, when the mob treated the chief of the
synagogue with indignities, it is said, "But Gallic cared for none of
these things," i.e., as a Roman officer he had nothing to do with them. So
it was impossible for Pilate to take cognizance of anything brought against any
matter of the Jewish religion, such as the accusation of blasphemy.
The next case that I cite is in Acts 23, where the chiliarch, or military
tribune, called Claudius Lysias, writes a letter to Felix, who at that time was
governor (v. 27) : "This man was seized by the Jews, and was about to be
slain of them, when I came upon them with the soldiers and rescued him, having
learned that he was a Roman. And desiring to know the cause wherefore they accused
him, I brought him down into their council; whom I found to be accused about
questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death
or of bonds."
The next case that I cite is from Acts 25) when Festus was governor in place of
Felix. So we see we have Pilate, Felix, Festus, and Gallic, all testifying upon
the point to which I am now speaking. Festus cited Paul's case to King Agrippa
(v.14): "There is a certain man left prisoner by Felix, about whom, when I
was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me,
asking for sentence against him. To whom I answered, that it was not the custom
of the Romans to give up any man, before that the accused have the accusers
face to face, and have had opportunity to make his defense concerning the
matter laid against him. When, therefore, they were come together here, I made
no delay, but on the next day sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man
to be brought. Con-erning whom, when the accusers stood up, they brought no
charge of such evil things as I supposed: but had certain questions against him
of their own religion." And he declined to take any jurisdiction of such a
question.
Further upon this point, I now give what the great French lawyer, Dupin, says: Let us distinctly establish
this point; for here I entirely differ in opinion from Mr. Salvador. According
to him (p. 88), "the Jews had reserved the power of trying, according to
their law; but it was in the hands of the procurator alone that the executive
power was invested; every culprit must be put to death by his consent, in order
that the senate should not have the means of reaching persons that were sold to
foreigners." No; the Jews had not reserved the right of passing sentence
of death. This right had been transferred to the Romans by the very act of the
conquest; and this was not merely that the senate should not have the means of
reaching persons who were sold to foreign countries; but it was done, in order
that the conqueror might be able to reach those individuals who should become
impatient of the yoke. It was, in short, for the equal protection of all, as
all had become Roman subjects; and to Rome alone belonged the highest judicial
power, which is the principal attribute of sovereignty. Pilate, as the
representative of Caesar in Judea, was not merely an agent of the executive
authority, which would have left the judiciary and legislative power in the
hands of the conquered people he was not simply an officer appointed to give
an exequatur or mere approval (visa) to sentences passed by another
authority, the authority of the Jews. When the matter in question was a capital
case, the Roman authorities not only ordered the execution of a sentence, but
also took cognizance (coynito) of the crime; it had the right of
jurisdiction a pnon, and that of passing judgment in the last resort. If Pilate
himself had not had this power by special delegation, vice praesdis, it was
vested in the governor, within whose territorial jurisdiction the case
occurred; but in any event we hold it to be clear that the Jews had lost the
right of condemning to death any person whatsoever, not only so far as respects
the execution, but the passing of the sentence. M. DUPIN, Testimony of the
Evangelists, pages 601-602.
We must not forget that Judea was a conquered country, and to the Roman
governor belonged the right of taking cognizance of capital cases. What then
was the right of the Jewish authorities in regard to Jesus? The Jews had not
the right reserved of passing sentence of death. This right had been
transferred to the Romans by the very act of conquest; and this was not merely
that the Roman senate should not have the means of reaching persons who were
sold to foreign countries, but that Rome might have charge of all cases of life
and death. Pilate, as the representative of Caesar in Judea, was not merely an
agent of the executive authority, he having left the judiciary in the hands of
the Jews; not simply an officer appointed to execute a Jewish sentence passed by
any authority, but when the matter in question was a capital case the Roman
authorities could not only order the execution of the sentences, but they also
claimed the right of passing upon the crime itself, with the right of
jurisdiction over the question, and of passing judgment in the last resort. The
Jews had lost the right to try a man for a capital offense, or to condemn to
death any person whatever. This is one of the best settled points in the
provincial law of the Romans.
If the Jews had the right of trial in capital cases, and the Roman power was
exercised merely to execute a Jewish sentence, then when the accusation was
brought before Pilate the proceedings would have been after this fashion:
"Jesus has violated the Jewish law of blasphemy, and we have condemned him
to death, and do bring him to you that you may approve and execute the
sentence." But what are the facts? When they bring Jesus before Pilate
they say not one word about the offense of blasphemy, but bring a new charge.
Pilate puts the question, "What accusation bring you against this
man?" And they began to accuse him, saying, "We found this man
perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying
that he himself is Christ, a King."
That is the charge they prefer against him before the Roman Court. That is the
new case. And Pilate examines whether Jesus Christ was guilty of treason
against the Roman governor in claiming to be a king. So he examines the case by
asking questions of Jesus himself: "Art thou the King of the Jews?"
And after Pilate had finished his investigation he brought in his verdict of
the case before him. He has heard the people and he has heard Jesus, and now
here is his sentence: "And Pilate said unto the chief priests and the multitudes,
I find no fault in this man." (Top of page 200 in the Harmony.) That is
the decision.
The decision having been rendered upon that charge of treason, they bring
another charge (Luke 23:5, Harmony page 200) : "But they were the more
urgent, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, and
beginning from Galilee even unto this place." This is what we call
sedition, that is, stirring up a tumult; so they changed the accusation. When
they bring that charge against him before Pilate he merely notes the fact that
they have spoken of Galilee, and as Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee, happened to
be in Jerusalem at this time, and as the offense, according to this charge,
commenced in Herod's territory, Pilate wishing to avoid the responsibility of
deciding the case, refers it to Herod.
We will see how it goes before Herod. On page 201 of the Harmony we find that
Herod, after maltreating him, sends him back to Pilate. Page 203 shows that
Pilate announces Herod's verdict: "I, having examined him before you,
found no fault in this man touching those things whereof you accused Him; no,
nor yet Herod: for he sent Him back unto us; and behold, nothing worthy of
death hath been done by Him." So there we have a double verdict, that
under the second charge Herod finds no offense against the Roman law, and
Pilate says the same thing that he hath done nothing worthy of death. No
fault in him under either of the accusations. So that is the third verdict of
equivalence that has been pronounced twice by Pilate and once by Herod.
Pilate now wishes to smooth things, for he knew that the Jews were very
turbulent, and that the position of the Roman officer in Judea was always a
hazardous one, since accusations could be made against him to Rome. Pilate had
been moved by a message from his wife. She had had a dream. So she sends to
Pilate while on his judgment throne, and says, "Have thou nothing to do
with this man." Now, the Jews were urging Pilate on from one side, and his
wife restraining him on the other. Burns, in "Tam O'Shanter," says,
about the attitude of men toward the good counsel of their wives: Ah, gentle dames! it gars me
greet To think how many counsels sweet, How many lengthened, sage advices, The
husband frae the wife despises!
Therefore, Pilate proposes an expedient. He says, "There is a custom among
you that at feast time some guilty man shall be pardoned. Now, you have a man
here, a murderer and a robber, whose name is Barabbas, and it is within my
province to pardon a man. Suppose you let me pardon Jesus, or, would you prefer
that I pardon Barabbas?" It is a strange thing to the lover of justice
that after Pilate had twice acquitted this Man he now proposes to pardon him.
He could not pardon a man that had been acquitted. The Jews make their choice;
they say: "Not this man, but Barabbas; release that robber to us; don't
you release this man." Pilate then has Jesus crowned with thorns to show
his contempt for their accusation that he would be a king, and invests him with
purple, and brings him before the Jews, and exclaims (in words, that, put
together, make a great text for a sermon: "Ecce homo";
"Behold the man!" "Ecce Rex!" "Behold the
King!" When the Jews persisted that they preferred that Barabbas should be
released to them, then Pilate put this question, which has been the theme of
many sermons, "What then shall I do with Jesus, who is called the
Christ?"
Very many years ago at a meeting of the old General Association, Dr. A. E.
Clemmons, pastor at Marshall, Texas, and Shreveport, Louisiana, preached a
sermon from that text, and made this stirring application: This question comes to every
man. Every man is under obligation to accept Jesus Christ as King, and if he
rejects Christ then the question arises, "What shall I do with Jesus? He
is in the world; he is preached in ten thousand pulpits; I cannot ignore him; I
must make some disposition of him; what shall I do with him? Shall I count him
as an impostor, or shall I accept him as my Saviour?"
Having made that point clear, Dr. Clemmons then passed to his last question:
"In not trying to dispose of Jesus Christ you reject him. Then later the
question will come to you in this form, 'What will Jesus, who is called the
Christ, do with me?' " Showing that there would come a time when the despised
Nazarene would occupy the throne of eternal judgment, and according to the
manner in which you disposed of him when the question was up to you, so will he
dispose of you when the question is up to him.
Their answer to the question was, "Crucify him! Away with him! Crucify
him!" Pilate says, "Why don*t you take him and crucify him
yourselves?" Then they said, "We have no jurisdiction; we have not
this power of life and death; you have. We bring the case to you, and we tell
you now that we charge him with being an enemy of Caesar, claiming himself to
be a King; and if you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend." It
was a favorite custom of the Jews to prefer charges against the governors of
Judea before the Roman court at Rome itself, and many a governor of Judea was
recalled on charges preferred against him at Rome. When Pilate heard that, he
was terrified. He knew that it was an easy thing to shake the confidence of
Caesar in any of his subordinates, and he was afraid. He therefore fell upon
another expedient. He washed his hands, saying, "I am innocent of the
blood of this man; I wanted to let him go; you forced me to put him to death;
you are responsible." Then they said, "His blood be on us and on our
children."
When you see Pilate go through that form of washing his hands, as if by washing
his hands he could divest himself of the responsibility to render just
judgment, you are reminded of the incident in the play of Shakespeare's Macbeth,
in which Lady Macbeth, having instigated the death of the king, Duncan, and
stirred up her husband to usurp that king's throne, her conscience and her
imagination were always washing off the blood spots on her hands. The great
author relates how she became insane; and she was all the time going to the
basin and washing her hands, then looking at them and saying, "This blood
on my hands would make the sea red; all of the ocean cannot wash it the stain
of blood on this lily-white hand."
Pilate never recovered from his cowardly betrayal of his trust. History and
tradition both tell us that he was pursued by undying remorse, and there is a
tradition that when he was banished to the foot of the Alps, every time a storm
was about to come a dark mist would gather over a mountain named after Pilate.
There is a very thrilling reference to that in one of Scott's novels. Whenever
the people looked up and saw Mount Pilatus wrapped in mist they would cross
themselves and say, "Avoid thee, Satan." So tradition and history
have tied the name of Pilate to that cloud-covered mountain.
And Pilate finally signs the death warrant of Jesus of Nazareth, whom he had
twice acquitted, and concerning whom he had said, "I find no fault in him;
he is guilty of no crime." On page 206 of the Harmony we have an account
of the indignities Christ suffered at the hands of the soldiers. Let the reader
study that for himself.
1. Who brought the case of Jesus before Pilate and what great illconsistency in
the Jews manifested at the palace?
2. In what particular did they violate the Roman law in the trial of Jesus?
3. What was the testimony of Tacitus on this point?
4. Was it the province of Pilate under Roman law to merely execute a sentence
of the Sanhedrin concerning an offense against Jewish law or must he assume
original and complete jurisdiction and try the case brought before him solely
in view of an offense against Roman law?
5. What three special cases in the Acts illustrate this fact and what the point
in each case?
6. What was the testimony of Dupin?
7. If the Jews had the right in capital cases, and the Roman power was
exercised merely to execute a Jewish sentence, then when the accusation was
brought before Pilate, what would have been the proceedings?
8. But what are the facts in the case?
9. What, therefore, was Pilate's first demand and what was their answer?
10. What was Pilate's second demand and their reply?
11. Would he have counted within his jurisdiction a charge of blasphemy against
the Jewish God?
12. What threefold accusation against Roman law, therefore, did the Sanhedrin
substitute for the charge of blasphemy and wherein consisted the atrocious
malice of their accusation?
13. What one word covers all these accusations?
14. Was this threefold charge within Pilate's jurisdiction?
15. What question, therefore, did Pilate ask Jesus, what was his answer, then
what question did he ask Pilate and why?
16. What explanation did Christ here make to Pilate as to the nature of his
kingdom and what was Pilate's first verdict in the case?
17. What new charge did his accusers now prefer against him?
18. What was the legal term of this offense, was it a punishable offense
against Roman law and was it within Pilate's jurisdiction?
19. What circumstance in the new charge enabled Pilate to evade trying the case
by referring it to another tribunal?
20. In referring a case from one Roman court to another, was it customary and
necessary to make a formal statement of the case? (See Acts 23:26-30; 25:25-27.)
21. Would such a statement in this case include the charge of treason, of which
Pilate himself had acquitted Jesus, as well as the new charge of sedition and
why?
22. How did Herod receive Christ, what interest did he manifest in our Lord,
what was the procedure of the trial before Herod and how did this incident
affect the relation of Herod and Pilate?
23. Under Roman law in this case would Herod announce his verdict directly to
the Sanhedrin or would he send it through Pilate, and why?
24. What was Herod's verdict on both counts as announced through Pilate?
25. What was Pilate's verdict on the new charge?
26. What is now the legal status of the case?
27. What was, therefore, Pilate's plain duty?
28. What Latin proverb of law would now be violated if the defendant's life is
again placed in jeopardy on either of these adjudicated cases?
29. Why, then, does Pilate hesitate and parley with the accusers?
30. What admonition came to Pilate on the judgment seat?
31. Cite the reference in Burns' "Tarn O'Shanter" to a husband's
disregard of wifely admonitions.
32. What expedient does Pilate now suggest in order to save the life of Jesus
and vet placate his proud accusers?
33. What was the infamy of this proposal?
34. Under Pilate's proposal what deliberate choice did the Sanhedrin make?
35. How do the apostles subsequently bring home to them with terrific effect
this unholy and malicious choice? (See Acts 3:14-15.)
36. How did Pilate again seek to appease their wrath?
37. What text for a sermon cited, what is the application and what was their
answer to Pilate's question?
38. How does the Sanhedrin now confess their mere pretense in making charges
against Roman law and terrify Pilate by stating the case under Jewish law?
39. What were the circumstances of Pilate's reopening of the case, what
examination followed, what effort did Pilate again make and what was the
result?
40. Why could not Pilate render a formal verdict on this count?
41. To what old charge do the Jews recur and thereby bully the cowardly Pilate
into once more occupying the judgment seat, thereby reopening the case under
Roman law?
42. What time in the day was it now, reconciling John's sixth hour with the
time in the other Gospels?
43. Why does Pilate now say, "Shall I crucify your king"?
44. By what dramatic form does Pilate now seek to divest himself of
responsibility and guilt in the judicial murder of one whom he still declares
innocent, but condemns, what incident in the classics referred to, and what the
tradition concerning Pilate?
45. In what awful words do the bolder Jews assume the responsibility for
Christ's death?
46. To what indignities was Jesus then subjected?
THE CRUCIFIXION OF CHRIST THE FIRST
THREE HOURS
Harmony, pages 207-212 and Matthew 27:31-44; Mark
15:20-22; Luke 23:26-43; John 19:16-27.
Upon the execution of Jesus by crucifixion I have one general remark. Far back
yonder in Old Testament history, in the days of Moses, is this saying,
"Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." The one hanged on a
tree was lifted up. See particularly the expiatory case of hanging up the sons
of Saul. Hence also the typical act of Moses in lifting up the brazen serpent,
and our Lord's application to his own case as antitypical: "As Moses
lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted
up" a type that the Saviour of the world was to die by crucifixion.
Jesus explained in his lifetime that by being lifted up signified the manner of
his death.
The question comes up, Why was Jesus crucified, since the Jewish penalty was
death by stoning? They did not crucify they stoned other people. How mighty
the spirit of prophecy, so far back in history, to foretell a method of
punishing not known to the prophet in his age!
Now we commence on page 207 of the Harmony. I will give first the events
leading to the place of crucifixion, and what transpired there. The incidents,
in their order, as we see on page 207, are as follows: The first incident is
expressed near the top in John's column: "They took Jesus, therefore; and
he went out bearing the cross for himself." In view of the next incident,
it is quite probable that in his fasting and weakness, and his lack of sleep,
he was physically unable to carry that cross from the judgment seat to the
place of crucifixion, and fainted under it. Hence we come to the second
incident, recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke: "And as they came out they
found a man of Cyrene, Simon, by name: him they compelled to go with them, that
he might bear his cross." So Christ bore his own cross until they got out
of the city, and being unable to carry it longer, the crucifiers took a man
that they met coming into the city and compelled him to bear the cross. There
is a song we all have heard: Must Jesus bear the cross alone, And all the world go free; No, there's
a cross for every one, And there's a cross for me. Judge Andrew Broadus, who was once president of the
old Baptist State Convention of Texas, once said that when this song was first
written, or certainly as they used to sing it in old Virginia, it read thus: Must Simon bear the cross
alone, And all the world go free; No, there's a cross for every one, And
there's a cross for me.
The newspapers reported that when the Pan-Episcopal Council was held in the
City of London (the Pan-Council is an all-the-world council) Dean Stanley, dean
of the ceremonies, put up to preach in Westminster Abbey a coal black Negro,
Bishop of Haiti; and when that Negro got up to preach in the presence of
royalty, nobility, and the professors of the great colleges or universities of
Oxford and Cambridge, surrounded by "storied urn and animated bust,"
he read the scripture about the two sons of Zebedee being presented by their
mother for the positions on the right hand and on the left hand in the kingdom
of Jesus; and he fashioned his text this way: "Lord, let my son John have
the place on thy right hand in thy kingdom, and let my son James have the place
on thy left hand in thy kingdom." Then the Negro said, "Let us
pray," and offered this prayer: O God, who hast fashioned all of our hearts like, and
hast made of one blood all the nations of men that inhabit the earth, we pray
thee that the sons of Shem who betrayed the Lord may have the place on thy
right hand, and the sons of Japheth who crucified the Saviour may have the
place on thy left hand; but let the sons of Simon of Cyrene, the African, who
bore thy cross, have the place at the outer gate, where some of the sweetness
of the song from within, and something of the light of the glory of God in
heaven may fall upon them, but where, looking earthward, they may see Ethiopia
stretching out her dusky hands to God and hear the footfalls of the sons of
Gush coming home to heaven.
That Negro preacher based his thought upon the geography of Simon the Cyrenian.
Cyrene is a province of northern Africa, but it does not follow that because he
was from Cyrene he was a Negro, and this Simon certainly was not. He was rather
the father of Alexander and Rufus, well-known Jews. But, anyhow, that Negro's
prayer, in my judgment, was the most eloquent language ever spoken in
Westminster Abbey.
