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
BAKER BOOK HOUSE
Grand Rapids, Michigan
New and complete edition
Copyright 1948, Broadman
Press
Reprinted by Baker Book
House
with permission of
Broadman Press
ISBN: 0-8010-2344-0
First Printing, September
1973
Second Printing, September
1976
PHOTOLITHOPRINTED BY GUSHING
- MALLOY, INC.
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN, UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA
1976
I Introduction
– The Four Gospels
II Introduction
– The Fifth Gospel
III Introduction
– The Several Historians
V Beginnings
of Matthew and Luke (Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 1:5-80; 3:23-38)
VI Beginnings
of Matthew and Luke (Continued)
VII Beginnings
of Matthew and Luke (Continued) (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 2:1-20)
VIII Beginnings
of Matthew and Luke (Continued) (Luke 2:21-38; Matthew 2:1-12)
IX Beginnings
of Matthew and Luke (Concluded) (Matthew 2:13-28; Luke 2:39-52)
X John the
Baptist
XI The
Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 3:1-12; Mark 1:1-8; Luke 3:l-18)
XII The
Beginning of the Ministry of John the Baptist (Matthew 3:l-12;
Mark 1:1-8; Luke 3:1-18)
XIII The
Nature, Necessity, Importance and Definition of Repentance
XIV The Object
of Repentance
XV Motives and
Encouragements to Repentance
XVI Motives
and Encouragements to Repentance (Continued)
XVII Motives
and Encouragements to Repentance (Conclusion)
XVIII The
Ministry of Jon the Baptist (Continued) (Matthew 3:11-17;
Mark 1:1-11; Luke 3:15-23)
XIX The
Culmination of John’s Ministry
XX The Temptation
of Christ (Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13)
XXI Satan’s
Three Special Temptations of our Lord (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-18)
XXII John’s
Testimony to Jesus, Jesus’ first disciples and His First Miracle
(John 1:19-2:11)
XXIII The
Sojourn of Jesus at Capernaum (John 2:12-3:21)
XXIV The
Evidences of the Spirit in the New Birth (John 3:8)
XXV The Guilt of
Sin Stated and the Remedy (John 3:16-4:45)
XXVI Our Lord’s
Ministry in Galilee (Part I) (Matthew 4:17-25; 8:2-17;
9:2-26; Mark 1:14-2:22;
5:22-43; Luke 4:14-5:39; 8:41-56; John 4:46-54)
XXVII Our Lord’s
Ministry in Galilee (Part II) (Matthew 9:27-34;
John 5:1-47; Matthew 12:1-21;
Mark 2:23-3:19; Luke 6:1-16)
XXVIII Our Lord’s
Ministry in Galilee (Part III) (Matthew 5:1-7:29; Luke 6:17-49)
XXIX Our Lord’s
Ministry in Galilee (Part IV) (Matthew 8:1, 5-13; 11:2-30;
12:22-37; Mark 3:lff-30; Luke
7:1-8:3)
XXX Our Lord’s
Ministry in Galilee (Part V) (Matthew 12:38-50;
Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21)
XXXI Our Lord’s
Ministry in Galilee (Part VI) (Matthew 13:1-53;
Mark 4:1-34; Luke 8:4-18)
XXXII Our Lord’s
Ministry in Galilee (Part VII) (Matthew 8:18-23;
11:1; 13:54-58; 14:1-12; Mark
4:34-5:20; 6:1-29; Luke 8:22-40; 9:1-9)
The New Testament is the ultimate authority for the
life of Christ. In that collection of books, this life is set forth in four
distinct phases:
His eternal existence, essential Deity, relations and activities as pure spirit
prior to all time and history.
His foreshadowing in time prior to his incarnation. This is done by an
interpretation of the Old Testament.
His incarnation, or earth life, from his birth to his death. The glory life of
his exalted humanity, from his resurrection to the end of time.
Usually, however, when men speak of the life of our Lord they mean his earth
life from his birth to his death. Even in studying his earth life only, it is
helpful to know well:
His human antecedents, as set forth in the Old Testament history of his people.
The history of that people in the 400 years interval between the close of the
Old Testament and the opening of the New Testament.
The geography and topography of the land of Palestine, the scene of his life
and labors, together with the political, religious, and social conditions of
his people at the time of his birth and during his life.
The successful preacher or teacher must often repeat, or restate in new forms,
what he has preached or taught before, because there is little remembrance of
former things, and because there is constant change of hearers or students
unfamiliar with his previous teaching or preaching; and because no one statement
of any truth sufficiently fixes itself in the mind of the hearer or reader.
Repeated hammering is needed to drive a nail to its head, and even then we need
to clinch it.
On account of this necessity for repetition, we commence with definitions many
times given before. Our English word, "scriptures," means,
etymologically, any kind of writings as contrasted with oral statements. Our
English words, "Holy Scriptures," mean "sacred writings,"
or inspired writings, as distinguished from profane writings. Our English word,
"Bible," means a library, or collection of books. And hence,
"Holy Bible," would mean a sacred library. This sacred library
consists of two grand divisions, entitled "Old Testament" and
"New Testament." The Old Testament consists of thirty-nine books,
arranged in a threefold division of Law, Prophets, and Psalms. Likewise the New
Testament consists of twenty-seven books, divided into three general
classifications – that is, five books of history, twenty-one letters or books
of doctrine and discipline, and one book of prophecy.
This classification, however, must not be strictly pressed, since the five
books entitled histories contain letters, doctrines, and prophecies; and the
twenty-one letters contain history, prophecy, and doctrines; and the one book
of prophecy contains letters, history, and doctrines.
Of these New Testament books, Paul wrote fourteen; John, five; Luke and Peter,
two each; Matthew, Mark, James, and Jude, one each. And since Paul influenced
both of Luke's books, a majority of the books, and more than half of the
contents of the New Testament may be attributed directly or indirectly to Paul.
The English word, "testament," whether Old or New, was derived from
the Latin, based on such passages as: Luke 22:14-20; 1 Corinthians 11:25;
Hebrews 8:9-13; 9:16-17, and is a misnomer, since the Greek word so rendered
means "covenant," but in the Bible it is never applied to a
collection of books. The word, indeed, has the meaning of a last will and
testament in two instances only, of Biblical usage, both in the game
connection, Hebrews 9:16-17. So used in that sense it simply points out one
analogy between a covenant and a last will and testament, to wit: that the
death of a victim ratifies a covenant, as the death of a testator precedes inheritance
under his will. The mischievous effect of this rendering "testament"
in other instances of usage not only obscures the connection of thought between
the Old and New Covenants, but appears historically and particularly in the
fact that one large and modern Christian denomination, popularly known as
Campbellites, deduces the most distinguishing articles of their creed and
practice from this incorrect rendering, together with their faulty
interpretations of some other passages. Substantially, their argument is this:
The New Testament is God's last will and testament.
Its provision of inheritance cannot be effective until after the death of the
testator, Jesus Christ.
The chief blessing of the inheritance is the forgiveness of sins.
Sins under the Old Testament, and up to Christ's death, were not actually
forgiven, but only passed over until the coming and death of the Testator,
quoting Romans 3:25.
Therefore, in determining the New Testament law of pardon, they contend that we
must not consider the Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but must
consult only the books concerning matters after his death. Hence they find the
law of pardon in Acts 2:38, and contend that then was Christ's kingdom set up,
and then only was this law of pardon published, to wit: "Repent and be
immersed in his name, in order to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the
gift of the Holy Spirit."
Therefore, they make baptism a condition of salvation and of the reception of
the Holy Spirit, and an essential part of regeneration.
Their contention, based on this argument, is set forth elaborately in a book by
Ezell, one of their teachers, entitled, The Great Inheritance. We
defer until we come to Acts 2:38, the correction of their erroneous exegesis of
that passage, and merely state now that the capital defect of the whole
contention consists in confounding expiation toward God with remission of sins
toward man. It is true that the expiation of sins toward God did not
historically take place until Christ died, but it is utterly untrue that the
remission of sins toward man did not precede this expiation, since remission
came as truly in the Old Testament times as in the New Testament times, because
of God's acceptance of the pledge of expiation by his Son.
While we think it well to show the incorrectness and mischievous tendency of
this misnomer, yet the term, "testament," is so fixed in our
literature as applied to the two collections of books so styled, we accept the
common usage, modified by this explanation.
In like manner the Greek word rendered "gospel" means,
etymologically, good tidings of any kind, but in this collection of books it
means the good tidings of salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord. Nowhere in
New Testament usage does the word "gospel" mean a history, as when we
say, "the Gospel according to Matthew." The word "gospel"
occurs often alone, or with the article only; as "preach the gospel,"
or "believe the gospel." In connection with the Father we have the
usage: "The Gospel of God," "The Gospel of the grace of
God," "The Gospel of the glory of the happy God." In connection
with the Son we have the usage: "The Gospel of the Son," "The
Gospel of Christ," "The Gospel of Jesus Christ," "The
Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." It is also used with another
modifying term, "The Gospel of the Kingdom," and it is used with
reference to its purpose, "The Gospel of Salvation," and to its
duration, "The Everlasting Gospel."
Our English word "gospel," however, is derived from the Anglo-Saxon, "godspell,"
meaning "a story of God." We employ the word in this narrative sense
when we say, "Matthew's Gospel " or "The Gospel according to
Matthew." In this last sense, meaning a narrative, there have come down to
us in writing five Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul. Of these,
Paul's was first reduced to writing, and John's, last. Three of these Gospels,
in the sense of histories, are called synoptics: Matthew, Mark, and Luke,
because they present a common view.
These five Gospels, or histories, must be considered as an independent and
complete history of our Lord from each author's viewpoint. They were written by
different men, at different times, for different purposes – for different ends
– and each, I repeat, must be considered as a complete view. That is to say,
notwithstanding the multitude of books that have been written upon the subject,
there is no satisfactory evidence that any one of them had before him, or was
influenced by a copy of any other from which he consciously borrowed, or which
he designedly abridged or enlarged or supplemented in any way. Nor is there any
reliable evidence that any two or more of them had access to a common original
written gospel now lost. There was, of course, before any writing, a common
oral gospel, but mere human memory could not be relied upon to recall with
accuracy the minute details such as we find in Mark, nor the very words of long
discourses, such as we find in John and Matthew. We must look elsewhere for an
adequate explanation of their agreements and differences. At the last analysis,
the inspiration of each historian best accounts for the plan of his history,
not only in the material he selects, but in what he omits, in his historical
portrait of our Lord.
Westcott in his introduction to the Gospels, cites the fact that three
portraits of Charles I were painted, one giving the front view, the others the
right and left profile views, and these three portraits were to enable a
sculptor to carve a lifelike statue of him. The sculptor could not carve this
statue with accuracy from a front view only, nor from either one of the two
side views only. In the same way we have five complete historical portraits of
our Lord, in order that we, in the study of them from their different angles of
vision, may get a full view of our Lord and Saviour.
We have already said that the New Testament considers the life of our Lord in
four distinct phases: his pre-existence, his Old Testament adumbration, his
incarnation, and the glory life of his exalted humanity. Each historian
considers only so much of these four phases as is essential to his plan. Mark,
with very vivid details, considers the public ministry of our Lord, having
little to do with either his pre-existence, his foreshadowing in the Old
Testament, or his life after his ascension. Matthew and Luke alone treat of the
infancy of our Lord. Matthew and Paul particularly consider the interpretation
of the Old Testament, foreshadowing of our Lord. Luke, in a second volume,
discusses much the exalted life of our Lord in the establishment of the
churches. John and Paul both treat of his pre-existence, and both, of the
activities of his exalted life. This John does in his second volume –
Revelation.
We may profitably study these histories of our Lord in two ways:
Considering each history alone, in order to get before our minds the author's
complete view according to his plan. This study must not be omitted.
The harmonic study of our Lord, putting in parallel columns so much as each
history has to say on a given point, and looking at the testimony of all the
witnesses.
In the first method it is easy to see that Matthew writes for Jews, and his is
the gospel of the King and of his kingdom, according to a correct
interpretation of Old Testament foreshadowings. We find. therefore, in Matthew,
many Old Testament quotations. He seeks to prove to the Jews that Jesus of
Nazareth is the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament. Paul unites with Matthew
in making the same proof, but with reference to a larger purpose than the limitation
of Matthew.
Mark's Gospel may be called the Gospel of deeds rather than of teachings. It is
limited to the earth life of Jesus, and describes the mighty things which he
did. It is most vivid and minute in details and has much of narrative. It is
the "straightway" gospel. As only an eyewitness could give the vivid
and minute details of gesture, posture, indeed the very look of the actors and
observers, this has been called Peter's Gospel. There is both external and
internal evidence that Peter supplied most of the material of Mark's Gospel. As
Mark limits himself almost exclusively to one of the four phases of our Lord's
life and to only his public ministry, and as he makes but little special
contribution to the sum of discourses, parables and miracles, we must find his
most valuable contribution in his vivid and minute details, therein far
surpassing all others. He surrounds his incidents with all the circumstances
that make them impressive. We see the posture, gesture, look, and the effect.
His particulars of person, number, time, and place are peculiar. His
transitions are rapid, his tenses often are present not past, and we hear the
very Aramaic words spoken, in direct quotation. It is more than a moving
picture show, since we hear the very Aramaic words: "Boanerges,"
"Taitha cumi," "Corban," "Ephphatha,"
"abba."
Luke's Gospel may be called the Gospel of the Saviour and of humanity, his
purpose being not so much to convince the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah, as to
show his relation to all mankind. Because Luke's is the Gospel of the Saviour
and of humanity, his genealogy extends back to Adam. Luke was not a Jew, and
was the only Gentile who wrote a book of the Bible. His writings, Gospel and
Acts, treat elaborately of the earth life of our Lord, and of his ascended life
up to Paul's first Roman imprisonment. Renan the infidel, calls Luke's Gospel
"the most beautiful book in the world." Speaking of them as
masterpieces of human literature, Isaiah and Luke surpass all other books of
the sacred library.
One cannot, in a few words, enumerate all the special contributions of Luke's
Gospel. We may note a few:
He alone gives an account of the birth and training of John the Baptist.
He alone gives us the five great hymns: The "Hail Mary," the
"Benedictus" of Zacharias, the "Magnificat" of Mary, the
"Gloria in Excelsis" of the angels, and the "Nunc Dimittis"
of Simeon.
He recites more miracles and parables than any other historian, and of these at
least six miracles and seventeen parables are not given elsewhere.
More than the others it is the Gospel to woman, to the poor, to the sick, the
outcast, and the foreigner.
To him we are indebted more than to all the others for the incidents and
teachings of our Lord's ministry after the rejection in Galilee and up to the
last week of that ministry.
It is more than the others the Gospel of prayers and thanksgiving in giving not
only the occasions when our Lord prayed, and often the prayers themselves, but
the lessons on prayer, taught to the disciples.
John's Gospel may be called the Gospel of positive knowledge, assurance, and
comfort. It is more the subjective than the objective history. He means,
evidently, to give to every Christian absolute knowledge, and internal
assurance of the certainty of that knowledge.
Paul, less than the others, treats of the details of the earth life, discussing
more the purposes of that life than its historical facts. It is interesting in
comparing Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul to note each one's special
contribution to the complete history of our Lord. No mere human historian would
have omitted from his history what any one of them omits. We cannot account in
a mere human way, for the omission of the early Judean ministry by the Synoptic
Gospels, nor for John's omission of the bulk of the Galilean ministry. A
careful student of the several histories of our Lord cannot fail to be
impressed that no one of them alone, nor all of them together, intend anything
like a complete biography like we find in the human history of a man. Each
employs only that material essential to his plan, designedly leaving out
everything not necessary to his purpose. John, at the close of his Gospel,
rightly says, "Many other signs, therefore, did Jesus in the presence of
his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that
you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye
may have life in his name." A similar statement could well have been made
by every historian. What is true with reference to the facts of his history, is
also true with reference to his teachings. No one of them gives all of his
teachings, or intended to do it, but only so much of the teachings as is
necessary to his plan of history.
Indeed, Luke, in his second volume entitled "The Acts of the
Apostles," says that his Gospel is an account of what Jesus began to do
and to teach, implying that his second volume will tell of what Jesus continued
to do and to teach in his exalted life. It is interesting as well as profitable
to collect together the incidents, miracles, parables, and discourses given by
each historian alone.
For example, Matthew alone gives the miracle of the healing of the two blind
men, in chapter 9, and of the finding of the stater in the fish's mouth. Matthew
alone gives ten of the great parables – the tares, the hidden treasure, the
pearl of great price, the drawnet, the unmerciful servant, the laborers in the
vineyard, the two sons, the marriage of the king's son, the ten virgins, and
the talents. Matthew alone gives a somewhat full account of the great Sermon on
the Mount, and the great discourses on the rejection of the Jews, and our
Lord's great prophecy extending from chapter 21 through 25 of his book. He
alone gives us certain incidents of the life of our Lord – the coming of the
Wise Men, the massacre of the innocents, the flight into Egypt, the return to
Nazareth, the covenant of Judas for thirty pieces of silver, his repentance and
his end, the dream of Pilate's wife, the appearance of the saints in Jerusalem
in connection with Christ's resurrection, the watch placed at the sepulcher,
the bribing of these watchmen to spread false reports, and the earthquake.
It is in John alone that we find the early Judean ministry, the Samaritan
ministry, the great discourse on the bread of life in Capernaum, the discourse
of the Good Shepherd, and particularly the great discourse after the Lord's
Supper, as embodied in chapters 14-17. These four chapters of John constitute
the New Testament book of comfort, Isaiah 39-66 constitutes the Old Testament
book of comfort.
Of course these examples of special contributions are samples only, not
exhaustive.
It is in Paul's history alone that we find an addition to Luke's genealogy,
that is, from the first Adam to the Second Adam. But as four of these Gospels
are continuous histories, and as Paul's, the Fifth Gospel, is scattered
throughout his many letters, we will consider in the next chapter the Fifth
Gospel.
QUESTIONS
1. In what distinct phases does
the New Testament set forth the life of our Lord?
2. What things are helpful
to know, even when we study only the earth life of our Lord?
3. What is the meaning of
our English word, "scriptures"?
4. Meaning of "Holy
Scriptures"?
5. Meaning of "Bible"?
6. Meaning of "Holy
Bible"?
7. What are the two grand
divisions of our Holy Bible, of what does each consist and what the three
subdivisions of each?
8. Why may we not strictly press
the three general classifications of the New Testament books?
9. Who were the authors of
the New Testament books, and how many did each write?
10. What is the proportion,
of Paul's contribution to the New Testament?
11. Give derivation and meaning
of our English word, "testament," and show how it is a misnomer when
applied to our collection of sacred books.
12. In what two instances
only in Bible usage may the Greek word, diatheke, be rendered
"testament"? And in those instances show the one point of analogy
between a "covenant" and a last will and testament.
13. Cite a notable historic
instance of the mischief of confusing "covenant" and
"testament."
14. What of the Campbellite
argument based on this contention and in what book is it elaborated?
15. What is the radical
defect of the argument?
16. Meaning of the Greek
word rendered "gospel" in the New Testament? And in the New
Testament, does it ever mean a narrative?
17. What are the uses in the
New Testament of the word rendered "gospel" with the article only? In
connection with the Father? With the Son? With the kingdom? With salvation?
18. What is the derivation
and meaning of our English word, "gospel"?
19. In the sense of a
narrative, how many gospels have come down to us in writing, which first
reduced to writing, and which last?
20. Which are called
Synoptics, and why?
21. In accounting for these
several written histories, were any two or more based on any written history
now lost?
22. Is there any reliable
evidence that any one of the historians had before him a copy of any one of the
other four histories, from which he consciously borrowed material, which he
designedly condensed, elaborated or supplemented in any way?
23. How, then, must these
five histories be regarded, and what the only common original?
24. How alone may we account
for their agreements and differences?
25. Why five Gospels? Cite
and apply the illustration found in Westcott's "Introduction."
26. Show, in the case of
each historian, what phases of our Lord's life are treated – his pre-existence,
his Old Testament foreshadowing, his earth life, his ascended life.
27. In what two ways may we
profitably study these histories?
28. How may we characterize Matthew's
Gospel, what is his chief design and what are the more important of his special
contributions to the history?
29. How characterize Luke's
Gospel, what is his chief design and what are some of his special
contributions?
30. How characterize John's
Gospel, what is his chief design and what are some of the most important of his
special contributions?
31. What chapters of John
constitute the New Testament book of comfort?
32. As Mark limits himself
almost exclusively to only one of' the four phases, that is, the earth life of
our Lord, and to his public ministry only, and as he contributes little to the
sum of the parables, miracles and discourses, what is, in the main, his special
contribution to the story of our Lord?
INTRODUCTION – THE FIFTH GOSPEL
In the preceding chapter we were considering the inspired histories of the life
of our Lord. A reason for considering very particularly the Fifth Gospel,
arises from a trend of modern thought, pregnant with menace. This trend is
embodied in a method of treating the Bible, which appears to be concerted and
systematic, and which comes in the garb of an angel of light with most
attractive watchwords, and with the avowed object of best serving human
interest by promoting a higher degree of morality. The slogan of this method
is: "Back to Christ," meaning, "Back to Christ's own
words." The object of the method is to strip the Gospels of all inspired
value in their statements of what Christ is, or what he did, and confine them
to an application of what he actually said. It matters nothing to the leaders
of this method that our knowledge of what he said is dependent on the
trustworthiness of the very witnesses whose evidence they discredit concerning
what he is and what he did.
But this is not all of the method. It arbitrarily limits the sources of what he
said to the records of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, commonly called the Synoptic
Gospels, rejecting the Gospel of John. Even with this limitation they claim the
right to discredit all the reported sayings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels
not in accord with their preconceived notions. But the limitation of Christ's
own words to the record of the Synoptic Gospels is, after all, not so much to
eliminate John as to get rid of Paul, who is most in their way. Their
misleading slogan, "Back to Christ," means simply "Back from
Paul."
Unwittingly this method bears strong testimony to the clearness and value of
Paul's teaching. It is a virtual confession that if Paul stands they must fall.
While this method is called modern, it is in fact only a revival of ancient
error prevalent in Paul's own day, and in later days.
In this connection we may recall a recent discussion in Congress on the advisability
of printing what is called "Jefferson's Bible" in connection with his
other works. This socalled Bible is merely a patchwork of clippings from the
Gospels of Christ's own words – or so many of them as Mr. Jefferson approved,
the object being to classify the ethical teachings of Christ and to eliminate
all the supernatural settings. Not a few of the most alert and clear-eyed
sentinels on our watchtowers, discern in this trend of thought a menacing sword
to the unwary, and have diligently sounded a note of alarm. Articles,
pamphlets, and books on the subject, pro and con, are being rapidly multiplied,
some of them valuable, others worthless contributions to religious literature.
Two of the many may be noted. The most scholarly, perhaps, is by Dr. Bruce,
Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the Free Church College, Glasgow,
Scotland and is entitled Saint Paul's Conception of Christianity.
It was published in 1894. While very instructive throughout, some parts of this
discussion are justly liable to adverse criticism. The other, not nearly so
pretentious, is yet pure gold in its saneness and simplicity. It is by a plain
but earnest and successful gospel preacher, Dr. Malcolm McGregor, of the
Southern Baptist Convention, and is entitled The Divine Authority of
Paul's Writings. It was published in 1898. Dr. McGregor has classified
the objections or objectors to Paul thus:
Some who profess to believe in the inspiration and authority of the Bible in
vague general terms, but whose inherited or acquired dislike for certain of
Paul's teachings lead them, with great inconsistency, to evade, modify, and
explain away their force.
Preconceptions of rationalistic philosophy, the blinding influence of
unscriptural customs, the warping force of adventurous love of novelty,
overweening self-conceit, and headstrong self-will, account very fully for most
of this dangerous anti-Pauline drift.
To these classifications of Dr. McGregor we may add a graver cause. When we
consider the garb, watchword, concert, system, and effect of this method, we
are constrained to recognize back of the movement that mighty and malignant
intelligence who, from the beginning, comes as an angel of light, and by
beguiling seduces many good people to serve him, and renders tributary to his
purpose all the objections and prejudices of the unregenerate. It is immaterial
that the leaders of this trend of thought are unconscious of the satanic
influence prompting them.
So far as this modern method relates to the Four Gospels, we may content
ourselves with this double reply:
If we accept the testimony of the synoptic historians as to the sayings of
Christ, then we must accept it as to his being and doings. The evidence is the
same.
The argument which destroys the trustworthiness of John's record of Christ's
sayings, will equally destroy the credibility of the record in the Synoptic
Gospels.
But our present concern is with the effect of this method on another historian.