I call attention to a singular sermon. At a meeting of Waco Association many
years ago, held with the East Waco church, Rev. C. E. Stephen preached the
annual sermon from this text: "Him they compelled to bear his cross,"
referring to Simon. Simon, the Cyrenian, him they (the enemies of Christ)
compelled to bear the cross of Christ. It certainly was a singular sermon. His
thought was this: That if a man professes to be a Christian and will not
voluntarily take up the cross of his Lord and Master, the outside world will
compel him to bear that cross, or they will advertise him well abroad.
"Compelling a Christian to bear the cross," was his theme. For
instance, it is reported that in the days of demoniacal possession Satan took
possession of a Christian, and when he was summoned before a saint with power
to cast out demons, and asked how he dared to enter into a Christian he said,
with much extenuation, "I did not go to the church after him; he came into
my territory. I found him in the ballroom and in the saloon, and I took
possession of him." Whenever, therefore, a Christian departs from true
cross-bearing; when he leaves the narrow way by a little stile and goes over
into the territory of Giant Despair, he is soon locked up in Doubting Castle
until he is compelled to bear his cross.
The next incident related is that a great multitude followed. And a great
multitude will follow a show, parade, even a band of music, or a hanging of any
kind. I once saw 7,000 people assembled to see a man hanged, and since I saw
it, I was there myself. Now, here was a man to be hanged on a tree, and a great
multitude followed from various motives. In this multitude were a great many
women who bewailed and lamented. They followed from no principle of curiosity,
no desire to see a show, but with intense sympathy they looked upon him when he
fainted under the burden of the cross that he was carrying his own cross. The
women wept, and right at that point the great artists of the world with
matchless skill have taken that scene for a painting, and we have a great
masterpiece of Christ sinking under the cross and a woman reaching out her
hands and weeping and crying, dragging up Simon the Cyrenian to make him take
the cross.
The next incident is that of the two malefactors also condemned to crucifixion,
walking along with him. They had their crosses, and Jesus had his cross with
the malefactors. And another incident is that they came to the place of
crucifixion, which is, in the Hebrew, or Aramaic, called Golgotha, and in the
Latin version it is called Calvary. Golgotha and Calvary mean exactly the same
thing, "a skull." Dr. Broadus rightly says that this was a place
where a projection of the hill or mountainside assumes the shape of a skull.
You can see a picture of it in any of the books illustrative of the travels in
the Holy Land; and there that rocky skull seems to stand out now. That is the
place where Jesus was crucified. If you were to go there they would tell you he
was crucified where the holy sepulcher is situated; they would show you a piece
of the "true cross" if you wanted to see it. They have disposed of
enough of the pieces of the "true cross" to make a forest.
Just as they came to the place of crucifixion, Golgotha, they made a mixture of
wine and gall. The object of that was to stupefy him so as to deaden the pain
that would follow when they began to drive the nails in his hands, just as a
doctor would administer ether, laudanum, or chloroform, and Jesus, knowing what
it was, refused to drink it. He looked at what was before him, and he wanted to
get to it with clear eyes and with a clear brain. Some men seek stupefication
of drugs, and others that of spirits, such as alcohol, suggested by still lower
spirits of another kind; and they drug themselves in order that they may
sustain the terrible ordeal they are to undergo. Christ refused to drink. These
are the incidents on the way and at the place.
Now they have gotten to the place, and it is said, "They crucified
him." The word "crucify" comes from crux, meaning "a
cross," that is, they put him on a cross. There are three kinds of
crosses. One looks like X, or the multiplication sign; that is called St.
Andrew's cross; another was like a T. This probably was the oldest form. The
third form is like a + with the upright stroke extending above the crossbar.
This is the most usual form, and is the real form of the cross on which Christ
was crucified. Except the cross had been made in this last fashion, there could
not have been put over his head the accusation that we will look at directly.
The tall beam was lying on the ground, Christ was laid on it, and a hole was
dug as a socket into which the lower end of it could be placed after he was
fastened on it. Then he was stretched out so that his hands, with palms upward,
would come on that crosspiece, and with huge spikes through each hand he was
nailed to that crosspiece. Then his feet were placed over each other with the
instep up, and a longer spike was driven through the two feet into the
centerpiece. When he was thus nailed, they lifted that cross up just as they do
these big telegraph poles. They lifted up that cross with him on it and dropped
it into its socket in the ground. You can imagine the tearing of his hands and
of his feet; but he said nothing.
When they had crucified him, the record says, "And sitting down they
watched him there." When I was a young preacher, in 1869, I was invited to
preach a commencement sermon at Waco University, afterward consolidated with
and known as Baylor University. So I came up to preach this commencement sermon,
and my text was, "Sitting down, they watched him there," explaining
who "they" were; the different people that watched him, and the
different emotions excited in their minds as they watched him; the Pharisees,
the Sadducees, the scribes, the elders, the Romans, the curious crowd they
watched him, and they watched him there on the cross. Many years afterward,
George v. Truett came to my house one day and said, "I would like to see a
sermon you preached when a young man." So I gave him that sermon to look
at. He sat there and read it with tears in his eyes, and said, finally,
"You can't beat it now."
The next thought is: What time of day was it? The record says that it was the
third hour, which means, counting from sunup of our time, nine o'clock exactly,
when the cross was dropped into the socket. And now is presented the thought
that the two malefactors the thieves, or robbers, along with him were
crucified, the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. He was
crucified between two thieves, and what a proverb that has become -0-
"crucified between two thieves!" The sinless man and only holy man by
nature and perfect obedience that ever lived crucified as a sinner and
between two evildoers. How dramatic how pathetic!
Now for the first time Jesus speaks. On the way to the cross he had spoken just
once. He had said to those weeping women: "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not
weep for me: weep for yourselves and for your children." And then he tells
them of the awful doom coming on that city and on that nation, because of their
rejection of Christ. He never opened his mouth again until in this first voice,
hanging there between those two thieves, and looking at his executioners, he
says, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Whoever,
under such circumstances, prayed such a prayer? The martyrs oftentimes
afterward, when they were bound to the stake and burned and the flames would
begin to rise, and the Spirit of Christ would come on them, would stretch out
their hands through the fire and say, "Father, forgive them; they know not
what they do." That is voice one.
The next incident is that there were right under the cross the four soldiers
four were detached at each cross, according to the Roman custom, the
executioners who were entitled to the effects of the victim. And they had
taken off all his outer garments before they crucified him. Now these four men
take various articles of his apparel and divide them: "Now, you take the
girdle and I'll take the turban"; "I will take the inner coat,"
and so on. But they came to the outer coat, a seamless coat, and being without
a seam, how could they divide that? So they agreed to gamble for it. And there,
with Christ, hanging on the cross and dying, the men that impaled him there gamble
for his clothes. And the record says that two scriptures were fulfilled
thereby. One scripture says, "They parted my garments [vestments] among
them, and for my garment did they cast lots."
In order to see the dramatic effect on many painters, of Christ on the way to
the cross, of Christ on the cross, and of Christ being let down from the cross,
just go into a good and great picture gallery in Europe, or into a real good
one in the United States. There will be seen the great master-paintings of
Christ before Pilate, the Lord's Supper, Christ sinking under the burden of the
cross, Christ nailed to the cross, Christ hanging on the cross, or Christ taken
down from the cross. Picture after picture comes up before you from the brushes
of the great master painters of the world.
The next incident recorded is: They nailed up above his head a wide board on
which the accusation against him was written. That was in accordance with the
law that if a man be put to death, a violent death, over his head, where
everybody could see it, could be read the charge against him. Now, I will
reconcile the different statements of that accusation. Mark says, "The
King of the Jews"; Luke says, "This is the King of the Jews";
Matthew says, "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews"; John says,
"Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."
So we see that Luke prefixes two words, Matthew puts in the word
"Jesus," and John adds the other two words "of Nazareth."
So we take the simple statement first and go to the most complex, the four
statements given by the historians, just as it is given above. All tradition is
agreed as to "The King of the Jews," and each one of the historians
adds some other thought. As I said in a previous discussion, that accusation
was written in Hebrew, or Aramaic, in Greek, and in Latin, and this will
account for some variations in the form of the statement. Suppose, for
instance, in Aramaic it was: "This is the King of the Jews"; in
Latin, "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews"; in Greek, "This is
Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews"; you can see how each one could
have written just exactly as he should read it; and everybody that passed by,
seeing a man hanging on the cross would look up and say, "What has he
done, this King of the Jews? What has this Jesus, the King of the Jews done?
What has Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews, done?"
So Pilate wrote on that board that went over the head of Jesus Christ on the
cross, "This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." He had not
been able to try him on any other offense than that. When the Jews saw that
sign they said to Pilate, "Do not put it, 'This is the King of the Jews,'
but write it that he said he was the King of the Jews." Pilate then was
petulant and said to them, "What I have written, I have written. You
charge him with being King of the Jews, and I write that over his head on the
cross."
I heard Dr. Burleson preach thirteen times on what Pilate said, "What I
have written, I have written." He makes this application of it: "You
cannot get away from anything that you have signed your name to: 'What I have
written, I have written,' " that you can ofttimes evade a word you have
spoken, though the Arabs have a proverb that "the word spoken" is
master. Lawyers will tell you: "Say what you please, but don't write
anything; curse a man if you want to, knock him down if you want to, kill him
if you want to, but don't write anything. Whatever you write is evidence, and
that is against you; but so long as you don't write anything we can defend you
and get you off under some technicality of the law." As a famous baron of
England once said to a young man he encouraged: "Whisper any sort of
nonsense you please in the ear of the girl, but don't write a letter; that
letter can be brought up in evidence against you." Now we can see how Dr.
Burleson made the application in that sermon, "What I have written, I have
written."
Pilate was determined that everybody should see and be able to read it; and so
he wrote it in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. They were the three languages of the
world, and therefore when Conybeare and Howson began to write their Life
of Paul, the motto of the first chapter is, "And the title was
written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin": in Hebrew, that every Jew might
be able to read it; in Greek that every scholar might be able to read it; in
Latin that every Roman might be able to read it. Hebrew, Greek, and Latin were
the reigning languages of the world, and through the world in the three regnant
languages there went this statement of Pilate: To the Jew, who said in his own
language, "This crucified man is Jesus, the King of the Jews." To
every Roman it went, being written in Latin, "This crucified man is Jesus,
the King of the Jews." To every Greek it went in his language, "This
crucified man is Jesus, the King of the Jews."
The second voice is the next thought for consideration. You are not to suppose
that he was up very high, but so that his feet were two or three feet above the
ground. Then he had to be up there where everybody could see his face, and as they
were watching him he was looking at his mother. In the Temple when he was
presented, Simeon, whom God had declared should live until Christ came, turning
to the mother, said, "This child is set for the falling and rising of many
in Israel; and for a sign which is spoken against; yea, and a sword shall
pierce through thine own soul." And the sword comes.
The Romanists have a very beautiful tract called the "Sorrows of
Mary." I have a copy of it, but it is in Portuguese. The seven sorrows of
Mary answer to the sword piercing her heart, and one of them was when Christ
fell down under the cross, and another was when she saw him hanging on the
cross. Now, he is looking at his mother. Joseph, her husband, has long since
died. They were very poor when Joseph lived. As you know, they could offer only
a pair of turtle doves when they presented him in the Temple. They were not
able to offer even a kid or a lamb, they were so poor. And Jesus had no home
nowhere to lay his head and his mother and his younger half-brothers would go
around with him wherever he went. "Now you take care of the mother, the
brokenhearted mother," he said, as he looked down from the cross upon
John. This next voice comes, then, as he speaks for his mother. John is seen as
he looks down. So he says, "Mother, behold thy son!" And then he
looks at John (who is now talking to his mother), and says, "Son, behold
thy mother!" He meant for John to provide for her. Her own sons had no
abiding place, no home. John was well-to-do the richest one of the apostles.
So he charges John to take care of his mother, and from that hour John took her
to his home. Now the Romanists say that this proves that these others were not
half-brothers of Jesus that Mary never had but one child. They say, "If
her own sons were living, why did Jesus give her over to John, her
kinsman?" And the answer is that they had no home. John was rich; he had a
home. John was nearer to Jesus than these half-brothers, and John was nearer to
Mary than they were. The voices of Jesus, thus far, as he spoke from the cross:
first, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do";
second, "Woman, behold thy son; Son, behold thy mother." We will now
consider the mocking that took place. Let us see who did that mocking.
First class: They that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads and saying,
"Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save
thyself: if thou art the Son of God, come down from the cross." Thus spake
the passer-by.
Second class: "In like manner also the chief priests mocking him, with the
scribes and elders, said, he saved others; himself he cannot save. He is the
king of Israel; let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe on
him. He trusteth on God; let him deliver him now, if he desireth him," and
they belonged to the Sanhedrin. How sarcastic and cutting they were!
Third class: "And the robbers also that were crucified with him cast upon
him the same reproach." The passer-by; the priests, scribes, and elders
and his fellow sufferers, all mock him.
But Luke tells us a different story about one of these men hanging there. In
other words, at first both of them mocked him, but one of them, looking at him,
reflected about his case, became penitent, and he turned around then, and said
to the other, "Dost thou not even fear God, seeing that thou art in the
same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due rewards of our
deeds; but this man hath done nothing amiss." He rebukes himself and the
other malefactor, dying there by the side of Christ. Penitence strikes him when
he looks upon the matchless dignity, patience, and glory of Jesus. Twisting his
head around toward Christ, he said, "Jesus, remember me when thou comest
into thy kingdom," as a hymn so sweetly puts it: Jesus, thou art the sinner's
friend, As such I look to thee; Now in the fulness of thy love, O Lord,
remember me.
I heard that hymn sung in a camp meeting when one thousand people wept and
hundreds of lips spoke out and said, O, Lord, remember me."
We now come to the third voice of Jesus. "Verily I say unto thee, To-day
shalt thou be with me in Paradise." "You ask me to remember you when
I come to my kingdom. I answer not hereafter, but right now. To-day you and I
will enter Paradise together." What a salvation! No wonder everybody wants
to preach on the penitent thief. How gracious to see a man who had been a
criminal, his hands stained with blood, being led out to execution, strange to
say, being executed by the side of the Saviour, and there, instead of an
ignominious death, the thought awaited him of the Paradise of the world to
come!
The question arises: Where is Paradise? This question we will discuss in the
next chapter.
1. What was the general remark on the crucifixion of Christ?
2. What was the first incident cited leading to the crucifixion?
3. What was the second incident, the hymn based thereon and, according to
Andrew Broadus, what is the original text of the first stanza?
4. What was the incident of the Pan-Episcopal Council, based on this bearing of
Christ's cross?
5. What singular sermon cited and what is the application?
6. Who followed him to the place of crucifixion, what pathetic incident on the
way, and what is the meaning and application of Christ's little parable in Luke
23:31?
7. Where was Christ crucified, what is the description of the place and what is
the story of the auctioneer illustrating the traditions of sacred places and
things?
8. What anesthetic was offered Christ at the place of crucifixion and why did
he not take it?
9. What is the meaning of "crucify," what are the different kinds of
crosses used and upon which kind was Christ crucified?
10. Describe the awful scene of nailing Christ to the cross and the erection of
it.
11. Who "watched him there" and what was the effect on each class?
(See sermon in the author's first volume of sermons.)
12. At what hour of the day was the cross erected, and what makes this scene
peculiarly dramatic and pathetic?
13. What was the first voice from the cross and how unlike any other saying
ever uttered before?
14. What incident at the cross especially emphasizes the depravity of the human
heart?
15. What was the dramatic effect of the crucifixion on the world's artists?
16. What custom prevailed among the Romans in regard to an accusation under
which a man was crucified?
17. What were the words so written, as given by the four historians, commencing
with the briefest form and going in order to the longest, showing why there is
no contradiction?
18. Why would not Pilate change the form of the accusation at the request of
the Jews?
19. According to this accusation, under which of the three charges was Jesus
executed blasphemy, treason, or sedition?
20. What great preacher preached many times on Pilate's reply to the Jews and
what was the application?
21. In what three languages was Christ's accusation written, and why?
22. What was the second voice from the cross and why did Jesus commit the care
of his mother to John?
23. Who mocked Jesus on the cross and what did each class of mockers say?
24. What was the case of the two thieves, what led to the repentance of one of
them, what was his prayer and what hymn is based upon it?
25. What was the third voice from the cross, what was its meaning and what was
the significance of the three crosses?
THE THREE HOURS OF DARKNESS AND FOUR MORE
SAYINGS
Harmony, pages 212-214 and Matthew 27:45-56; Mark
15:33-41; Luke 23:44-49; John 19:28-30.
The last chapter closed as we were discussing Christ's third voice from the
cross, saying to the penitential thief, "To-day shalt thou be with me in
Paradise." And the discussion closed with this question: Where is
Paradise? Upon this subject two views prevail: One is that between death and
the final resurrection the souls of disembodied saints go to an intermediate
place; the other view is that there is no intermediate place. And it is the
second view that the author firmly holds. In Dr. J. R. Graves' book The
Middle Life he takes the position that Paradise is a half-way station;
that Hades is divided into two compartments, one called Paradise, in which the
saints lodge, and the other called Tartarus, in which the souls of the wicked
lodge. That neither the wicked nor the righteous immediately upon death go to
their heaven or hell, is the "intermediate place" theory. It is also
connected with an additional theory that when Christ died his soul went to that
intermediate place, and while there preached to the spirits that were
imprisoned there. The author does not subscribe to that at all.
In determining where Paradise is, we consult, not the Greek classics (as Dr.
Graves does), but the New Testament usage. This usage makes Paradise the
antitype of the earthly garden of Eden, which has its tree of life. The
antitype of that is the true Paradise. We have these instances of the use of
the word in the New Testament: In Luke 18 the first use of it. It is not
mentioned again in the Gospels, but we come to it in 2 Corinthians 12. There
Paul tells us how he knew such an one about fourteen years ago, whether in the
body or out of the body, he could not tell, but he knew such an one caught up
to the third heaven and into the Paradise of God. There is nothing in that
passage to make Paradise an intermediate place. Both the other two instances
are in Revelation. In the letter to the churches Jesus says to one of them,
"To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life which is in
the midst of the Paradise of God." Then by turning to the last chapter of
Revelation you find where that tree of life is: it is in the midst of the
Paradise of God. But where is that? The chapter commences: "I saw a pure
river of water of life, coming out from the throne of (Sod and of the Lamb, and
on either side of it was the tree of life." Then in the same last chapter,
it says, "Blessed are they that wash their robes . . . that they may have
the right to the tree of life," or, as it is expressed in an earlier
passage in Revelation, "These are they who have washed their robes and
made them white . . . that they may have a right to the tree of life, which is
in the midst of the Paradise of God."
These are the instances of the usage of the word in the New Testament,
abundantly settling where Paradise is. There are other passages you may use in
making it certain. For instance, in the letter to the Hebrews, Paul tells us
where are the spirits of the Just made perfect. He says, "You are come
unto Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an
innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the
first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the
spirits of Just men made perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of a new covenant,
and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better than that of Abel." So
that wherever God is, and the heavenly Jerusalem, and the true Mount Zion is, and
where the angels are, there are the disembodied spirits of the saints and
this is no half-way house.
Look at it by this kind of proof: Who will deny that after the resurrection of
Christ he ascended into the highest heavens? That is abundantly taught. Stephen,
when he was dying, saw him there. And Paul says, "To be absent from the
body is to be present with the Lord." Where the Lord is, there Paul's soul
would go, as soon as he died. He says in 2 Corinthians 5:1, "We know that
if the earthly house of our tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building from
God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." So, I do not
believe that there is any stopping place for any saint or sinner immediately
upon the death of the body, but his soul goes to its final place. We can get at
it in this way: when Lazarus died the poor man was carried by angels to
Abraham's bosom. Where is Abraham? Jesus says, "Many shall come from the
east and from the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob,
in the kingdom of heaven." This is no half-way place. So Paradise is a
place. Jesus also said, "I go to prepare a place for you, and if I go to
prepare a place for you I will come again and receive you unto myself; that
where I am, there ye may be also. . . . In my Father's house are many mansions,
etc."
We are now on page 212 of the Harmony. It is the sixth hour, which is twelve
o'clock. There was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. That
darkness lasted three hours. And the word "land" means the whole of
this earth. It does not mean a little section of it, either. Every one of the
three Gospel writers uses a particular word which means the whole of the earth.
It could not be over all the earth and be an eclipse; for an eclipse is not
seen at the same time from all points of the compass. Then, again, no total
eclipse ever lasted three hours. I witnessed a total eclipse once, and there
were a few minutes when the shadow of the moon covered the sun completely, but
in a very few minutes a little rim of light was shown, and it kept slightly
passing. More and more of the sun appeared until directly all the darkness was
gone. I have a full discussion of these three hours of darkness in my sermon on
"The Three Hours of Darkness."
For three hours that darkness lasted; and there was death silence. About the
ninth hour, which would be three o'clock, the silence was broken, and we have
the fourth voice of Jesus: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken
me?" Physical death is the separation of the soul from the body, and
spiritual death is the separation of the soul from God. So just before that
darkness passed away, closing the ninth hour, Christ died the spiritual death.
Right on the very verge of that deeper darkness came another voice. His words
were, "I thirst." This shows that his soul was undergoing the pangs
of hell, Just as the rich man lifted up his eyes in hell, being in torment, and
said, "I pray thee, Father Abraham, send Lazarus that he may dip the tip
of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this
flame." This anguish was not from loss of blood, as in the case of a
bleeding soldier. Any old soldier and I am one can testify that the
fiercest pang which comes to the wounded is thirst. The flow of the blood from
the open wound causes extreme anguish of thirst in a most harrowing sense. On
battlefields, where the wounded fall in the range fire of both armies, a
wounded man cannot get away, and nobody can go to him, and all through the
night the wounded cry out, "Water, water, water!" After I myself was
shot down on the battlefield it was two miles to where any water could be
obtained, I had to be carried that distance, and the thirst was unspeakable.
How much more the anguish of Christ enduring the torment of hell for a lost
world!
The next voice is inarticulate, and that means that he had no joined words. We
say a woman shrieks: that is inarticulate; but if she clothes her feelings in
words, that is articulate. The record says, "And when Jesus had cried with
a loud voice, he said, It is finished." So there is a cry from Jesus which
had no words. "It is finished," that is, the work of expiation of
sin, toward God; and the work of deliverance from the power of Satan is
accomplished. All of the animals that were slaughtered upon the Jewish altars
as types are found there in the Antitype, "It is finished." The Old
Testament is finished ; the old ceremonial, sacrificial law is nailed to the
cross of Christ. Paul says, "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances
against us, he nailed them to his cross." On the cross he triumphed over
Satan. "It is finished." Because it is finished, Paul also says,
"Let no man judge if you should eat anything that would be unclean
according to the Mosaic law; that is nailed to the cross." The Mosaic law
forbade the eating of swine. But now you can eat swine if you want to. [It is
far better, however, to eat fruits and vegetables than flesh foods of any kind.
Editor.] "Let no man judge you in meat or drink." And then he
mentions the weekly sabbath, Saturday, and the lunar sabbath. The whole
sabbatic cycle is nailed to the cross of Christ. If the Jew, then, after the
death of Christ comes and says you must be circumcised according to the
ordinances of Moses, you tell him that the handwriting of the ordinances of the
Mosaic law were blotted out and nailed to the cross of Jesus Christ. You do not
have to be circumcised in order to become a Christian. If he tells you that you
should offer up sacrifices of lambs, or goats, or bullocks, you tell him,
"No, that is nailed to the cross of Christ." "Sacrifice and
offerings thou wouldst not, but a body thou hast prepared for me"; and
"through the eternal Spirit he made one offering once for all."
"It is finished." Whenever you preach on that and tell exactly what
was finished, you have finished a great sermon. Expiation for sin was made; the
penal demands of the law were satisfied; the vicarious Substitute for sinners
died in their behalf; and the claims of the law on the sinner that believes in
Jesus Christ were fully met. Therefore, no man can "lay any charge to
God's elect." The debt. all of it. has been Paid.
His last voice on the cross was, "Father, into thy hands I commend my
spirit," that is, as soon as he died, his spirit went immediately to the
Father, and not to that half-way place you have heard about. There can be no
more important thing than this: Where was Christ's soul between the death of
his body and the resurrection of it, and why did he go to that place? Christ's
soul was-with the Father immediately upon his death. As quick as lightning his
soul was with God. Now, why did he go there? The answer to this question will
come in after the completion of our study on the resurrection. Remember we want
to know why Christ's soul, just as soon as he died, went to heaven.
He went to heaven as High Priest to offer on the mercy seat, in the holy of
holies, his blood which was shed upon the earth on the altar on earth in
order that on the basis of that blood he might make atonement for his people.
That is one reason. In Leviticus 16 we have the whole thing presented to us in
type. The goat that was offered was slain, and just as soon as it was slain the
high priest caught the blood in the basin he had, just as it flowed from the
riven heart of the sacrifice. He then hastened with it, without delay, behind
the veil into the holy of holies, and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat to make
atonement, based upon the sacrifice made upon the altar. There was no moment of
delay.
Now, when the true Lamb of God came and was slain, he being both High Priest
and Sacrifice, he must immediately go into the presence of God in the true holy
of holies, and sprinkle that blood upon the mercy seat. Therefore, Paul says,
"When you come to the heavenly Jerusalem, Mount Zion, to God, and to angels,
and to the spirits of the just made perfect, you also come to the blood of
sprinkling," there in the holy of holies, where Christ sprinkled that
blood.
How long did Christ's spirit stay up there? Three days the interval between
his death and his resurrection. Why did he come back? He came back first to
assume his resurrection body. He came back after his body. Second, in that
risen body he received the homage of all the angels: "And when God
bringeth again into the world his only begotten Son, he said, Let all the
angels of God worship him." He is the Son of God by the resurrection, as
Psalm 2 declares: "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."
Paul quotes that to show that it is applied to the resurrection body of Jesus
Christ. The angels worshiped Jesus in his eternal divinity, and they recognized
him in his humanity. But there was a special reason why every angel of God
should be called upon to worship the glorified Jesus Jesus in his risen and
glorified body. So that is certainly one reason why he returned.
Another reason was to further instruct his people to clarify and confirm
their faith, which he did. And the fourth reason was that he might, with all
authority in heaven and on earth, commission them to do their work. I will show
in subsequent discussions that he did that when he came back. If you do not
know why Jesus came to the earth; if you do not know why he died; if you do not
know where his spirit was between his death and resurrection, and why that
spirit went to that place; if you do not know when he returned, why he
returned, and how long he stayed after he returned; when he ascended into
heaven; what he is doing in heaven in his risen body, and how long he will stay
up there in his risen body, then you have not yet got at the gospel, and you do
not know how to preach.
Still another reason why Jesus came back was to breathe on his apostles, that
is, to inspire them, which means "to breathe," to give inspiration to
them, and to commission them. How long did he stay? Forty days. In that forty
days he finished his instruction upon every point. Then when he went back he
did not go as a disembodied soul. He went reunited, soul and body. And why? To
be made King of kings and Lord of lords.
Another reason: As the High Priest of his people to ever live and make
intercession for them in heaven; to receive from the Father the Holy Spirit,
that he might send him down upon the earth to baptize his church. In other
words, the old Temple was ended, its veil was rent in twain from top to bottom,
and the new Temple, his church, set up, and as the old Temple had been
anointed, the new Temple was to be anointed. All of which I discuss
particularly in Acts of this INTERPRETATION.
How long will he stay up there? He will stay as long as his vicar, the Holy
Spirit, works on earth; until all of his enemies have been put under his feet;
until the times of the restitution of all things; until after the millennium,
when Satan is loosed, and the man of sin is revealed, who is to be destroyed by
the breath of the Lord when he comes. He will stay up there until he comes;
until the salvation of the last of his people, and no more people are to be
saved. As we learn from 2 Peter, he will stay up there until he comes to raise
the dead, be married to his people, to raise the wicked dead, to judge the
world in righteousness, and then to turn the kingdom over to the Father. You
must know that Christ died with a view of taking the place of the sinner, in
his stead, the iniquities of the sinner being put on him. He who knew no sin is
made sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. By his death he
comes in the sinner's place to satisfy the penal claims of the law, and to
propitiate God. That is the Godward side of his death. What is the devilward side
of his death? The devilward side is fully presented in the sermon on "The
Three Hours of Darkness." He died that by his death he might destroy the
devil that he might overcome him.
So we have gotten to the last voice, and Jesus is dead. The very moment that he
died the whole earth shook; it quaked; there was an earthquake; the rocks were
rent, the graves were opened, and the veil of the Temple was rent in twain from
top to bottom. We are told by some writers that this veil of the Temple was
seventy feet long, thirty feet wide, and four inches thick, closely woven, hard
woven. Two yoke of oxen could not tear it, and yet the very minute that Christ
died, commencing at the top, it split wide open, clear to the bottom, thus
signifying that the way into the most holy is open for everybody.
So you see that is the one reason why he went to heaven between his death and
his resurrection to open up a new and living way for his saints to follow him
where he has forerun has already passed.
The rending of the veil of the Temple signifies that the old Temple is now
empty. They can go on if they want to, but they do not offer sacrifices any
longer, and if they did God would not recognize them; and in future years it
will be destroyed utterly. In A.D. 70 it was destroyed, and there has been none
since, and no Jew today ever offers a lamb or a sheep upon any altar. There is
an abrogation utterly of the Old Testament economy, i.e., all of the ceremonial
part of it.
Among the things that Jesus came back to earth for was to provide a new sabbath
for his people. The Mosaic sabbath commemorated the creation the Christian
sabbath commemorates redemption, and as God on the seventh day rested from his
work of creation, Christ on the first day of the week rested from the work of
redemption. His body came out of the grave, and from that time on it was the
day upon which his people met to celebrate his resurrection the first day of
the week. He himself met them several times upon the first day of the week,
during those forty days. On the first day of the week he poured out the Holy
Spirit. He ordered that collections be taken that money be laid aside for
collection on the first day of the week. We learn that the Lords Supper was
observed at Troas on the first day of the week; that John was in the Spirit on
the Lord's Day, which is the first day of the week. So he comes to provide a
new sabbath for his people. But we will discuss all this later.
While the graves were opened in that earthquake, the bodies lay exposed. Many
of the saints whose bodies were lying there came to life, that is, after the
resurrection. They lay there exposed three days, but after his resurrection,
after he became "the first fruits of them that slept," these bodies
came to life and went into the city and were recognized. Then Jerusalem waked
up and looked right into the face of their dead that had been buried but a
short time before. Here is what the record says: "And the tombs were opened;
and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised; and coming
forth out of the tombs after his resurrection, they entered into the holy city
and appeared unto many."
These voices, that darkness) that earthquake, that veilrending, that
grave-opening, made a profound impression upon those who were there. The
centurion, the captain of the hundred, who was conducting a section of the army
the officer in charge) whose business it was to see that he was crucified
said) "Truly this was the Son of God." That is the impression it made
upon his mind. No such things happened on the death of any other human being;
therefore, one of the great French infidels said that Socrates died like a
philosopher, but Jesus Christ died like a god. The effect upon the women is
thus described and here are the very women who organized that first Ladies'
Aid Society: "And there were also women beholding from afar, among them
were both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and Salome:
who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him: and many
other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem." How were the people
affected? "And all the multitudes that came together to this sight, when
they beheld the things that were done, returned smiting their breasts."
Now he is dead, and the next event to notice is, Why he did not hang on the
cross longer? This is the explanation, Harmony page 215: "The Jews,
therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain
upon the cross on the sabbath (for the day of that sabbath was a high day)
asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken
away." A sabbath did not necessarily mean the seventh day. Any high day
could be a sabbath, and the Jews wanted those who were crucified to die soon. A
crucified man might linger several days. So Pilate, out of deference to the
Jewish law, commanded their legs to be broken, so as to bring about an earlier
death. Now, when they came to break the legs of Jesus, to their surprise, he
was already dead. There was nothing in the mere physical anguish in the
crucifixion to bring about the death of Jesus Christ. He died under the hand of
God. He died by the stroke of the sword of the law: "Awake, O sword,
against the Shepherd: let him be smitten and let the flock be scattered."
He died of a broken heart, evidenced by the fact that when the soldiers, to
make sure that he was dead, ran a spear in his side, behold, water gushed out,
an indication, physicians say, of death from heartbreaking. N
ow, while he is hanging there, Joseph of Arimathaea, a member of the Sanhedrin,
and Nicodemus, another member of the Sanhedrin, who came to Christ by night,
obtained permission to take his body down and bury it. They had become
disciples. It is a very precious thought to me that that same Nicodemus who
came to Jesus by night, and was so puzzled about regeneration, has at last been
born again, and become a disciple of Jesus Christ. They had not consented to
what the others did in condemning Jesus, so they take him down and wrap his
body with spices in a fine linen shroud and put him in a new tomb, belonging to
Joseph of Arimathaea; in which no other one has ever lain, and shut him up in a
big stone vault. This stone was hewn out like the vaults you see in New
Orleans, and some in Waco. It was not a burial by the piling of dirt on him,
but it was the placing of him in a rock vault.
1. What was the third voice from the cross?
2. What two views prevail on the location of Paradise and to which one does the
author hold?
3. What other theory closely connected with "intermediate place"
theory?
4. What are the uses of the word "Paradise" in the New Testament?
5. Where is Paradise and how do you prove it from these scriptures and others
cited?
6. How long was the darkness over all the land at the crucifixion. and what is
the meaning of the word "land" in this connection?
7. How do you prove that this darkness was not an eclipse of the sun?
8. Has the earth ever known such another period of darkness?
9. When and what was the fourth voice from the cross and what was its meaning?
10. What is meant by death, both physical and spiritual?
11. What was the fifth voice and its meaning? Illustrate.
12. What was the sixth voice and what its significance?
13. What was the seventh voice and what its meaning and broad application?
14. What was the last voice from the cross and what was its significance?
15. Briefly, why did Christ's spirit go immediately to heaven when. he died and
of what was this act of Christ the antitype?
16. What does Paul say about this?
17. How long was Jesus up there and why did he return?
18. How long did he stay here after his return, and what was he doing while
here?
19. Why then did he go back to the right hand of the Father?
20. How long will he stay there and for what will he come back?
21. What great supernatural events attended the death of Christ?
22. Describe the veil of the Temple which was rent in twain at his death and
what is the special significance of this great event?
23. Explain the opening of the graves and the coming forth of the saints.
24. Who were present at the crucifixion and what was the effect on each class?
25. Why did not Christ hang on the cross longer, what caused his early death
and what the proof?
26. Who took Jesus down from the cross, where did they bury him and what the
manner of his burial?
OUR LORD'S RESURRECTION; ITS RELATION TO
HIS CLAIMS; ITS CERTAINTY AND HISTORIC PROOFS
Harmony, pages 215-217 and Matthew 27:57-66; Mark
15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56; John 19:31-42.
We have How come to the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. The theme of
this discussion is "The Resurrection of Jesus." This doctrine of the
resurrection of the dead is fundamental and vital in the Christian system, and
absolutely essential to its integrity so much so, that if a man denies the
resurrection of the body, he denies the whole Bible; for, if the foundation be
removed the whole superstructure falls.
The New Testament teaches both a spiritual and a bodily resurrection (John
5:25-29): "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour cometh, and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall
live. For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also
to have life in himself." That refers to the resurrection of the soul, or
spirit. Then he adds: "Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming in which
all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, they
that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil
unto the resurrection of damnation."
That shows two resurrections the resurrection of the spirit, and that of the
body. The body resurrection is literal; the spirit resurrection is figurative.
The spirit resurrection is accomplished by the Holy Spirit in regeneration,
that is, the soul, dead in trespasses and in sins, is made alive. That is soul
resurrection. Whenever one is regenerated, he is made alive, as Paul says in
Ephesians: "You hath he quickened [or made alive, that is, the soul is
made alive], who were dead in trespasses and in sins." The same matter is
fully discussed in Ezekiel 36:24-27; 37:1-15; and Ephesians 2:1-6. There, under
the image of the body resurrection, the spirit resurrection of Israel is
signified. It refers to the coming kingdom, the future salvation of the
dispersed Jews; but it is presented under the image of the body resurrection.
Both the literal and the figurative resurrection call for the exercise of
supernatural, omnipotent energy, that is, it takes the Spirit of God to quicken
a soul dead in trespasses and in sins; it takes the Spirit of God to quicken a
dead body to make it alive.
But this discussion is limited to the resurrection of the body. By resurrection
of the body is meant more than a resuscitation of the corpse to resume its
mortal existence, as in the case of the daughter of Jairus, the widow's son at
Nain, and Lazarus. These all died again. It means to make alive, the body to
die no more; in the case of the Christian, mortality puts on immortality;
corruption puts on incorruption; weakness puts on strength; dishonor puts on honor;
the natural body becomes a spiritual body; the image of the first Adam, who was
the natural man, becomes the image of the Second Adam, who is the spiritual
man, and Lord of glory 1 Corinthians 15:42-49. Now we see the difference
between the raising of the daughter of Jairus, the son of the widow of Nain,
and Lazarus, and the resurrection of Christ's body and our bodies.
But, while all these marvelous changes take place, the identity of the body
raised is never lost. The body that dies and lies buried is the body that is
raised, but it is changed to suit its new life. Yet, whatever the change, it is
recognizable as the very body that died.