There is a Fifth Gospel, quite distinct from the others, equally necessary and
credible with the others. The same inspiration which gave us the Gospels of
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, gave us also the Gospel of Paul. No one of the
five tells all the story; each one of the five contributes an important and
indispensable part to the completeness of the history. Here and there two,
three, four, or five, may bear testimony to the same particular event of this
history, or to the same particular teaching. Even in that case we need all the
testimony, as each brings to light some detail not noted by the others. But
here and there also an incident or a teaching is dependent upon the testimony
of only one of the five. Each one of the five makes special, peculiar, unique,
and indispensable contributions. And in both of these respects we recognize
God's uniform method of inspiration: "God, having of old time spoken unto
the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at
the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son." And this speaking was
recorded partly by Mark, partly by Matthew, partly by Luke, partly by John, and
partly by Paul.
Now of these Five Gospels by far the most extensive, the most comprehensive and
the most important, is the Gospel by Paul. We are so accustomed to the thought
of only Four Gospels that we compare them to the four rivers which watered the
garden of Eden.
Before considering in detail the merits of the Fifth Gospel, let us first
consider an antecedent matter – the nature and qualifications of the apostolic
office. This office was extraordinary. It was limited to the times of the
institution of the Christian system. There was no provision for its perpetuity
in the church, though some of our Baptist brethren of Virginia once ventured to
elect an apostle. Upon certain persons appointed by our Lord' himself as
ambassadors were conferred plenipotentiary powers to act for him in the matters
entrusted to them. They were, primarily, witnesses of his resurrection from the
dead. Indeed, one could not be an apostle who had not seen the risen Lord. They
were inspired revelators of his will, and infallible judges and expounders of
the doctrines and discipline he inculcated. They were also the executors of
penal judgment, when necessary, as when Peter smote with instant death Ananias
and Sapphira, and when Paul smote Elymas with blindness. They were accredited
by miraculous signs, as when men were healed by the shadow of Peter, and others
afar off by contact with a handkerchief that Paul had touched. They were immune
from deadly poisons, and could, by the laying on of their hands, impart the
miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit. There were two classes of these apostles –
twelve to the Jews, and one to the Gentiles. In the case of an apostle to the Jews,
it was necessary that he should have companied with Jesus all the time of his
Jewish ministry, from the baptism by John to the ascension into heaven. In the
case of the Apostle to the Gentiles, it was necessary that he had personally
seen the risen Lord, been put into office by him, and had received directly
from him the gospel he preached.
Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. He had seen the Lord, was directly
commissioned and accredited by him, and by direct revelation received his whole
wonderful gospel. It was not of man, nor by man. His knowledge of the gospel
was entirely independent of any teaching, preaching, or writing of the other
men. For example: Matthew wrote of the institution of the Lord's Supper as he
saw it, Mark and Luke as they received the story of the testimony of
eyewitnesses, but Paul wrote of it as the Lord Jesus Christ himself reported it
to him, and to Paul are we indebted for more knowledge of the institution and
meaning of this ordinance than to all other sources put together. The other
apostles could tell it as they saw it, but Paul tells it as Jesus saw it. He
commences his account of it by saying, “For I received of the Lord that which I
also delivered unto you." In like manner, when summarizing his gospel, he
says, "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was
buried, and that he was raised from the dead on the third day, according to the
scriptures."
In every way possible he not only emphasizes that his gospel was independent of
any human source of information, but makes the reception of it as from God a
test of the claims of others: "For if any man thinketh himself to be a
prophet or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto
you, that they are the commandments of the Lord." In this plenipotentiary
power he ordained decrees for all the churches; he commanded, restricted,
enjoined with all authority. The content of his gospel is marvelous in its fulness,
clearness and comprehensiveness. On the pro-existence, original glory and
activities of the Son of God, he surpasses John; on the foreshadowing of the
coming Messiah in the Old Testament he surpasses Matthew; on his assumption of
human nature and the reasons therefore, on his offices as prophet, king,
sacrifice, priest, and judge he surpasses all. He alone reveals the termination
of the kingdom of God. On the plan of salvation, and on the connecting links of
the whole chain of its doctrines, he stands alone. From him, certainly as to
its fulness, come the revelation of the universality of the gospel, and the
marvelous wisdom of God in the election of Israel, the stumbling of Israel, the
call of the Gentiles and the restoration of Israel. The doctrines of the
nature, universality and cure of sin, the nature, scope, and purpose of the
law, the resurrection of the dead are mainly derived from Paul's Gospel.
Concerning the church, not only as an institution, and not only as an ideal to
be realized hereafter, but as a working business body, and concerning its
officers, ordinances, discipline and commission, Paul's Gospel reveals more
than all the rest of the Bible. From his gospel also we get the truest and
clearest teachings concerning the person, offices, and gifts of the Holy
Spirit. There is yet a point touching his gospel of transcendent importance. I
refer particularly to the offices and activities of the ascended and exalted
Lord. Where is our Lord now? What is his employment there? How long will he
remain there, or when will he return to earth again? And why will he come
again, and to do what? And what the outcome of that return? Luke, indeed,
devotes an entire volume, the Acts of the Apostles, to the activities of the
ascended Lord up to a definite time, and so John devotes another book,
Revelation, to the same matter projected to the end of time, but certainly it
is in Paul's Gospel that we find most clearly set forth the present reign of
Christ on the heavenly throne, the giving and dispensation of the Holy Spirit
and the dispensation of the churches.
In this connection I desire to commend with great earnestness to all readers a
modern book entitled, The Ascended Christ. It is by H. B. Sweet,
and was published in 1910, by the Macmillan Company. There are interpretations
of some passages of Scripture in this book that I deem faulty, but on the whole
it is a marvelous contribution to the literature concerning our ascended Lord.
These are a few of the things that may be truthfully said concerning the scope
and value of the Fifth Gospel. Why is it, then, that harmonies ignore the Fifth
Gospel, Great indeed will be the victory of Satan if, by the catchy phrase,
"Back to Christ," he can succeed in backing us away from the Gospel
of Paul. Though an angel from heaven bring another gospel, let him be accursed.
It is an objection to all harmonies extant that they either slightly recognize
the Fifth Gospel, or utterly disregard its correlative material, thus giving
the student an imperfect view of OUT Lord's nature, person, offices, and
teachings.
It is frankly conceded that the correlation of very much of the material of the
Fifth Gospel with the records of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, is on many
accounts a matter of serious difficulty. Not the least of these difficulties
lies in the fact that while the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are
mainly historical, each one being in some form a continuous story of our Lord's
life on earth, the Fifth Gospel is mainly doctrinal, and is not in one
continuous statement, but widely scattered in many letters, the revelations
coming, moreover, from our Lord in heaven. Another difficulty consists in
knowing how to limit the amount of the material used and just where to place it
in a given case. To some minds a yet graver difficulty would consist in
determining just what books of the New Testament contain the Fifth, or Pauline,
Gospel. This need not be a difficulty when we accept as certain from Paul the
thirteen letters usually ascribed to him, and while some dissent, we count the
letter to the Hebrews as Paul's. In any event, whether Apollos wrote it, as
many erroneously claim, or Luke wrote it, as some conjecture, embodying a
sermon by Paul, it is immaterial to our purpose and use. It is unquestionably
Pauline in its origin and doctrine. Let us not forget that all harmonies of
even the first three or four gospels are human, imperfect, obnoxious to
objections, and attended with considerable difficulties. The obvious
difficulties necessitate imperfection in any human attempt at perfect
correlation of the material of the five gospels. But notwithstanding the
difficulties, confessedly great, and the objections, confessedly forceful, and
the imperfections of the work when done, frankly conceded, it is profoundly
believed that by harmonic use of much of the material of the Fifth Gospel the
result will be manifold and great, and so justify the effort.
Somewhat is gained at least by fixing the fact in the Bible student's mind that
there are five gospels, equal in authority, and all indispensable parts of a
complete revelation of our Lord's person, nature, offices, relations, and
teachings in the four phases of his life already named. The mere fixing of this
fact in the mind helpfully serves to check the current of semi infidelity in many
schools which seek to discredit Paul by magnifying Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Wherein are their credentials, as reporters of our Lord's person, doings and
teachings, superior to Paul's? Moreover, the inclusion of the matter of the
Fifth Gospel in the correlation will make more apparent the important fact that
the Pauline doctrines considered by objectors as most obnoxious or as
innovations, will be shown to be in perfect harmony with the very words of our
Lord as reported by the other historians, to wit: the doctrines of his
essential deity, of the vicarious expiation, justification by faith, election,
and eternal punishment.
Yet again, this method affords to the student, on one canvass, a more nearly
complete portrait of our Lord, and in one view a more comprehensive summary of
his teachings. It is a signal merit of harmony of Dr. John A. Broadus that he
includes Paul's testimony concerning the institution of the Supper and the
appearances of our Lord after his resurrection. Why not equally meritorious to correlate
Paul's testimony of Christ's pre-existence, and his assumption of human nature,
with the corresponding records in the other gospels? Certainly to Paul was
revealed many most important facts concerning the incarnation and its objects,
which belong properly to our Lord's earthly life, and hence may harmonize with
other histories of that life.
Just here we may restate the terminals of the several gospels. Mark's Gospel is
the gospel of Christ's deeds, written for Romans, and so he leaves to others the
report of all antecedent matters, commences with the public ministry of our
Lord, abruptly plunges into the heart of his subject, and as abruptly closes
with some evidence of the resurrection. The scope of Mark's history is like the
survey of a small section of a mighty river, which takes no account of the
whence, and but little of the whither. He finds it a river, but far from the
source, and leaves it a river, far from the sea. The baptism and resurrection
of Jesus are the terminal points of his history.
Matthew, who gives the gospel of the King and of the kingdom, writing for Jews
to convince them of the messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth, goes back 2,000 years
beyond Mark to find a starting point in Abraham, and closes with the Great
Commission.
Luke, who writes the gospel of the Saviour, recognizing Christ's broader
relation to humanity, goes back of the Jewish limitations of Matthew's view
another 2,000 years, and starting from the first man, projects his history,
including the Acts, into the triumphant years of world evangelization by the
apostles. Commencing with Adam, he ends in Paul's hired house at Rome. But even
he strikes the stream at only its human source, or appearance in the realm of
time, and leaves it flowing, yet far from the sea.
John, who writes for the Christian the gospel of positive knowledge, assurance,
and comfort, and from a more subjective point of view than that of the others,
goes back beyond all time, even leaving far behind the initial sentence of
Moses: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and
starts with the ultima thule of revelation in one direction: "In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God." Thus fastening one end of the chain of his story on this altitude of
eternity, he swoops far down to the history of creation by Moses, floods it
with light, enters into the earth life of our Lord and projects his history,
including Revelation, beyond the second coming and the Judgment, into the
antitypical paradise. But the river has not yet reached the sea.
Paul, writing for all men, with the broadest view, commences indeed with John,
for none can go beyond him in that direction, parallels his course through
time, with him entering into the antitypical paradise, and finds the other
ultima thule of Revelation in this termination: "Then cometh the end, when
he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; . . And when all
things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be
subjected to him, that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in
all" (1 Cor.15: 24-28).
Thus eternity speaks across all time to eternity, and thus we have the four
phases of the life of our Lord: his preexistence and essential deity; his
adumbration in the Old Testament history; his incarnation, that is, his earth
life; his life and activities after ascension and exaltation at the right hand
of God.
This is the life we are to study. As stress was laid upon the thorough study of
the Genesis of Moses, how much more the study of this Genesis! My father
impressed upon the minds of his boys this great principle: In erecting a
building, never try to economize on site, foundation, or roof. A good building
on a faulty location is a waste; a big house cannot stand on a flimsy foundation;
and a faulty roof is a ceaseless eye-sore, abomination, and expense. We should,
therefore, take time and exercise the patience necessary to root our faith deep
down and ground it solidly on these beginnings and endings in eternity. If we
start right we go on well. If we make a pitiful start we drag an ever weightier
chain on to the end, and can never answer the supreme questions – who is our
Saviour? or, "What think ye of Christ?" They can never be answered if
we leave out any of these four phases of his life. Before we consider Mark's
grown man, Luke's infant, or Matthew's Jew, we must follow John and Paul back
to the real beginning and on to the real end.
Then will we know whom we have believed, whom we worship. Then, when the
question is asked in the words of our Lord, "Who say ye that I am?"
not as an Arian, not as a Socinian, not as a Sabellian, not as an Unitarian,
not any kindred folk, we find the truer answer that Jesus of Nazareth is the
Son and Christ of God, the God-man appointed to be prophet, priest, sacrifice,
king, and judge.
We are not to understand that all of these five gospels together give a
complete biography of Christ as judged by the standard of human historians.
Only such matter as is pertinent to the plan of each writer is used. Near the
close of John's Gospel he says, "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." And later he adds the more remarkable
words: "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 could
not contain the books that should be written."
A harmony is an orderly correlation in parallel columns of the matter of
several independent historians, or the testimony of several independent
witnesses.
Having now considered somewhat the inspired histories of the life of Christ, I name
some of the many human histories of that life. While many more could be named,
those that are named have been carefully examined upon every point set forth in
our discussion of the life of our Lord. They are: Edersheim's Life and
Times of Jesus the Messiah; Farrar's Story of a Beautiful Life;
Noah K. Davis' Story of the Nazarene; Stalker's Life of
Christ; Deems' The Light of the Nations; Young's The
Christ of History; David Smith's In the Days of His Flesh;
Sweet's The Ascended Christ; McLear's New Testament History;
that infidel's romance, Renan's Life of Jesus; Henry Ward
Beecher's Life of Christ; Fleetwood's Life of Christ;
and the following parts of Josephus: Antiquities, books 14 to 18,
War of the Jews, from Book I, chapter 10, to Book 2, chapter 9.
Of all these human lives of our Lord, it is a matter of surprise to find
Beecher's the weakest and poorest.
QUESTIONS
1. How many gospels are
there?
2. What evil trend of modem
thought necessitates special emphasis
on the Fifth Gospel?
3. What is its garb and
slogan?
4. What is the limit and
effect of its method?
5. What is the real meaning
of its slogan, "Back to Christ"?
6. Name and estimate two
valuable books called forth by this discussion.
7. How does Dr. McGregor
classify the objections to Paul's Gospel?
8. Who is the real person
back of the whole movement against Paul?
9. What is the nature,
limitation, and qualifications of the apostolic office?
10. What two classes of
apostles?
11. In what respect does Paul's
knowledge of his gospel differ from
Matthew's and John's, from Mark's and Luke's and illustrate by the account of the institution of the Lord's
Supper by Matthew, by Mark and Luke,
and by Paul.
12. Set forth the merits and
superiorities of Paul's Gospel.
13. What are the
difficulties of correlating Paul's Gospel in a harmony with the other four?
14. Notwithstanding the
difficulties, what is the gain?
15. What two items only of
Paul's Gospel does Dr. Broadus include
in his harmony?
16. What are terminals of
each of the Five Gospels?
17. What is a harmony?
18. What books covering the
life of our Lord are named, and what
parts of Josephus are recommended for reading?
INTRODUCTION – THE SEVERAL HISTORIANS
Having considered somewhat in the preceding chapters the five inspired
histories of the four distinct phases of the life of our Lord, we now glance at
the New Testament account of the several historians, deeming it unnecessary to
discuss later traditions concerning them.
The name. This name appears in all the four lists of the twelve apostles to the
Jews, to wit: Matthew 10:lff; Mark 3:13ff; the two lists by Luke (6:14-16);
Acts l:13f. In his own account of his call he so names himself (Matt. 9:9),
though both Mark (2:14) and Luke (5:27) in their account of his call give Levi
as his name. So that, like others of the twelve, he had two names. It is quite
possible that Levi was his original name and Matthew his new Christian name,
conferred at the time of his call, as Simon was called Peter, and Saul, the
persecutor, of Acts 9, becomes Paul, the missionary, in Acts 13.
His relations. Mark calls him "the son of Alpheus." And as in all the
lists of the apostles, twice next to his own name, "James, the son of
Alpheus," appears. He had at least one brother among the apostles. It is
also possible that Thomas, another of the apostles, was his twin brother, and
also possible that Judas (Thaddeus), another apostle, was his brother. This
last depends upon a rendering of the Greek of Luke 6:16 – Joudan Jacobou, i.e.,
"brother of James," or "son of James." If we render
"brother of James" according to the common version, which is
defensible, then he also was a brother of Matthew.
Residence. According to all the Synoptic Gospels his home, or
"house," was in Capernaum.
Occupation. According to his own account he was a publican or collector of the
Roman revenue and had a city office called the "receipt of custom" or
"place of toll." The Roman tribute in the political provinces into
which conquered nations were divided was usually farmed out to some favorite of
Caesar or of the Senate, who commonly sublet the contract of collection to
native subordinates in districts, called "chief publicans," as
Zaccheus of Jericho (Luke 19:15), and these in turn to lower subordinates in
towns or villages. Though the record does not say so, it is probable from Luke
5:29 that Matthew also was a chief publican, inviting all his subordinates to a
feast.
Where a province was restive and resentful under Roman rule, as was notably the
case of the Jews, and where the exactions of tribute were cruel and rapacious,
a native who sublet one of these contracts became odious to his own people and
in the case of the Jews not only became a social outcast, classed with the
vilest of sinners, but was counted an alien from covenant blessing. We may find
some illustrative particulars in Cicero against Verres, and in the impeachment
of Warren Hastings.
If to a Jewish patriot it became a vital question: "Is it lawful to give
tribute to Caesar" (Mark 12:14), and if this tribute was so hateful it
sometimes led to open revolt (Acts 5:37), how hateful the Jew who became a
collector of it!
According to the Southern idea, in the awful days of destruction, misnamed
Reconstruction, the impecunious Roman favorite who farmed the revenue would be
a "carpetbagger," and the native Jew who sublet from him would be a
"scalawag." In the language of a Southern statesman, "The carpet
baggers and the scalawags defiled the traditions of the past, desecrated the
graves of the dead, reduced the living to humiliating conditions of abject
penury, and even thrust their long itching felonious fingers into the pockets
of posterity, robbing the unborn of a decent living while stripping them of all
opportunity to rise again from the ashes of desolation." The result was
that millions in the South, without cherishing bitterness on account of open
war or its legitimate results, held the deeds of carpetbaggers and scalawags,
and the unwise congressional hate which made them possible, as sins
unpardonable by God or man.
The illustration serves to show the deep intensity of the hate of Jewish
patriots against Jewish publicans, and their horror against our Lord's social
reception of them and eating with them. Under such a vicious system of
collecting revenue, extortion became the rule, its only limits the depravity of
the collector and the people's capacity of endurance. That it was the rule,
appears from Luke 3:13, where convicted publicans seeking baptism inquired of
John the Baptist what the fruits of repentance in their case, and he replies:
"Extort no more than is appointed you," and from the proposed
restitution of the saved Zaccheus: "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" (Luke 19:8). How keen was the publicans' sense of social
degradation appears from their joyous acceptance of salvation from him who
"received them and ate with them." No wonder they entered the kingdom
of heaven before the Pharisees (Matt. 21:31), and no wonder the contrast in
their prayers (Luke 18:9-14).
How marvelous, then, the grace, and how inexplicable to the Jewish mind, to
find a publican numbered with the apostles and the selection of this man alone
to become the historian of the Gospel to the Jews.
Incidents of his life. The Gospels and Acts specifically record only six incidents
of his life, i.e., in which his name appears. (1) His call to discipleship by
our Lord, and his instant obedience (Matt. 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27-28). We
note in these brief accounts how prompt and unhesitating his response and how
complete his renunciation: "He forsook all and followed him." (2) The
great feast he gave to Jesus and its opportunity for fellow publicans to meet
the Lord. To the Saviour it evidences overflowing gratitude, to his fellow
publicans outflowing desire for their salvation. It must be reckoned among the
most honorable feasts of history. (3) His ordination as an apostle (Mark
3:13-18; Luke 6:13-15). (4) He is charged as an apostle when sent out to labor
away from the Lord (Matt. 10:1-42). (5) His participation in the great prayer
service for the coming of the Holy Spirit, after our Lord's ascension (Acts
1:13-14). (6) His writing of the Gospel according to Matthew. See title of this
book.
We particularize those incidents only where his name appears in the record. But
from the record we may infer another incident, he was a disciple of John the
Baptist. The scriptures which support this probability are: (a) Mark declares
John's preaching and baptism to be "the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, the Son of God" (1:1-2). (b) John baptized many publicans (Luke
3:12). (c) John's mission was "to make ready a people prepared for the
Lord," which in the apostles our Lord received, (d) Hence Peter declares
that in filling the vacancy in the twelve caused by the apostasy of Judas, the
candidate must be one who had "companied with us all the time that the
Lord Jesus went in and went out among us beginning from the baptism of John
unto the day he was received up from us" (Acts 1:21-22). (e) The
promptness of Matthew to follow our Lord when called implies previous
conversion.
We may note one well-attested tradition, to wit: That Matthew wrote a gospel in
Hebrew, i.e., Aramaic of which there are no known extant copies. The Greek
gospel by him which we possess does not appear to be a translation from an
Aramaic original. The matter is immaterial since in the formation of the New
Testament collection of books it was unnecessary to include and preserve all
the writings of New Testament authors any more than to record all the sayings
and doings of our Lord.
The scriptural material for the life of this historian is contained in the
following passages: Acts 12:12-25; 13:5-13; 15: 37-39' Philemon 24; Colossians
4:10; 2 Timothy 4:11; 1 Peter 5:13, and possibly Mark 14:51-52.
From these passages the following facts appear: his name was John, but surnamed
Mark, as Simon was surnamed Peter. His mother, Mary, had a home in Jerusalem,
which was a place of assembly for the disciples, and the great disciple,
Barnabas, was a near kinsman. Mark was not an apostle, though a disciple
converted by Peter. As a youth he may have personally known our Lord. It is
quite possible that he refers to himself as present at the arrest of our Lord
in the passage on the young man in the "linen cloth" (14:51), especially
since it was the custom of Bible historians and some classic authors to refer
to themselves in the third person. This would sufficiently account for
introducing the paragraph. It is more probable, however, that Mark here, as
characteristic of him elsewhere, merely gives a striking, realistic detail as a
setting to his picture of the arrest unnoted by other historians. Since
"it is only a step from the sublime to the ridiculous," and since
comedy attends every public tragedy, Mark's record of this ludicrous incident
makes the story true to nature, and helps to demonstrate that he is not writing
fiction. In any event we may reject the wild fancy of Melville, whose sermon on
the passage finds the antitype of the Leviticus scapegoat in the young man in the
linen cloth.
The first clear case of Mark's own appearance in New Testament history was his
going from Jerusalem to Antioch, attending Barnabas and Saul, who were
returning thither from their ministration of alms to the poor saints at
Jerusalem about the time that Herod slew James and imprisoned Peter (Acts
12:25).
His next movement is, in Paul's judgment, far from creditable. We look in vain
to find in the history an explanation that exculpates him. What he did was to
abandon Paul and Barnabas at a most critical period of their labors and return
to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). It is perhaps unprofitable to conjecture a reason
where the record is silent. It possibly was jealousy for his kinsman, Barnabas,
hitherto the leader, but henceforward subordinate to Paul. At Acts 9:27;
11:22-25; 11:30; 13:25; 13:2, it is always "Barnabas and Saul," but
from 13:9 onward the leader is Paul. It was "Paul's company" that
sailed from Cyprus (13:13), and henceforward it is almost always "Paul and
Barnabas" (13:43, 46; 14:14; 15: 2, 22, 35-36). True, naturally, the
church at Jerusalem heard Barnabas first (15:12) because they had sent him out
(11:22) and so put his name first in their letter (15:25). It is true also that
the idolaters of Lystra called Barnabas "Jupiter" and Paul only
"Mercury," but it was a silent Jupiter, Paul being the "chief
speaker" and therefore named Mercury (14: 12).
Possibly also Mark, being only a young soldier, never having endured hardness, dreaded
the perils and labors so graphically described at 2 Corinthians 11:23-27. In
any event at Perga of Pamphilia "John departed from them and returned to
Jerusalem." It is also quite possible that Mark's Jewish prejudices were
not yet sufficiently eradicated to enable him to appreciate Paul's boldness in
carrying the gospel to the Gentiles, as he had notably done in Cyprus in the
case of the Roman proconsul, Sergius Paulus. If this was his reason, the result
of the great Jerusalem conference (Acts 15) was a surprise to him.
This possible reason would explain the fact that we next find John Mark at
Antioch, whither after the Jerusalem conference he must have accompanied Paul,
Barnabas, Judas, and Silas, ready now, it, would seem, to resume a mission he had
formerly abandoned. But his former desertion rankles in Paul's mind, so that
his proposed company on the new mission becomes the occasion of sharp
contention between Paul and Barnabas and resulted in a separation between these
great co-workers (see Acts 15:36-41). Paul was a stern soldier, unwilling to
try again on a toilsome and dangerous mission one "who withdrew from them,
from Pamphilia, and went not with them to the work."