Even in the creation of man, God purposed the immortality of the body and
provided the means in the fruit of life, but his access to that tree was
forfeited by the sin of the first Adam; and so death reigned over the body. So
access to immortality of the body was restored through Jesus Christ, the Second
Adam, as Paul puts it: "Our Saviour, Jesus Christ, hath abolished death
and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel"; life to the
soul; immortality to the body. But this, Jesus did not, and could not do,
unless he himself rose from the dead.
All Christianity is an imposture, a fraud, unless Jesus himself rose from the
dead.
The relation of the Lord's resurrection to ourselves, and its relation to all
his claims and to all of our hopes, is thus expressed by Paul: "Now I make
known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you except ye believed
in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that
Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried;
and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures; and
that he appeared to Cephas; then to the twelve; then he appeared to above five
hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some
are fallen asleep; then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles; and
last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared tome also" (1 Cor.
15:1-8). "Now, if Christ is preached that he hath been raised from the
dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if
there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised: and if
Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is
vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we witnessed of God
that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up if so be that the dead are not
raised. For if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been raised; and if
Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then
they also that are fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have only hoped
in Christ in this life, we are of all men most pitiable. But now hath Christ
been raised from the dead, the first fruits of them that are asleep" (1
Cor. 15:12-20).
It is evident from that statement of Paul that everything in the whole Bible is
dependent upon one single fact: the resurrection of Christ from the dead.
Let us now carefully consider in order the following facts:
1. Jesus repeatedly in his lifetime predicted that he must suffer death and
that he would rise again on the third day: "Then answered the Jews and
said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these
things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three
days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple
in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days? But he spake of the
temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples
remembered that he spake this; and they believed the scripture, and the word
which Jesus had said" (John 2:18-22). "For he taught his disciples,
and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered up into the hand of men, and
they shall kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he shall rise
again. But they understood not the saying, and were afraid to ask him"
(Mark 9:31-32).
I say that he did that repeatedly. In his early ministry in Judea, we read
(Harmony page 20, John 2:18-22, quoted above), this one: "Destroy this
temple, and in three days I will raise it up." That is the sign.
"When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that
he spake this; and they believed the scripture." It is in his early
ministry that he makes that statement.
Notice on page 91 of the Harmony (this is immediately after the great
confession at Caesarea Philippi): "From that time began Jesus to show unto
his disciples, that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the
elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be
raised up" (Matt. 16:21). Take a still later occasion (page 110 of the
Harmony) where he is discussing the Good Shepherd, John 10:17-18:
"Therefore doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I may
take it again. No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself. I
have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." But we come
to a still later instance (Harmony page 135, Matthew 20:17-19: "And as
Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples apart, and on the
way he said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall
be delivered unto the chief priests and scribes; and they shall condemn him to
death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to
crucify: and the third day he shall be raised up." Notice another
(Harmony, page 145) the time when the Greeks wanted to see him: "The hour
is come that the Son of man should be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto
you, Except a grain of wheat fall into the earth and die, it abideth by itself
alone; but if it dies, it beareth much fruit. He that loveth his life loseth
it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am there shall also my
servant be: if any man serve me, him will the Father honor. Now is my soul
troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour! But for this
cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name" (John 12:23-28).
The statement of the fact just cited is, that this first fact Jesus repeatedly
predicted in his lifetime that he must suffer death and would rise again the
third day. I have given some proof of it, spoken at different times in his
earthly ministry.
2. Let us take up the next fact. He made his resurrection the sign and proof of
all his claims. See page 59 of Harmony, Matthew 12:38-40: "Then certain of
the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, Teacher, we would see a sign
from thee [You come claiming to be the Son of God; now give us a sign]. But he
answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a
sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet:
for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so
shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the
earth."
3. And thus we come to the third fact. Jesus instituted two perpetual
ordinances, one to commemorate his death, and the other to commemorate his
burial and resurrection. On this I cite just two passages of Scripture. I could
cite a great many, but two will be enough: "For I received of the Lord
that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which
he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and
said, This is my body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me.
In like manner also the cup, after Supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant
in my blood: this do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as
often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death
till he come" (1 Cor. 11:23-26). The other passage is from Romans 6:3-5:
"Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were
baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into
death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the
Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united
with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his
resurrection." We thus see what his ordinance commemorates; and it is the
third fact in the order.
4. The fourth fact is that while only Mary, the sister of Lazarus, of all his
disciples, understood the teachings concerning his death and resurrection at
this time (Matt. 26:12), yet his enemies distinctly understood what he meant.
Let us see the proof. While he was hanging on the cross, Matthew 27:3942:
"They that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Thou
that destroyest the temple, and buildeth it in three days, save thyself: if
thou art the Son of God, come down from the cross," that is, "Try to
prove you are alive after we kill you." "In like manner also the
chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, he saved others;
himself he cannot save."
5. The next fact is, they so understood his teaching that they took all
necessary precautions to guard against the theft of his body, until after the
third day, and thereby hedged against any false claim of his resurrection. I
give the proof (Harmony page 217) Matthew 27:62-66: "Now on the morrow,
which is the day after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees
were gathered together unto Pilate, saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver
said while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command
therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest haply his
disciples come and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from
the dead: and the last error will be worse than the first. Pilate said unto
them, Ye have a guard: go, make it sure as ye can. So they went, and made the
sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, the guard being with them." That shows
they understood his teaching better than the disciples did.
I have thus given five facts in their order:
1. Jesus repeatedly predicted in his lifetime that he must suffer death, and
rise again the third day, though his disciples did not understand it.
2. He made his resurrection the sign and proof of all his claims.
3. He instituted two perpetual ordinances, one to commemorate his death, the
other his burial and resurrection.
4. While only Mary of Bethany, of all of his own disciples, understood his
teachings, yet his enemies distinctly understood them.
5. They so understood that they took all necessary precautions to guard against
the theft of his body until after the third day, and so to hedge against a
false claim of his resurrection.
Never was an issue more openly joined and understood. He risked all his claims
and all Christianity on one fact his resurrection on the third day. His
enemies accepted the challenge openly, and safeguarded against any fraud or
delusion.
Let us now consider in order another relation of facts, answering this
question: Did Jesus actually die, or was it only a case of swoon, trance, or
other kind of suspended animation from which he subsequently revived?
The first fact is, as the record says, "He died," that is, the body
and soul were separated. All the historians say, "He yielded up his
spirit."
The second fact: To make sure that he was actually dead, one of the
executioners pierced his heart with a spear, from which flowed water and blood,
an unmistakable evidence of death John 19:33-37.
The third fact: The centurion in charge, officially certified his death to
Pilate (Mark 15:44-45). If a sheriff hangs a man now, the law requires that he
make due report of the fact, and that is recorded as the act of the court
executed; then the appointed officer signs it, then he goes and makes his first
report that he has executed the man, and he is certified to be dead. So the
record says, "And behold, a man named Joseph, who was a councillor, a good
man and a righteous (he had not consented to their counsel and deed), a man of
Arimathaea, a city of the Jews, who was looking for the kingdom of God: this
man went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus" (Luke 23:50-52).
"And Pilate marveled if he were already dead; and calling unto him the
centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead. And when he learned
it of the centurion, he granted the corpse to Joseph" (Mark 15:44-45).
The fourth fact: He was actually embalmed and buried, and the mouth of the tomb
was barred with a great stone (John 19:38-42): "Joseph of Arimathaea, . .
. came therefore, and took away his body. And there came also Nicodemus, he who
at the first came to him by night, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about
a hundred pounds. So they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths
with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury. Now, in the place where
he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new tomb wherein was
never man yet laid. There then because of the Jews' preparation (for the tomb
was nigh at hand) they laid Jesus." Now you see that the dead body was
taken down and that a hundred pounds of embalming spices, a long linen cloth
was brought, and myrrh was spread on that cloth, which they wrapped around, and
rolled and swathed about the body. If you find a mummy of the Egyptian days
now, it has still that linen robe, buried over one thousand years ago, and
shows that these spices preserve the body. There was Jesus, proved to be dead,
embalmed as they would have him, in many folds of linen, and buried.
The fifth fact is that a very great stone was placed at the door of the tomb to
bar it a stone so great that when the women came they did not know how they
could get that stone rolled away. It was so big that a man on the inside could
not have pushed it away.
The sixth fact: This stone entrance was sealed with the Roman seal, and to
break that seal was death.
The seventh fact is that a guard was stationed to watch the sepulcher and
protect it day and night from interference, until the third day had passed (Matt.
27:62-66). The eighth fact: On the third day came an angel of the Lord and with
a great earthquake rolled away that stone, while the guard fell as dead men
(Matt. 28:2-4). As we want the facts all in order, let us see the proof of this
(Matt. 28: 1ff, Harmony page 218): Now late on the sabbath, as it began to
dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
to see the sepulchre. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of
the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat
upon it. His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow: and
for fear of him the watchers did quake, and became as dead men."
The ninth fact is that the guard faithfully reported the facts to the Sanhedrin,
and with a large sum of money were bribed to say that his body was stolen by
his disciples while they (the guards) slept. A protection from Pilate was
promised, if the matter came to his ears. Let us see the proof on this point
(Matt. 28:11-15): "Some of the guard came into the city, and told unto the
chief priests all the things that were come to pass. And when they were
assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto
the soldiers, saying, Say ye, his disciples came by night, and stole him away
while we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him,
and rid you of care. So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and
this saying was spread abroad among the Jews, and continueth until this day."
The tenth fact is that the angel told his disciples that he was risen,
according to his promise, and reminded them to meet him at the previously
appointed place in Galilee (Matt. 28:5-7). Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all
tell that. And the eleventh fact is that the disciples themselves saw that the
tomb was empty.
We are now ready to discuss his resurrection. I have led up to it in an orderly
way, proving that he said he would suffer death; that he would rise on the
third day; that while his disciples did not understand that, his enemies did;
that he made that the sign of all his claims; that he did die; that he was
embalmed and buried; that his tomb was guarded; that at the appointed time an
angel came and rolled away the stone, and the guard fell as dead; that the
guard faithfully reported the facts; that they were then bribed to say that his
disciples stole him while they slept; that the angel told his disciples that
Jesus was risen, and reminded them of the appointment that he had made with
them, both the women and the men, and we will see about that appointment a
little later.
Now we have come to the place where the tomb is found empty, and there are just
two reports about that empty tomb. Nobody disputes any fact thus far, not even
an infidel or Jew. The report prevails that his disciples stole his body, and
reported that he was raised from the dead, and the other fact is that Jesus
rose from the dead.
How do we account for the tomb being empty in which Jesus was buried? Some of
the guard testified that the body was stolen by the disciples while they (the
guard) slept. The objections to this testimony are manifold: (1) It contradicts
their original testimony. They told the facts to the chief priests and elders.
That was their testimony. (2) Their second testimony was the result of bribery,
and therefore should have been thrown out of court. (3) It was false on its
face, since they could not know that it was stolen, or who had stolen it, as on
their own story it had disappeared while they slept; and since it was
contradictory to all history that a whole Roman guard slept while on the post
of duty, and equally contradictory that such a capital offense against military
law should be passed over without even a reprimand. (4) It was contradictory to
the state of the minds of the disciples, who counted all lost by his death. and
were in terror for their lives; who did not believe at this time in his
resurrection, and who had not the faith and courage to preach what they knew
was false; and it is contradictory to the simplicity of their character, and
their own natural, unbounded surprise when apprised that the tomb was empty.
and to their slowness to believe in the resurrection. In a word, they had no
use for a dead body. And it is contradictory to their subsequent lives and
sacrifices. (5) It leaves unexplained the resurrection and appearances of the
saints who were recognized by many in Jerusalem. No court in the world would
accept that testimony, and no jury in the world would believe it.
Now, on the other hand, the angel testified that Jesus was risen according to
his promise and prediction. But the disciples were unable to accept the angel's
testimony. They must see him for themselves; or, as John puts it, they must see
him with their eyes, hear him with their ears, and handle him with their hands.
As Luke has it, they must recognize him with the inner spiritual sense as he
talked with them, so that their hearts would burn within them, and they must
note his old-time mannerism as in "the breaking of bread." The proof
of identity must be repeated often, and for many days, and under varied
circumstances, and at different places, and to different groups, so as to be
absolutely infallible and all-convincing. His mother must recognize him; his
unbelieving brothers must recognize him; his friends and companions for years
must recognize him. In other words, just what Acts 1:3 declares: "To whom
he also showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to
them by the space of forty days, etc."
1. What is the importance of the doctrine of the resurrection?
2. What two kinds of resurrection taught in the Bible?
3. Cite one Old Testament and one New Testament proof that the restoration of a
people may be called a resurrection.
4. Cite one New Testament proof that regeneration may be so called.
5. Cite a New Testament proof that a revival of the martyr spirit may be so
called.
6. In the resurrection of the body, what four things are involved?
7. What is the glorification of the body?
8. What are the five characteristics of a natural body?
9. What are the five characteristics of a spiritual body?
10. Does the change from a natural to a spiritual body destroy its identity?
11. How was provision first made for the immortality of the body, how did man
forfeit that right, and how was it regained?
12. Show the relation of Christ's resurrection to ourselves, and how Paul makes
it fundamental in Christianity.
13. Cite orderly and connected proof from the Gospels that Jesus, from the beginning
and repeatedly, foretold his death and resurrection.
14. Prove that he made his resurrection on the third day the supreme sign and
test of his divinity and messiahship.
15. What perpetual ordinance did Christ institute to commemorate his death?
16. What other to commemorate his burial and resurrection?
17. Cite the proof that the enemies of Christ understood the test he submitted
of his claims.
18. What precaution did his enemies take to guard against any false claim of
his resurrection?
19. Restate the five facts concerning his resurrection in order.
20. What seven facts prove that Jesus was dead?
21. What three facts bear on his resurrection?
22. Give a summary of the discussion leading up to the resurrection.
23. What two reports concerning the empty tomb?
24. What were the objections to the report that the disciples came and stole
him while the guard slept?
25. What four earth senses were employed in recognizing the identity?
CHRIST'S APPEARANCES AND COMMISSIONS
Harmony, -pages 218-227 and Matthew 28:1-15; Mark 16: 1-18; Luke 24:1-43; John 20:1 to 21:25; 1 Corinthians 15:5.
APPEARANCES BETWEEN RESURRECTION DAY AND ASCENSION FIRST LORD'S DAY
There were five appearances of Christ on the day he rose from the dead. These
five, in their order of time, were:
1. To Mary Magdalene Mark 16:9; John 20:14-18; Harmony, pp. 221-222.
2. To the other women Matthew 28:9-10; Harmony, pp. 218-222.
3. To Simon Peter Luke 24:34-35; 1 Corinthians 15:5; Harmony, p. 224.
4. To Cleopas and another disciple on the way to Emmaus Mark 16:12-13; Luke
24:13-35; Harmony, pp. 223-224.
5. To ten apostles, Thomas absent; gives first commission Mark 16:14; Luke
24:36-43; John 20:19-25; Harmony, pp. 224-226. SECOND LORD'S DAY
6. To the eleven, Thomas present John 20:26-29; 1 Corinthians 15:5; Harmony,
p. 226. IN THE
SECOND WEEK
7. To seven disciples beside the sea of Galilee. Gives Peter a special
commission John 21:1-24; Harmony, pp. 226-227. THIRD LORD'S DAY
8. To the eleven and above five hundred brethren on the appointed mountain in
Galilee, where he gives the Great Commission Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:15-18;
1 Corinthians 15:6; Harmony, pp. 228-229.
9. To James 1 Corinthians 15:7; Harmony, p. 229. FOURTH LORD'S DAY
10. To the eleven; gives another commission Luke 24:4449; Acts 1:3-5; 1
Corinthians 15:7; Harmony, p. 229. FORTIETH DAY His ASCENSION
11. To the eleven and many others Mark 16:19; Acts 1:6; Luke 24:50-53;
Harmony, pp. 230-231. Here Acts 1:6 shows another gathering or assembly before
they ask the question. From his ascension to the close of the New Testament our
Lord appears to at least four persons (not counting Peter and Cornelius)
Stephen, Paul, Ananias, and John; to Stephen and Ananias once each; to Paul
several times, and to John on Patmos in visions recorded in Revelation.
Unquestionably the voice which spake to Peter (Acts 10:14) was the Lord's
voice, but Peter seems not to have seen the speaker. There was an audible, but
not visible interview. Except the first vision in Revelation, John's visions of
the Lord on Patmos were mainly, but not altogether, symbolic representations of
the Lord. In the case of Paul three of the appearances were constructively
true, but not evident, i.e., they may be proved by argument, namely, the
fourth, sixth, and ninth, as enumerated below. In order of time the appearance
to Ananias follows the first appearance to Paul.
APPEARANCES BETWEEN HIS ASCENSION AND THE CLOSE OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT
1. To Stephen Acts 7:55-60.
2. First appearance to Paul Acts 9:1-9; 22:5; 26:12-20; 1 Corinthians 1:1:
9:1: 15:8. and at the beginning of other letters. This was to call him to be an
apostle. An apostle must have seen the risen Lord in order to be a witness of
his resurrection.
3. To Ananias Acts 9:10-17.
4. Second to Paul, in Arabia. This is constructive, depending on two lines of
argument:
(a) Whether we shall give precedence to Luke's "straightway" in Acts
9:20, or to Paul's "immediately" in Galatians 1:15-17. The author
believes that Paul did not preach in Damascus until after his return to that
city from Arabia that he had not yet received his gospel.
(b) But before preaching, he spent about three years of retirement and
preparation in Arabia, probably at Mount Sinai, communing with the Lord; there
at the site of the giving of the law studying its relations to the gospel which
afterward he so clearly discloses, and receiving from the Lord directly his
gospel to which reception he so often refers, as in Galatians 1:11-18; 1
Corinthians 11:23-26; 15:3.
5. Third to Paul, in the Temple Acts 22:17-21. This supposes that the Temple
vision occurred on his first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion, an
account of which is given in Acts 9:26-29 and Galatians 1:18-19.
6. Fourth to Paul in Tarsus, or possibly Antioch 2 Corinthians 12:1-9. This
is constructive, and depends on two lines of argument:
(a) That "revelations of the Lord" in 2 Corinthians 12:1, implies a
vision of the Lord.
(b) The place of the vision is determined by the chronological argument.
Reckoning back "fourteen years" from the date of the second letter to
the Corinthians, about A.D. 56 or 57, and comparing Acts 9:30 and 11:25, we learn
where Saul was in this period, and find in Acts 15:41 Cilician churches,
probably established by him.
7. Fifth to Paul, in Corinth Acts 18:9-10.
8. Sixth to Paul, in Jerusalem Acts 23:11.
9. Seventh to Paul, on the ship Acts 27:23-25. This is constructive. "An
angel of the Lord" would signify an angel proper. But "the angel of
the Lord" often means our Lord himself. This appearance, therefore, must
be counted as doubtful.
10. Revelation 1:1 to 3:22. This is real. The following in the same book are
mostly symbolical:
(a) The Lamb slain Revelation 5:6-7.
(b) The Rider on the white horse in converting power 6:2.
(c) The angel with the censer 8:3-5. (This is the High Priest.)
(d) The angel with the little book, probable 10:1-11.
(e) The Lamb on Mount Zion 14:1.
(f) The angel with the sickle 14:14.
(g) The Rider on the white horse, in power of judgments 19:11-16.
(h) The Judge on the throne 20:11.
(i) The Lamb, the Light of the New Jerusalem 21:23.
(j) Witness (through angel) 22:12-20.
1. To the twelve Harmony, pp. 44-45 and 71-72; Matthew 9:36-38; 10:1-42; Mark
3:13-19; 6:7-13; Luke 9:1-6. REMARKS
(a) Limited to Jews Matthew 10:5.
(b) Provides for their support Matthew 10:9-10; 1 Corinthians 9:14.
(c) Gives authority to cast out evil spirits and heal the sick Matthew 10:8.
(d) Gives authority to preach the kingdom Matthew 10:7.
(e) Foretells persecution Matthew 10:17-18.
(f) Promises protection Matthew 10:28-29.
(g) Spirit guidance in speech Matthew 10:19-20.
2. First special commission to Peter, the keys Matthew 16:19; Harmony, p. 90.
REMARKS
(a) The gift of the keys authorized Peter to open the door of the kingdom of
heaven to both Jews and Gentiles.
(b) The door to the Jews was opened by Peter in his Pentecost address Acts
2:37-39.
(c) The door to the Gentiles was opened by Peter in his address to Cornelius
and his household Acts 10:43-48; Acts 11:1-18; Acts 15:7-9.
(d) The power to bind and loose, i.e., to declare the terms of remission, as in
Acts 2:38 and in Acts 10:43, and to pronounce judicially and with final
authority on all matters of the kingdom, here specially given to Peter, is
later given to all the apostles, as we will find in John 20:21-23, and later to
Paul. It was also given to the church, as we will find later in two
commissions.
3. The discipline commission to the church Matthew 18: 15-18; Harmony, p.
100. Here again we find "the binding and loosing" power which holds
good in heaven when the church follows the law of the Head of the church.
4. To the seventy Luke 10:1-24; Harmony, pp. 110-111. REMARKS
(a) Limited to Jews.
(b) Provides for the support๙10:4-8.
(c) Gives authority over evil spirits๙10:17.
(d) Gives authority to preach the kingdom๙10:10.
(e) Gives authority to heal the sick๙10:9. Note: This and (a) were both
temporary commissions.
COMMISSIONS AFTER HIS RESURRECTION
1. To the ten apostles, Thomas absent John 20:19-25; Harmony, p. 225. This
commission appears in John 20: 21-23. REMARKS
(a) They are sent, as the Father sent Jesus, to all the world.
(b) They were inspired.
(c) They had authority to bind and loose, i.e., to declare the terms of
remission of sins, and to pronounce judicially and with authority upon all
matters pertaining to the church or kingdom. Harmony, p. 227.
2. Second special commission to Peter John 21:15-17;
(a) The triple form of the question here, "Lovest thou me?" is a mild
rebuke of Peter's triple denial.
(b) The triple form of the commission fits the three classes of Christians
symbolized by sheep, little sheep, and lambs; the feed-ing, or shepherding
required for each, suggests that the work is great enough to occupy all of
Peter's time, and conveys a mild rebuke to Peter for distrusting Christ's
provision, and his subsequent returning to his old, secular business. Peter
erred in the use of the sword while Christ was living, and erred in attempting
to provide for a living after Christ was risen. The suspension of Christ's
protection and provision lasted only while Christ was dead.
(c) There is nothing in either of the two special commissions to Peter to warrant
his supremacy over the other apostles, and over the church, and especially no
ground for a transmitted and perpetual supremacy to his so-called successors,
and still less for those successors to be limited to the Roman See.
3. The great and perpetual missionary commission to the church Matthew
28:16-20; Mark 16:15-18; 1 Corinthians. 15:6; Harmony, pp. 228-229. REMARKS
(a) This commission was given to an ecclesiastical body, as appears: From the
number present. 1 Corinthians 15:6: from its perpetuity, Matthew 28:20; from
the universality and scope of the work.
(b) The authority is plenary Matthew 28:18.
(c) The presence perpetual, through the Holy Spirit.
(d) The work is both evangelistic and pastoral, i.e., making disciples and then
training them to do all Christ had commanded.
(e) The baptizing power is under jurisdiction of the church, as is also the
keeping of the Lord's Supper. It supposes a time when no apostle will be alive,
and provides a continuous body is whom authority resides.
(f) This commission lasts till the final advent of our Lord, and throughout the
Spirit's administration.
We will now consider in detail some of his appearances after his resurrection
and before his ascension, and also his commissions as we come to them. At least
ten appearances are mention-ed, but there are some serious difficulties in
harmonizing the testimony of all the Gospels concerning about six of these
appearances. I will not stop now to point out these six and reply to them. Just
now I will discuss the appearances between his resurrection and his ascension:
First, to Mary Magdalene Mark 16:9; John 20:11-20; Harmony, pp. 221-222. All
the circum-stances of this case are thrilling. A group of women had follow-ed
Joseph and Nicodemus, had witnessed his burial and returned home to prepare
spices and ointments for his embalming. Then, resting on the sabbath day
(Saturday), they returned early on Sunday morning to embalm him. But they find
the tomb empty, see the angel, hear his explanation, and report his message to
the disciples. Four of these women are named: Mary Magdalene; Mary, the mother
of James; Salome, and Joanna. But there were others; as Luke says, Mary
Magdalene runs and tells Peter and John that the tomb is empty. She says,
"They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid
him." And she returns with Peter and John and lingers after they have
left. While she remains, the appearance of Christ to Mary takes place, as Mark
states, and as is graphically described by John. It is very touching when the
angels ask her why she weeps. She said, "They have taken away my Lord, and
I know not where they have laid him."
When I was a young preacher I preached a sermon from that text, and this was
the application of the sermon: That people would go to church with a natural
expectation of hearing about the Lord; the choir would sing, the pastor would
preach, but there would be no Lord in the sermon; the deacons would pray, but
there would be no Lord in the prayers; and they would look at the lives of the
church members, and there would be no Lord in their lives. Then they would say,
"They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid
him."
When Mary had thus said, she turned and beheld Jesus, but she did not know it
was Jesus. She just caught a glimpse of him, and thought it was the gardener.
She saw that somebody was there with her. Jesus said unto her, "Woman, why
weepest thou? Whom seekest thou?" "She, supposing him to be the
gardner, said unto him, Sir, if thou hast borne him hence, tell me where thou
hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary!" As
soon as she heard that voice, so familiar, the pathos and the manner of it
which she had realized before a thousand times, her heart told her that it was
the voice of the Lord. "She turns herself and saith unto him, in Hebrew,
Rabboni, that is, My Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not [take not hold
of me], for I am not yet ascended unto the Father, and my God and your
God." I have never been able to read that passage of Christ's words to
Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils this woman whose love
for Christ was unspeakable, and whose gratitude unbounded without being moved
to tears.
Just here an objection comes up, for Jesus said, "I have not yet ascended
to my Father." How do you reconcile that with a previous statement that at
his death the spirit went to the Father? My answer is that there is no
contradiction at all. He is here referring to his ascension in the body:
"I have not yet ascended to my Father," that is, the whole Christ
the divinity, soul, and body.
The second appearance is found also on page 222 of the Harmony, and it is to a
group of women, Mary Magdalene, however, not included. Matthew alone gives
that: "And behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and
took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. Then saith Jesus unto them, Fear not;
go tell my brethren that they depart into Galilee, and there shall they see
me" (v. 9).
These women are the first to see him. I have already stated that there was a
Ladies' Aid Society organized, which ministered unto him of their substance
while he lived. This is the same group of women exactly. They are still going
to minister unto him of their substance, after he is dead. They had provided
for his embalming; and now he appears to this group first to Mary, and second
to the rest of the group.
The third case is presented on page 224 of the Harmony, Luke 24:34: "The
Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon." And 1 Corinthians 15:5:
"He appeared to Cephas." You can understand why the next appearance
of Christ would be to Peter. Peter had denied him. He had been very greatly
honored, and would be honored for all time. So the third appearance of the Lord
was to Simon Peter.
The fourth appearance is on page 223 of the Harmony. This is very touching. It
is the two men going to the village named Emmaus, about sixty furlongs from
Jerusalem; and they were very sad. They had been to the crucifixion. Their Lord
was dead, and while they were talking over that sad topic, a Stranger joins
them. The record says, "Their eyes were holden that they should not know
him." So they did not recognize him. And he asked them what was the matter
what all their sadness was about, and what they were talking about. They
said, "You must be a stranger, or you would know what things have lately
happened in Jerusalem." And they told him about the death of the Lord, and
when they got to their stopping place, Jesus made out as though he was going
on. But they halted and asked him to take a meal with them, and when he went to
ask the blessing, that mannerism of his, that peculiar, solemn way in which he
broke the bread by these they knew him in a minute, and when he knew that
they had recognized him, he disappeared, and then they said, "Did not our
hearts burn within us, while he spake to us in the way, while he opened to us
the scriptures?" He had been delivering a discourse which I would give
everything in the world to have heard. He talked about the law, the prophets,
and the psalms, and expounded to them every passage which referred to him, and
expressed his astonishment that they were so slow to believe all these things
that the prophets had foreshown of him. It was right on the surface. Why did they
not see it? Why did they not see that it was necessary for Jesus to die for
them? Why should they be disappointed at his death? Why should they count that
everything was lost when he died? The whole topic is intensely interesting.
The fifth appearance is on pages 224-225 of the Harmony. Mark, Luke, and John
each gives an account of it: "When therefore it was evening, on that day,
the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples
were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and saith unto
them, Peace be unto you." NOTE: "The first day of the week," the
very day on which he rose. This is five times in one day, all of them on that
first Lord's Day. And he "stood in their midst." They were terrified,
supposing it was a spirit, for the door was not open; it was fastened. He came
in without opening the door; they thought it was a ghost, and he upbraided them
on account of their unbelief and hardness of heart. They had no reason to be
troubled; they had no right to have reasonings in their hearts. And then he
showed them his hands, his side, and his feet. That was to show that it was the
very body that was laid in the grave. They could not question the identity.
Here he gives his first commission after his resurrection. It is found on pages
224-226 of the Harmony, as follows: "When therefore it was evening, on
that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the
disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and
saith unto them, 'Peace be unto you.' And when he had said this, he showed unto
them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw
the Lord. Jesus therefore said to them again, 'Peace be unto you: as the Father
hath sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on
them, and said unto them, 'Receive ye the Holy Spirit; whosesoever sins ye
forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whosesoever sins ye retain, they are
retained.' "
We want to examine that commission. The points are as follows:
As he was sent forth by the Father on a mission to this earth for the salvation
of the lost, so he now sends them forth for the same purpose. It is their
business by preaching the gospel to afford an opportunity for the Spirit's
application of saving grace, which came through Jesus Christ.
The next item in this commission is that inspiration is given to these ten men.
He breathed on them. That is what inspiration means, a "breathing
on." He breathed on them and said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit."
The third thing in his statement, "Whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are
forgiven unto them; whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." What
does that mean? Evidently, as God only can forgive sins, it was not granted to
these ten men to really forgive sins. But it means that they are inspired to
declare the terms of remission of sins, and not to make a mistake. When the
apostles hereafter shall be asked, "What shall I do to be saved; how shall
my sins be forgiven," these men are inspired to tell just how that
remission of sins may be obtained ; and whatever they say is as if God had said
it to those asking. "Whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained,"
that is, when they declare, as inspired men, that a man has not complied with
the terms of the remission of sins, then that man has no forgiveness.
Let us take two cases to illustrate that part: The Jailer said to Paul and
Silas, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved what are the terms of
salvation?" Paul said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou
shall be saved, and thy house," that is, "thy house must believe
also." There he declares that whosoever believes on the Lord Jesus Christ,
his sins are remitted.
"Another New Testament case is where Peter said to Cornelius, as we learn
in Acts, "To him [Jesus Christ] gave all the prophets witness that through
his name whosoever believeth on him shall receive the remission of sins."
No man can receive remission of sins except through Christ. The hand with which
he lays hold on it is faith; faith apprehends, takes hold. In my discussion on
Acts 2:38 I bring out this question again, and answer a further question as to
whether baptism is one of the terms essential to forgiveness of sins. The
Campbellite's answer, Dr. Mulling' answer, and mine; I give them all, and the
reader may take any one of the three he prefers. All this is found in Acts of
this INTERPRETATION. Here is a summary of this first commission: (1)
"As the Father hath sent me, so I send you"; they were thus to be
sent; (2) they received inspiration; (3) being so sent and so inspired, they
were to declare the only terms upon which the remission of sins could be
obtained.
But Thomas was not present; there were only ten of the apostles present at that
time. When Thomas came and they told him about It, he would not believe it.
Here were ten men saying, "I tell you we have seen Jesus; he came into the
room where we were; we know it was Jesus; we saw the marks of the nails in his
hands and in his feet, and the spear print in his side." Listen to what
Thomas says: "That may do for you, but I won't believe it until I put my
finger in those nail-prints; I will have to see it for myself; I will have to
put my finger there." So just a week from those five appearances, and it
is the Lord's Day again, they are assembled, and Thomas is present. This is
what it says, John 20:26-31: "And after eight days again his disciples
were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and
stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach
hither thy finger, and see my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and put it into
my side: and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said unto
him, My Lord and my God." He was satisfied that this was the very Jesus,
and more that this was God in man. It is quite common to preach a sermon on
"Doubting Thomas." A great many men have shown that Thomas was not
such a bad case after all; that he did insist on adequate proof proof that
would satisfy him, and not other people. And when that proof reached him he
accepted it with all his heart, and forever. So that is the sixth time. Jesus
has this rebuke for Thomas: "Because thou hast seen me thou hast believed:
blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." In other
words, there is a sufficiency of testimony without seeing Jesus. You have not
seen him, and yet have believed, and you are as strong in your faith as Thomas
was.
We note another appearance. It was on another Sunday. Jesus, before he died,
made a positive appointment with all of his people, at a certain mountain in
Galilee. Not only the apostles, but the women and others were there. Most of
his converts were in Galilee. Here we find Peter, as I have said, in one case,
acting too quickly, and in another case he acted too late. Jesus had said that
while they were under his commission, and he was alive, not to take scrip or
purse; not to feel that they had to provide for themselves or to defend
themselves; but that while they were thus under his commission he would
provide. I showed you how Peter used his sword before Christ was dead, and
there he was too quick. Now, after Christ is risen, and he knows that Christ is
risen, be says, "I go a fishing." What he meant by that was this:
"We have to have a living. It looks like our preaching occupation is gone,
and we were by profession fishermen. I am going back to my old business."
Let one big man, the ringleader, start off, and the others, not quite so big,
will follow. The rest said, "We'll go with you." And they went back
to their old occupation, and to their old homes. They went fishing, toiled all
night and caught nothing.
A back-sliding preacher makes a mighty poor farmer or anything else. If he
succeeds well in a secular business it is a pretty good proof that God never
called him; and if he does not succeeded, then it certainly seems that he is
out of his place.
Jesus appears and shows them how to catch fish, as he had done once before.
That is a repetition of the miracle that had taken place when he called them to
leave that business that he might make them fishers of men. To repeat that
miracle here, when they were out of that business, whatever their regular
business for Christ, would bring the whole thing back to their remembrance.
And now commences a colloquy between Christ and Peter. He says to Simon,
"Do you love me more than these?" Instantly the question comes up
what does that pronoun "these" refer to? Does it mean these fish? If
so, it means this: "Do you, Simon, love your secular business more than
you love your Lord and Master?" Or that pronoun may refer to the other
disciples. Simon had said, "Though all these others leave thee, I will
never leave thee." Then it means: "You professed while I was living
that you had an attachment for me beyond all other men. Do you love me more
than they do? If so, why are you leading them astray?" It will be noticed
that Jesus puts his question three times, corresponding to the three denials of
Peter, and that Peter's heart keeps breaking and getting more and more humble,
as each question is put. He is a good man. One of my old-time lady members at
Waco said, "Peter is a great comfort to me; he was so impulsive and
imperfect. But Paul is a trial for me. I am all the time back-sliding and
repenting, yet greatly loving my Lord."
We now come to our Lord's commission to Peter, which is his second commission
after his resurrection, and I call attention to another important thing. In the
Greek language Jesus directs Peter to take care of three classes of Christians,
for the Greek words differ. In the Greek New Testament we see that the words
used differ in the manuscripts. The word for "sheep," the word for
"lambs," and the word for "little sheep" differ.
"Shepherd my sheep," "feed my lambs," and "shepherd my
little sheep." A "sheep" is an experienced Christian; a
"lamb" is a young convert; and a "little sheep" is a
Christian who has been converted long enough to be mature, but who is in a state
of arrested development what you would call a "runt." The majority
of Christian people that I know are "little sheep," as Paul says,
"For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need
again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the
oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid
food" (Heb. 5:12). It is somewhat like trying to feed them with a spoon,
just as if they were babies. They have not moved up any. They can go back and
tell when they were converted, but they do not grow. Paul refers to
"little women" (gunaikarion), which our translators call
"silly women." What he means by "little women" is not the
little women that Louisa May Alcott writes about in her book Little Women,
i.e., "girls that soon will be women." Paul does not mean little
woman in stature, but a woman with a little soul. Her soul is so small that she
loves pleasure more than God. The world is bigger to her than heaven. The
pleasures and gayeties of this world are more to her than God's service. She
goes to ballrooms. She is swallowed up in fashionable parties, so that she
seldom gets in touch with the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This is manifest in the
church. Little women, quite small, may be worth ~1,000,000; may be leaders in
society, but such are little women. Such are on the pastor's heart very
heavily, and he doesn't know what to do with them.
Jesus says to Simon, "You feed these little sheep." In the
twenty-seven years that I was pastor of the First Baptist Church in Waco, I
came to know these "little sheep" well, and how to deal with them.
These apostles quit fishing and they went on to the appointment, which brings
us to the next appearance of Jesus, at which he gives the third commission
after his resurrection, which we will consider in the next chapter.
1. How many and what appearances on the day that Christ rose from the dead?
2. How many and what on the second Lord's Day?
3. How many and what during the second week?
4. How many and what appearances on the third Lord's Day?
5. What one on the fourth Lord's Day?
6. What one on the fortieth day?
7. To whom did Christ appear between his ascension and the close of the New
Testament and how many times to each?
8. How many and what commissions did Christ give in his lifetime?
9. Analyze the first commission to the twelve.
10. Analyze the special commission to Peter.
11. What is the discipline commission given to the church, and what is the
meaning here of the "binding and loosing" power?