So for a long time Mark is shut off from a share in Paul's life and the glory
of his achievements. Barnabas, however, took him and '''sailed away unto
Cyprus," and so both sail out of the history, Barnabas to return no more,
but Mark happily to reappear much later. We are gratified to find him once more
a companion and fellow worker of Paul in the first Roman imprisonment (Philem.
24) whom Paul is about to send forth to Colosse with a communication (Col.
4:10). We next find both him and Silas with Peter at Babylon (1 Peter 5:12-13),
thence he returns to proconsular-Asia, from whence Paul in his last letter,
again a prisoner and under sentence of death at Rome, is calling for him in
full acknowledgment of the pleasure of his company and the profit of his
ministry (2 Tim. 4:11).
The greatest, best, and most enduring of his works is "The Gospel
according to Mark" (see title of his book). For this work he had ample
qualification. He was living in Jerusalem when our Lord was crucified, and when
he rose from the dead. and when the 120 received the baptism in the Spirit. He
was himself led to Christ by Peter either in the great Pentecostal revival, or
in the rest that followed Saul's persecution. Peter calls him "Mark, my
son," as Paul called Timothy "My true child in the faith."
Mark thus shared the glories of the early Jerusalem church, knew personally of
its three great persecutions: (1) by the Sadducees (Acts 4-5) ; (2) by the
Pharisees (Acts 6:9 to 8:3) ; (3) by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1-23). His
mother's home was a place of meeting for the church. Thus in Jerusalem and in
his home he heard all the twelve tell the wonderful story of the Lord. He was
present at the great Jerusalem conference (Acts 15).
He was intimately associated: with Peter; with Barnabas and Saul; with
Barnabas; with Paul, and again with Peter. His gospel was written, not for
Jews, but for Romans, and has well been called the gospel of Peter. The
tradition to that effect is abundant and credible, and well harmonizes with the
internal evidence. It was written at Rome, but just when we do not know. It is
rightly placed after Matthew's Gospel to the Jews. As in the preaching, so in
the histories: "To the Jews first." This expositor does not share the
theory that one of the gospels was the norm from which the others were
developed, and hence does not share the growing modern conviction based on it
that Mark was first written. It has no historical basis. The only norm was the
oral gospel.
This historian was a Gentile, and the only Gentile who was the author of a
Bible book. He writes two volumes, his gospel, which is a history of our Lord's
earth life, and the Acts, which is a history of our Lord's ascended life up to
a certain date (Luke 1:1-3 and Acts 1:1). The title to his "Gospel
according to Luke" contains his only direct use of his own name. He is the
faithful companion of Paul who names him in three letters, Philemon 24,
Colossians 4:14, 2 Timothy 4: 11. Paul declares him to be "the beloved
physician," and that he was a medical practitioner we might infer from
some peculiar expressions in his history.
His companionship with Paul, so far as he himself notices it, is indicated by
the use of the personal pronoun. When in the Acts he uses the first person
plural "we" or "us" to describe Paul's movements, he is
present. When he uses the third person "they" or "them," he
is not with Paul. From this use of the pronoun we see that he joined Paul at
Troas, on the second missionary tour of that book (Acts 16:10) accompanied him
to Philippi, and was with him in the great meeting there. Here Luke remained
several years, until Paul came back to that city at the conclusion of his third
missionary tour and was about to return to Syria to carry the alms he had
gathered in Macedonia and Achaia to the poor saints at Jerusalem. Luke is now
with him throughout all the rest of the history from Acts 20:5 to the end.
So he shared with Paul four imprisonments: in Jerusalem; two years imprisonment
in Caesarea; two years first imprisonment in Rome, and the last Roman
imprisonment. The first Roman imprisonment ends Luke's own account. Paul
himself testifies to Luke's presence in the first Roman imprisonment (Philem.
24; Col. 4:14). He also testifies that Luke alone is with him in his last Roman
imprisonment (2 Tim. 4:11).
Luke and Paul are the only scholarly men of the New Testament writers.
There are some indirect allusions which may inclusively refer to Luke, e.g., 2
Corinthians 8:11-12, 23, and Luke 24:13f. Luke's being a "beloved
physician" may account, in a measure, for his close companionship with
Paul, who, besides many physical infirmities, suffered serious afflictions in
the body at the hands of relentless persecutors. He is not Lucius of Cyrene
(Acts 12:1), nor the other Lucius (Rom. 16:21), a kinsman of Paul. The name is
different in Greek, Latin, and English.
There are more biographical details in the New Testament concerning John than
concerning all others of its authors together, apart from Peter and Paul. These
details, generally given by himself in his five books, are so clear and vivid
the man seems alive before us as we read. We distinctly see him as a disciple
of John the Baptist, the first disciple of our Lord; with Andrew, the fisherman
of the Sea of Galilee; his first call to continuous service and companionship
with Jesus; one of the twelve apostles to the Jews and the last to survive; his
great prominence among the twelve before and after the death of our Lord; one
of the "sons of thunder" among them; an inspired writer; a teacher of
love; certain knowledge and a never-doubting assurance; a positive witness who never
tangles in his testimony; a theologian, and elder; the one ever nearest to our
Lord and best beloved; an exile in tribulation for the faith, and the
pre-eminent seer.
Doubtless all the twelve were first disciples of John the Baptist (Acts
1:21-22), but of John it is distinctly affirmed (John 1:35-39).
Even in old age he recalls the very hour in which he first saw the Lord. It is
the foundation of all his theology that he first saw him as "the Lamb of
God." Not as king, prophet, priest, or judge did he first see him, but as
the atoning Sacrifice which taketh away the sin of the world. So most of us
first consciously see our Lord as a sacrifice, or Saviour from sin, rather than
in his other offices.
Nearest to our Lord. On five distinct and eventful occasions he declares
himself to be "the disciple that Jesus loved: " (1) When at the last
passover his head rested on the bosom of the Lord and he received the
disclosure of the betrayer (13:23); (2) when on the cross our Lord commended
his mother to his care (19:26) ; (3) when to him and Peter Mary Magdalene
reported the empty tomb (20:2) ; (4) when at the Sea of Tiberias he recognized
the risen Lord (21:7) ; (5) when Peter, commanded to follow our Lord, asks,
"what shall this man do?" (21:20). But this nearness is even more
apparent when often, in his gospel, he discloses the very heart of the Lord.
Prominence among the twelve. (1) He is one of the four first called to
continuous service (Matt. 4:18; Mark 1:16-20), and the same four constitute the
first group in the four lists of the apostles (Matt. 10:2f; Mark 3:16f; Luke
6:41f; Acts 1: i3f). (2) He is one of the inner three specially honored by our
Lord to witness the raising of the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:37' Luke 8:51) ;
to witness the transfiguration (Matt. 17:2; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28), and to
witness his agony in Gethsemane (Matt. 26:37; Mark 14:33). (3) He is associated
with Peter, the leading apostle, in making ready the last passover (Luke 22:8);
in witnessing the examination of our Lord in the house of Annas (John 18:16) ;
in visiting the tomb of our Lord (John 20:2-8); in the healing of the lame man
at the door of the Temple and all the attendant circumstances (Acts 3-4); in
being sent by the other apostles to confer the miraculous gift of the Holy
Spirit on Philip's Samaritan converts (Acts 8:14f); in being a reputed pillar
in the Jerusalem church (Gal. 2:9). (4) He and his brother James are surnamed
"the sons of thunder" among the twelve (Mark 3: 17). Without any
warrant commentators have made this surname a term of reproach by making it an
anticipation of a much later event (Luke 9:51) in which John is rebuked by our
Lord. There is no relation between the giving of the surname and the event. As
Simon was honored by the surname Peter, so James and John are honored by the
surname "Boanerges." The word marks their evident power and energy.
John as a witness. More than any other of the twelve does John fulfil the
office of witness foretold by our Lord (15:27), and particularly as a witness
of his resurrection (Acts 1:22). He emphasizes the fact that John the Baptist,
our Lord himself, his works, the Holy Spirit, the water, and the blood are all
witnesses with whom he must stand, giving testimony. Hence, when he saw the
blood and water follow the piercing of the aide of Christ, fulfilling two Old
Testament scriptures that identify him as the passover Lamb and the suffering
Saviour, his is careful to add: "And he that hath seen hath borne witness,
and his witness is true: and he knoweth that what he saith is true, that ye
also may believe." Indeed, he regards his whole gospel as evidence on the
witness stand with a view to belief in the evidence: "This is the disciple
that beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that
his witness is true" (21:24), and long afterward he identifies the author
of the Revelation as the John who had thus borne witness in his gospel (Rev.
1:2). So he regards all of that book, Revelation, as the testimony of his risen
Lord (Rev. 22:16-20), and all through the record of this testimony he is
careful to say, "I, John, am he that saw and heard these things"
(Rev. 22:8). As if he realized the challenge and cross-examination of future
scepticism, he never tangles himself in giving evidence, is never doubtful of
his facts, but speaks with positive knowledge and full assurance. All of his
senses bear witness. In his own words: "That which was from the beginning,
that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we
beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the word of life (and the life was
manifested, and we have seen and bear witness, and declare unto you the life,
the eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) that
which we have seen and heard declare we unto you also, that ye may also have
fellowship with us: yea, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his
Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 1:1-3). To these organs of sense in the outer
man, sight, hearing, touch, he adds the witness of the inner man: "And as for
you, the anointing which ye received of him abideth in you, and ye need not
that any one teach you: but as his anointing teacheth you concerning all
things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, ye abide in
him."
He himself was present at an appearance of the Lord when those who saw him were
terrified and affrighted, supposing they beheld a spirit, and heard him say,
"Why are ye troubled? and wherefore do questionings arise in your heart?
See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit
hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having."
John the theologian. Some manuscripts give this as the title of his book: The
Gospel of John, the Theologian. While evidently the words "The Theologian"
are additions by a later hand, they are also evidently true. For verification
compare the etymology of the word "theology" with John's prologue
(1:1-18) which is the norm from which his whole gospel is developed. Apart from
John, Paul only of all other apostles and New Testament authors may be called a
theologian.
The offsets against John consist of three particulars: (1) John, with the other
apostles, when they saw one casting out demons in the name of Jesus, forbade
him because he would not follow them. He forgot that we are not called to
follow this or that man, but Jesus only. One of our commonest faults is to
confound ourselves with the Lord. I know a preacher who constantly mistakes
himself for Christ. Failure to follow him in opinions and methods is counted
disloyalty to God himself. Our Lord severely rebuked John and the others who
thus dared to so limit individual service. Whatever may be our position and
power in the kingdom, we do not hold in sacerdotal hands the monopoly of grace
and control the mediums of its communications. This error was a dominant one in
the great apostasy. Our Lord made this lamentable error the occasion of one of
his most solemn and profitable lessons (Mark 9:38-50; Luke 9:49-50; Matt. 18:
6-14).
(2) John and James wanted to call down fire from heaven upon the village of
Samaritans that refused to receive Jesus (Luke 9:51-56). Here again they
mistook themselves for God. Vengeance is the peculiar prerogative of the
Almighty (Rom. 12:19) and the time of his vengeance is the final judgment. The
duty of the disciple in such a case is limited to witness- bearing in the
solemn charges to the twelve when they were sent out to preach: "And
whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, as you go forth out of
that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto
you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day
of judgment than for that city." The seed of all the persecutions for
conscience' sake was in John's error here. That seed, where fully developed in
any heart, produces a Philip II more infamous than Nero and next to the devil.
Even from above heavenward some of the light of glory may shine the chariot of
the sun, and Vergil tells how Eolus wickedly usurped the prerogative of Neptune
in stirring up the sea storm to destroy the fleet of Aeneas, and of the
presumption of even Juno when she said, "I will shake all heaven with
thunder" over them while the ocean engulfs them. Et ciebo ome coelum
tonitru.
(3) The ambition of James and John, aided by their mother, in seeking the two
most prominent places in the kingdom of glory (Matt. 20:20-28; Luke 18:35-45).
Again our Lord severely rebukes them and imparts another solemn and profitable
lesson.
A newspaper reports that when the Pan-Episcopal Council met in London, Dean
Stanley put up a coal-black Negro, Bishop of Haiti, to preach in Westminster
Abbey to royalty and nobility, surrounded with "storied urn and animated
bust." He read for his double text the mother's foolish prayer (Matt.
20:20-21) and the equally foolish prayer of her sons (Luke 18:35-37), and then
said, "Let us pray," and himself thus prayed:
"O thou Creator, God, who made all nations of one blood and fashioned
their hearts alike and loved all and died for all, let the sons of Shem, who
betrayed the Lord, have the place at thy right hand, and the sons of Japheth,
who crucified the Lord, have the place at thy left hand. But Lord, grant that
the sons of African Simon, the Cyrenean. who bore thy cross may have a place at
the outer gate, where indeed from above heavenward some of the light of glory
may shine them and some of its music cheer them, but where, looking earthward,
they may see 'Ethiopia stretching out her hands to God,' and be the first to
greet her dusky sons coming up home to heaven."
No eloquence of Pitt or Burke or Sheridan ever equalled that prayer, and what a
pity that James and John never heard it!
At least once a month every preacher should read and lay to his heart these
three great lessons of our Lord called forth by spots on the white robe of
John, and every time let him feel the need of sanctification as well as of
justification and regeneration in order to complete salvation.
After Paul's death John moved to proconsular-Asia, where he wrote all of his
five books. Ephesus was his headquarters, from which he was banished to Patmos
in the last years of Domitian, returning to Ephesus after that tyrant's death.
He lived to be nearly 100 years old, and probably was the only apostle who
escaped martyrdom, though some tradition makes him also a martyr.
John's family, social, and financial standing. Zebedee and Salome were his
parents. They had a home on the Sea of Galilee and were able to hire servants
to carry on their business of supplying fish for a great market. The business
did not stop because the sons entered the ministry (Mark 1:20).
The mother, later, herself followed the Lord around, and was a member of the
first Ladies' Aid Society that ministered to the Lord of their substance, when
living, and brought spices for his embalming when dead (compare Luke 8:2 with
Mark 15:40-41; 16:1).
John himself owned a home in Jerusalem, to which he conducted the mother of our
Lord after the crucifixion (John 19: 25). His acquaintance with the ex-high
priest, Annas, and the ready access to his home indicate social standing (John
18:15-16).
There is a touching tradition concerning John's extreme old age. When over one
hundred years old, too weak to walk and too feeble to stand, he would have the
brethren help him into the church at Ephesus and support him, while with
uplifted, trembling hands, he would say, "Little children, love one
another."
Another tradition shows his hatred of heretics who denied the deity of his
Lord. He had entered a bathhouse, but, learning that Cerinthus, the heretic,
was also there, he abruptly left the building, saying, "Let us get away
lest the house fall on us for being in such company." Such heretics are
more plentiful and less dreaded now. They even claim the seat of John in the kingdom.
The New Testament details for a biography of Paul, the other historian, are too
numerous for this introduction, and will be considered when we reach the
interpretation of Acts 9, or his first book.
QUESTIONS
1. Give some New Testament
account of Matthew.
2. What was a publican?
3. Explain the Roman system
of collecting revenue in the conquered provinces, its viciousness and account
for Jewish hate of the publicans.
4. Illustrate by an incident
in the British government of India, by a noted case in Roman government outside
of Judea, and by the reconstruction days in the South.
5. What are the New
Testament incidents of Matthew's life, that is, where does his name appear in
the record?
6. What other incident may
we infer from the record and the scriptural ground of its probability?
7. What one well-attested
tradition?
8. What is the scriptural
material for a life of Mark?
9. Give the several
conjectures of the reason of Mark's record of the incident of the young man in
the linen cloth, and what noted minister preached a fanciful sermon thereon?
10. Give in order the
recorded incidents of Mark's life, and which one not creditable?
11. How do you account for
Mark's conduct on this occasion?
12. What his greatest work
and his qualifications therefore?
13. Was Luke a Jew?
14. What Bible books were
written by Gentiles?
15. What Luke's occupation,
and how do you know?
16. Was it probable on this
account he was associated with Paul?
17. Show from Acts when Luke
was with Paul, and how do you know?
18. What Luke's greatest
works?
19. How do you know that he
was not the Lucius of Acts 13:2 and Romans 16:21?
20. Who of the New Testament
authors were scholars?
21. Contrast the New
Testament biographical details concerning John with those of other New
Testament authors.
22. In what respects do they
make him live before us?
23. Give the proofs that of
all the apostles he was nearest and dearest to the Lord.
24. Show the several ways in
which he was prominent among the twelve.
25. Give evidence that he
stressed his mission as a witness.
26. How do you justify his
title, "the theologian," and what other apostle may be so classed?
27. What of the three offsets
against John?
28. Give account of the
Negro's prayer in Westminster Abbey.
29. What were his latest
labors?
30. Give account of his
family, financial, and social standing.
31. Name, in order, the
Roman Emperors under whom John lived? (This is a historical test question.)
32. Name a touching
tradition concerning John's old age.
33. Name another tradition
showing his hatred of heretics.
LUKE'S DEDICATION AND JOHN'S PROLOGUE
Broadus' Harmony pages 1-2 and Luke 1:1-4;
John 1:1-18.
The first question that confronts us on the threshold of the text of the
several histories of our Lord, is, how the historians obtained the material of
their histories, and did they all obtain it in the same way?
This is not altogether a question of inspiration. It is conceded that all were
inspired. No matter how they obtained their material, inspiration was needed in
every case in the make-up of the record of what they obtained. If Matthew
obtained his genealogy from previous Jewish records (1:1-17) and all the
information concerning the infancy of our Lord from Joseph's account of it
(1:18 to 2:23), however handed down – and if Luke received his information of
our Lord's infancy and childhood from Mary (1:26 to 2:52) – and if John
received all the material of his apocalypse by direct revelation – still would
inspiration be needed to direct them in reducing to writing this information,
however required. That is to say, how much to record, what known facts to omit,
how arrange this selected material according to a definite plan, looking to a
distinct end, so far as the one book is concerned, and how this book should be
so correlated as to fit in, with dovetail exactness, into a whole library of
other sacred books, as the several bones are articulated into one skeleton, is
our problem and our task.
Again, our question is not one of illumination. A prophet might receive a
revelation and not understand it (1 Peter 1: 10-11). He might, through
inspiration, record it accurately without understanding it. But these
historians, frequently, and whenever necessary, interpret their facts, showing
that they possessed illumination, e.g., John 11:21; 7:39, and Matthew's
application of Old Testament quotations.
Revelation is a divine disclosure of hidden things. Inspiration is that gift of
the Holy Spirit which enables one to select and arrange material to a definite
end and inerrantly record it. Illumination, another gift of the Spirit, enables
one to understand a revelation or to interpret the facts of an inspired record.
The material of these several histories was obtained in three ways:
(1) By eyewitness, as the gospels of Matthew and John.
(2) By those who received it from eyewitnesses, as the gospels of Mark and
Luke.
(3) By direct revelation, as Paul's Gospel and John's Apocalypse.
These observations lead up to the beginning of our interpretation of the
histories. Our textbook is Dr. Broadus' Harmony of the Gospels of
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, with only two parallels from Paul's Gospel. We
will enlarge our textbook, as we proceed, by insertion of many other parallels
from Paul. This chapter will be devoted to Luke's dedication and John's
prologue, both supplemented from Paul.
On the left of Luke's dedication put John 21:24, and on the right Galatians
1:11-12. Now compare them: John affirms that he wrote his gospel as an
eyewitness, while according to the revision, Luke affirms that the matter of
his gospel was delivered by them "who from the beginning were
eye-witnesses" and traced out by him in careful research. But Paul affirms
that his was received by revelation. It is commonly supposed that Mark wrote as
Peter had taught him, but Paul says that his gospel was not after man for he
did not receive it from man, nor was he taught it. He is careful to show that
he preached it before he saw Peter, and when on three occasions he did meet
Peter, not only was nothing imparted to him, but his full and independent
authority and mission were recognized, and that it fell to his lot to correct
an evil practice of Peter. So whether we consider the original twelve, with
those whom they instructed, or Paul, in every case an oral gospel preceded a
written gospel. This spoken gospel was authoritative before reduced to writing.
It was that deposit of the faith delivered to the churches to be held inviolate
and transmitted unimpaired (Luke 1:2; Acts 13:31; 1 Corinthians 11:2-23; 15:
1-8; I Timothy 6:20; 2 Timothy 11:2; Jude3; Hebrews 11:3). In it catechumens,
like Theophilus, were instructed (Luke 1: 4). But as the original and qualified
witnesses were few, and these kept passing away and soon all would be gone, and
as tradition at every remove from its original source becomes less trustworthy,
you can easily understand Luke's fact "that many would undertake to reduce
to written narrative what they had heard orally from the eye-witnesses."
And just here Luke introduces his second thought that his own writings were
from accurate knowledge in all things, in order that the reader might know the
certainty of the things in which he had been orally instructed.
It was this necessity that called for inspiration. For if, as Peter says,
referring to oral deliverance: "Men spake from God, being moved by the
Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21), it was equally true, says Paul, after
referring to the sacred writings collectively, that distributively "every
one of these writings is God-inspired" (Greek, Pasa graphe theopneustos
(2 Tim. 3: 15-16). From Luke 1:1 and Acts 1:1, it is evident that Theophilus
was not only a real person, but one of distinction, and from the word
"instructed" in Luke 1:4, it is also evident that he was a
catechumen, from which may be inferred that in apostolic times all new converts
were diligently catechized in the elements of the faith delivered (compare Eph.
4:11-15; Heb. 5:12-14; I Pet. 11:2).
When Luke says, "Many have undertaken to draw up a narrative of the things
fulfilled among us," it is evident that he does not refer to the gospels
of Matthew and Mark. Nothing that he could write would add to the
"accuracy" or "certainty" of what they wrote. Indeed, it
cannot be proved that their writings were prior to his. Though the Synoptic
Gospels were written about the same time, it is most probable that our present
order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, is chronological. Certainly no one of the three is
the norm of the others.
Before leaving this classic gem, Luke's dedication, an important question must
be answered: Does Luke himself, in this introduction, claim to have traced out
carefully all of the facts of his history as any other painstaking historian,
or does he here affirm distinctly a guiding inspiration throughout? Our English
versions, particularly the revision, support the former contention. On the
other hand, some distinguished scholars and Biblical interpreters, notably
Lightfoot and Urquhart, support the latter contention. We find a full statement
of Urquhart's argument in his New Biblical Guide, Vol. VII, pp. 337-34.8.
Lightfoot's argument may be found in Pittman's edition of his works, Vol. IV,
pp. 114-115. Or, if Lightfoot and Urquhart be not accessible, there may be
found a very clever and elaborate restatement of the argument of both in The
Young Professor, whose author is the accomplished son of the late Dr. William
E. Hatcher of Richmond, Va. Whenever one reads this argument carefully, whether
in Lightfoot, Urquhart, or The Young Professor, it interests him, challenges
his respect, and appears to be hard to answer. One need not be more than a
sophomore in Greek to understand and feel the force of the argument.
The marked difference of the renderings of Luke 1:1-4 in the common and the
revised versions arises from no difference in the Greek text they translate.
The text is the same. Write, therefore, in three parallel columns, the Greek
text, the common version, and the revised version of Luke 1:1-4. For the
references keep open before you an interlinear Greek Testament, and on your
table Bagster's Analytical Greek Lexicon, or Thayer's, and the Englishman's
Greek Concordance. Then follow, step by step, Urquhart's argument. These
directions will help a beginner in Greek, however puerile or unnecessary they
may appear to expert scholars.
The contention, in substance, is this:
Many uninspired men, in apostolic times, undertook to write orderly narratives
of the gospel history as they were orally delivered by the apostles, who were
eyewitnesses.
Not one of these survives because they were displaced by inspired narratives,
which conveyed assurance and certainty as to the facts and teachings.
This is exactly what Luke says as to the reason of his writing, expressly
affirming his inspiration, with a view to this assured accuracy and certainty.
The argument for this contention is based altogether on translation and usage
of the words. The common version preferred to the revision, needs only one
change in it. Instead of "from the very first" in that version, they
render "from above." The Greek word is anothen. They rely
first on the etymology of the word, then its New Testament usage, then its
perfect harmony with the context. They admit some usage for "from the
first," a derived meaning, but never permissible as a substitute for the
primary meaning, unless the context demands it.
The usage cited is:
"The veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top [from above] to the
bottom" (Matt. 27:51; Mark 15:38).
Except a man be born "from above" (John 3:3) ; "Ye must be born
from above" (John 3:7).
In both these cases, "born from above" is interpreted by our Lord as
"born of the Spirit." "He that cometh from above is above
all." John 3:31. Jesus says to Pilate. "Thou couldest have no power
at all against me, except it were given thee from above" (John 19:11).
"Now the coat was without seam from the top [from above] throughout"
(John 19:23).
"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above" (James 1:17).
"This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual,
devilish" (James 3:15). "But the wisdom that is from above is first
pure, then peaceable" (James 3:17).