12. Analyze the commission to the seventy, and what of special note about the
first and fourth of these commissions?
13. How many and what commissions after his resurrection?
14. To whom did Christ first appear after his resurrection, and what the circumstances
of that appearance?
15. How do you harmonize Jesus' statement to Mary, "Touch me not,"
etc., with the fact that at his second appearance the women touched his feet,
and the fact that Thomas was invited to touch hi7 hands and his side?
16. How do you reconcile the last saying on the cross with the statement,
"I have not yet ascended to my Father"?
17. To whom did he appear the second time, and what were the circumstances?
18. To whom did he appear the third time, and why to him especially?
19. To whom did he appear the fourth time, and what, in detail, were the
incidents connected with it?
20. To whom did he appear the fifth time, what were the circumstances, and what
important event in connection with this appearance of our Lord?
21. Analyze this commission, explaining each point in particular.
22. To whom did he appear on the second Lord's Day, and what were the
circumstances, and what was the special purpose of this appearance?
24. What was the meaning of Christ's questions to Peter here?
25. What analysis of the second commission to Peter? (See outline of the
commission.)
26. In this second commission to Peter, what is the meaning and application of
Christ's language to him, distinguishing three classes of Christians?
27. What two references to the "little sheep" by Paul, and who,
especially, are Paul's "little women"?
CHRIST'S APPEARANCES AND COMMISSIONS
(CONTINUED)
Harmony, pages 228-231 and Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:15-18;
Luke 24:44-53; Acts 1:3-12; 1 Corinthians 15:7.
The next commission is found on page 228 of the Harmony, Matthew's account,
28:16-20: "But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain
where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshiped him; but
some doubted. And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority
hath been given unto me in. heaven and on earth, go ye therefore, and make
disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even unto the
end of the world." By the side of it is Mark's account, also a statement
by Paul about five hundred being present. This is what is called the Great
Commission. The points of it are: (1) Before he was put to death he appointed
this place, a mountain in Galilee, for the assembling of his disciples; and
Paul says five hundred brethren were there, and we have already seen that the
women were there also. In his appearances to the women he told them to be
present, so we must put the number at anywhere between five and six hundred.
The gathering is a specially appointed one. He appointed the women after his
resurrection to remind them of it. It was to be the gathering of the general
body of his disciples apostles, other men and women. The supposable reasons
for assembling them at this particular place are: (a) Most of his disciples
were Galileans, and (b) by having this big gathering in Galilee, it would avoid
creating a disturbance, for if a meeting had been held in Jerusalem, not so
many could have attended, and there they would be liable to interruption by the
excited people. (2) The next point is that this was the most eventful,
far-reaching, important gathering of God's people between his death and his
ascension. (3) Let us analyze the Commission itself. Dr. Landrum once preached
a sermon on the Commission, calling attention to the "alls": (a) "all"
authority; (b) go to "all" the nations; (c) observe "all
things"; (d) "I am with you all the days," as it is expressed in
the margin.
The reference to the authority which he received is to show them that in
telling them to do something, and so great a something, and so important a
something, he had the authority to do it; "all authority" in heaven
and on earth, is given unto him. That is because of his faithful obedience to
the divine law, and particularly because he had expiated sin by his own death
on the cross. Now he is to be exalted to be above all angels and men; the
dominion of the universe is to be in his hands, and from this time on. It is so
now. He today sits on the throne of the universe and rules the world; all
authority in heaven and on earth is given unto him.
That is the question which always is to be determined when a man starts out to
do a thing: "By what authority do you do this?" If you, on going out
to preach, should be asked, "By what authority do you preach, and are you
not taking the honor on yourself?" you answer that he sent you.
We are to see what he told them to do, and we will compare the Commission to a
suspension bridge across a river. On one side of the river is an abutment, the
authority of Jesus Christ. And at the other end of the bridge we will take this
for the abutment: "And lo, I am with you all the days, even unto the end
of the age." On one side of the river stands the authority, and on the
other side stands the presence of Jesus Christ Christ in the Holy Spirit. That
is to be until the end of the age. Suspended between these two, and dependent
on these two, and resting on these two, is the bridge. Let us see exactly,
then, what they are to do: First, to "go therefore." The
"therefore" refers to the authority; second, "make disciples of
all the nations." So there are three parts to this first item of the
Commission: To go, what to go for, and to whom. If we are Missionary Baptists
indeed, this Commission is the greatest of all authority.
One of the deacons, when I took charge of the First Baptist Church at Waco,
said to me on one occasion, when I was taking up a foreign mission offering,
"Brother Carroll, I am interested in helping you reach these Waco people,
and I will help some on associational missions, and state missions, but when it
comes to these Chinese and Japs, if you will just bring me one of them, I will
try to convert him." I said to him, "You don't read your Commission
right. You are not under orders to wait until somebody brings you a Jap; you
are to go; you are the one to get up and go yourself. You can't wrap up in that
excuse."
This Commission makes the moving on the part of the commissioned the people
of God; they are to go to these people wherever they are. If they are
Laplanders, go; if Esquimaux, go; if they are in the tropics, you must go
there; if in the temperate region, you must go there; anywhere from the center
of the earth to its remotest bounds. That is what makes it missionary one
sent, and being sent, he goes. And we can't send anybody unless he goes
somewhere. The first thought, then, is the going. It does not say, "Make
the earth come to you," but "you are to go to them," and that
involves raising the necessary means to get you there. The command to go
involves the means essential to going. That is the going law. If the United
States shall send one of its diplomats to England, that involves the paying of
the expenses of the going.
The next thing is, What are you to do when you get there? You are to make
disciples. There are two words here in the Greek one, matheteusate,
which means "to make disciples"; the other, didaskontes, which
means "teaching." You do not teach them first, but you make disciples
out of them. Now come the questions: How make a disciple? What is discipleship?
That will answer the other question, What is necessary to the remission of
sins? When is a man a disciple? How far do you have to go in order to make him
a disciple? The way to answer that question is to look at what John the Baptist
and Christ did. The Gospel of John tells us that John the Baptist made and
baptized disciples; that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John did.
John made disciples before he baptized them; Jesus made disciples before he
baptized them, not afterward. John did not baptize them before he made them
disciples; he did not leave off the baptism after he disciplined them. The
question of order here is one of great importance. There are three things to be
done: (1) Make disciples; (2) baptize disciples; (3) then teach them all things
whatsoever Christ commanded. And you must take them in their order. It is not
worth while to try to teach a man to do everything that Jesus did when he
refuses to be a disciple. Don't baptize him before he is a disciple. You must
not baptize him in order to make him a disciple; you must not attempt to
instruct him in Christian duties until he is a disciple.
How important is the answering of that question: "How do you make a
disciple?" John made disciples this way: Paul says that John preached
repentance toward God, and that they should believe on Jesus to come, i.e., a
man who has repented toward God and exercised faith in Jesus Christ, was a
disciple; then John baptized him. The Pharisees came to be baptized, but John
refused, saying to them: "Think not to say within yourselves, we have
Abraham to our Father: for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to
raise up children to Abraham." "Do not think that entitles you to
baptism; that does not at all entitle you to baptism; but you bring forth fruits
worthy of your repentance, then I will baptize you, ye offspring of
vipers." And Jesus went forth and preached: "Repent ye, and believe
the gospel." So that from time immemorial the Baptists have contended that
the terms of discipleship, or the terms of remission of sins, are repentance
toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul said that he everywhere
testified to both Greeks and Jews, repentance toward God and faith toward our
Lord Jesus Christ. I sometimes change that a little by putting first the
contrition, or godly sorrow; the Spirit convicts a man, and under that
conviction he becomes contrite, has godly sorrow; that contrition leads him to
repentance; that leads him to faith, then he is a child of God, right there:
"We are all the children of God through faith in Christ Jesus."
This is a great part of your qualification to be a preacher that you know how
to tell a man what to do to be saved; to know what to tell him. You don't bury
a man to kill him. Baptism is a burial. You bury dead men, but not till they
are dead. Nor do you bury a live, raw sinner. You must wait till the Spirit
kills him to sin.
Major Penn told of a man who had been lost in the woods. It was in the heat of
the day, and he was very thirsty. Late in the day he found his way to a shady
little nook, where, bursting from a rock, was a cool mountain spring, and
hanging up over the spring was an old-fashioned gourd. He dipped that gourd in
the spring and held the water up a little and let it run down his throat, and
gloried in drinking out of a gourd. Major Penn made such an apt description of
it that one man came up and said, "I'll go and get me a gourd; that is the
best drinking vessel; I know by the way you talk about it." So he went to
a farmer and asked for a gourd. The farmer picked him a green gourd. He cut off
the top of it and dipped it into the water. He commenced sipping and drinking.
When he discovered the bitter taste he asked, "What in the world is the
matter with this gourd?" An old woman said to him, "Why, you were not
such a fool as to drink out of a green gourd, were you? You let that gourd get
thoroughly ripe; then .open it, take out the insides, boil it, let it get dry,
and it will be fit to drink out of." Major Penn said to baptize a man a
dry sinner is to bring him up a wet sinner, and it is like drinking out of a
green gourd.
This is the answer to the question, What are the terms of discipleship, or, How
do you make a disciple? He has godly sorrow. That godly sorrow leads him to
repentance a change of mind; that leads him to the Saviour, and when he
accepts Jesus Christ he is a child of God. Now you know how to approach a
sinner, but don't you put him under the water at the wrong time and with the wrong
object in view.
This brings up another question: Who is to do this baptizing? Is the command
here to be baptized, or is it to baptize? Which comes first? Any lawyer will
tell you that the command to do a thing, in which you must submit to the act of
another, must specify the authorized party to whom you must submit in that act.
For example, suppose that after you had come to the United States from a
foreign country, you speak to your friends and ask, "How did you settle in
the United States?" They tell you that they took out naturalization
papers. Then you meet a man and ask him, "Will you give me some
naturalization papers?" He gives you the naturalization papers, and says,
"You are a citizen of the United States." Being now a citizen, you
come up to vote, but the judge of the election says, "Are you a
foreigner?" "Yes, I was till I was naturalized." Then he asks
for your papers. Looking at them he says, "Why, this man was not
authorized to do it. The law tells how you shall be naturalized, and you have just
picked up a fellow on the streets here that did not count at all." The law
tells us in every state who shall issue naturalization papers, otherwise the
citizenship of the state would be vested in a "Tom-Dick-and-Harry"
everybody and nobody. It is just that way about baptizing.
I know some who teach that the command is simply to be baptized. I said to one
of them once, "Does it make any difference who does the baptizing?"
"Well," he said, "no it doesn't; the command is simply to be
baptized." I said, "I will give you $100 if you will show me a
command to be baptized, with no authorized administrator standing there to
administer the ordinance." "Well," he said, "look at Paul's
case: Ananias said, 'Arise and be baptized.' " I said, "Who sent
Ananias? Ananias had authority from God to baptize Paul. Who sent Philip into
the desert? The eunuch said, 'Here is water, what doth hinder me to be
baptized?' but there was the administrator talking to him, a sent
administrator."
And this question is thereby raised: Jesus ascended to heaven and vested this
authority to disciple and to baptize, in whom? Here's a big gathering, not
apostles only, because here are five hundred besides those women. Not in that
particular crowd alone, for he said, "I am with you always, even unto the
end of the age."
There is no escape from it, that when he gave this Commission, he gave it to an
ecclesiastical body the church. That is why the great church gathered. It is
a perpetual commission. No man can deny that these disciples were acting
representatively.
"But," says one, "the Commission was given to the
apostles." But I say, "Where were the apostles?" Paul says that
God set them in the church (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11-16). He did not set anybody
out in the woods. Ask those free lances who run out on the prairie, or in the
woods, who set them.
God put these apostles, pastors, etc., in the church, and from the time that
God gave this commission he has done the baptizing through the church. You
cannot give it just in your own way or notion; you cannot just pick people up
and put them in the creek, and say, "I baptize you."
Here are the things that are essential to a valid baptism: (1) A man must be a
disciple, a penitent believer in Jesus Christ; (2) The act of baptism, whatever
that commission means. If it means to sprinkle, sprinkle them; if to pour, then
pour; if to immerse, then immersion is the act. (3) The design or purpose: Why
do it? If we baptize to "make a disciple" or in order that he may
become a disciple; that he may be saved; that his sins be remitted, then I deny
that it is baptism. It lacks the gospel design, or purpose. (4) It must be done
by authority, and that authority is the church.
The church authorizes; the subject must be a disciple, and the act is
immersion. The purpose is to make a public declaration, or confession, of faith
in Jesus Christ, to symbolize the cleansing from sin, a memorial of Christ's
resurrection, and a pledge of the disciple.
According to your understanding of this commission you bring confusion into
Israel, or keep it out.
While I was pastor in Waco, we received a member from another Baptist church.
He heard me preach on this commission and came to me and said, "Look here,
I want to preach; I believe I am called to preach, and the way you state that,
I have not been baptized at all." I said, "How is that?" "A
Campbellite preacher baptized me." "Did the Baptist church receive
that baptism?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Now suppose you
want to preach, and you come before this church for ordination, and they find
out that fact, they won't ordain you. But suppose they did ordain you, wherever
you go that would come up against you. They would say, 'There is a man not
scripturally baptized.' It will hamper your whole ministerial life, and bring
confusion into the kingdom of God." "Well," he said, "what
ought I to do?" I said, "Don't do anything until you are convinced it
is the right thing to do. You study this again, and let me know what your
conclusions are." About a week after he came and said, "I don't think
I have been baptized: he baptized me to make me a disciple. I did not claim to
have been a disciple before he baptized me." "Well," I said,
"did it make you one?" He said, "I do not think it did." So
the blood you must reach before you reach the water. The way is the blood. It
has to be applied before you reach the water. It must be reached before you can
be saved. So, the blood is before the water. A preacher's whole future depends
on how he interprets this commission.
You will see by referring to the Harmony that Dr. Broadus puts Mark's
commission beside this great Commission on Matthew, thereby indicating that
they refer to the same occasion. Assuming this to be correct, I do not discuss
the commission of Mark except to say that the first eight verses of Mark 16 are
in the manuscripts of Mark's Gospel, but the latter part of this (vv. 9-20)
which includes the statement, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved," is not in any of the ancient manuscripts. I have facsimiles of the
three oldest manuscripts the Sinaitic, the Vatican, and the Alexandrian.
Whenever those three agree as to what is the text of a passage we need not go
further. It is usually right. But whenever those three leave out anything that
is in the text, we may count it spurious. The best scholars among preachers
never preach from Mark 16:9-20, because it is so very doubtful as to whether it
is to be received as Scripture. Dr. Broadus says it certainly does not belong
to Mark's Gospel, but that he believes it records what is true; and I am
somewhat inclined to believe that too. I think it is true, though it was added
by a later hand. Certainly, Mark did not write it. The manuscript evidence is
against that part of it. Therefore, I do not consider this as a separate commission
of our Lord.
We now take up the fourth commission, that is to say, the commission recorded
by Luke, found in Luke 24:44-49 and 1 Corinthians 15:7; Harmony, pp. 229-230.
The remarks upon this commission are these:
1. It is to the eleven apostles.
2. He introduces it by reminding them of his teachings before his death of the
witness to him in the law, the prophets, and the psalms, especially concerning
his passion, his burial, and his resurrection.
3. Especially to be noted is the fact that he gives them illumination that they
may understand these scriptures, and shows the necessity of their fulfilment,
in order to the salvation of men.
4. On this necessity he bases the commission here given, which is, that
repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all
nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
5. He constitutes them his witnesses of these things.
6. He announces that he will send the promise of the Father, namely, the Holy
Spirit, and commands them to wait at Jerusalem until they receive this power
from on high to enable them to carry out the work of this commission.
7. The reader should note that, as in the commission recorded by John (20:22)
he inspired them to write the New Testament Scriptures, so here he illumined
their minds to understand the Old Testament Scriptures. Mark the distinction
between inspiration and illumination: The object of inspiration is to enable
one to speak or write infallibly; the object of illumination is to enable one
to understand infallibly what is written.
8. Further note the unity of the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures,
and their equality in inspiration.
9. Note also the very important item that illumination settles authoritatively
the apostolic interpretation of the Old Testament as to the true meaning of
these Scriptures. As he inspired men to write the Old Testament, and inspired
these men to write the New Testament, so now he illumines these men to
understand the Old Testament and to interpret it correctly. In other words, as
the Holy Spirit is the real author of the Old Testament, which he inspired, by
illumination he shows these men just what he meant by those Old Testament
writings. We cannot, therefore, put our unaided interpretation on an Old
Testament passage against the Spirit's own explanation of that passage by the
illumination of the apostles' minds. Due attention to this one fact would have
prevented many false expositions of Old Testament Scriptures, particularly in
limiting to national Israel what the Spirit spoke concerning spiritual Israel.
Very many premillennial expositions of the Old Testament prophecies go astray
on this point. They insist on applying to the Jews, as Jews, a great many
prophecies which these illumined apostles saw referred to spiritual Israel, and
not to fleshly Israel. In the same way do the expositions of the Old Testament
passages by modern Jews and the limitations of meaning which destructive
critics and other infidels put on the Old Testament Scriptures, go astray. It
is wrong, and contrary to sane rules of interpretation, to say that you must
not read into an Old Testament passage a New Testament meaning. In that way
they wish to limit it to things back there only, but the Holy Spirit illumined the
minds of the apostles to understand these Old Testament Scriptures better than
the prophets that wrote them. Oftentimes the prophets did not know what they
meant, and were very anxious to find out what they did mean. The meaning was
revealed to New Testament prophets, and their minds illumined to understand
them. I have just finished reading a book which as certainly misapplies about
two dozen Old Testament prophecies as the sun shines. In other words, this book
interprets them as a modern Jew would interpret them, and exactly contrary to
what the apostles say these passages mean. When an illumined apostle tells us
the meaning of an Old Testament passage, we must accept it, or else deny his
illumination, one or the other. You have no idea how much you have learned if
you let this one remark sink into your mind.
10. Yet again, you should especially note in this commission the inseparable
relation between repentance and the remission of sins, or forgiveness. The
first, repentance, must precede remission of sins, and the relation is constant
and necessary in each case of all sin, whether against God, against the church,
or against ourselves. If you read carefully Acts 2:38; 3:19; Psalm 51, where
the sin is against God, you find that a repentance of that sin is made a
condition of forgiveness. Then if you read carefully Luke 17:3 and Matthew
18:15-17, where the sin is against ourselves or against the church, the law is,
"If he repent, forgive him."
I saw a notice in The Baptist Standard once where it was assumed that we must
forgive a sin before the person who committed it against us has repented of the
sin. That would make us out better than God, for God won't do it. He won't
forgive sin against himself until there is repentance, and he says to Peter,
concerning a brother's trespass against a brother, that if he repent, forgive
him. And in Matthew 18, it says, "If thy brother sin against thee, go
right along and convict him of his sin, and if he hear thee thou hast gained
thy brother; if he does not hear thee, tell it to the church; if he does not
hear the church, then he is unto thee as a heathen man and a publican."
There are men who insist that you must forgive trespasses against you whether
they are repented of or not, meaning that you must be in a forgiving and loving
attitude; and that is correct. You must cultivate that spirit which at all
times is ready to forgive when repentance comes. But the majority of people who
take that position take it in order to get out of some very troublesome work
resting on them, and that work is to go right along to convict a man of that
sin. It is much easier to say, "I forgive," and let him alone, than
it is to go and show him that he has sinned, and lead him to repentance. And
they thus dodge their duty. The largest part of the back-sliding in the church
comes from that fact. "If thou seest thy brother 7in, then what? Forgive him? No. If thou seest thy
brother sin, whether it is a private offense or a general one, report it to the
church? No, but go right along and convict him of that sin; and if you fail,
take one or two brethren with you; if they fail, let the church try the case.
If the church fails, forgive him? No. Let him be to thee a heathen man and a
publican." That is Bible usage.
On the other hand there are some people who rejoice in the thought that they do
not have to forgive a man until he repents, and they keep right on hating him.
You are not to hate him; you are to love him. You are to have toward him a keen
desire to gain him, and under the spirit of that desire, the obligation to gain
him is on you personally, and there is no excuse for you. God will not hold you
guiltless if you see a brother sin on any point, whether against you, the
church, or the state, and do not try to bring him to repentance. It is our
duty, as Dr. Broadus puts it, "to go right along and not rave at
him," but convict him that he has sinned, saying, "Now brother, this
is wrong, and I have come, not in the spirit of accusation, nor in a
disciplinary manner, but as a brother interested in you, and with the earnest
desire in my heart to make you see that wrong, and if you ever see it and get
it on your conscience and repent and make amends, I will save my brother."
He says that repentance and remission of sins shall be preached in all nations,
beginning at Jerusalem. Paul says about that, "I have testified
everywhere, both to the Jews and to the Greeks, repentance toward God and faith
toward our Lord Jesus Christ."
The weakness of modern preaching is that the preachers leave repentance out.
So the modem churches leave out the faithful and loving labor which should
always precede exclusion. Especially should you note in this commission the
unalterable relation between repentance and remission, or forgiveness of sins.
The first must precede the second, and the relation is constant and necessary
in the case of all sin, whether against God, the church or against ourselves.
The fifth commission is the commission at his ascension. The scriptures bearing
on this are: Acts 1:6-12; Mark 16: 19; Luke 24:50-53, and the account of it is
found in the Harmony on pages 229-231. Upon this last commission, given just
before Jesus was taken up out of their sight, note:
Acts 1:8 indicates a "gathering together," different from any of the
preceding ones, and at which they asked this question: "Dost thou at this
time restore the kingdom to Israel?"
Acts 1:9 shows that the occasion of this commission was his ascension into
heaven.
Acts 1:15 implies that 120 were present at this time. This specific number
necessitates that the occasion when 500 brethren were present, mentioned by
Paul, must have been at the appointed mountain in Galilee, where the great
commission to the church, recorded in Matthew 28:16-20, was given. A very
distinguished scholar has said, "Maybe these five hundred brethren were
present at the time of his ascension." It could not be, because one
hundred and twenty is given as the number. It could not even have been at any
other time than at that appointed in Galilee, where most of his converts were,
and where be could get together so large a number as that. The form of the
commission here is: "Ye shall be my witnesses, both in Jerusalem, and in
all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth." That is
the test for the Commission.
The place where the Commission was given is thus stated: "And he led them
out until they were over against Bethany," and "from the mount called
Olivet." Another commission was given at that place. The place from which
he led them is the place of their gathering, to which they returned (Acts 1:
13), and they returned to Jerusalem, to the upper room, where were a multitude
together, about 120. And then the writer gives the names of those who abode
there, and Peter got up and spoke to these 120.
The commission to be his witnesses suggests the simplicity and directness of
their work. I heard a preacher say once with reference to what he did when he
went out to an appointment, "I snowed." He said the Spirit was not
with him, and it was just like s snow. Another preacher said, "I
'hollered,' and I 'hollered.' " Preachers lose sight of one important
function of their office, and that is to be witnesses. That is a simple thing
to testify. You are to stand with uplifted hands, and with elbows on the Bible
you are to witness before God and to bear witness to what you know to
testify.
They were to testify to his vicarious passion, his burial, and his
resurrection. Paul makes these three things the gospel. He says, "I
delivered unto you first of all that which also I have received: that Christ
died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that
he hath been raised on the third day." Of what they were eyewitnesses we
will see a little later, in some other testimony.
We come now to his sixth commission. This commission is found in Acts 9:15-16;
22:10-15; 26:15-18; Galatians 1:15-16; 2:7-9. These scriptures give you the
commission of Paul, on which note:
While both Peter and Paul, on proper occasion, preached to both Jews and
Gentiles, yet we learn from Galatians 2:7-9 that while the stress of Peter's
commission was to the circumcision, the stress of Paul's commission was to the
uncircumcision. He was pre-eminently the apostle to the Gentiles.
The elements of his commission may be gathered from all these scriptures cited.
Read every one of them, and you will gather together the elements of his
commission. Let us see what these elements were:
(a) He was set apart to his work from his mother's womb, and divinely chosen.
(b) Personally he must suffer great things.
(c) He received the gospel which he was to preach by direct revelation from the
risen Lord. He did not get it from reading Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Paul's letters were written before the Gospels were written.
He did not have them to read. He did not go to Jerusalem to talk with them, but
he went into Arabia, and therefrom ;the Lord himself, and from the site of the
giving of the law, whose relation to the gospel he so clearly cited, he
received direct from Jesus Christ the gospel which he wrote.
(d) He was chosen to bear the Lord's name before Gentiles, kings, and the
children of Israel.
(e) He was chosen to know God's will, and to see and hear the Just One, and
then to witness to all men what he saw and heard. Now, here comes in Paul as a
witness, and this is a part of his commission: "What are you testifying
to, Paul?" "I know God's will; it was revealed to me; I saw Jesus; I
saw him with these eyes; Jesus raised; I heard him; I heard his voice."
What next? "He saved my soul."
One of the most effective sermons I ever preached was on this use that Paul
makes of his Christian experience. Seven times in the New Testament Paul states
his Christian experience, and for a different purpose every time. When he was
arraigned before Agrippa he tells his Christian experience as recorded in Acts
9. In Acts 22, standing on the stairway, looking into the faces of the howling
mob of murderous men, he states his Christian experience. Writing to the
Romans, as is shown in chapter 7, he tells his Christian experience. Writing to
Timothy he does the same. The man is speaking as a witness.
In one of Edward Eggleston's books there is an account of a pugnacious
Methodist preacher, who was not only ready to preach the gospel, but to fight
for the gospel also. On the way to a certain community two men waylaid him and
said, "Mr. McGruder, if you will just turn your horse around and go back,
we will let you alone, but if you persist in going to this place and
interfering with our business, we are going to beat the life out of you."
So the preacher got down off the horse, saying, "I prefer to give you the
beating," and he whipped them both unmercifully. But he got his jaw
broken, and that jaw being broken, he could not say a word. In the church he
took his pencil and wrote to a sixteen-year-old boy and said, "Ralph, you
have got to preach today." Ralph said, "I have just been converted,
you must remember." "Do you want me to get up here and write a sermon
in lead pencil to a crowd?" continued the preacher. "Well," said
Ralph, "I don't know any sermon." "If you break down on
preaching," said the preacher, "tell your Christian experience."
So Ralph got up and started to preaching a sermon, looking very much scared,
for he had a terror, which was what we would call stage fright. At last he
remembered the direction to tell his Christian experience, and the poor boy
quit trying to be eloquent, or to expound the Scriptures that he knew very
little about, and just told how the Lord Jesus Christ came to him, a poor
orphan boy, an outlaw, and saved his soul, and that he wanted to testify how
good God was to him. Before he got through there was sobbing all over the
house, and a great revival broke out there.
I am telling these things to show that men are commissioned to bear witness,
and while you cannot bear witness to facts that you do not know anything about,
you can tell what you do know what God has done for you. David says,
"Come, all ye that fear the Lord and I will tell you what great things he
hath done for my soul, whereof I am glad." In one of the prophecies
concerning Jesus it is written: "I have not hid thy righteousnesses within
my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation; I have not
concealed thy loving kindness and thy truth from the great assembly."
(f) The fulness of Paul's commission appears best in Acts 26:16-18, as follows:
"Arise, and stand upon thy feet: for to this end have I appeared unto
thee, to appoint thee a delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles,
unto whom I send thee, to open their eyes, that they may turn: from darkness to
light and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of
sins and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me."
Whenever you want to preach Paul's sermon, take Paul's commission and analyze
it. Paul was speaking before Agrippa. Notice that besides witnessing, Paul
wanted to open their eyes (they were spiritually blind) ; that they might turn
from darkness to light (then they were in the dark) ; from the power of Satan
unto God, (they were under the power of Satan); that they might receive the
remission of sins (so that they were unpardoned; and to an inheritance among
them that are sanctified (then they were without heritage). Analyze that
commission and you will see what he was to do; he puts it all before you
plainly in that scripture. So he said to Agrippa, "Therefore, O King
Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision," i.e., he just
went on and carried out that commission. That is the analysis of the commission
of Paul.
The seventh and last commission is the special commission of John Revelation
1:1-2, 9-11, 19. This commission is unlike any other; but it is a commission.
It is a commission, not to speak, but to write; and in it we have an account of
the past tenses. "What did you see, John?" "Well, I saw one of
the most wonderful things in this world." And he tells about Jesus, and
how he looked in his risen glory; about the candlesticks and the stars, and
what they meant; and then, having thus told what he saw in the midst of the
churches, and (see chap. 4) what he saw in heaven, he looks at the present
things; the churches, as they are, and heaven as it is. Then follows the last
part of his commission: "Write the things which are to come."
1. On the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) answer: What evidence that this
was at an appointed meeting? Where, and who were present?
2. What are the supposable reasons for assembling at this particular place?
3. How does this occasion rank in importance?
4. What is Dr. Landrum's analysis of this commission?
5. What authority does Christ claim in giving this commission, why was this
authority given him and what the pertinency of this statement of our Lord on
this particular occasion?
6. Compare this commission to a suspension bridge.
7. What does the first part of the commission prescribe to be done, or what are
the three parts of the first item?
8. What does this going involve? Illustrate.
9. After going, then what three things are commanded to be done and what is the
order?
10. How make disciples, and what is the teaching and example of John the
Baptist and Jesus on this point?
11. Who then must do the baptizing?
12. What are the essentials to a valid baptism?
13. What can you say of Mark 16:9-20?
14. To whom was the Commission, recorded in Luke 24:44-49, given?
15. How does Christ introduce this commission?
16. What does he show in this commission to be a necessity in order to the
salvation of men?
17. In this commission what does he say should be done?
18. What does he constitute the disciples in this commission?
19. What promise does he announce to them in this commission?
20. What special gift does he bestow upon the disciples here, what is the
difference between inspiration & illumination, and what is the object of
each?
21. What especially is noted relative to Old & New Testament Scriptures?
22. What very important question does this illumination settle and how?
23. What is the necessary & constant relation between repentance &
forgiveness of sins, and what the application of this principle in the case of
all sin?
24. What danger, on the other hand, does the author here warn against?
25. What weakness of modern preaching churches here pointed out?
26. Give the analysis of the Commission of our Lord at the ascension.
27. To whom was Paul especially commissioned to preach?
28. What are the six elements of this commission?
29. What was the condition of the people to whom he was sent as indicated in
Acts 26:16-18?
30. What the special commission to John, and what is the analysis of it as
given in Revelation 1:1-2, 9-11, 19?
A HARMONY OF PETER
1. His father was Jonas (or John) Matthew 16:17; John 1:42.
2. His brother was Andrew John 1:40.
3. He was a married man Matthew 8:14; Mark 1:30; Luke 4:38; 1 Corinthians
9:15.
4. His home was in Capernaum by the Sea of Galilee Mark 1:21-29.
5. His occupation was that of a fisherman Matthew 4:18; Mark 1:16.
6. Partners in business were Andrew, his brother, and James and John, sons of
Zebedee Luke 5:10.
7. His circumstances were good. He had a home, a good business, hired servants
(Mark 1:20), which is also implied by the sacrifices he made in business to
become a preacher Luke 18:28; Matthew 19:27-29.
8. His education was limited (Acts 4:13), and provincial Matthew 26:73.
II. BECOMES A DISCIPLE OF JOHN THE BAPTIST, HARMONY, PAGES
18-19.
We find him and his brother Andrew, and John, the son of Zebedee, away from
home at the Bethany beyond Jordan as disciples of John the Baptist (John
1:35-41), to which Peter himself refers (Acts 1:21-22). So that he became a
Christian through repentance and faith under the preaching of John the Baptist,
the first preacher of the gospel. Compare Mark 1:1-4; Luke 3:1-6; Matthew
3:1-3; Luke 1:76-77; Acts 1: 21-22; 19:4; Isaiah 40:3-8; Malachi 4:5-6; Matthew
11:14; Luke 7:29-30. In fact, most, if not all, of the original twelve apostles
were baptized by John (John 4:1-2; Acts 1:21).
1. His first meeting with the Lord. John's disciples were baptized upon faith
in a Messiah soon to appear. As soon as John himself was assured of the person
of the Messiah he pointed him out to Andrew and John, a son of Zebedee. Andrew
brings his brother Peter to the Lord. When our Lord saw Peter he announced a
change of his name: "Thou art Simon thou shalt be Peter," Simon
meaning a hearer, and Peter, or Cephas, meaning a stone, thus indicating the
subsequent development of Simon (John 1:19-44).
These are great pulpit themes: (a) From Abram to Abraham; (b) From Jacob, a
supplanter, to Israel, a prince having power with God and man; (c) From Simon
to Cephas; (d) From Saul to Paul. See a sermon by Spurgeon, and one by the
author on the third theme above.
2. His change of occupation from catching fish to catching men, or his call to
the ministry (Matt. 4:18-22; Mark 1: 16-20; Harmony, p. 28).
Note what it cost Peter to "leave all and follow Christ" as developed
later (Matt. 19:27-29); Luke 18:28, and the compensation therefore. So that
here we have two great pulpit themes:
(a) Entering the ministry does not mean a loss of natural talents, or past
business training, but only a change of object and direction. One trained to
catch fish may profitably employ that training in fishing for men. Various
methods of approach must be used in catching different kinds of fish. The
fisherman must know their habits, the baits most attractive to each kind. and
whether in different cases he must use the hook and line for the individual
fish, or the net for a particular school of fish, or the drag-net for all
kinds. So with catching men. This applies to other occupations. An old hunter
once said, "Some deer are never killed except in the still-hunt; others in
the drive with hounds, horns, horses, and much noise; others again only in the
fire hunt by night; and yet others at the salt licks." Hence the proverb:
"The deer that goes often to the lick meets the hunter at last."
(b) There is always adequate compensation, even if not in kind, to one who
leaves all to become a minister of Jesus Christ.
3. Peter's first confession: "I am a sinful man." Harmony, page 28,
Luke 5:1-11.
(a) Note his profound consciousness of sin in the presence of the Holy Lord
(Luke 5:1-11). Compare the case of Job (Job 42:5-6) and of Isaiah (Isa. 6:5)
and note that nearness to God, and increased light, makes sin manifest, and
that human claims to sinlessness and perfection argue the claimant's distance
from God, and the darkness in which he walks.
(b) Note the pulpit theme: Increased light and nearness to God deepens the
consciousness of sin.
4. Peter entertains his Lord, and the Lord heals his mother-in-law and many
others (Harmony, pp. 29-30; Matt. 8: 14-17; Mark 1:29-34; Luke 4:38-41). NOTE:
Christ in the home heals its sick and makes it a house of salvation to others.
What a marvelous guest I
5. Harmony, page 30. Peter, with others, attempts to make a corner on salvation
by confining it to Capernaum (Mark 1:35-38; Luke 4:42-43).
6. Harmony, page 37. Peter learns how our Lord could know a fact by the
outgoing of his internal power without seeing the beneficiary of his power
(Luke 8:45-46). What a fact for psychology and the materialist!
7. Harmony, page 38. Peter, with James and John, selected to witness the
raising of the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:37-43; Luke 8:51-56). We see this
illustrious trio twice more similarly honored at the transfiguration and in
Gethsemane.
8. Our Lord appoints twelve men to be with him continually that they might be
trained to be apostles. In the list twice given here (Mark 3:13-15; Luke
6:12-16) and twice later (Matt. 10:2-3 and Acts 1:13), Peter's name is always
first, Primus inter pares Harmony, pp. 44-45, 72, 244; Acts 1:13.
9. Harmony, pages 71-72. After much training Peter and the other apostles, sent
out, two by two, to do their first preaching and healing (Matt. 10:1-42; Mark
6:7-13; Luke 9:1-6).
10. Peter's presumption and little faith on the water (Harmony, p. 80; Matt.
14:28-31). Here, as elsewhere, note that John's spiritual perception exceeds
Peter's, but Peter's impulsiveness makes him more ready to act. Indeed, that
impulsiveness gets him into much trouble later.
11. Harmony, page 83. Peter's second confession (John 6:66-69). When hard but
necessary doctrine drives away many followers, and our Lord asks if the twelve
will also leave him, Peter nobly responds in a great confession: "Lord, to
whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and
know that thou art the Holy One of God." What a great pulpit theme! When
the truth concerning our depravity and the necessity of supernatural power in
order to our salvation and the spirituality required as an entrance
qualification to the kingdom offends our pride and worldliness, it is well to
inquire: (1) To whom we must go if we decline to follow Christ? (2) How then
shall we obtain eternal life? (3) Who but the Holy One of God is worthy of our
faith? (4) How can we know this Holy One? We can know him if we will to follow
him.
12. Harmony, pages 89-90. Peter's third and greatest confession: "Thou,
the Son of man, art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16).
This incident at Caesarea Philippi is every way momentous:
(1) The remarkable teachings and deeds of Jesus necessarily demand explanation,
and awaken popular inquiry as to his person and mission which results in many
erroneous conclusions.
(2) Jesus prayed that his twelve apostles, at least, after so much training,
might have the true conception of his nature, person and mission (Luke 9:18),
for his questions follow the prayer.
(3) Peter's confession of both his humanity and divinity and of his
messiahship, calls forth from the Lord the most remarkable response ever given
to a man:
(a) A signal blessing accompanied with the assurance that such faith came not
from flesh and blood, but from a revelation of the Father.
(b) An announcement that he had now passed from Simon to Peter.