Then comes Luke's only use of the word, except where once he quotes Paul:
"Having had perfect understanding of all things from above . . . that thou
mightest know the certainty, etc."
In all these instances of usage, the sum total of usage by Matthew, Mark, Luke,
John, and James, our Greek word anothen is rendered by the italicized words
from the top, referring to veil or coat, and "from above" elsewhere.
They add the evident allusion of Irenaeus to Luke 1:3. "For after our Lord
arose from the dead, and they were endued from above with the power of the Holy
Ghost coming down upon them, they received a perfect knowledge of all
things" ("Against Heresies," 3:1). Luke says, "Having had
perfect understanding of all things from above." Irenaeus says, "When
they were endued from above, they received a perfect knowledge of all
things." Compare with James: "Every perfect gift is from above."
It was this enduement which enabled Luke to write "accurately"
(Greek, akribos). And all this fulfilled our Lord's promise that when
the Holy Spirit comes, "He shall teach you all things," "He
shall guide you into all truth." Therefore the merely human histories of
our Lord perished. Therefore only inspired histories could give "certainty"
to the things in which we are instructed.
They add that in this very brief context, when Luke would express the idea of
"from the first," or "from the beginning," he uses the
unmistakable Greek words, ep' arches (Luke 1:2). And that their whole
rendering best agrees with the meaning of the Greek word plerophoria –
"certainly believed," and not "fulfilled." And with the
other Greek word, parakolo – the, which does not mean to obtain
knowledge by "tracing" or investigating.
To Paul's per contra usage of the word anothen they reply: he uses it only
twice, (a) In his speech, reported by Luke at Acts 26:5, where the context
demands the secondary meaning "from the first." (b) At Galatians 4:9
there is the modifying word palin, and the context forbids the primary
meaning "again from above."
My colleague, Dr. Williams, says that the whole contention depends on whether
the adverb anothen in Luke 1:3 is one of locality or of time, and that it
cannot be certainly determined which it is in our passage. The author prefers
throughout, the common version rendering of the passage to the revision, and
believes that the preponderance of the argument is with Lightfoot and Urquhart.
We now take up the prologue of John (1:1-18), putting beside it Paul's
contribution to the same matter. Place these references in the harmony,
opposite or under John's introduction: Philippians 2:6-11; Colossians 1:15-20;
2:9; Hebrews 1:1-13; 2:14-17; 10:1-9; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Romans 8:3; 2 Timothy
3:16; Galatians 4:4-5.
It is not our purpose to put in parallel with John's prologue any matter from
Paul's Gospel except what touches our Lord's pre-existence, his nature and
activities, his incarnation and its purpose.
Let us first consider John. The first eighteen verses of John constitute the
norm and outline of his whole book. So many propositions cannot elsewhere be
found in so few words. As all mists of speculative philosophy concerning the
origin of the material universe flee and fade before the sunrise of the first
chapter of Genesis, so all heresies concerning our Lord and the eternal
redemption of him are dispelled by the Sun of righteousness rising with healing
wings in these beginnings of their gospels by John and Paul. It is far from my
purpose to engage your finite minds in the impossible task of comprehending the
unfathomable mystery of the tri-personality in the unity of God. It will
content me if you will believe what is revealed. If we might trust for
explanation to human philosophy we could not improve on the comparison of
Sabellius, "God the Father is the sun, Jesus Christ is the sun's light,
and the Holy Spirit is the sun's heat." Or we might regard the Trinity as
only a distinction in office or manifestation. This was my own boyish attempt
to explain it. My illustration was that of a teacher who was also a father and
a magistrate. His own son, while at school, was guilty of a penal offense. This
teacher must, therefore, deal with the delinquent in the threefold capacity of
father, teacher, and magistrate, i.e., from the standpoint of the family, the
school, and society. But none of these illustrations coincides with the
teachings of revelation – there is one God, there are three persons, not three
attributes or offices, or manifestations.
Nor would I have you anticipate the more elaborate study of systematic
theology. Let us barely touch it, and that only because it is here an essential
part of our historic study. Therefore I compress into barest outline and
simplest form this introduction of John.
1. The Logos .
2. Creation by the Logos
3. In him all life
4. In him all light
5. This light is invincible by darkness
6. The Logos incarnated
7. Purpose of the incarnation
8. The supernatural birth of those receiving the incarnate Logos
9. The witness of John the Baptist to the incarnate Logos
1. The Logos. The first sentence announces a new name, "The Word"
(Greek, O Logos). Whence this name? We will not waste our time in looking for
its origin in the speculations of Philo, the Alexandrian Jew. His logos, mainly
an energy or an attribute, and never an incarnate personality, is not the Logos
of John. It serves us little better to wade through the muddy waters of Jewish
traditions in any form. We have a surer word of prophecy to which we will do
well to take heed.
The reader is referred to our discussion on the conversion of Abraham,
"Interpretation," volume on Genesis. There, for the first time in any
record, we find the phrase, "The Word of the Lord." This Word, not as
a voice addressed to the ear, but as a person addressed to his sight, appeared
in a vision to Abraham, and as the specific object of saving faith. Before this
experience Abraham had believed divine statements, had believed in a promised
country, and in a promised seed, but here he believed on Jehovah himself as his
shield and exceeding great reward, and it was counted to him for righteousness.
"The Word of the Lord," "shield," "believed," and
"imputed righteousness," a salvation group, here make their first
appearance in the Bible record. The "Word of the Lord," as a Person,
appears elsewhere in the Old Testament, notably in the Psalms and prophets, and
is doubtless the personified wisdom of Proverbs 8:23-30. So that the Logos is
Christ's pre-incarnate name and most aptly represents him as the revelator of
the Father. In this light we understand better the abrupt and sublime formula
of the first chapter of Genesis, repeated ten times, "And God said,"
"And God said," and following each utterance came a new creative act.
These were the first ten commandments, the ten words of creation. On Sinai came
the ten words of the Law. On the Galilean mountain came the Beatitudes, or the ten
words of happiness.
But always it is the Logos revealing the Father. Of this Logos, in one short
sentence, John predicates three essential elements of divinity:
(1) Absolute eternity of being, "In the beginning was the Word."
(2) Distinct personality, "And the Word was with God" – two persons
together.
(3) The nature or essence of Deity, "And the Word was God." The
absence of the article in the Greek before "God" in the third
predicate clearly shows the meaning. The phrase is not, "the Word was the God,"
but "the Word was God," i.e., in nature or essence. The second verse
sums up and emphatically repeats: "The same," i.e., this very one so
described as an eternal, divine Person was in the company and fellowship of God
throughout eternity. It was always so; it was so in the beginning.
2. By the Logos came the creation. Not merely the universe as a whole, but
every minute part. Not matter merely to be left to develop itself, but every
change and form of development. So Genesis represents it. By him everything
came to be. There was no chance development.
3. In him was all life – vegetable, animal, spiritual. Not only as the start of
life, but its continuance: "Thou takest away their breath, they die and
return to dust. Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created. And thou
renewest the face of the ground." The nonliving can never develop into the
living. But particularly does our author speak of spiritual life. Not only in
him do we live and move and have our being, but from the beginning the Son of God
has been the source of eternal life.
4. He is the light of the world. The only real light. There is no knowledge of
God and no revelation of God except through the Son. He alone declares the
Father. Man by searching cannot find out God. Cannot see him except as the Son
reveals him.
5. The light is invincible: "The light shineth in the darkness and the
darkness apprehended it not." It is somewhat difficult to determine the
meaning of the Greek word here rendered "apprehended." The sense is
either the darkness did not take possession of the light by appropriating it
and becoming light, or did not hem it in, repress it, so as to conquer it. In
the latter sense we make it read: "The light shineth in the darkness, and
the darkness overcame it not." The context, particularly vv. 10-11, favors
the first meaning, and the inability to appropriate the light finds vivid
illustration in a parallel from Paul's Gospel: "And even if our gospel is
veiled it is veiled in them that perish: in whom the god of this world hath
blinded the minds of the unbelieving that the light of the gospel of the glory
of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them." We may
find abundant and striking illustrations of the other possible meaning. Even on
the cross, in the hour of the power of darkness, when for three mortal hours
the thick darkness filled and enveloped the dying one – even then the darkness
overcame it not. Once in the dawn of creation darkness was upon the face of the
deep and the Word said, "Let there be light!" And there was light,
and the darkness overcame it not. Once in our experience we were in darkness,
but God, who commanded the light to shine out of the darkness, shone into our
hearts, giving us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the Face of
Jesus Christ. And the darkness has never been able to quench that light. Upon
us also will come the darkness of death, but our Saviour Jesus Christ has
abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,
and will transfer us to a home and condition of which it is said, there is no
night there. And so the light is indestructible and the darkness cannot
overcome it.
6. This Word was manifested and became flesh. It was not a mere assumption of
human nature like the putting on of a garment, but the Word came to be a real
man. That is a vital doctrine as the author continues to insist elsewhere:
"Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of
God." "For many deceivers have gone forth into the world, even they
that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh."
7. The purpose of the incarnation was to bring grace and truth to the fallen.
He was full of grace and truth, that is, for mercy and revelation.
8. The recipients of this mercy and revelation obtained the right to become the
sons of God by a supernatural birth, being born not of blood, nor of the will
of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
9. Prophecy, in its culmination in John the Baptist, recognized and identified
and witnessed that this was the true light.
Such, in brief, is John's prologue. Let us put beside it the beginnings of
Paul's Gospel: "For there be many that are called gods, whether in heaven
or on earth; and there are gods many, and lords many; yet to us there is but
one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord,
Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him" (1
Cor.8:5-6).
"At the end of these days God hath spoken to us in his Son, whom he
appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds; who being
the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding
all things by the word of his power, when he made purification of sins, sat
down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. . . . Of the Son he saith, Thy
throne, O God, is forever and ever. . . . And thou, Lord, in the beginning
didst lay the foundations of the earth . . . and when he again bringeth the
first-born into the world, he saith, Let all angels of God worship him" (Heb.
1: 1-6).
"The Son of his love is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of
all creation, for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the
earth, things visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions or
principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto
him; and he is before all things and in him all things consist" (Col. 1:
15-17).
"Christ Jesus, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an
equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form
of a slave, being made in the likeness of man; and being found in fashion as a
man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, yea, the death of the
cross. Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which
is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of beings
in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father" (Phil. 2:6-11).
"And without controversy great is the mystery of Godliness: He who was manifested in the
flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations,
Believed on in the world, Received up into glory" (I Tim. 3:16).
"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,
God, sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin,
condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3).
"But when the fulness of time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a
woman, born under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law,
that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Gal. 4:4-5).
"Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself
in like manner partook of the same, that through death he might bring to naught
him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might deliver all of
them whom, through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to
bondage" (Heb. 2:14-15).
"Wherefore
when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offerings thou wouldest not.
But a body didst thou prepare for me; . . . Then said I, Lo, I am come, (In the
roll of the book it is written of me) To do thy will, O God" (Heb.
10:5-7).
"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col.
2:9).
"For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich,
yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might become
rich" (2 Cor. 8:9).
These excerpts from Paul are not exhaustive, but samples merely in his Gospel
correlative with John's Prologue. They establish the absolute eternity,
personality, and deity of our Lord Jesus Christ and exhibit his relations to
the Father in both eternity and time, his relations to the universe and to man,
and make very clear not only the incarnation, but its objects. Paul uses the
term, Son, in the place of John's Logos, and "new creation" as the
parallel of John's new birth, and brings in the new term "adoption"
to express the legal process of becoming sons. A critic affects to find this contradiction
between John's and Paul's Gospels use of the incarnation, the former to take on
glory, the latter to empty himself of it or to strip off glory. There is no
merit whatever in the criticism. John, as well as Paul, shows that Jesus laid
aside his heavenly glory to become a man (John 17:5), and Paul, as well as
John, describes the outshining of Christ's glory through the veil of the flesh
and the acquiring of glory through his humiliation. Paul much more clearly and
elaborately than John, expresses the various conditions, processes, purposes
and beneficial effects of the incarnation.
In this connection should be read the author's sermon on "The Nature,
Person, Offices, and Relations of Our Lord," preached before the Southern
Baptist Convention at Hot Springs, Arkansas, and published by order of that
body in pamphlet form and recently reproduced in a volume of sermons published
by the Fleming H. Revell Company.
QUESTIONS
1.What question confronts us
at the threshold of the texts of the
five histories of our Lord?
2. Show why this is not
merely a question of inspiration.
3. Nor of illumination.
4. Define revelation,
inspiration, illumination.
5. In what three ways did
the historians obtain a knowledge of their
facts? Illustrate by John 21:24; revised version of Luke 1:2; and Galatians 1:11-12.
6. What always preceded a
written gospel?
7. What is the necessity for
written gospels?
8. For inspired gospels,
give, quoting from Peter the inspiration of
the oral and from Paul the inspiration of the written.
9. What three facts do you learn from Luke 1:1-4 concerning
Theophilus?
10. What custom of apostolic
times may be inferred from the word
"instructed," Luke 1:4?
11. When Luke refers to the
many written narratives of our Lord,
does he refer to Matthew or Mark?
12. In what respect does
Luke consider his narrative superior to the
"many narratives" to which he alludes?
13. What great question has
arisen from this dedication of Luke?
14. Which of these
contentions does the revision evidently support?
15. Name three authors
supporting the other contention.
16. Give in substance the
argument of Urquhart, and what do you
think of it?
17. What one change in the
common version of Luke I :l-4 will pat
it in harmony with the Urquhart view? John's Prologue.
18. What must you place
opposite John's Prologue to parallel Paul's Gospel on our Lord's pro-existence,
its nature and activities, his incarnation and its purposes?
19. Give in briefest form an
analysis of the Prologue.
20. Show why John did not obtain
tibia new name – O Logos, the Word –
from Philo.
21. Where did he get it?
23. How does this enable us
to understand Genesis IT
23. Can you give the ten
words of creation, the ten words of the
law, the ten words of happiness?
24. What are the three
essential elements of Deity predicated of the
Logos in. John's first sentence?
25. The relations of the
Logos to the universe?
26. Meaning of "In him
was life"?
27. How is he the light of
men?
28. Two possible meanings of
"The darkness apprehended it not.
29. Cite a parallel from
Paul of the first possible meaning. Give illustrations of second possible
meaning.
30. How was the Logos
manifested and what is the relative importance
of the doctrine?
31. According to the Prologue,
what is the purpose of the incarnation?
32. What right was conferred
on those who receive the incarnate
Logos and how accomplished?
33. How does the witness of
John the Baptist attest the pre-existence
of the incarnate Logos?
34. What was Paul's name for
John's Logos?
35. What is his description
of the pre-existing Son?
36. What passages from his
attest the activities of the Son before his
incarnation?
37. What passages the
purposes of his incarnation?
38. Instead of John's
"new birth," what is equivalent of Paul's?
39. His legal name for this
sonship?
40. Reply to the criticism
that John uses the incarnation as a means
of our Lord to take on glory, and Paul as a method of emptying himself
of glory.
BEGINNINGS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE Broadus'
Harmony pages 5-6 and Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 1:5-80; 3:23-38.
We have noted in a previous chapter John's and Paul's account of the divine
side of our Lord's existence, personality and activities before he became
flesh. Now we consider, in Matthew, Luke, and Paul, his human side, human
antecedents, human birth, and early life. We find Matthew's account in chapters
1-2, and Luke's account in chapters 1-2 with the closing paragraph of chapter
3.
Matthew's incidents are his genealogy, birth, the visit of the magi, the flight
into Egypt, the massacre of the babes at Bethlehem, the return to the land of
Israel, and resettlement at Nazareth in Galilee.
Luke's incidents are the announcement to Zacharias of the birth of his son,
John the Baptist, our Lord's forerunner; the announcement to Mary of the birth
of our Lord; Mary's visit to Elisabeth; the birth of John the Baptist according
to announcement; the birth of our Lord at Bethlehem; the announcement to the
shepherds of that birth; the circumcision of our Lord; his presentation in the
Temple with attendant circumstances ; the return to Nazareth; the development
there of his childhood; the visit to the Temple when our Lord was twelve years
old; the return to Nazareth and his development; into manhood; and his
genealogy.
On this entire section we submit several general observations:
1. Matthew's entire account is written from the viewpoint of Joseph, and for
Jews. His genealogy is the genealogy of Joseph according to the legal Jewish
method. Gabriel's appearance to Joseph is to explain Mary's condition. Indeed,
all the four supernatural directions for the family movements come in dreams to
Joseph. Every incident and every Old Testament quotation conspire to prove that
Jesus of Nazareth is the foretold and long-expected King of the Jews.
2. Luke's entire account is written from Mary's viewpoint and to show our
Lord's broader relations to humanity. His genealogy is real, not legal. It is
Mary's genealogy, not Joseph's, our Lord's relations to Joseph being only a
Jewish, legal supposition. While indeed it shows that Mary was a Jewess) really
descended from David and Abraham, yet her genealogy extends back to Adam, in
order to prove that her Son was the second Adam, and literally fulfilled the
first gospel promise, "The seed of the woman [not of the man] shall bruise
the serpent's head."
It is to Mary, Gabriel announces her conception of a Son, by the Holy Spirit,
who because thus sired shall be holy, the Son of God.
It is to Mary the angel announces the condition of Elisabeth, and thus prepares
the way for Mary's visit to Elisabeth. All of Luke's other incidents are those
which Mary "kept in her heart." The conjecture that Luke's genealogy
is also traced through Joseph is puerile in itself, utterly gratuitous, and at
war with Luke's whole plan. It is to invent a difficulty and then invite the
harmonists of the two genealogies to settle it. Why should they be harmonized?
They have different starting points (a legal son, a real son) and different
objectives (Abraham – Adam); they are not even parallel lines, since they meet
and part.
3. We here confront what Paul calls "the great mystery of Godliness"
– the incarnation of our Lord. Isaiah, who had already foretold his virgin
birth, in a clear prophecy concerning him, says, "For unto us a child is
born, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder:
and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting
Father, Prince of Peace" (Isa. 9:6). Quoting Isaiah, and because the
virgin mother is with child by the Holy Ghost, Matthew says, "His name
shall be called Immanuel (God with us)." In explanation of the way a
virgin can become a mother, Luke's angel says to Mary, "The Holy Spirit
shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee:
wherefore also the Holy One who is begotten of thee shall be called the Son of
God."
Mark says, "Jesus Christ, the Son of God." John says, "The Logos
which was God, was manifested and became flesh." Paul says, "He who
was the effulgence of God's glory and the very image of his substance,"
(Heb. 1:3) "who existed in the form of God . . . was made in the likeness
of man (Phil. 2:6-8) was born of a woman" (Gal. 4:4). Not otherwise could
he escape the hereditary taint of Adam's sin (Gen. 5:3); not otherwise could he
fulfil the protevangel, "the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's
head" (Gen. 3:15); not otherwise could he be the Second Adam, the second
head of the race (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor.15:45-49).
Grant this one miracle, the greatest and most inclusive, and all others
naturally follow. Deny this one, and there is no need to deny or even consider
others (1 John 4:1-3).
4. Only twice do we find in the Bible the phrase, "The book of the
generations" applied respectively to "The first Adam" (Gen.
5:1), and to the Second Adam (Matt. 1:1). And concerning this Second Adam, well
might Isaiah inquire: "Who shall declare his generation," (common
version, Isa. 53:8) especially since "His name shall be Wonderful,
Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Isa. 9:6).
5. Nothing more commends the inspiration of the simplicity and reticence of
this account of our Lord's infancy, childhood and growth to manhood, than to
contrast it with the silly and incredible fables invented in the early
Christian centuries to gratify a prurient curiosity concerning a long period of
our Lord's life on which, beyond the few incidents recorded, our Gospels are
silent. Nature, as well as grace, draws a modest veil over the period of
conception, gestation, parturition, and development. Not only have these bald
inventions concerning the infancy and childhood of our Lord disfigured the image
in the mind naturally produced by the simple Bible story, but tradition,
ever-increasing in imposture and lying, ad nauseum, has buried the few real
incidents recorded under an accretion of fanciful enlargements, e.g., the
incident of the magi, and even the blasphemies subverting the gospel and
changing the very plan of salvation, e.g., the Mariology and Mariolatry
developed from our simple gospel story of Mary by the Romanists of succeeding
centuries.
6. Beyond the few incidents recorded of the first thirty years of our Lord's
preparation for his public work, this is every syllable of the gospel history:
Luke puts in four pregnant sentences the whole period, (a) concerning the
development of his childhood, "And the child grew and waxed strong, filled
with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon him" (2:40). (b) After the
consciousness of his messiahship in the Temple, when he was twelve years old,
"He went down with them (Mary and Joseph) and came to Nazareth; and he was
subject to them" (2:51). (c) Referring back to his habit of attending the
house of religious instruction at Nazareth, Luke later says, "He came to
Nazareth where he had been brought up: and he entered, as his custom was, into
the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read" (4:16); (d)
Concerning his development to manhood: "And Jesus advanced in wisdom and
stature, and in favor with God and man" (2:52). (e) Mark says that by
occupation he was a carpenter (6:3).
These are all the direct references. But we may easily gather from his subsequent
history that he had studied the book of nature in its plants, flowers, fruits,
birds, animals, soil and its cultivation, its crops, harvests and vintages;
that he was a lover of children and close observer of their plays; that he was
familiar with the customs of the family and of society; that he was well
acquainted with the religious sects and political parties of his country and
its relation of subjection to Rome. It is evident also from his movements that
he thoroughly understood all the variations of government in the Herod family.
As to literary attainments, apart from the evident religious training of a
Jewish child, we know that he could read and speak fluently in three languages:
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. He read and quoted at will and discerningly from
both the Hebrew and the Greek versions of the Old Testament. Mark preserves and
interprets many of his Aramaic expressions.
7. We should commence Matthew's genealogy thus: "The book of the
generation of Jesus Christ, called Immanuel (God with us)." And, allowing
Paul to supplement Luke's genealogy thus: "The Second Adam, who is the
Lord from heaven, Jesus Christ himself (supposed son of Joseph) was the son of
Heli," and so on back to the first Adam.
8. In these two accounts of our Lord's infancy are eight distinct
annunciations, adapted in time, place, medium, means, and circumstances to the
recipient, together with eight other supernatural events.
(1) The annunciation by the angel Gabriel, in a vision, to Zacharias,
ministering in the Temple, of the birth of John the Baptist, the forerunner of
our Lord, and of Zacharias' dumbness until the event (Luke l:5f).
(2) Gabriel's annunciation to Mary of the birth of our Lord (Luke l:26f).
(3) The annunciation to Elisabeth of the presence of the appointed mother of
our Lord, by her unborn baby's leaping for joy (Luke l:41f).
(4) The angel's annunciation to Joseph, in a dream, of the supernatural
conception of Mary (Matt. 1:18f).
(5) The angel's annunciation, in a vision, to the shepherds near Bethlehem, of
the birth of our Lord (Luke 2:8f).
(6) The Spirit's annunciation to Simeon that he should not see death until he
had seen the Christ (Luke 2:26).
(7) Simeon's annunciation, by prophetic inspiration, to Mary concerning her
Son, and concerning the sword that would pierce her own soul (Luke 2:34-35).
(8) The annunciation to the magi, in the far East, by the appearance of a star,
that the foretold and long-expected King of the Jews was born (Matt. 2:lf).
The eight attending supernatural events are, – the prophetic utterances by
Zacharias, Elisabeth, Mary, and Anna, the three additional dreams of Joseph and
the one of the magi. Thus there are three vision – to Zacharias, Mary, and the
shepherds; five dreams – four of Joseph and one of the magi; one annunciation
by the Spirit to Simeon, one of Simeon to Mary by inspiration, one by a star,
one by the leaping of an unborn babe, besides the prophetic inspiration of
four.
9. In Luke's account of the beginnings are five famous hymns, or the foundations
from which they were later developed;
(1) "The Hail Mary," developed by the Romanists from a combination of
the angel's salutation to Mary (Luke 1:29) and Elisabeth's salutation to Mary
(Luke 1:42), with some extraneous additions.
(2) "The Magnificat," or Mary's own hymn (Luke 1:46-55).
(3) "The Benedictus," or the song of Zacharias (Luke 1:68-79).
(4) "Gloria in Excelsis," developed from the song of the angels (Luke
2-14).
5) "Nunc Dimittis," developed from the words of Simeon (Luke
2:29-32).