(c) That on this rock (however we interpret it) he would build his church,
against which the gates of hell should not prevail.
(d) His giving to Peter the key7 of the kingdom, with
authority to bind and loose. It is true that the binding and loosing is also
later given to the church (Matt. 18:18) and to the other apostles (John
20:22-23), and still later to Paul, yet the priority of the grant was made to
Peter, under such signal circumstances as to distinguish him from the eleven.
13. Harmony, page 91. Our Lord's sharp rebuke of Peter (Matt. 16:21-23; Mark
8:31-33). Peter's offense here is every way remarkable:
(a) It follows so soon the high honor and commendation, Task received.
(b) It shows that while Peter believed in the messiahship of Jesus, he did not
yet understand that the passion of the Messiah was his crowning glory, and the
one means of salvation.
(c) His presumption was very great in rebuking Christ for announcing his
vicarious passion.
(d) He is called "Satan" for tempting the Lord to escape that
suffering by which alone he could save men, and is reminded that his words
savored more of men than of God. The whole incident shows how much Peter has
yet to learn concerning himself, the gospel, and in the way of discipline.
14. Peter, with James and John, selected to be a witness of the transfiguration
(Harmony pp. 92-93; Matt. 17:1-13; Mark 9:2-13; Luke 9:28-36). Here also the
lessons are great:
(a) The outshining glory of his Lord.
(b) The death of Christ, offensive to Peter, interests Moses and Elijah.
(c) The foreshadowing of the final advent in the raising of the dead and
transfiguring of living saints.
(d) The teaching of Christ superior to that of Moses and the prophets:
"Hear ye him."
(e) Peter's reference to this great event much later in his life (2 Peter
1:16-18). 15. Peter's hasty assumption to decide for the Lord, on the payment
of the Temple tribute, and our Lord's miracle to relieve him from embarrassment
(Harmony, p. 97; Matt. 17: 24-27).
16. Peter learns a lesson on forgiveness: "Seventy times seven" (Harmony,
p. 101; Matt. 18:21-22).
17. Peter learns a lesson on applying to himself and
other disciples certain teachings of our Lord (Harmony p. 117; Luke 12:41).
18. Peter learns a lesson concerning the compensation for sacrifices made by
following Christ (Harmony p. 133; Matt. 19:27-28).
19. Peter, amazed at the sudden withering of the barren fig-tree cursed by our
Lord, learns a lesson of faith '(Harmony p. 146; Mark 11:21-24).
20. Peter, with Andrew, James, and John, inquiring privately about the time and
signs of the destruction of Jerusalem, and our Lord's final advent, call forth
our Lord's great prophecy (Harmony p. 160; Mark 13:3).
21. Peter and John sent to make ready the Passover (Harmony p. 172; Luke 22:8).
22. Peter learns a great lesson on the washing of feet (Harmony p. 174; John
13:6-10).
23. Peter, through John, asks who of the twelve is the traitor (Harmony p. 175;
John 13:23-26).
24. When our Lord at the Passover announces his going away where the disciples
cannot follow him, and that all the disciples would be offended at him that
very night, Peter becomes prominent as follows:
(a) He insists on knowing where the Lord was going, and why he cannot follow
him now.
(b) He boldly announces his readiness to lay down his life for the Lord.
(c) He passionately affirms that if everybody else in the world should turn
away from the Lord, he himself would stand firm.
(d) Our Lord tells him that this very night, before the time of the second
cock-crowing, i.e., just before day, Peter would deny him thrice.
(e) Peter vehemently reaffirmed that he would not deny the Lord.
(f) Whereupon our Lord informs him of the source of the danger, namely, that
Satan, by request, had obtained the apostles temporarily that he might sift
them as wheat, but that the Lord had prayed for Peter that his faith should not
utterly fail, and enjoins upon him that when he was converted, i.e., turned
again by repentance for his fall, to confirm other brethren who should be weak
in like temptation.
(g) This was the greatest personal lesson of Peter's life. He learned his own
weakness, vanity, vain confidence, the power of Satan, and particularly that
his salvation did not consist in his weak hold on Christ, but in Christ's
strong hold on him. Very humbly and earnestly in his later life he obeyed the
solemn injunction to confirm the faith of the weak, and to warn against Satan's
power. See 1 Peter 1:3-5; 5:6-10.
25. Peter, with James and John, again selected and honored, this time to enter
Gethsemane with the Lord, in order to watch and pray; but they sleep, neither
watching nor praying, leaving the Lord alone in his agony (Harmony p. 184;
Matt. 26:37-45; Mark 14:33-41).
26. Peter, misunderstanding what our Lord had said (Luke 22:35-38), draws the
sword when our Lord is betrayed (Harmony p. 188; Matt. 26:50-54; Mark 14:46-47;
Luke 22:49-51; John 18:10-12). This is one of the most important lessons of the
New Testament, and generally but little understood. When our Lord first sent
out the twelve he assured them that their support and protection was his
charge; hence they needed neither sword nor purse. But in the passage cited
(Luke 22: 35-38), he tells them to prepare both sword and purse, i.e., during
the period between his death and resurrection. The sheep would then have no
shepherd, and be scattered, and so must look out for their own support and
protection. This would not go into effect, however, before he died, nor
continue after his resurrection. Peter misunderstood on both points. He drew
his sword before Christ died, and later went back to his old occupation for
support (John 21:3) after Christ was risen. Moreover, he drew the sword, not to
protect himself when Christ was dead, but to protect Christ while he was alive,
which contravened all Christ's teachings. See particularly John 18:36.
27. Peter follows Christ afar off, to see the end (Harmony p. 193; Matt. 26:58;
Mark 14:54; Luke 22:54).
28. Peter thrice denies his Lord (Harmony pp. 193-195; Matt. 26:58-74; Mark
14:54-71; Luke 22:54-60; John 18: 15-27).
29. The cock crows the second time, Christ looks at Peter, Peter remembers,
goes out and weeps bitterly (Harmony, p. 195; Matt. 26:74-75; Mark 14:72-73;
Luke 22:60-62).
1. The angel at the empty tomb sends word by the woman to Peter (Mark 16:7)
that Jesus is risen, and to remind the disciples of the great appointment in
Galilee (Harmony p. 219). Which message Mary Magdalene delivers to Peter and
John, who hurry to the tomb and find it empty, but they do not understand the
scripture about the resurrection and do not believe (Harmony p. 220; John
20:2-10).
2. Jesus appears to Peter himself, the same day (Harmony p. 224; Luke 24:34; 1
Cor. 15:5).
3. In the evening of the same day he appears again to Peter and nine other
apostles, who all are inspired and receive the binding and loosing power
conferred on Peter alone at the time of his third great confession (Matt. 16;
Harmony, pp. 224-225).
4. The next Lord's Day he appears a third time to Peter, with the ten other
apostles (Harmony p. 226; John 20:26; 1 Cor. 15:5).
5. He appears a fourth time to Peter, with six others, at the Sea of Galilee,
when doubtless they were on their way to the Galilean appointment. This is
Peter's recall to the ministry (Harmony p. 226-227; John 21:1-23). This was a
great occasion in Peter's life, full of important lessons:
(a) Though Christ was risen, Peter goes back to his old occupation (21:3),
leading the others with him.
(b) They catch nothing for all their night's work, as preachers often fail when
returning to secular employment. The Lord, appears and mildly rebukes with his
question: "Children, have you any meat?" i.e., "Is this thing
paying you?" Then to show them how they always succeed under his
direction, he commands them to cast on the other side of the boat and lo, a
multitude they could not drag! Here again John's perception outruns Peter's in
recognizing the Lord, and Peter's impulse to action outruns John's. When on the
land, lo again, he supplies their food.
(c) After their fast was broken, comes the catechizing of Peter, which rebukes
and probes to the bottom: "Lovest thou me more than these?" Here the
pronoun "these" may well refer to the nets and fish, i.e., the
secular method of support from which Peter had been called to the ministry. If
so, the rebuke is for his return to his old business. With this agrees the
suggestion that "feeding the sheep, lambs, and little sheep," so
solemnly enjoined, was work enough to fill his time and occupy all his talent.
With such work, why go back to fishing? And if the Lord could and did supply
their breakfast without using any fish caught by them, was he not able to
supply all their needs all the time? When preachers go back to secular work, does
not the flock hunger and go astray? But if "these" refers to the
other disciples, then the rebuke is against his boast that though all else
forsook him, he, Peter, would stand firm. With this agrees the seeming
reference to his threefold denial by the threefold question. In either event,
the probing so deep left a lasting impression on Peter's mind.
(d) The fourth lesson is in the Lord's foretelling the manner of his unwilling
death in old age (John 21:18): "Thou shalt stretch forth thy hands,
another shall gird thee and lead thee whither thou wouldst not," which
implies a death by crucifixion a martyrdom which Peter himself would desire
to avoid, which is a rebuke to Peter's boast that he was ready to lay down his
life for his Lord. To this death Peter himself refers a long time afterwards:
"Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord
Jesus Christ hast showed me." This unwillingness of Peter to suffer
martyrdom is preserved in a tradition well stated in the famous book Quo Vadis.
(e) But there is another lesson for Peter. The Lord again repeats the words of
Peter's original call to the ministry, "follow me," which originally
occurred at this very place, and when they were doing the self-same thing, and
was accompanied then as now by a miraculous draft of fishes under the Lord's
direction, after they had toiled all night and caught nothing. See Harmony,
page 28. The call is renewed: "Follow me; leave these nets and become
fishers of men."
So many a despondent preacher, going back to his farm or to his carpenter shop,
or to law, or to medicine, for a support, has had his call renewed.
And all this supports the view first expressed above, that the pronoun
"these" refers to nets and fishes, or his old secular business.
(f) A final lesson comes to poor Peter. He, having started to follow, turns
about and seeing John also following, breaks out, "Lord, and what shall
this man do?" to be sharply rebuked: "If I will that he tarry till I
come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me." Our Lord had already warned
against delay in following, on account of the affairs of others (Matt.
8:21-22), and against the danger of turning back (Luke 9:62). Mark Peter's
prurient curiosity, his meddlesomeness with the case of others, but especially note
his questioning of the Lord's right to single him out with such a preemptory
demand to leave all and follow the Master, even to martyrdom, without first
explaining what should be the duty and fate of others. It is even yet a very
imperfect, but very natural Peter. It is amazing that Romanists find in this
incident by the Sea of Galilee, the, to them, decisive proof that signal honor
is here conferred on Peter as the chief pastor of all the spiritual Israel,
when the whole passage, and in all its parts, is a rebuke to Peter. Peter is
indeed distinguished from the others, but by repeated censure. Certainly, he
himself never construed the incident as conferring any such signal honor upon
himself, and when, in old age, writing of himself, in relation to others, he
adopts no such lordly tone. See particularly 1 Peter 5:1-4.
6. He appears the fifth time to Peter and to hundreds of others in the
appointed Galilean mountain when the Great Commission is given to the church,
discussed elaborately in the chapter on that passage (Harmony p. 228; Matt.
28:1620; Mark 16:15-18; 1 Cor. 5:6).
7. He appears the sixth time to Peter, and to the other apostles, giving them
illumination to understand the Old Testament Scriptures, as he had previously
inspired them to write the New Testament Scriptures, and again commissions
them, and promises them the coming and guidance of the Spirit, but enjoins that
they tarry at Jerusalem until they received this power from heaven (Harmony p.
229; Luke 24:44-49). 8. He appears to Peter the seventh time with 120 others on
the day of his ascension (Acts 1:6-15; Harmony pp. 229231).
1. Peter takes the lead in filling the place of Judas (Acts 1:15-26). Query:
Was he too previous? Was Matthias lawfully put into the apostolic office? This
question is thoroughly discussed in Acts of this INTERPRETATION.
2. Peter takes the lead on the famous Pentecost, when the church is baptized in
the Spirit (Acts 2:14-41). Here he uses one of the keys to the kingdom of
heaven, and from the inside opens the door to the Jews.
3. Peter, with John, works a great miracle and preaches s second great sermon
(Acts 3:1-26).
4. Peter, with John, arrested and imprisoned, makes a great defense before the
Sanhedrin, and is released (Acts 4:1-22).
5. Peter, with John, makes report to the church, and joins in an earth-shaking
prayer (Acts 4:23-31).
6. Peter leads again, in the detection and exposure of Ananias and Sapphira
(Acts 5:1-11).
7. The very shadow of Peter works miracles (Acts 5:15). From Pentecost Peter is
flawless, and strides like a Titan.
8. Peter, with all the other apostles, again arrested and imprisoned by the
Sanhedrin, but released by the angel of the Lord, they preach boldly in the
Temple (Acts 5:17-20).
9. Peter, with other apostles, being again arrested, makes another marvelous
defense, is beaten with stripes, but glories in persecution, and continues to
preach (Acts 5:21-42).
10. Peter joins the other apostles in the ordination of deacons (Acts 6:1-6).
11. Peter, with John, sent by the other apostles, goes to Samaria to confer the
Spirit on Philip's converts, and exposes Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-25).
12. Peter receives a visit from Paul (Acts 9:26-30; Gal. 1:18).
13. Peter, in a tour to Lydda, heals Eneas, and on invitation goes to Joppa and
raises Dorcas (Acts 9:32-43).
14. At Joppa he receives the great vision which eventuates in opening the door
to Gentiles at Caesarea with the other key to the kingdom of heaven (Acts
10:1-48). Here again, in his characteristic way, he says, "Not so,
Lord," but when fully convinced, obeys the vision.
15. Peter, when questioned by some in the church for this matter, makes a
glorious defense (Acts 11:1-18).
16. In the persecution by Herod, Peter is imprisoned, but again released by the
angel of the Lord, and goes back to Caesarea (Acts 12:1-19).
17. In a preliminary meeting just before the great consultation in Jerusalem on
the question whether Gentiles must become Jews in order to become Christians
(Acts 15:1-2), Peter, with John and James, the brothers of the Lord,
acknowledges Paul's independent apostleship, gives him the hand of fellowship
in the division of labor, that while they ministered to the circumcision, Paul
was commissioned to go to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:1-9). This case alone, set forth
in Galatians 1-2, effectually disproves the papacy of Peter.
18. In the council, Peter defends the acts of Paul in receiving Gentiles
without circumcision, by citing his own case with Cornelius (Acts 15:7-11).
19. And yet at Antioch, a little later, Peter, in awe of the followers of
James, tears down what he had built up, and is publicly and sharply rebuked by
Paul (Gal. 2:11-21).
20. Partisan misuse of Peter's name at Corinth (1 Cor. 1: 12; 3:22; 9:5).
21. Peter goes to Babylon on the Euphrates, and there writes his truly great
letters, which are his crowning glory, and bears testimony to Paul's wisdom,
and ranks Paul's letters with the Old Testament Scriptures (1 Peter 1:5, 13; 2
Peter 3:15-16).
This brief, but connected survey of Peter's life serves several valuable
purposes.
(1) It furnishes the richest material in the Bible for noting the developments
of a Christian life, showing that the new convert is but a babe in Christ,
imperfect in both theology and life, but through training and sanctification,
progressing toward higher ideals in both, thus from Simon to Cephas. A good
sister once said to the author, "Peter is a great comfort to me; he is so
natural, so impulsive, so hasty in speech and deed, so full of faults, so often
stumbling, and yet on the whole loving his Lord, frankly confessing his sins
and repenting, and every time he falls in the ditch, he manages to climb out on
the side toward heaven and resumes his pilgrimage. He is a great comfort to me
because I am so much like him, saying and doing foolish things; he keeps me in
countenance and hope, but that Paul, who never makes a slip after conversion
he is so perfect he discourages me."
(2) The several great epochs of his life his conversion, his first meeting
with the Lord, his call to the ministry, his three great confessions, his
piteous fall, his recall to the ministry at the same place of the first call,
and under similar circumstances, his baptism in the Spirit, and from that
Pentecost until even his shadow heals the sick (Acts 2-5) what a flawless
leader! He is braver than a lion, striding like a Titan, soaring like an eagle,
sublimely great. Then his opening the door to the Gentiles, and defense
thereof; his superb attitude at the Jerusalem consultation (Acts 15; Gal. 2)
privately toward Paul and publicly toward the great question of salvation there
pending; his subsequent weakness and cowardice at Antioch; his final ripeness
and glorious testimony to Paul in his great letters all these stages are
clearly outline. In view of his ups and downs we take off our hats to Peter
when we see the culmination of his spirit and charter as evinced in his
letters.
(3) It prepares for an examination of the Romanist claims concerning Peter and
his alleged successors.
(4) There is a good preparation toward the study of the Acts which follows.
(5) When we come to his letters it will be interesting to gather from them what
events recited in this Harmony most impressed Peter's own mind, and what his
final statements of great doctrines, and what his crystallized character.
1. Who was Peter's father? who his brother? was he single or married? where was
his home? what was his occupation? who were his partners in business what was
his circumstances and what his education?
2. Under whose preaching did he become a Christian, who was this preacher, and
what conditions of salvation did he set forth?
3. Who brought him to Christ, what change of name here, and what three other
instances of such change of names in the Bible?
4. What did it cost Peter to "leave all and follow Christ," what the
compensation therefore, and what two pulpit themes deduced from this incident?
5. What Peter's first confession, what two Old Testament cases of like kind,
and what pulpit theme from this incident?
6. Give an account of Peter's first entertainment of his Lord.
7. How did Peter and others attempt to make a corner on salvation?
8. What triple honor was bestowed upon the illustrious trio Peter, James, and
John?
9. What position has Peter's name in the different lists of the twelve
apostles?
10. Where do we first note his presumption and little faith?
11. What his second confession?
12. What his third and greatest confession, and what signal honor here
conferred upon him?
13. What is our Lord's sharp rebuke of Peter and in what was Peter's offense
very remarkable?
14. On what occasion did Peter assume to decide for our Lord and how did our
Lord reprove him?
15. What lesson does he learn from the withering, barren fig tree?
16. How did Peter, James, and John call forth our Lord's great prophecy of his
second advent?
17. What was Peter's part in connection with the last supper?
18. What was the greatest personal lesson of Peter's life?
19. At what critical hour did he leave his Lord alone and sleep?
20. What rash act of Peter again showed his impulsiveness and what is the
important lesson connected with this incident
21. How does he follow Christ from this time on?
22. What now brings Peter into the depths?
23. What brings him to repentance and bitter weeping?
24. How many times did Jesus appear to Peter on the resurrection day, and what
each occasion?
25. When does he next appear to Peter and what the occasion?
26. When and where did he again appear to Peter, and what the important lesson
for Peter connected with this incident?
27. Where did he appear to Peter the fifth time? where the sixth time? and what
did he give Peter on this occasion in connection with the other ten apostles?
28. When did he appear to Peter the seventh time?
29. Trace this harmony of Peter through the Acts.
30. What purposes are served by this survey of Peter's life?