10. The gospel histories teach concerning Mary, the mother of our Lord, that
she was a modest, pious, but poor Jewish maiden, of the line of David,
betrothed to Joseph, a just man, also of the line of David. She was endued with
grace, to become the virgin mother of our Lord, and this supernatural
conception was by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. Consequently her Son
would be God's Son, and not man's. Being God's Son, he would be born holy,
unstained through hereditary taint, and as he was the only human being so born,
he is called the Only Begotten Son of the Father. Because of her selection to
become the mother of our Lord, all generations would call her blessed. Her
marriage to Joseph before the birth of this child constituted him legally,
though not really, a son of Joseph. In all these things Mary humbly submitted
herself to the divine will. She piously kept in her heart all the attending
prodigies, circumstances, and prophecies of his nativity and childhood. While
married to Joseph, she knew him not until after the birth of her divine Son,
but afterward lived with him in all marital relations, bearing four sons, whose
names are given, besides daughters not named (Mark 6:3). After Joseph's death,
she followed her son, Jesus, with his younger half-brothers and sisters. From
the record it is evident that more than once she was not without fault. On the
whole, however, the impression left on the mind by the history is most
charming. A maiden, chaste, modest, pious, and meekly submissive to God's will,
a true wife, a devoted, self-denying mother, patiently bearing all the sorrows
attendant upon being the mother of her Saviour son. Well might Simeon say to
her, "Yea, and a sword shall pierce through thine own soul," on which
prophecy has been written a book of merit entitled The Sorrows of Mary.
At the death of Jesus, her other sons being poor and un- believers, she was
taken to the home of John the apostle, in Jerusalem. What an unspeakable pity
that religious superstition has foisted upon this simple, charming, gospel
story of earth's most honored woman, a monstrous Mariology of human invention,
developed later into a blasphemous Mariolatry, which makes her usurp the place
of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. As this hideous
parasite on the gospel story of Mary roots in our lesson, we here give a
summary of the invented.
MARIOLOGY MERGED INTO MARIOLATRY
The exaggeration of the meaning of the words: "All generations shall call
me blessed." This blessedness, because a privilege, was declared by our
Lord himself to be inferior to the blessings on personal obedience and service
(Luke 11:27-28), and because this was a fleshly relation to our Lord, he
declared it to be inferior to spiritual relations, which all may share (Mark
3:31-35).
Mary was a perpetual virgin, – that is, never knowing a man, and being the
mother of only one child, Jesus. This was the earliest of the doctrines in
point of time, and some Protestants today, for sentimental reasons, hold to it.
Mary free from actual sin. This freedom from actual sin, originally at least,
was attributed to the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit, supposed to be
exerted either after she was conceived or before she was born, as Jeremiah and
John the Baptist were supposed to be sanctified, or else at the time the Holy
Spirit came upon her at the conception of Christ.
Mary free from original sin. This was a late development of doctrine concerning
Mary. There was no official and authoritative form of it before the sixteenth
century. The Council of Trent, A. D. 1570, closed its decree on original sin
with these words: "This same holy synod doth nevertheless declare that it
is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated
of, the blessed and immaculate Mary, the mother of God; but that the
constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV, of happy memory, are to be observed, under the
pains contained in the said constitutions, which it renews." This official
deliverance is a positive declaration of Mary's freedom from original sin, and
by the term "immaculate," would seem to declare her exempt from
actual sin. The doctrine, however, culminates in positive form in the decree
promulgated to the Roman Catholic world by Pope Pius IX, December 8, 1854. In
this decree the Pope claims: First, that he pronounces, declares, and defines
"under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost;" second, that what he sets
forth is by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the blessed apostles,
Peter and Paul, and in his own authority. The matter thus decreed and promulgated
is as follows:
"The doctrine which holds the blessed virgin Mary to have been, from the
first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty
God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, preserved
free from all stain of original sin, was revealed by God, and is, therefore, to
be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful." The decree closes
with the double anathema: First, that any who presume to even think in their
hearts contrary to this deliverance stand self-condemned, have made shipwreck
concerning the faith, and have fallen away from the unity of the church.
Second, that they subject themselves to the penalties ordained by law, if by
word or writing, or any other external means, they dare to signify what they
think in their hearts.
You will observe, particularly, that this decree affirms that the doctrine of
Mary's freedom from original sin was revealed by God. The natural presumption
is that this revelation is to be found in the Holy Scriptures. In this document
the Pope does not claim that it was a special revelation to him, but that he is
inspired to pronounce, declare, and define past revelations.
If God revealed it in the Holy Scriptures, it is strange that we cannot find
it.
This doctrine of Mary's freedom from original sin, which thus culminated,
historically, December 8, 1854, may be said to have crystallized July 18, 1870,
when the Vatican Council thus declared the infallibility of the Pope:
"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 him in the blessed Peter, he is possessed of that
infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his church should be
endowed for defining doctrines, faith and morals; and that therefore such
definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from
the consent of the church."
She is the Mediatrix between Christ and man, as Jesus Christ is the Mediator
between God and man. In other words. this element of the doctrines makes Mary
take the place of the Holy Spirit) that is, we must reach Christ through Mary
The development of the doctrine is shown in various works of art. For example,
there are paintings which represent Christ as seated, and Mary below him, then
later a painting of Christ and Mary on a level; and finally a painting
representing Mary above Christ, who is angry at the world, and Mary is
beseeching his favor for the world.
Mary, not Jesus, bruises the serpent's head, or destroys Satan. As the
preceding element of this doctrine puts Mary in the place of the Holy Spirit,
so this element makes her take Christ's office.
Mary the queen of heaven.
Mary the fountain of all grace, received by man and the only hope of salvation.
This element puts her in the Father's place.
Mary an object of worship.
Mary's body was never allowed to see corruption, but was taken up to heaven,
glorified, as the body of Christ, or that of Enoch or Elijah. This last element
of the doctrine, the assumption of Mary, has not been formally put forth by
Pope or Council, but is propagated and defended in the standard Romanist
literature.
Any thoughtful man, considering these doctrines concerning Mary, must see that
they made a radical, vital, and fundamental change of the gospel as understood
by all Protestants and constitute another gospel, which is not the gospel. It
makes the Romanist Church the church of Mary, rather than the church of Christ.
Indeed, if we add its traditions concerning the See of Rome and Peter, the name
should be: The Romanist Church of the Traditions concerning Mary and Peter. It
would be easy to show that each of these elements of doctrine was transferred,
for reasons of expediency, from heathen mythology and worship.
The question naturally arises, What scriptures do they cite for these
stupendous claims? In support of the perpetual virginity of Mary they cite
Ezekiel 44:1-3: "Then he brought me back by way of the outer gate of the
sanctuary, which looketh toward the east; and it was shut. And Jehovah said
unto me, This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, neither shall any man
enter in by it; for Jehovah, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it;
therefore it shall be shut. As for the prince, he shall sit therein as prince
to eat bread before Jehovah; he shall enter by the way of the porch of the
gate, and shall go out by the way of the same." They claim that this
language is typical of and applicable to Mary's perpetual virginity. Some of
them quote the Song of Solomon 4:12, as follows: "A garden shut up is my
sister, my bride; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed." So far as I know,
these are the only scriptures cited that seem to have a positive bearing on the
doctrine.
Negatively, they contend that the brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in
Mark 6 and other places were not the children of Joseph and Mary, but of Mary's
sister, hence cousins of our Lord. Some Protestants who hold to the perpetual
virginity of Mary claim that these were children of Joseph by a former
marriage, therefore older than our Lord. Both Romanists and Protestants who
hold to this doctrine cite John 19:25-27, where Christ on the cross consigns
Mary to John's are, and argue from this that Mary had no son of her own other
than Christ. They forget the extreme poverty of the family of Joseph, including
himself, Mary, and all of the children, and that these younger half-brothers of
our Lord were not at this time believers in Christ, as is evident from John
7:5. We have already shown that John possessed wealth and a home of his own at
Jerusalem, which Mary and her sons did not have.
Of Mary's freedom from actual sin, they cite the Song of Solomon 4:7:
"Thou art all fair, my love; there is no spot in thee," and also from
the apocryphal book of Wisdom 1:4: "For wisdom will not enter into the
malicious soul nor dwell in a body subject to sins."
In support of the theory that Mary mediates between man and Christ, they cite
John 2:3, where Mary makes known to her Son the need of wine at the marriage of
Cana of Galilee.
To maintain that Mary, not Jesus, bruises the serpent's head, the Romanist
Bible, both the Vulgate and their English version, makes Genesis 3:15 read:
"She shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise her heel."
To support the doctrine that Mary is the mother and fountain of all grace to
man, they quote Luke 1:28, and render it: "Hail, full of grace!"
In support of the assumption that Mary is the queen of heaven, their
commentators cite Revelation 12:1, and claim that it is an allusion to
"our blessed lady."
In replying to these various items of Mariology and Mariolatry, it is fairly to
be inferred from Matthew 1:25 that Joseph did know Mary as a husband after the
birth of Christ, and it certainly best accords with the obvious meaning of Mark
6:3, and various other references, that the four brothers named are real
brothers, and not cousins. That Mary was not free from actual sin is evident by
our Lord's rebuke of her at Luke 2:48-49; John 2:4; Mark 3:21 connected with
31-35. There is no scriptural support at all relevant to the matter in hand of
Mary's freedom from original sin. The quotations cited by Romanists are, on
their face, irrelevant. The assumption that Mary is the fountain of all grace
evidently misinterprets the words of the angel, "Hail, Mary, endued with
grace." It is grace then and there conferred, and not original source of
grace. It indeed shows that she was a daughter of grace, not its mother. That
Mary's body never saw corruption is a fabrication without any foundation
whatever. To make the symbolic woman of Revelation 12:1 to be a real woman,
whether Mary or any other woman, is a gross violation of the law of
interpretation of symbols. You might just as well make the woman in purple and
scarlet riding upon the seven-headed,
Herod himself is "Herod the king" named in Matthew 2 3-19, ruler of
the Jews at Christ's birth. He was surname' "The Great" and was
really a man of great capacity in public affairs, and in diplomacy successfully
overreached both Pompey and Julius Caesar, and both Anthony and Augustus Caesar
and thwarted Cleopatra, the queen of Egypt. But he was . monster in cruelty and
as bloody a tyrant as ever sat upon throne. His father was Antipater, the
Idumean or Edomite, and his mother an Ishmaelite. Thus in the person of Herod,
Ishmael and Esau sat upon the throne of Isaac and Jacob. His death is recorded
in Matthew 2. He had about ten wives and many children. By his last will,
subject to Rome's approval, he divided his realm among three sons,
disinheriting all his other children whom he had not murdered.
His children. Archelaus, named in Matthew 2:22, his son by his fourth wife,
was, according to Herod's will, made king of Judea and Samaria. Rome did not
approve of his title of king, but allowed him to be called ethnarch for nine
years, and then for good cause removed and banished him, and converted Judea
and Samaria into an imperial province under procurators appointed by Caesar.
Pontius Pilate, an appointee of Tiberius Caesar, was procurator during the
years of our Lord's public ministry.
Another son, Herod Antipas, older brother of Archelaus, by the same mother, was
made tetrarch of Galilee and Perea. (See Luke 3:1.) This was the Herod that
beheaded John the Baptist (Mark 6:17-29), whom Jesus called "that
fox," and to whom our Lord was sent for trial by Pilate. He held his
office during the whole of our Lord's life after his return from Egypt. He
built the city of Tiberias on the sea of Galilee, and was the second husband of
that Herodias who caused the death of John the Baptist. This marriage was a
threefold sin - his own wife was yet living, the woman's husband was yet
living, and she was his niece.
The oldest surviving son of Herod was named Herod Philip, disinherited by his
father. He lived at Rome. The New Testament makes only an indirect allusion to
him as Philip the brother of Herod Antipas, and the husband of Herodias (Mark
6:17-18).
Herod's son by his fifth wife was also named Herod Philip, and he is the
tetrarch of the Northern part of Palestine, called in Luke 3:1 "the region
of Ituraea and Trachonitis." He built the cities of Bethsaida-Julius, and
Caesarea Philippi. He was the best of all the ruling sons of Herod.
It must be noted how several movements of our Lord were affected by these three
sons of Herod. Because of Archelaus his parents took him from Judea to Galilee.
Because of the unfriendliness of Herod Antipas he more than once removed from
Galilee to the tetrarchy of Herod Philip. This Herod Philip, the tetrarch,
married Salome, the dancing girl, who danced off the head of John the Baptist
(Mark 6:2-28). She was his niece, the daughter of his brother, Herod Philip I,
named above.
Herod's grandchildren. First, Herod Agrippa 1. This is Herod the king, of Acts
12:1-4, who killed the apostle James, John's brother, and imprisoned Peter, and
whose awful death at Caesarea is described in Acts 12:19-23. This Herod ruled
over all Palestine like his grandfather.
Second, Herodias, the wicked woman who left her husband, Philip, and married
his brother, Herod Antipas, and brought about the death of John the Baptist
because he denounced the iniquitous marriage (Mark 6:17-28). It is said that
when the head of John was brought to her by her daughter, she drove her bodkin
through the faithful tongue that had dared to denounce the infamy of her
marriage.
Herod's great grandchildren. First, Salome, the dancing girl named in Mark 6.
Second, Herod Agrippa II. This is the titular king, Agrippa, before whom Paul
spoke (Acts 25:13). Third, Bernice, his sister (Acts 25:23). Fourth, Drusilla,
another sister, who married Festus (Acts 24:24). Of these the last six named
were descended through Herod's second wife, Mariarnne, the Maccabean princess.
As in the Old Testament "Pharaoh" is a title of all the Egyptian
rulers, so always in the New Testament "Caesar" is a title of the
Roman ruler. In the New Testament about twenty-seven times "Caesar" is
so used, without the name of the particular Caesar. Twelve Caesars ruled at
Rome from the birth of Christ to the close of the canon of the New Testament,
and perhaps one more, Trajan, when John the apostle died. The names of the
twelve in order, and the dates of their reigns, are as follows:
Augustus 31 B.C. to A.D. 14
Tiberius A.D. 14 to 37
Gaius A.D. 37 to 41
Claudius A.D. 41 to 54
Nero A.D. 54 to 68
Galba A.D. 68 to 69
Otho A.D. 69
Vitellius A.D. 69
Vespasian A.D. 69 to 79
Titus A.D. 79 to 81
Domitian A.D. 81 to 96
Nerva A.D. 96 to 98
Three of these are named in the New Testament: Augustus, Luke 2:1; Tiberius,
Luke 3:1; Claudius, Acts 11:28 and 18:2. Nero is referred to but not named
(Acts 25:8).
QUESTIONS
1. What sections of Matthew
and Luke are devoted to our Lord's
early life?
2. What are the incidents given in Matthew?
3. In Luke?
4. From whose viewpoint is written all this section of Matthew?
5. From whose viewpoint Luke's section?
6. How does this account for the apparent discrepancy between
their genealogies?
7. How does Paul characterize the incarnation of our Lord?
8. What passage from Isaiah does Matthew quote and apply to
the incarnation?
9. What name of the child does Matthew give as expressive of
the mystery?
10. What other passage from
Isaiah gives names of the child expressive of this mystery?
11. How does the angel, in
Luke, explain the mystery of a virgin
becoming a mother and the resultant nature of the child?
12. Give Mark's name of this
wonderful child.
13. How does Paul state the
matter?
14. How does such a son
escape hereditary depravity?
15. How does this alone
fulfil the first gospel promise in Genesis?
16. According to Paul, what is
the relation of Adam to Jesus? (See
last clause of Romans 5:14.)
17. Give in brief Paul's
argument on this relation in Romans 5:12-21. Ans. As through one trespass (not
many) of one man (not one woman) sin, condemnation and death came upon all his
fleshly descendants. So through one act of righteousness (death on the cross)
of one man (the vicarious Substitute) justification, unto eternal life came
upon all his spiritual descendants.
18. How does Paul further
contrast the first Adam and his image transmitted to his fleshly descendants
with the Second Adam and his image borne by his spiritual descendants? (See 1
Cor.15:45-49.)
19. What then may we say of
this miracle of the incarnation?
20. Give the significant
Bible usage of the phrase "The book of the generation."
21. Contrast the account of
our Lord's infancy and childhood, given
by Matthew and Luke, with the human inventions of traditions concerning
the same period.
22. What two sentences of
Luke, one concerning the development of his childhood, the other concerning his
development into manhood, give the record of most of our Lord's earthly life?
23. What other sentence of
Luke tells the whole story of his obedience to the Fifth Commandment?
24. What phrase of Luke discloses
a religious habit of all his early life?
25. What question recorded
by Mark reveals his occupation in all that
early life?
26. What may we gather from
the history of his subsequent life, as
to his studies, observation and general information?
27. As to his literary
attainments, how do you prove that he knew
and spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?
28. How should you commence
Matthew's genealogy (allowing him self
to supplement) and Luke's (allowing Paul to supplement)?
29. In the two accounts of
our Lord's birth and infancy are eight annunciations, with eight other
supernatural events, adapted in time, place, medium, means, and circumstances
to the several recipients: give them, in order, and then show which three came
by vision, which five by dreams, which one by the Holy Spirit, which one by an
unborn babe, and which four by inspiration.
30. In Luke's account alone
are five historic hymns, or the foundations
from which they were developed. Name them in order.
31. Give the substance of
the gospel teaching concerning Mary.
32. Give the several items
of the monstrous Mariology and blasphemous Mariolatry developed by Romanists
from the simple Bible story of Mary, and the scriptural proof they cite for
each, and your reply thereto.
33. If we add to this
Mariolatry its inventions concerning the See of Rome and Peter, what should this church be called?
34. Name the member of the
Herod family mentioned in the New Testament, citing the passage in each case, and
the relationship to Herod the Great, and which of these were descendents of
Mariamne, the Maccabean princess?
35. How does the New
Testament use the term “Caesar?”
36. How many Caesars ruled
at Rome from the birth of Christ to the close of the New Testament canon?
37. Which three are named in
the New Testament and where, and which other alluded to and where?
38. It is supposed that John
lived to the close of the first century A.D. then what other Caesar must you
add to the twelve?
BEGINNINGS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE (CONTINUED)
Broadus' Harmony and Scriptures same as for chapter V.
MATTHEW'S Genealogy.
There are three notable peculiarities in Matthew's
genealogy. The first is, he commences with the rare phrase, "The book of
the generation," found nowhere else except in Genesis 5:1-3, concerning
the first Adam. The uniqueness of this peculiarity and the correspondence
between Matthew 1:1 and Genesis 5:1, are of evident design. The proof of the
design appears from Paul's discussion of the matter. First, Paul says there are
two Adams, the first a figure or type of the Second (Rom. 5:14). The first was
created; the Second was the only begotten Son. In Romans 5 Paul adds that as
through one trespass of one man (the first Adam), sin, condemnation and death
came upon all his descendants, so through one act of righteousness (on the
cross) of one man, the Second Adam, justification unto eternal life came upon
his descendants. The parallel or contrast between the two Adams he further
discusses thus: "So also it is written, the first man Adam became a living
soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. Howbeit, that is not first
which is spiritual, but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual.
The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven. As is the
earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are
they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we
shall also bear the image of the heavenly."
The second peculiarity of Matthew's genealogy consists in his division of the
time from Abraham to Christ into three periods thus: From the patriarchy (or
family rule in Abraham) , to the theocracy (or national rule at Sinai); second,
From Abraham to David; from David to the captivity; from the captivity to
Christ. Some have managed to find a difficulty in Matthew's making three sets
of fourteen with only forty-one names. But Matthew does not say that there were
three sets of fourteen names, but three sets of fourteen generations. The
generations here, as many times elsewhere, mean time periods. It is about
equivalent to saying from Abraham to the earthly monarchy, first period; from
the earthly monarchy to its downfall, second period; from the downfall of the
earthly monarchy to the coming of the spiritual King, third period.
This period division suits Matthew's plan as the book of the King. David, the
typical king, is the central figure of three periods, which terminate in the
antitypical or spiritual King. Matthew does not give every name, but according
to the established method of Bible genealogies, he sometimes passes over a son
to the grandson.
Another writer, with a different plan, might make four periods thus: From the
patriarchy (or family rule in Abraham), to the theocracy (or national rule at
Sinai); second, from the theocracy to the beginning of the monarchy; third,
from the beginning of the monarchy to the hierarchy (or high priest rule);
fourth, from the hierarchy to Jesus, the true Patnarches, Theos, basileus,
hiereus.
Matthew's third peculiarity is, that contrary to Jewish custom, he names four
women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Uriah's wife, Bathsheba. As they are not named in
the list of fourteen's, they must be named in this connection for other
reasons. Two facts suggest the probable reason for naming these women. First,
three of the four at least were Gentiles, and quite possibly the fourth. Tamar
and Rahab were Canaanites, Ruth was a Moabite, Bathsheba, the wife of a
Hittite, was a granddaughter of Ahithophel, the Gilonite, and counsellor of
David, who sided with Absalom, and afterward hanged himself. It is true that
Giloh, his home city, was one of the mountain cities assigned to Judah at the
conquest, but that does not prove that all of its inhabitants were Jews.
Ahithophel does not act as a Jew, but with many other foreigners he accepted
office under David. Eliam, otherwise Ammiel, his son, and father of Bathsheba,
with Uriah, another foreigner, was one of David's mighty men. Bathsheba herself
does not act like a Jewess, for she married a Hittite, Uriah, the war comrade
of her father. So she probably, as the other three women certainly, was a
Gentile. The ending "ite," as in Gilonite, usually, not always, indicates
a Gentile tribe or nation.
The second fact is that only one of the four, Ruth the Moabite, was chaste in
life. Tamar, in the garb of harlot, deceived her father-in-law, Judah. Rahab
was an open harlot in Jericho, and Bathsheba was an adulteress. The fact of
four such maternal ancestors seems to prophesy, in a way, that their coming
illustrious Descendant would preach a gospel of mercy to the foreigner and to
the fallen.
Some writers have wasted much energy in endeavoring to reconcile Luke's genealogy
with Matthew's. There is not the slightest reason to attempt it.
Matthew gives our Lord's legal descent through Joseph'. Luke gives his real
descent through Mary. As both Joseph and Mary were descendants of Abraham and David,
they will in part coincide and in part diverge. The extent of the coincidence
or the divergence is immaterial.
THE ANNUNCIATION
TO ZACHARIAS – LUKE 1:5-25
We have already seen that there were eight annunciations, as follows: To Zacharias,
Mary, Joseph, Elisabeth, the shepherds, Simeon, Mary again by Simeon, and the
magi. Some of these were by the angel Gabriel, some by the Holy Spirit and one
by astronomical phenomenon. It is noteworthy that in every case the time,
medium, place, and matter of the announcement are all adapted to the recipient
and his or her circumstances. Just here we may note the contrast in the Bible
between the offices of the angel Gabriel, and of the arch-angel Michael.
Gabriel is sent always on missions of mercy; Michael always for the defense of
God's people, for war and vengeance on their enemies.
In the announcement to Zacharias the time is in the days of Herod the king, the
scene is the Temple at Jerusalem, the place is the sanctuary or holy place, the
hour is the time of the daily sacrifice. The circumstances of this announcement
are: Zacharias, as priestly mediator, is burning the incense at the golden
altar in the holy place, while the people outside are offering up the prayers
represented by the incense. Twice every day, morning and evening, the people
thus come to the Temple at the hour of prayer. (Compare Acts 3:1.) Being only a
priest, Zacharias could not enter the most holy place; his ministrations
stopped at the veil which hides the mercy seat, which is entered only once a
year by the high priest on the great day of atonement (Lev. 16). The offering
of the incense was the highest honor that could come to a priest, and as it was
determined by lot, it might not come more than once in a lifetime to the same
man. The perpetuity of these mediatorial ministrations was secured by dividing
the descendants of Aaron into twenty-four courses, with fixed dates for one
course to relieve another. As we see from the text, Zacharias belonged to the
course of Abijah, which was the eighth. This division of the priests into
courses was established by David, as we learn from I Chronicles 24. Zacharias
himself had a burden. His wife was barren, and both were now old. While burning
the incense which represented the prayers of the people, he himself was praying
for a son. The medium of the announcement to him was the angel Gabriel, who
comes with an answer to his prayer while he is yet praying, as he had come on
another great occasion to Daniel (Dan. 9:20-21) The means was a vision. The
matter was that not only would a son be born to him and Elisabeth, but his son
would be a Nazirite, great in the sight of God, full of the Spirit from his
mother's womb, the forerunner of the Messiah, to make ready a people prepared
for him according to prophecy, in the spirit and power of Elijah, turning many
of the children of Israel to God and turning the hearts of the fathers to their
children, and the disobedient to the justified. This, like the honor conferred
on Mary, was unique, occurring only once in the world's history.
Zacharias was filled with unbelief because of the natural difficulties on
account of the impotency of his age and the barrenness of his wife. Why did he
not consider the similar cases of Abraham and Sarah, of Isaac and Rebecca, and
the case of Hannah, the mother of Samuel? Zacharias might have known from these
illustrious incidents of the past history of his people, that the supernatural
can overcome the natural. Because of his hesitation to believe the words of the
angel, a sign was given unto him – he should be dumb until the promise was
fulfilled.
THE ANNUNCIATION
TO MARY
The time is six months later than the annunciation to Zacharias.
The place is Mary's home at Nazareth.
The medium is the same angel, Gabriel.
The matter is that she shall bear a Son, named Jesus, who shall also see the
Son of the Most High, and who shall sit on the throne of his father David,
ruling over an everlasting kingdom.
The explanation of the prodigy of a birth without a human sire is, "The
Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall
overshadow thee." Because also, God, not man, is the sire, this offspring
shall be “holy” in nature, and shall be called the Son of God. In all the human
race this is "the Only begotten of the Father," and hence the only
one born in the world without hereditary depravity.
In this way only could be fulfilled the first gospel promise, "the seed of
the woman [not of the man] shall bruise the serpent's head." Had he been
the seed of the man he would have been born condemned on account of a depraved
nature. He could not have saved himself, much less others. It is true "he
was made under the law," but not under its condemnation on his own
account. Since he was born holy by nature, and never sinned in practice, and
obeyed all its requirements, the law could not condemn him except as a legal
substitute for real sinners. It is this that made his death under God's law
vicarious (Isa. 53:4-12). So that one who rejects his birth of a virgin rejects
the whole plan of salvation and the whole. Bible as the word of God. On this
point there is not space for compromise as large as the point of a cambric
needle, nor as broad as the edge of a razor.
When a man says "NO" to the question, "Do you believe our Lord
was born of a virgin?" you need not ask him any other question whatever.
And if he says, "Yes," to this incarnation of God, the one supreme
miracle, he need not quibble at any other in the gospel record.
This one conceded, the others come like a conqueror, and from necessity. Luke
1:34-35 is the crux, pivot, hinge, and citadel of all controversies on the
joined issue, Natural vs. Supernatural; Atheism vs. Christianity. We have
already called attention to the monstrous system of Mariology fruiting in
Mariolatry. The base of it all is in the angel's salutation to Mary: "Hail
thou that art highly favored – thou that hast favor with God." It is a
matter of translation. Shall we render "highly favored" (Greek, kecharitomene)
"mother of grace," or "daughter of grace"? Does it mean
"fountain of grace," or "endued with grace," i.e., grace
conferred or found"? A Pope has said that Mary is the mother and fountain
of all grace and our only hope of salvation.
MARY’S VISIT TO
ELISABETH
Here we note the reason of Mary's visit. The angel had informed her of
Elisabeth's condition. In all the world, Elisabeth was the only being to whom
the modest Mary could confide her own extraordinary condition. She needed a
woman's sympathy and support. Never before and never again could two such women
meet to confer concerning their unique motherhood. In all the history of the
race only one woman could be the mother of the harbinger of our Lord, and only
one be the mother of our Lord. The honors conferred on them were very high, and
could never be repeated. As with the mothers, so with the sons.
They would forever stand apart from all other men – each without a model,
without a shadow, without a successor. The visit lasted three months. What the
continuation of the intercommunion and holy confidences, what the mutual
womanly sympathy and support in these three months we may infer from the
beginning.
At the salutation of Mary, -two mighty tokens of recognition came upon
Elisabeth. The babe in her womb, the babe who was to be full of the Holy Spirit
from his mother's womb, leaped for joy. Upon her also came the power of God and
she herself was full of the Holy Spirit. She was thus prepared to give the
greeting her visitor most needed to confirm her faith in the embarrassing circumstances
of her novel situation: "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the
fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should
come to me? And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a fulfilment
of the things which have been spoken unto her from the Lord." After such
greeting, the chastity and modesty of the virgin could no more be embarrassed,
but upon her came a flame of inspiration that kindled that great song
On this first Christian hymn, note:
Its correspondence with the Old Testament hymn of Hannah, the mother of Samuel
(1 Sam. 2:1-10). Hannah's song is the model of Mary's. The correspondence is as
remarkable in the circumstances as in the matter of the song. Israel under Eli
had been brought very low. The barren Hannah prayed for a child and promised
that she would dedicate him to Jehovah as long as he lived. Her illustrious son
was the last of the judges and the first of the prophets. He reformed Israel and
established the monarchy in David. What a solemn historic lesson, God's
preparation of the mothers of the good and the great, and the devil's
preparation of the mothers of the monsters of vice and cruelty! Compare the
mothers of Augustine, Washington, Andrew Jackson, S. S. Prentiss, with the
mother of Nero. To the question, Where should the education of a child
commence, Oliver Wendell Holmes replied, "With his grandmother."
Think of the faith of Timothy, "which was first in his grandmother, Lois,
and in his mother, Eunice "
Note the three divisions of Mary's hymn: First as it relates to herself (Luke
1:46-49). Second, as it relates to God's moral government of the world (Luke
1:50-53). Third, as it relates to Israel (Luke 1:54-55). The blessing on the
individual Christian widens into a blessing on the people of God, and enlarges
into a blessing on the world. How minute in application, how comprehensive in
scope, and how correlated in all its parts, is God's moral government of the
universe!
Dr. Lyman Beecher, the greatest of all the Beechers, when asked, "How long
were you in preparing your great sermon on 'God's Moral Government' ?"
replied, "Forty years." While the hearers were astounded at the
greatness of his production, he himself lamented the short time for
preparation. Note the expression in v. 50, "and his mercy is unto
generations and generations of them that fear him," and mark its origin
and import in the Old Testament, to wit: While he visits the iniquity of the
fathers on their children to the third and fourth generation, he visits his
mercy to the thousandth generation on the children of them that fear him.
Observe the naming of a Hebrew child at his circumcision. Hence pedobaptists,
contending that baptism comes in the place of circumcision, name the child at
its baptism and call it "christening."
The great homiletical theme: "What then shall this child be?" (Luke
1:66.)
The inspired song of the father. This is called THE BENEDICTUS from the first word, "blessed." This is the second Christian
hymn. It is divided into two distinct parts:
First, the ascription of praise to God for his continued mercy to his covenant
people, Israel, according to promise and prophecy from Abraham's day (Luke
1:68-75).
This promise was messianic – "to raise up a horn of salvation in the house
of David," "horn" meaning a king or kingdom of power, as in
Daniel's apocalypses, and in Revelation. Daniel 8:3, the ram with two horns of
unequal length, represented Persia united with Media. Daniel 8:5-9, the one
"notable horn" of the he-goat was Alexander the Great, and the
"four horns" his four successors. The "little horn" rising
later was Antiochus Epiphanes. Daniel 7:7-8, the "ten horns" of this
fourth beast were the ten kingdoms into which the fallen Roman empire was
divided, and the "little horn" was the papacy.
So when Zacharias says, "Thou hast raised up a horn of salvation in the
house of David," it means the Messiah, David's greater Son. One of the
prophecies to which Zacharias refers is 2 Samuel 7:12-13, with which compare
Isaiah II. It is evident, therefore, that Zacharias speaks his benediction on
God because of spiritual messianic mercies.
The second part of the benediction (Luke 1:76-79) is spoken to his son, John,
because of his relation to the Messiah of the first part. John was to be (1)
the prophet of the Most High. (2) He was to go before the coming Messiah and
prepare the way for him. (3) His ministry was to give the people "The
knowledge of salvation in the remission of their sins." We shall have much
use later for this last item, when we devote a special chapter to John the
Baptist, defining his place in the Christian system.
For the present we note that a true disciple of John was saved. He had
"knowledge" of his salvation. This knowledge is experimental since it
came through the remission of sins. We are not surprised, therefore, that his
candidates for baptism "confessed their sins," nor that his baptism
was "of repentance unto remission of sins," as Peter preached at
Pentecost (Acts 2:38) and was in harmony with our Lord's great commission given
in his gospel: "Repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his
name unto all nations beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47).
"The Dayspring from on High" (Luke 1:78) is our Lord himself, the Sun
of righteousness, in the dawn of his rising.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the first
peculiarity of Matthew's genealogy?
2. Give proof that this
correspondence with Genesis 5:1 was designed.
3. His second peculiarity?
4. Explain three sets of
fourteen with only forty-one names.
5. How might another writer,
with a different plan, divide the three from Abraham to Christ into four
periods, and give their fulfilment in Christ in four Greek names?
6. Matthew's third
peculiarity, and account for it?
7. How do you reconcile
Luke's genealogy with Matthew'*?
8. Including Paul's
contributions, how should Luke's genealogy com
mence? Ans. Jesus himself, the Second Adam, who was the Lord from heaven
(supposed son of Joseph) was the son of Heli.
9. Including a statement
from Matthew himself, how should his
genealogy commence? Ans.
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, called Immanuel (God with us), the son of David, the son of
Abraham."
10. How many annunciations,
to whom, by whom or what, and how?
11. How are all these
annunciations adapted to the receivers?
12. Contrast the respective
missions of Gabriel and Michael.
13. In the annunciation to Zacharias,
give time, scene, place, medium, means,
and circumstances.
14. Where was the golden
altar of incense, the brazen altar of sacrifice, what was their relation to
each other, and what was the doctrine?
Ans. The brazen altar of
sacrifice was in the outer court, the golden altar of incense in the holy place
before the veil hiding the mercy seat in the most holy place. The relation was
that expiatory sacrifice must precede offering up incense representing prayer
based on expiation. First expiation of sin, then prayer. The incense was
kindled by fire from the brazen altar. To kindle the incense with other fire
was punished with death (see Lev. 10:1-11; Num. 3:4; 26:61; I Chron. 24:2). The
doctrine is that prayer must be offered in the name of Jesus the expiatory
victim.
15. Why should the people
offer their prayers through the medium
of a priest? Ans. Being sinners
they must approach God through a mediator.
16. Who these
mediators? Ans. The sons of Aaron.
17. How was perpetuity in.
mediation secured and by whom established?
18. Of which course of the
twenty-four was Zacharias?
19. Why could not Zacharias
offer the incense in the most holy place,
who alone could, and when?
20. What prayer did
Zacharias offer for himself, was it answered, and how?
21. Crucial test question:
Is it the design of prayer to influence God
or merely to reflexively influence the petitioner? (Before you answer
read Matt. 7:7-11; Luke 18:1-14; John 16:23-24; and the author's interpretation
of the trumpets of Revelation 8:2 to 10:1. See his book on Revelation, pp.
131-159.)
22. Give time, place,
medium, means, and matter of the annunciation to Mary.
23. How does the angel
explain a virgin's giving birth to a child?
24. How does such a birth alone
fulfill the first gospel promise?
25. How does it insure the
child against hereditary depravity?
26. What three proofs must
be made in order that Jesus escape condemnation on his own account? Ans. (1) He must be born holy – holy in
nature. (2) He must be free from actual
sin in life. (3) He must perfectly obey all the law.
27. These proofs conceded,
then if he yet be condemned and die, what follows? Ans. His death was vicarious
– a substitute for sinners (Isa. 53:4-12).
28. What then the effect of
denying the virgin birth of our Lord?
29. What the virtual
relation of the incarnation to all other miracles?
30. How then must we regard
Luke 1:34-35?
31. What is the base of all
the Romanist Mariolatry?
32. Does the Greek word rendered
"endued with grace," convey the idea that Mary was the mother of
grace or a daughter of grace – in other words, that she is the fountain of all
grace or the subject of grace conferred?
33. What has a Pope said of
Mary?
34. Why did Mary visit
Elisabeth?
35. How was it announced to
Elisabeth that the mother of our Lord
was present?
36. How naturally would
Elisabeth's inspired response comfort and
confirm the modest virgin?
THE MAGNIFICAT
37. What is its Old
Testament model?
38. What historic lesson
suggested, and illustrate.
39. Point out the three
divisions of Mary's hymn.
40. Who preached a great
sermon illustrating the second division?
41. What is the origin and
meaning of "unto generations and generations" v.50?
BIRTH OF JOHN THE
BAPTIST
42. On what occasion did
Hebrews name their male children and why
do pedobaptists in imitation christen their children?
43. What great sermon theme
here?
THE BENEDICTUS
44. Why song of Zacharias,
80 called?
45. What two divisions of
the song?
46. What the nature of the
first part and the relation of second thereto?
47. Meaning of "horn of
salvation in the house of David"? Illustrate by "horn" from
Daniel and cite two pertinent Old Testament messianic promises.
48. What three things in the
second part of the Benedictua said of
John the Baptist?
49. What does the last prove
of a true disciple of John?
BEGINNINGS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE (CONTINUED)
Broadus' Harmony pages 7-8 and Matthew 1:18-25; Luke
2:1-20.
On this paragraph of Matthew I desire to commend in
the highest possible terms the critical and elaborate discussion by Dr. Broadus
in his peerless Commentary on Matthew, pages 8-13. You will not be kind and
fair to yourself if you fail, in this connection, to read every word of it. And
having read it, you do not need any other exegesis of the passage. In the fear,
however, that you may not read it now, I submit a few brief observations:
While betrothal among the Jews preceded the consummation of marriage, it was an
essential part of it, and just as binding as the consummation itself (Lev.
20:10; Deut. 22: 23f). A man might put away his betrothed for infidelity to her
betrothal vows, either publicly, thereby necessitating her open condemnation
under the laws cited above, or he might, at his own option, privately give her
a bill of divorcement without assigning the cause. Or, as putting her away at all
was not mandatory, he might forgive her and consummate the marriage.
Joseph, being a righteous, not a vindictive, man when Mary's condition became
obvious, was compelled to think on these things and determine his own course in
the matter. Just at this juncture of his perplexity came the revelation which
justified him in completing the marriage, without any necessity for
forgiveness.
It is easy to see why Mary needed the revelation at the beginning, while it was
unnecessary for Joseph to understand until later, when he must take some step
in the matter. The means of annunciation in the two cases indicate Mary's
superior spiritual state, as open vision is a higher order of revelation than
by dreams. In no case was Joseph endowed with open vision, but four times God
directs him by dreams (Matt. 1:20; 2:13, 19, 22).
The name "Jesus" means Saviour, and the salvation to be achieved by
him was not political deliverance of his people from Roman rule, but salvation
"from their sins." What a pity that his own disciples were so slow to
understand the nature of the salvation, and how readily even Pontius Pilate
acquitted him by the verdict, "I find no fault in him," when he
understood that our Lord's kingdom was not of this world, and hence not a
revolt against Caesar. Had the suspicious, bloody-minded old tyrant, Herod,
understood, there would have been no massacre of the babes at Bethlehem. And
even in our late day we need to be continually reminded of the real mission of
our Lord.
Let us make no mistake about this "salvation from sins." It is
salvation through the vicarious expiation of sins satisfying the claims of
justice. It is salvation from the guilt of sin by justification, through faith.
It is salvation from the defilement of sin by the cleansing blood of Christ
applied by the Holy Spirit. It is salvation from the love of sin through
regeneration. It is salvation from the dominion of sin through sanctification.
It is the salvation of the body through resurrection and glorification. We may
not stop at salvation done for us, but must include the salvation wrought in
us. Salvation has the legal aspects expressed by the appropriate words,
expiation and justification. And further expressed in a commercial legal sense
by redemption and ransom (1 Pet. 1:18-19; Matt. 20:28; 1 Tim. 2:6). Woe to the
teacher or taught who leaves them out I It has its biological aspect, expressed
by birth from above, or a new creature, and life more abundant, expressed by
sanctification. Woe to the teacher or taught who leaves these out or magnifies
these by decrying the legal aspects!
It has its human or experimental side, as expressed in contrition, repentance,
faith, confession, reformation and all those fruits of the Spirit, love joy,
hope, peace, as we walk in new- ness of life from grace to grace, from faith to
faith, from strength to strength, perfecting ourselves in holiness, being
changed more and more into the image of Christ, from glory to glory.
And just as surely must we admit into this idea of salvation God's foreknowledge)
election, and predestination. It is salvation from the power of Satan, the
usurping de facto prince of this world.
This name, "Jesus" is the same as "Joshua," who was a type
of our Lord as captain general of the army of God, and as the one who would
lead the people into the Promised Land of rest. This feature of the name
"Jesus" is not discussed here, but is emphasized in the letter to the
Hebrews and again in Revelation. Another feature of the name is brought out by
Paul where, after and because of his expiation of sins on the cross, his name
is exalted above every name (Phil. 2:9-11).
Well might Peter say, "And in none other is there salvation: for neither
is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein ye must
be saved" (Acts 4:12). All who heard or read it will cherish as a precious
memory Dr. Winkler's great sermon before the Southern Baptist Convention on
"The Name Above Every Name."
We need to consider just here, in part, Matthew's application of Old Testament
quotations. It is a broad and complex question extending to all other New
Testament quotations from the Old Testament, as finding fulfilment in New
Testament events.
The case before us is an extreme one, and so if Matthew he-justified here in
his construction of the quoted passage from Isaiah, the battle need not be
fought over on cases not extreme. We cannot justify Matthew by an attempt to
modify the obvious and natural force of his words, "Now all this is come
to pass, that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the Lord through the
prophet, saying, Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth
a Son, and they shall call his name Immanuel (God with us)." Matthew
evidently conveys the impression that the author of the prophecy looked to the
virgin birth here recorded as the fulfilling event. I say the author of the
prophecy; I do not mean the prophet Isaiah. Matthew distinctly affirms that the
prophecy "was spoken by the Lord." True, it was "through the
prophet." But it was not necessary that Isaiah should understand. Isaiah
might have seen only the child of the days of Ahaz concerning whom it is there
said, "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the
good, the land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken." (See
Isa. 7:13 to 8:4.)
Just here comes in the much disputed double sense of prophecy. The double sense
is not real, but is in the nature of an optical illusion which blends into one
apparent mountain of several separate peaks which lie in one line of vision. A
side view, from a different angle of vision, differentiates the peaks. The
first and lowest peak in the line of vision is not really the last and highest
peak. True, to the eye, looking at them afar off, they apparently blend into
one. This limitation is in the nature of prophecy, which has no perspective, as
in the nature of optics.
New Testament interpretation is the later side view that differentiates the
blended objects. For example, the Holy Spirit inspires David to speak of his
great successor. David himself may understand that all of it applies to his
immediate successor, Solomon. But the Spirit means his great, remote successor,
Jesus. The vision does touch the foothill, Solomon, but goes on to rest on the
higher peak, Christ, far beyond. There is no double sense. That is, what refers
to Solomon does not mean Christ, and what refers to Christ does not mean
Solomon. As seen afar off it appears to be one thing, but when the intervening
distance is traversed the Solomon foothill is found to be quite a distinct and
small affair compared with the mountain peak, Christ, which stood behind it and
was optically blended into one view with it.
Often, in the West, have I seen what appeared to be a single far-off blue
mountain. But when approached nearer, and seen from a different angle of
vision, as the road would turn, my one mountain became a whole range of
separate, distinct peaks with intervening valleys.
Mark my words: Only a very shallow truth lies in the catchword of the radical
critics, ''The prophets speak to their own times." They indeed teach their
own times, but they do not and cannot foretell their own times. (See 1 Pet.
1:10-12.) In the very nature of the case, foretelling looks beyond the present.
Two great tests apply to all foretelling in the name of Jehovah:
(1) The thing foretold must come to pass (Deut. 18:21-22).
(2) Though it come to pass it cannot, as a sign, authenticate a violation of
revealed law (Deut. 13:1-3).
In the light of these tests, Matthew's "fulfillments" of prophecy are
all justified. He recorded his facts by inerrant inspiration. He interpreted
his facts by adequate illumination. And that Matthew gets the true
interpretation of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 is evident if we look on to
Isaiah 9:6 and 11:lf.
Observe the last line of our paragraph: "And knew her not till she had
brought forth her Son." Add to this Luke 2:7ù "And she brought forth
her firstborn Son." Add yet Mark 6:3 – “Is not this the carpenter, the son
of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? and are not his
sisters here with us?" To this add Mark 3:31-35, "And there came to
him his mother and brethren; and standing without, they sent unto him, calling
him. And a multitude was sitting about him; and they say unto him, Behold, thy
mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, and saith,
Who is my mother and my brethren? And looking round on them that sat about him,
he saith, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of
God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." The natural,
obvious import of these passages is that Mary, after the birth of Jesus, bore
children to Joseph. Only strained, unnecessary, sentimental quibbling can break
the obvious natural sense. We are more inclined to suspect the quibbling, when
we consider the air castle superstructure erected on this foundation of
quicksand.
Dr. Broadus' footnote in his harmony is much to the point: "Observe how
the ruler of the civilized world is unconsciously bringing it about that the
Messiah, the son of David, shall be born at Bethlehem, though the mother's home
was Nazareth. All the previous history of Rome and of Israel gathers about this
manger." We may add, all their subsequent history also. Indeed, we may say
that Jesus is the key to the philosophy of all history. Daniel's five world
empires is an illustration; Revelation expands the thought to the end of time.
Luke, in his Gospel and Acts, more than all the other historians, connects his story,
at almost countless points of contact, with the history, geography, navigation,
trade, chronology, religions, laws, customs, philosophies, literature, and
games of both nations and localities, without the thought that he might be
convicted of an anachronism. The most searching examination known to literature
has never proved him at fault in the minutest detail of his story, by land or
sea. Hasty criticism has indeed objected here and there to some detail, but has
perished in the light of more elaborate research. Our short paragraph furnishes
three cases in point:
(1) A worldwide enrolment, by order of Augustus Caesar. It has been objected,
first, that there is no historical proof of such decree, and second, that if
decreed it could not apply to dependent kingdoms like Herod's. It is now
conceded that Augustus did issue this decree, and according to Tacitus, the
Roman historian, it did include the "Regna," or dependent kingdoms.
This census was with a view to taxation. The evidence is abundant in the later
history that the tax based upon the census was imposed and collected.
(2) But, second, it is objected that Luke times the enrolment when Quirinius
was governor of Syria, which was ten years later, and that only after Herod's
death was Judea subordinate to Syria. This objection is far more plausible. See
partial or possible explanation in Dr. Robertson's note (appendix to Broadus'
harmony, pp. 239-240).
We may add that Luke was well aware of the enrolment ten years later, for he
himself discusses it in Acts 5:37. And no historian contradicts his explicit
statement in our paragraph. Nor is there evidence that any heathen historian
was so devoted to accuracy as Luke. No one of their histories, nor even
Josephus, could bear the test of accuracy to which Luke has been subjected.
(3) It is objected that a Roman census would require enrolment at the place of
residence and not of personal or family nativity. The answer is every way
sufficient that dependent kingdoms would be allowed to follow their own
established methods. It was the settled policy of Rome to interfere as little
as possible with the fixed customs of these kingdoms.
Note the last clause of our paragraph: "there was .no room for them in the
inn." Upon this, one of the most touching gospel hymns was written, in
which the line occurs, "There is room in my heart for thee, Lord
Jesus." In my choir at Waco was a brilliant young lady who could out sing
the birds, and especially in singing this hymn could make the stars sparkle.
She was not a Christian. At a gathering of ladies in a private home she sang it
with unusual power. I leaned over and whispered to her, "My child, you
sing it beautifully with your lips, but is there room in your heart for the
Lord Jesus?" She was instantly convicted of sin, and the following Sunday
came with face illumined, as the shining of the faces of Moses and Stephen,
saying with joy and tears, "I have not only given him a room in my heart,
but all of it as his residence forever." Years later when, a happy wife and
mother, she was dying, she took my hand and said, "He is still in my
heart, and has called me to a room in his Father's house of many
mansions."
"No room for him in the inn" at his birth! The feeding trough of
domestic animals his cradle. "With the wild beasts of the desert" in
his temptation. In his life, while "the foxes had holes, and the birds of
the air had nests, the Son of Man had not where to lay his head."
A fish contributed his temple-tax, the gold of Gentile magi paid the expenses
of his flight into Egypt, his own labor as a carpenter supported the family
after Joseph's death, and sympathetic women ministered to him of their
substance in his public ministry, at his death "a cross between two
thieves" while his crucifiers gambled for his vesture, a borrowed tomb his
place of sepulcher!
Augustus Caesar, claiming divine honor, ruled the world, but his apostle John
lived to see twelve "divine Caesars" come and go, with the thirteenth
on the throne, and then to foreshow the downfall of them all Rome itself, like
a volcano in eruption, overturned and swallowed up in the sea of nations.
Very wisely the providence of God has left uncertain the exact date of his
birth. We cannot determine with certainty the year or the month or the day in the
terms of our era. We know that Augustus ruled at Rome, and Herod, the king of
the Holy Land, was just about to pass away.
The argument is very convincing that our present era, due to the Abbot
Dionysius Exiguus, in the sixth century, is at least four years too late. But
we do not deem the matter of sufficient importance to attempt the reform of our
calendar another time. For centuries Christmas, on December 25, new style, has
been fixed in the customs and literature of all nations west of Russia and Constantinople.
And if the Greek church prefers the old style, what signifies a difference of
twelve days? The Christ was born, and salvation does not consist in the
observance of days and festivals (Gal. 4:10f; Col. 2:16-23).
We do know that he came in the fulness of time (Gal. 4:4), when the world was
ripe for his advent, when "Great Pan" and all other heathen gods were
dead and their oracles were dumb, when their philosophies had failed to alarm,
comfort or save, when their civilizations had rotted, when good men despaired,
when Rome united the world in government, when the hierarchy at Jerusalem and
the ritual in the Temple were but sounding brass and tinkling cymbals and when
the dispersion and the synagogue throughout the world were ready to supply the firstfruits
of the gospel.
Note very carefully that though impatient thousands had in every intervening
age been shaking the hour glass of time to make its sands run faster (Luke
10:24), and confident interpreters insisted that this first advent was always
imminent, that is, liable to happen any time from Eve's too hasty joy over the
birth of Cain till Judas Maccabeus, God himself had fixed an unalterable day
and kept narrowing the converging lines of all prophecies until they focused in
one blended blaze of light on the new-born Babe in the manger at Bethlehem.
From this great example, why cannot we learn that his final advent is not
imminent, that is, liable to happen any day or hour, but like the first, must
wait "the fulness of time" and the fixed, unalterable day, for Paul
says, "Inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the
world in righteousness by the Man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given
assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."
THE ANNUNCIATION
TO THE SHEPHERDS – Luke 2:8-20
The birth of our Lord was not divinely announced to Augustus, Herod or the
Sanhedrin – they would not have welcomed it – but to shepherds, who like David,
watched the flocks of Bethlehem. Those who looked, longed, and waited for his
first coming, were not left in the dark, nor will those like them be left in
the dark at his final advent (1 Thess. 5:4). These shepherds of Bethlehem cared
for the sacrificial flocks that were to be offered in the Temple. It was
fitting, therefore, that they should know of the coming of the antitype, the
Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world. The time is the night of the
very day of Christ's birth, the medium is an angel, the means – open vision.
The glory of the Lord is the Shekinah or halo-symbol of the Divine Presence,
well known in the tabernacle of Moses and the Temple of Solomon.
Notwithstanding the awe naturally excited by this glorious visitation, they,
like Zacharias and Mary, are exhorted to "fear not." The angel's
mission is mercy, not wrath. The character of the message is good tidings of
great joy to all the people. "To bring good tidings" means the same
as to evangelize or proclaim the gospel. "The people" means strictly
the Jewish people, but of course through them all other peoples. The message
itself is: "There is born to you this day, in the city of David, a Saviour
who is Christ the Lord."
We have seen that Saviour means a Saviour from their sins. Christ is his
official name and means the Anointed One. The Hebrew word is Messiah, Greek
transliteration, Messias; Greek translation, Christos; English,
Christ. Jesus was to be anointed to qualify him as prophet, priest, sacrifice,
and King. We come to the anointing on the day he was inducted into his public
ministry. (See in the author's first volume of sermons, The Anointed One.)
THE SIGN OF HIS
FIRST ADVENT
"Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, and lying in a
manger." How appropriate the sign of him who comes disrobed of heavenly
glory to enter on his life of humiliation, poverty, and sacrifice! When the
apostles later ask for the sign of his final advent, in his glory, how
appropriately different the sign, the appearance in world darkness of a
"great white throne" of eternal judgment. (See Matt. 24:3, 30; 25:31;
Rev. 20:11.) From the manger to the throne!
HOW HEAVEN
INTERPRETS THE COMING
Here we have the foundation of the third historic Christian hymn, "Gloria
in Excelsis." In this hymn is a triple contrast, God – men; heaven –
earth; glory – peace. This coming will make for glory to God in heaven, peace
to men on earth. But the peace is not to all men – only to men in whom he is
pleased.
We note here how this child in his coming affects three worlds. In heaven every
bell is ringing and every angel singing. Earth, in its humbler classes, is
rejoicing and singing hymns. Its kings and senates' are indifferent, soon to be
hostile. Hell is moved with fear and hate, stirring up the three Herods to kill
– its old Herod (Matt. 2:16) ; his son, Herod (Mark 6: 17-28); and his
grandson, Herod (Acts 22:1-3).
QUESTIONS
1. What special comment on
Matthew 1:18-25 commended?
2. Explain the relation of
Jewish betrothal to marriage and what the
Old Testament law on violation of betrothal vows?
3. Meaning of the word
"Jesus"?
4. Full meaning of the
salvation, from sin?
5. What Old Testament name
is the same as "Jesus," and in what
New Testament books is the relation between the two discussed?
6. Explain and justify
Matthew's application of the Old Testament
quotations.
7. Explain and illustrate
the apparent double sense of prophecy.
8. What the two tests of
prophecy?
9. Collate the two passages
indicating that Mary bore children to
Joseph.
10. What does Dr. Broadus
ask us to observe on the birth of Jesus
at Bethlehem?
11. What are the
characteristics of Luke's history?
12. What are the three
criticisms on his account of the birth of Christ, and your reply?
13. What the gospel hymn
written on "No room for them at the inn," and the incident given?
14. With what other
expressions in his life does the "no room at the inn" correlate?
15. What can you say of the
date of Christ's birth, our era and
calendar?
16. Compare the first and
final advent as to their alleged imminence.
17. In the message of the
angels to the shepherds, what means "good
tidings," "people," "Christ"?
18. What the sign of the
first advent? The second.
19. What the triple contrast
in the song of the angels?
20. Show how Christ's coming
affected three worlds.
BEGINNINGS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE (CONTINUED)
Harmony pages 8-10 and Luke 2:21-38; Matthew 2:1-12.
THE CIRCUMCISION
OF JESUS – Luke 2:21
On this point the answers to two questions will be sufficient: Why was our Lord
subject to this ordinance? and to what did it obligate him? Paul answers both
questions: "He was born under the law that he might redeem them that were
under the law" (Gal. 4:4-5). Circumcision made him "a debtor to do
the whole law" (Gal. 5:2). To accomplish his ultimate mission of mercy to
the Gentile world he must approach them through the Jews – "For I say that
Christ hath been made a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God that
he might confirm the promises given unto the fathers and that the Gentiles
might glorify God for his mercy" (Rom. 15:8-9).
So that his circumcision had a twofold purpose – to reach the Jews and through
the Jews to reach the Gentiles. Being, through his mother, a lineal descendant
of Abraham, it became him to magnify and make honorable the law in every minute
respect. He himself said: "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the
prophets: I came not to destroy but to fulfill. . . . Till heaven and earth
pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law till
all things be accomplished" (Matt. 5:17-18).
THE PRESENTATION
IN THE TEMPLE – Luke 2:22-38
This was the second step in the line of keeping the law. Circumcision was a
family rite on the eighth day – this a Temple rite on the fortieth day. In this
account we must distinguish what applied to Jesus from what applied to his
mother. Two laws applied to his mother: (1) The forty days of purification
required after bearing a first-born son (Lev. 12:1-4). (2) The bringing to the
sanctuary a lamb for a burnt offering and a turtle-dove or a pigeon for a sin
offering. But in mercy the law provided: "If her means suffice not for a
lamb, then she shall take two turtle-doves or two young pigeons – the one for a
burnt offering and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make
atonement for her, and she shall be clean" (Lev. 12:6-8). What a comment,
then, on the family poverty when our text says she offered "a pair of turtle-doves,
or two young pigeons!"
The laws applying to her Son were: (1) He belonged, as first-born, to Jehovah
and must be presented to him. The historical ground of Jehovah's title to the
first-born of man or beast was the salvation of Israel's first-born through the
blood of the passover lamb on the night that Egypt's first-born perished (Ex.
13:2, 11-16). This obligated the first-born son to a consecrated service in the
sanctuary.
(2) But when Jehovah selected the tribe of Levi for sanctuary service in lieu
of the first-born males of all the tribes, then the first-born of the other
tribes were exempted from sanctuary service on payment of a redemption price of
five shekels, which constituted a part of the means for supporting the tribe of
Levi (Num. 8:16; 18:15-16).
So when Jesus was seven days old he was circumcised; and when forty days old
was carried from Bethlehem to Jerusalem for presentation in the Temple, that
the laws cited bearing on him and his mother might be fulfilled. The
habit-blinded Temple officers saw nothing unusual in this observance of
ordinary ritual. To them only a poor Jewish mother and her child had entered
the gorgeous Temple of Herod. Like the unseeing man pilloried by Wordsworth: A primrose by a river's brim
A yellow primrose was to him, And it was nothing more.
But this first appearance of our Lord in the Temple, as many subsequent ones,
was to be signalized by mighty events. To one man and to one woman were given
the seeing eye. One righteous and devout old man was looking for the coming
Messiah, here called, according to prophecy, the Consolation of Israel. He had
not only noted that the converging lines of type and prophecy had focused, but
the Holy Spirit had revealed to him that his old eyes should not close in death
until they had seen the Lord's Christ. It was like -the revelation to Enoch
that his son Methuselah should live to the end of the antediluvian world, and
like the revelation to Lamech that his son Noah should give rest from the flood
and start a new race in the postdiluvian world. The Spirit, all the time
resting on Simeon, gave him special prompting to go to the Temple at a certain
hour, and there enabled him to recognize the Lord just entering in, borne by
his mother. He took the child in his arms, blessing God and Joseph and Mary.
Under immediate inspiration he spoke of three things:
(1) Salvation, (a) It was a salvation prepared before the face of all nations.
This preparation had been going on for 4,000 years. In some way the preparation
had conspicuously touched every nation under heaven. The Old Testament records
the story of the contact. The great world empires, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon,
Persia, Greece, and Rome, were no more than smaller nations and tribes. The
loom of God's moral government of the world was ever weaving its web. The
nations, as colored threads, constituted the warp. His providence, like a
shuttle, ever flying to and fro, supplied the woof. And now, at last, after
4,000 years of weaving the pattern of the web exhibits the Lord Jesus Christ as
the central figure of all history.
(b) It was a salvation, not only "to the glory of Israel," but as a
revelation to the Gentiles.
(c) After his eyes had seen the coming of this salvation earth had nothing more
of honor to wait for he was permitted to depart in peace. Happy old man! What a
glorious consummation of a long and faithful life! What a brilliant sunset of
life, unflecked by a cloud I Well might a disobedient prophet say, Let me die the death of the
righteous, And let my last end be like his.
Contrast the hideous old age and exit of Herod with the old age and beatific
departure of Simeon.
(2) Concerning the Saviour, (a) "Behold, this child is set for the falling
and rising up of many in Israel." Christ is the touchstone revealing the secret
of every heart. Those who accept him rise. Those who reject him fall. He is a
savor of life unto life, or of death unto death.
(b) He is set for a sign which is spoken against. This again depends on how he
is presented or regarded. As a mere good man none spoke against him. But as
God-man on the cross, expiating, as a substitute the sins of the world, voices
from every class blaspheme his name and mission.
(3) Concerning his mother. "Yea, and a sword shall pierce through thine
own soul." Your attention has been called to a book entitled The Sorrows
of Mary, based on this passage. The honor put on Mary was the highest privilege
ever conferred on woman. When she thought of the honor, well might she sing:
"My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God, my
Saviour. . . . For he that is mighty hath done to me great things."
But with this honor come many sorrows. She must see her Son pass beyond all
earthly relations to become absorbed in the higher spiritual relations. She
must witness his rejection, betrayal, and crucifixion. Her sympathetic maternal
heart must lead her into a baptism of suffering on his account.
Anna, the prophetess. Simeon, the aged man, is not alone as a witness. Here is a
woman more than 100 years old. She had lived as a wife seven years, and had now
been a widow eighty-four years. If she married at fourteen she would be 105
years old. She reminds us of Paul's direction concerning one "who is a
widow indeed" (1 Tim. 5:5-10). After the death of her husband she devoted
herself exclusively to the service of God in the Temple. Great joy comes to her
old age. She, like Simeon, beholds the coming of the long-expected Saviour.
Under the inspiration of the Spirit she testifies of the Christ to other
waiting souls expecting the redemption.
In the most degenerate days of impiety and public corruption God never leaves
himself without witnesses.
They are not in the high places, nor conspicuous in the congregations. They
quietly wait and pray and serve. There are always more of them than men think.
Elijah thought himself alone against the world. But God, even then, had
reserved to himself seven thousand who had not bowed the knees to Baal. And so,
says Paul, there is always "a remnant according to the election of
grace." It is this remnant that constitutes the seed and nucleus of future
revivals. In the dark days of Malachi, there were some faithful ones:
"Then they that feared Jehovah spake one with another; and Jehovah hearkened,
and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before him', for them that
feared Jehovah, and that thought upon his name. And they shall be mine, saith
Jehovah of hosts, even mine own possession, in the day that I make; and I will
spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. Then shall ye return
and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God
and him that serveth him not." And this "book of remembrance"
will be among the "books opened at the judgment" (Rev. 20:12).
On this notable event we submit the following observations: (1) The meaning of
Magi. Nebuchadnezzar summoned all his "wise men" (Dan. 2:12) to
reveal to him the dream he had forgotten and 'then to interpret it. In this
case our word "magi" is made to include "magicians, enchanters,
sorcerers, and Chaldeans" (Dan. 2:2). The Chaldeans only of this list
answer to the character of the Magi of our paragraph. They were astronomers,
devoting much attention to the study of the heavenly bodies, and believing, not
only that they were appointed for signs to the earth, as taught in Genesis
1:14, but had much influence for good and evil on earth's affairs, hence the
question of the Almighty to Job: Canst thou bind the cluster of the Pleiades, Or
loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou lead forth the Mazzaroth in their season,
Or canst thou guide the Bear with her train? Knowest thou the ordinances of the
heavens? Canst thou establish the dominion thereof in the earth?
– JOB 38:31-33
To like effect is the passage in Judges 5:20 From heaven fought the stars, From their
courses they fought against Sisera,
So the sun and the moon, at the bidding of Joshua, paused in their respective
courses that the enemies of Israel might be utterly discomfited (Josh.
10:12-14).
From astronomy, a great and proper science with the ancient Egyptians and
Chaldeans, there was developed later the superstition of astrology, with its
casting of horoscopes, which darkened medieval Europe.
Later than Daniel's time we have another Old Testament use of the word
"magi": "Then the king said to the wise men, who knew the times
(for so was the king's manner toward all that knew law and judgment; and the
next unto him were Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and
Memucan, the seven princes of Persia and Media, who saw the king's face, and
sat first in the kingdom)" (Esther 1:1314). The Magi here are both princes
and counselors to Ahasuerus (Xerxes the Great).
It is evident from a comparison of our paragraph with the two instances quoted
from the Septuagint, that Magi might be very wise and honorable men engaged in
the lawful study of astronomy, and that if Jehovah made a revelation to them,
it would be adapted to their line. of study.
(2) How would these Wise Men in the Far East be prepared to recognize a
heavenly phenomenon as a sign of a coming Jewish king? Very much to the point
is a prophecy under the compulsion of unwelcome inspiration, by an unworthy
magian from the Far East, many centuries before the birth of our Lord. Balaam
three times prophesies of a coming king of Israel who shall rule the nations.
In his last prophecy concerning this king, he says, I see him but not now; I
behold him but not nigh: There shall come forth a star out of Jacob And a
sceptre shall rise out of Israel . . . And out of Jacob shall one have
dominion.
– NUMBERS 24:17-19
Then, in the captivity under Nebuchadnezzar this book, centuries later, was
carried to the home of the Magi – Ezra on his return bringing back a copy (Ezra
7:6, 10; Neh. 8:2) and then the book of Isaiah was also shown to Cyrus, in
which the prophecy, "Jehovah will arise upon thee, and his glory shall be
seen upon thee. And nations shall come to thy light, and kings to the
bright-ness of thy rising. . . . They shall bring gold and frankincense, and
shall proclaim the praises of Jehovah" (Isa. 60:2-6). Moreover, all these
holy books were kept in circulation in the land of the Magi, by resident Jews,
until Christ was born.
I say, then, in view of the prophecy of a magian concerning the star and the
King, and of Isaiah's prophecy of Gentiles coming to his rising, naming the
very gifts they would bring, and of the circulation of these books in their
very midst by resident Jews up to Christ's birth, of which it was impossible
for these Magi to be ignorant, it is easy to understand how these stargazers
would connect the appearance of a new and brilliant luminary with the birth of
the long foretold King of the Jews who would rule the world.
(3) Was the star they saw the conjunction of heavenly bodies, appearing
naturally at this time) or was it a miracle? You will find in Dr. Robertson's
note, appendix to Broadus Harmony, a brief summary of the argument in favor of
a natural phenomenon. I do not quote it, because such an explanation could not
be made to fit Matthew's account, particularly, 2:9. It must be considered a
miraculous appearance.
(4) How many of these Wise Men, what were their names, were they kings, and
what became of them? The record is silent. We had better follow the record. Of
course, if you desire to follow traditional fancies, utterly worthless, you may
learn from Gen. Lew Wallace's romance, Ben Hur, that they were
three in number, and royal personages, and their names and countries, and how, contrary
to Matthew's account, they lingered long and conspicuously, instead of
returning quietly to their distant homes.
Moreover, if you are given to the worship of lying relics, the next time you
visit the famous cathedral at Cologne, the janitor, for a fee, will show you
their bones in the shrine behind the high altar. Then will be justified the
proverb: "A fool and his money are soon parted." The first time I
visited New Orleans, an auctioneer of curios told me they were still selling to
credulous visitors the cannon ball that killed Sir Edward Packingham in his
great battle with Andrew Jackson.
And I have heard that an auctioneer once tried to sell the sword with which
Balaam killed his ass. When a bystander informed him that Balaam did not kill
his ass, but only wished for a sword that he might kill him, the auctioneer was
nothing daunted: "This," said he, "is the sword be wished
for," and he sold is as an antique relic.
(5) These Wise Men, quite naturally, went to Jerusalem with their question:
"Where is he that is born king of the Jews, for we have seen his star in
the East, and are come to do homage to him?" But it was not good tidings
to Herod and Jerusalem. Both were greatly troubled – Herod, because he feared
the downfall of his proposed dynasty; Jerusalem, because it dreaded political
convulsions followed by bloodshed and destruction of their city. Herod summons
the obsequious Sanhedrin and learns that Bethlehem, according to prophecy, was
to be his birthplace. The cunning old tyrant, having gathered from the Wise Men
the time of the appearance of the star, sent them to Bethlehem, with the charge
to let him know if they found the child, that he also might come and worship
him.
(6) It seems that the Magi saw the star only twice: first, at its appearance in
the East, and second, after they left Jerusalem on their way to Bethlehem,
where the star led them, and then stood still over the house where Joseph and
Mary lodged.
(7) Observe that the first gift laid at the feet of Jesus was gold. On a great
occasion, before our Texas convention, when the foreign mission cause was
greatly suffering, I preached a sermon on the gold, frankincense and myrrh, the
first gifts to Jesus, and as myrrh was used for both the holy ointment in the
anointing of kings and prophets, and also for embalming, I made the gifts
represent contribution, prayer, and unction, and that they should never be
separated: We must contribute, we must pray, we must have the unction of the
Spirit. A great collection followed for foreign missions.
These Wise Men, having done homage to the new-born King, and warned of God in a
dream not to return to Herod, went away into their own country. How dramatic
their coming and their going!
(8) Evidently they may be counted as the firstfruits of the Gentiles.
QUESTIONS
1. Why should Jesus be
circumcised, and what was its twofold purpose in his case?
2. In. the presentation of
our Lord in the Temple, distinguish the
laws as applied to him from those applied to his mother.
3. What two mighty events
signalized this first appearance of our
Lord in the Temple?
4. Is Luke 2:29 a prayer for
an affirmation?
5. In the prophecy of
Simeon, he speaks three things concerning
salvation. What are they?
6. He speaks two things
concerning the Saviour: What are they?
7. He speaks one thing
concerning Mary: What is it?
8. Does "that thoughts
out of many hearts be revealed," in v. 35, refer to what Simeon said to Mary,
or to what he said of her Son?
9. What do you learn
concerning Anna the prophetess?
10. Cite the Old Testament
uses of the word "Magi," and what is
its meaning?
11. What is the difference
between astronomy and astrology?
12. How were these Wise Men
prepared to recognize a heavenly
phenomenon as a sign of the coming Jewish King?
13. Was the star they saw a
junction of heavenly bodies appearing
naturally, or was it a miracle?
14. How many of these Wise
Men, what were their names, were they
kings, what became of them?
15. What traditions
concerning them are given in Gen. Lew Wallace's Ben Hur!
16. What have you to say
about their bones now lying in the cathe
dral at Cologne?
17. Why were Herod and
Jerusalem troubled at the account of the
Wise Men?
18. What wag the first gift
ever laid at the feet of our Lord, and
what providential use was made of it?
19. Tell concerning the
sermon on "gold, frankincense and myrrh."
BEGINNINGS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE (CONCLUDED)
Harmony pages 10-11 and Matthew 2:13-28; Luke 2:39-52
In two respects the flight into Egypt is connected with the visit of the Wise
Men: First a dream was sent to them not to return to Herod at Jerusalem, and
another dream to Joseph to escape with the child into Egypt. Second, the Wise
Men's gift of gold provided the means of paying the expense of the Egyptian
trip. Before leaving the subject of the Wise Men, you will recall my warning
against the unhistorical accretions to the simple story of them by Matthew.
Now, as some compensation for the caution against unworthy legends, I commend
with pleasure and without reserve a little book by Henry van Dyke, entitled:
The Fourth Wise Man. It makes no pretension to be either history or tradition
but, like a parable, has the verisimilitude of history, and is one of the most
exquisite portrayals of great abstract principle and truth known to literature.
If any of you are puzzled to select an appropriate gift for Christmas, New
Year, a birthday or wedding, you cannot do better than to select van Dyke's
little book, which contains The Fourth Wise Man, and other equally exquisite
stories.
Dr. Maclaren, in his extended exposition of Matthew, calls attention, with
modified approval, to the contention of Delitzsch that Matthew's Gospel follows
the plan of the Pentateuch, with a Genesis ending in a dreaming Joseph entering
into Egypt to provide a nurturing home for Israel, Jehovah's ideal son. Then an
exodus from Egypt, here fulfilled again: "Out of Egypt have I called my
Son," followed by the Sermon of the Mount, which answers to the giving of
the Law at Sinai; then the forty days of hunger and temptation of our Lord,
answering to the forty years of -the wilderness wanderings in Numbers, etc.
That there are points of striking correspondence between Matthew and the
Pentateuch would naturally follow from the fact that our Lord is the ideal Son
and Servant of Jehovah, of whom the national Israel was a type, and hence the
history of ancient Israel is itself prophetic.
The whole paragraph, Matthew 2:13-23, naturally divides itself into three
parts:
(1) The flight into Egypt, and the prophecy.
(2) The massacre of the Bethlehem babes, and the prophecy.
(3) The return to Nazareth, and the prophecy. We consider them in order:
THE FLIGHT INTO
EGYPT, AND THE PROPHECY
This is the historic background of the symbolism in Revelation referring to a later
persecution of the church and her converts. See the author's exposition of
Revelation 12:1-6. That passage must be interpreted as a symbol concerning
future events, but it does prove that Satan, who here prompts the malice of
Herod to drive Mary and her Son into Egypt, docs there prompt a heathen emperor
of Rome to drive the church into the wilderness and make war on her seed. The
mistake to avoid is not, like Alford, to interpret the symbol so as to make it
mean its historic background.
One acquainted with the Old Testament history may easily observe that for ages
whoever fled from persecution in Palestine quite naturally went into Egypt. It
was the best of all places for Joseph to take the family while the
bloody-minded Herod lived.
It will be observed that from this time on it is the child, not Mary or Joseph,
who occupies the chief place – "take the young child and his mother."
They remain in Egypt until in another dream Jehovah notified Joseph "that
those who sought the young child's life were dead," and directing him to
return to the land of Israel, as Matthew says, "that the prophecy might be
fulfilled, out of Egypt have I called my Son." This expression is a plain
historical statement in the book of Hosea, and yet Matthew is justified in
calling it a prophecy merely because the whole history of ancient Israel was
prophetic. As has already been said, national Israel was Jehovah's typical son;
Jesus was the ideal Israel, or the true Son of Jehovah. We observe that the
latter part of Isaiah concerning "the servant of Jehovah," finds its
application in the antitype, Jesus, and not in the type, Israel.
THE MASSACRE OF
THE BABES IN BETHLEHEM, AND THE PROPHECY
On this incident in the history of Matthew, we submit the following
observations. Some critics have affected to discredit the historical character
of Matthew's incident because it is not mentioned in Josephus. The reply to the
criticism is –
The gospel historians, writing directly upon a more limited topic than
Josephus, do not need any confirmation from him.
The greater part of the New Testament would have to be rejected if it must be
proved from Josephus.
Bethlehem was merely a village, and the number of male children two years old
and under would not exceed twenty. The killing of twenty babies by Herod was a
small item in his bloody record, quite infinitesimal in comparison with many
other of his deeds of cruelty.
Josephus was not merely a Jew, but a sycophantic admirer of the Romans. He
would necessarily avoid many references to our Lord. One. however, rejected by
some critics as spurious, is very striking. There is also an undisputed
reference to John the Baptist, and another one to James, the brother of our
Lord. These several passages from Josephus will be considered later, and at greater
length.
First, the murder of these babies is in full accord, not merely with the
general character of Herod, but particularly with his dying condition, jealous
to madness of any one who would likely dispute the continuance of his dynasty,
as he had arranged it in his will.
Second, in every age of the world, the bloody death of these babies has
attracted the attention of the poet and of the artist, and has excited sympathy
for these first martyrs, more perhaps than of any other of the long line of
those who died bloody deaths on account of our Lord. They are even called
"Little flowers of martyrdom, roses by the whirlwind shorn." The
great Augustine said, "Oh, happy little ones! just born, not yet tempted,
not yet struggling, already crowned." We see in their death an
anticipation of Christ's later words: "I come not to bring peace, but a
sword."
The powers of darkness would naturally seek to cut off his life at the
beginning in order to frustrate the great purpose of his mission, and as we
have already seen that the dragon, even Satan himself, was prompting Herod to
take away the life of the long-promised Messiah. This much good at least
resulted from the death of these children: Jerusalem, Herod, and even Satan
himself, supposed that their object had been accomplished, and that the one
"born King of the Jews" had perished in this massacre. Hence there is
no other assault made upon him by the powers of darkness until at his baptism
he is not only seen to be alive, but is declared by the Father to be his beloved
Son, and at that point Satan renews the attack, but in a different form.
Third, the prophecy concerning this event is a quotation from Jeremiah
31:15-17: "Thus saith Jehovah: A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentations,
and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children; she refuseth to be
comforted for her children, because they are not. Thus saith Jehovah: Refrain
thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears; for thy work shall be
rewarded, saith Jehovah; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy.
And there is hope for thy latter end, saith Jehovah; and thy children shall
come again to their own border." This declaration from Jehovah, by a vivid
personification, represents Rachel, the mother of three tribes, rising from her
tomb to bewail their captivity as they are dragged away by the Assyrian tyrant.
It is not meant to teach that the departed have a personal interest in those
that are left behind them, and bewail their faults and calamities. It is the
purpose of Matthew to show that if Rachel could be so personified in the first
great disaster to her children it would be fulfilled again in this instance,
and the comforting words are much more appropriate: "Refrain thy voice
from weeping, and thine eyes from tears, for they shall come again from the
land of the enemy."
Just how long Joseph, with Mary and the child, remained in Egypt, we do not
know. But the angel who guided him comes again with these words: "Arise
and take the young child and his mother and go into the land of Israel, for
they are dead that sought the young child's life." We cannot help
recalling a similar word to Moses, when he was recalled from Midian to Egypt –
"All the men are dead who sought thy life." We cannot help being
impressed with the guiding providence of God in protecting and caring for the
child, and in the prompt and implicit obedience of Joseph to every admonition
from the Lord.
This declaration, "They are dead that sought the young child's life,"
seems to be prophetic of all the future. Herod died in the horrors of madness,
a rotting carcass. Jesus lived. In Acts 12 his grandson Herod put to death
James, the brother of John the apostle. But the chapter closes with this
statement: "An angel of the Lord smote him, and he was eaten of worms and
gave up his spirit, but the word of God grew and multiplied." The apostate
Roman emperor, Julian, who tried so hard to destroy the Christian religion and
to falsify the prophecies concerning it, when he came to die is reported as
saying, "Thou Galilean hast conquered." Somewhat similar reports are
made concerning the death of Tom Paine.
In any event, throughout all the ages of the Christian era the enemies of our
Lord and of his kingdom have died and rotted, but the kingdom moved on
conquering and to conquer.
And so it shall be until the words of the book of Revelation shall be
fulfilled: "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdom of our Lord
Jesus Christ." It is to this thought that Psalm 2 speaks when it says: Why do the nations rage, And
the peoples meditate a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves,
Against Jehovah, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bonds
asunder, And cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens will
laugh: The Lord will have them in derision. Yet I have set my king upon my holy
hill of Zion.
Those words are quoted by the apostles when they were forbidden to continue to
preach in the name of Jesus.
It appears from the record that Joseph intended to return to Bethlehem, but was
troubled to learn that Archelaus reigned instead of Herod over ldumea, Judea
and Samaria, as ethnarch, according to the Roman confirmation of Herod's will.
He was as mean and as cruel as Herod, though much inferior in capacity. When he
went to Rome to have himself confirmed as king, five hundred prominent Jews
followed him to protest against his kingly rule. The Romans allowed him to
remain as ethnarch for about nine years, and then removed him permanently and
banished him for just cause. In the meantime the angel comes again to relieve
the perplexity of Joseph, and directs him to his old home in Nazareth. And here
Matthew again finds a fulfilment of prophecies – "That it might be
fulfilled that he should be called a Nazarene." There is no one prophecy
in the Old Testament which contains those words, but there are many prophecies
that speak of him as being under reproach, and the title "Nazarene"
was always held by the outside world as a reproach to his claim to the
messiah-ship. It was even inscribed on the headboard of his cross, "Jesus
of Nazareth, King of the Jews." Nathanael said later, "Can any good
come out of Nazareth?" And without destroying at all the sense of reproach
in the name, the special prophecy to which Matthew refers might be Isaiah 11:1:
"And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a
branch out of his roots shall bear fruit." Here only a stump seems to be
left of the ancient stock of Jesse and David, and the branch or shoot from the
root is called nether. It is quite probable that the word "Nazarene"
is derived from the same word, and as a proof of the reproach involved in the
name, we have these words in Isaiah 53: "Who hath believed our message and
to whom hath the arm of Jehovah been revealed? For he grew up before him as a
tender plant, and as a root out of the dry ground: he hath no form nor
comeliness, and when we shall see him there is no beauty that we should desire
him. He is despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with
grief, and is one from whom men hide their faces; he was despised and we
esteemed him not."
So, whether we regard the term "Nazarene" as merely one of reproach,
or whether we derive it etymologically from netzer, the thought is the same,
and Matthew rightly construes the prophecy which so speaks of the Messiah.
Jesus lived at Nazareth and visited Jerusalem when twelve years of age (Luke
2:40-52). On this paragraph of Luke we observe:
The development of the childhood of Jesus: "And the child grew and waxed
strong, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon him." This is a
clear proof of the humanity of our Lord. It shows the development of body,
mind, and spirit.
The Law of Moses required all males to go up three times a year to Jerusalem to
the great feasts. They did not scrupulously fulfil this law in their history,
but even the Jews of the dispersion were accustomed at least to go up to the
Passover Feast, and it is concerning attendance on this feast, which lasts a
week, that our lesson speaks.
Jesus Twelve Years Old. Under the Jewish law the -child remained under the
teaching of its mother till he was five years old, and then the responsibility
passed to his father until he was twelve years old; and at twelve years of age
he become what is called "a son of the law." From this time forward
the responsibility of his life rests upon himself more than upon his father or
his mother.
It was every way appropriate, therefore, that when Jesus reached this critical
period of his life that he should attend the Passover Feast, there to receive
instruction not from father or mother, nor from the synagogue teacher, but from
the great doctors of the law who held their school in the Temple itself. There
were a number of illustrious Jewish doctors at this time in Jerusalem,
including the great Hillel, and Gamaliel, the teacher of Paul. While there is
no evidence that Jesus and Paul ever met face to face, yet they were about the
same age, and Paul went from Tarsus, where he was born, to receive this
rabbinical education in the famous Jerusalem schools. He says, "I was
brought up at the feet of Gamaliel." It was also about this time that the
celebrated Philo, the Alexandrian Jew, was a pupil in this school of rabbis,
though there is no evidence that he himself ever met Jesus face to face, Jesus
being there only a short time.
That you may understand the story, there were at such a time as this, from
every town and village in the land, pilgrims, grouped together, who would be
marching up toward Jerusalem, singing the prescribed songs of the psalter. You
will find them in the book of Psalms named, "The Songs of the Going
Up." It is easy to see, therefore, that when the parents started home,
they would not notice the temporary absence of Jesus, supposing him to be in
the great company. But when, at the end of a day's journey, they missed him,
and could hear nothing of him from any of the returning pilgrims, they
themselves went back to Jerusalem to find him.
The record says, "And it came to pass, after three days, they found him in
the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking
them questions, and all that heard him were amazed at his understanding and his
answers." We have just noted in the first verse of this paragraph that
Jesus not only grew in wisdom, but that the grace of God was upon him. Which
not only means wisdom as applied to the development of the mind of ordinary
persons, but a spiritual increase of wisdom through the grace of God resting on
him. In a previous chapter we have noted that Christ could read and speak at
least three languages, and that he, in his whole life up to this point, whether
his mother, or Joseph, or the synagogue was his teacher, was learning the word
of God and its meaning. The illumination given him by the Spirit would enable
him to understand more than any of the great doctors who, according to their
method, were catechizing him and allowing him to catechize them.
The lesson teaches that one taught of God is wiser than all who are taught of
men. He himself later said that while Solomon was counted the wisest man in the
world, he was greater in wisdom than Solomon. This is not the first instance on
record where teachers have been instructed by their more enlightened pupils. It
is related of the celebrated Dr. Blair, of Scotland, that his university
teacher in theology was carried away with the wisdom of his answers. On one
occasion, propounding three questions in Latin, which the student must off-hand
answer in Latin, the last question was, Quid est caritas? (what is
charity) and the reply came like the lightning flash, Ah, magister, id est
raritas (ah master, that is rare).
It is to be deplored that great teachers of theology yield to a tendency to
become mere professors, hair-splitting in their niceties of explanation, and
gradually forgetting the spirit and power of all true theology. Never was this
more noticeable than in the Sanhedrin, with its great Jewish doctors of the
law. Only two of them are represented as becoming followers of Christ,
Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. The rest all perished in their learning.
You will recall how often I have emphasized the value of the catechetical form
of instruction – questions and counter questions. Nothing but my deafness has
prevented me from resorting more to this method.
At this amazing juncture, the child instructing the doctors, Joseph and Mary
came upon the scene, which astonishes them much, and with something of reproach
his mother says, "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy
father and I sought thee, sorrowing." The answer of our Lord to his mother
not only conveys a counter reproach, disclaiming Joseph as his father, but
shows that he has reached a great epoch in his life, to whit: consciousness of
his messiahship and the paramount claims of its duties over any earthly
relations. His reply is "How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I
must be in my Father's house?" When he says "my Father's" house,
he disclaims the paternity of Joseph, which Mary had at least assumed, or by a
marginal rendering, "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's
business?" It is indeed a pregnant reply, and discloses at least the
following things:
(1) That at least now, if at no earlier date, there was a full consciousness in
his own mind of his messianic mission.
(2) It is strange that his mother should not have, from the past remarkable
events of his life, which she had kept in her heart, understood this, and that
from this time on the voice of God must be higher than the voice of his mother
in determining his movements and actions. I know that some claim that
consciousness of messiahship did not come to him until his baptism, but when we
come to interpret the history of that baptism, the proof will be submitted that
the consciousness preceded that occasion.
This incident is named by the book, to which your attention has been called,
The Sorrows of Mary, as the third sorrow of her heart – first, the words of
Simeon; second, the flight into Egypt; and third, the announcement that from
this time on the path of the child must be away from the family.
(3) We know that his mother did not fully learn the lesson, for twice later she
is rebuked by the Son who is her Lord. Once, at the marriage of Cana of
Galilee, he says to her interference, "Woman, what have I to do with
thee?" And still later, when the family learn that he was so absorbed in
teaching and healing that he would not take time to eat, but his kinsfolk
counted him mad, his mother and younger brothers came to call him off from his
work, as it were under a writ of lunacy, and he replies, "Who is my
mother, and who are my brothers?" and resisted their interference with his
messianic work.
Having thus stated the paramount law of his messiahship, the record says he
went down to Nazareth with them and "was subject to them." This
subjection was another step like his circumcision and his presentation in the
Temple in fulfilling to perfection all of the law. It shows that he venerated
and observed the Fifth Commandment. In the later history we will consider other
visits of our Lord to the Temple, and every time he comes into his Father's
house, his coming is signalized by mighty events.
Luke closes his paragraph by showing the development of his manhood, in these
words: "Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and
man." How few, as we have already learned, are the words of our historians
concerning the greater part of the life of Christ. Let me repeat them to you
again:
"And the child grew and waxed strong, filled with wisdom, and the grace of
God was upon him" (Luke 2:40).
"He was subject to them" (Luke 2:51).
"And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and
man" (Luke 2:52).
"And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and he entered, as
his custom was, into the Synagogue on the sabbath day" (Luke 4:16).
"Is not this the carpenter?" (Mark 6:3).
These, indeed, are few words, but they are mighty words. They show not only the
physical, mental, and spiritual development of his childhood and his manhood,
his observance of the Fifth Commandment in honoring his parents, his observance
of the sabbath day in synagogue instruction, but his learning, as all Jews
counted honorable, a trade. These were years of preparation – thirty years of
preparation in order that he might publicly labor three years. Only prepared
men accomplish great things, and the greater the preparation the less need for
long time in which to do great things. But our young people of the present day
count wasted the time devoted to deep and thorough preparation for lifework.
They are in haste to rush out, half equipped, for the strenuous battle of life.
QUESTIONS
1. In what two respects was
the flight into Egypt connected with
the Wise Men?
2. What little book
specially commended?
3. What of the contention of
Delitzsch, concerning the plan of
Matthew's Gospel?
4. Cite some striking correspondences
between Matthew and the Pentateuch.
5. What symbolism in
Revelation finds its historic background in
the flight into Egypt?
6. Into what new prominence
in the family does the child Jesus now come?
7. What prophecy was fulfilled
by the exodus from Egypt, and how do
you prove that it was really prophetic?
8. Why do some critics
discredit the historical character of Matthew's account of the massacre of the babes in Bethlehem and your reply
to the criticism?
9. What attention has this
slaughter of the few babes in Bethlehem
attracted in the after ages?
10. Mention one practical
good at least that resulted from the murder
of these children.
11. What was the prophecy in
relation to this massacre, and how do you make it out to be prophetic?
12. What assurance was given
to Joseph when the angel directed him to leave Egypt, and compare this with a
similar statement to Moses in Midian?
13. How does this
declaration, "They are dead that sought the young child's life," seem
to be prophetic, and illustrate?
14. What danger would have
occurred if Joseph had returned to Bethlehem?
15. What prophecy was
fulfilled in the return to Nazareth?
16. In what two ways can you
show that this would be a term of reproach?
17. What has Luke to say
concerning the development of the child
hood of Jesus at Nazareth?
18. How often were male Jews
required to go up to Jerusalem?
19. How long was a mother responsible
for the spiritual instruction of her child? How long the father? and at what
age did the Jewish child become a son
of the law?
20. What higher instruction
was given at Jerusalem for those who
were the sons of the law?
21. Cite some of the great
Jewish rabbis who taught these sons of
the law in the Temple.
22. Name two illustrious men
who were under this instruction about
the same time with Jesus.
23. When the Jews from the
villages and towns of the Holy Land went up to Jerusalem, what hymns of the
psalter did they sing on their pilgrimage?
24. How was Jesus qualified
to astound the great rabbis in the Temple?
25. How many of the
Sanhedrin became Christians?
26. What were the words of
Mary to Jesus when she found him in the
Temple with the doctors, and his reply?
27. What makes this a great
epoch in the life of Jesus?
28. What were the words of
Luke to show the development of Jesus
into manhood?
29. Repeat again the five short
passages that constitute the only story of the greater part of the life of
Christ?
30. What do they show?
JOHN THE BAPTIST
We have so far considered the beginnings of the gospel histories of John, Paul,
Matthew, and Luke. Now we come to the public ministry of John the Baptist.
Before we undertake a detailed examination of the record of John's ministry,
let us get clearly before us an orderly statement of …
THE SCRIPTURAL
MATERIAL FOR A LIFE OF JOHN THE BAPTIST
Old Testament prophecy. There are three certainly, and probably four, as
follows: Isaiah 40:1-11; Malachi 3:2; Malachi 4:5-6; the fourth is based on a
Septuagint rendering of Isaiah 35:1.
There are several remarkable New Testament prophecies concerning John, all to
be found in Luke I, as follows: Luke 1:5-25, 36-37, 39-44, 57-80. This New
Testament history, with its attendant prophecies concerning John, is to be
found in the Harmony, pages 3-6.
The public ministry of John, Matthew 3:1-17; Mark 1:1-11; Luke 3:1-23. This
account of John's ministry is to be found on pages 12-16 of the Harmony.
John's first testimony to Jesus, John 1:15-36; Harmony, Pages 2,18.
The later ministry of John, concurrent with the ministry of Jesus, and John's
second testimony to our Lord. John 3:22 to 4:4; Harmony, pages 21-22.
The arrest and imprisonment of John the Baptist, and the cause: Luke 3:19-20;
Matthew 4:12; Mark 1:14; Harmony, page 22, together with later references to
the same event: Mark 6:17-18; Matthew 14:3-5; Harmony, page 75.
The events in the prison life of John. (a) The effect of his private preaching
on Herod, Mark 6:20. (b) The question of fasting, propounded by John's disciples
to Christ, and Christ's witness to John, Matthew 9:14-17; Mark 2:18-22; Luke 5:
33-39; Harmony, pages 35, 38. (c) Christ's second witness to John, John
5:33-35; Harmony, page 40. (d) The doubts of John while in prison concerning
the messiahship of Jesus, and Christ's third witness to John, Matthew 11:2-19;
Luke 7:18-25; Harmony, pages 54-55.
The death of John, its occasion, and the report of it to Jesus, Matthew
14:6-12; Mark 6:21-29; Harmony, page 75.
The tortured conscience of Herod and John the Baptist, Matthew 14:1-2; Mark
6:16; Luke 9:9; Harmony, pages 7475; also Matthew 16:14; Mark 8:28; Luke 9:19;
Harmony, page 89.
John taught his disciples to pray, Luke 11:1; Harmony, page 112.
John did no miracle, but the people on account of his testimony accepted
Christ, John 10:40-42; Harmony, page 120. John the Baptist fulfilled Malachi
4:5-6, and Christ's fourth witness concerning John, Luke 1:17; Matthew
17:10-14; Mark 9.11-13.
Was John an Old Testament worker or a New Testament worker or the boundary line
between the two covenants? Mark 1:1-2; Matthew 11:12-13; Luke 16:16; Acts 1:22;
Luke 1:10, with which compare the prophecy at Isaiah 40:1-11, and answer the
objection based on Matthew 3:11, explaining that scripture.
Was the baptism of John Christian baptism? Matthew 21:25-26, 32; Mark 11:30,
32; Luke 20:4, 6; Luke 7:29-30, connected with the following facts: Christ
himself received this baptism; the Holy Trinity was present at his baptism; his
baptism was the manifestation of Jesus as the Messiah; he baptized the twelve
apostles to the Jews (Acts 1:22); on the other hand answer the objections based
on the following facts: Apollos, knowing only the baptism of John, was
instructed more perfectly in the way of the Lord by Aquila and Priscilla (Acts
18:25); the case of the rebaptism of the twelve disciples of John (Acts 19:lf);
his was only a "baptism of repentance"; the contrast he himself
instituted between his baptizing and Christ's baptizing, Matthew 3:11.
The doctrines taught by John: Repentance, reformation, faith in Christ,
regeneration, confession of sins, remission of sins, the judgment.
John's great titles.
The elements of John's greatness.
The testimony of Josephus, Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 5:
Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from
God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that
was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded
the Jews to exercise virtue both as to righteousness toward one another and
piety toward God, and 80 to come to baptism; for that the washing would be
acceptable to Him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of
some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul
was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when others came in
crowds about him, for they were very greatly muved (or pleased) by hearing his
words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people
might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion (for they
seemed to do anything he should advise), thought it best by putting him to
death, to prevent any mischief he might cause and not bring himself into
difficulties by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be
too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper,
to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now,
the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a
punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.
This reference of Josephus had this historic background; Herod Antipas divorced
his wife, the daughter of Aretas, King of Arabia, in order to marry Herodias,
the wife of his brother, Philip, with whom he had eloped. Aretas, to avenge the
indignity put on his daughter, made war on Herod. Herod's army was completely
destroyed in a great battle of this war. It was this destruction of Herod's
army which the Jews attributed to the murder of John the Baptist.
Let us consider somewhat in detail this outline of the material for a life of
John the Baptist, inasmuch as some of the most difficult problems of New
Testament interpretation are therein involved. Not only the several
denominations assume variant views of John and his work in order to serve a
purpose of their own, or obstruct a purpose of some other, but even the most
disinterested scholars are perplexed in determining the meaning of some
passages of history bearing on John's place in the gospel dispensation and the
kingdom of God.
These questions arise: Does John belong to the Old Covenant or New? Did he
preach the gospel in all its essential elements as we preach it now? Was his
baptism Christian baptism? Was he himself in the kingdom of our Lord? May we
argue from the act, subject, and design of his baptism to prove the act,
subject and design of baptism now enjoined?
After examining repeatedly every biblical passage concerning John with a
critical microscope, and after carefully studying for a half century all the
controversies of the centuries touching him, I am profoundly impressed that
ninety-nine one hundredths of the problems have been manufactured to serve
denominational exigencies on the subject, act, and design of Christian baptism.
The following facts are so self-evident on the face of the record that life is
too short to waste its time in arguing with those who deny them:
No matter if the word "baptism" has a thousand meanings, John's only
act of baptism was immersion.
He immersed Jesus himself in the river Jordan, which is the only water baptism
Jesus ever received.
The immersion which John administered, and which Jesus received, they both
concurrently administered later, John 3:22-23.
Both made disciples before they immersed them, John 4:1-2.
This making of disciples and then immersing them is precisely what Jesus, after
his resurrection, commanded in his Great Commission (Matt. 28:19).
John immersed only adults who came to him and accepted the gospel he preached.
Those who accepted John's gospel did experimentally receive the knowledge of
salvation in the remission of their sins (Luke 1:77).
John "made ready a people prepared for the Lord," (Luke 1:15-17).
Those so prepared for him Jesus received without a further process or ordinance
whatever, (John 1:35-36; Acts 1:21-22).
John made his disciples by preaching repentance and faith, Acts 19:4 and
Matthew 3:2. Jesus did the same thing (Mark 1:15).
It is true that John's baptism was unto "repentance" (eis
mentanoian), Matthew 3:11, but the repentance, with its fruits, preceded the
baptism, therefore it was a baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins
(Mark 1:4) Eis aphesin hamartion, as in Acts 2:38, and therefore
identical with our Lord's other great commission, recorded by Luke, "And
that repentance and remission of sins" (aphesin hamartion) should
be preached in his name among the nations, beginning at Jerusalem (Luke 24:47).
John, though of the priestly line, never ministered in the Temple, but under a
special commission from heaven administered an ordinance so new in act,
subject, and design, it gave him a specific distinguishing name, O Baptistes
– The Baptizer --just as we say, "Washington, the General," or
"Coiumbus, the Discoverer."
THE BOUNDARY
LINE BETWEEN THE COVENANTS, OR JOHN'S PLACE IN THE KINGDOM
We save ourselves much confusion of mind by clear conceptions of the word
"kingdom" as used in this connection. All the context shows that a
visible King had come; he was to be accepted by visible subjects, who would
submit to visible ordinances, and be united for work into a visible
organization. For this visible organization officers would be appointed and
laws established.
This kingdom, while not of the world, was yet in the world, and destined to
become a world empire. If this be not foreshown in the prophets, then they
foreshow nothing. If this be not the import of the gospel histories, then they
have no meaning.
This kingdom was not only to be distinguished from secular world empires which
preceded it, but also distinguished from the national, typical kingdom of
Israel, which, under a different covenant, also preceded it.
When we allow our minds to float off into fancies of invisible kingdoms and
invisible churches, and to rest only on pure spiritualities without external
visible forms, we do violence to the plainest laws of language.
With so much premised, we now submit as bearing on John's position the
following testimonies:
The testimony of Mark. Mark says: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus
Christ, the Son of God. Even as it is written in Isaiah the Prophet, Behold, I send my messenger
before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way; The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight;
"John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of
repentance unto remission of sins" (Mark 1:1-4).
This certainly makes John the first New Testament preacher of the gospel of
Jesus.
The testimony of our Lord. "And from the days of John the Baptist until
now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and men of violence take it by
force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John" (Matt.
11:11-13). "The law and the prophets were until John: from that time the
gospel of the kingdom of God is preached and every man entereth violently into
it" (Luke 16:16).
The testimony of Peter. He speaks on the occasion of selecting an apostle to
the Jews to take the position vacated by the traitor, Judas Iscariot, using
this language: "Of the men therefore which have companied with us all the
time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, beginning from the
baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must
one become a witness with us of his resurrection."
On these several testimonies, which might be multiplied, it is evident that
John in his preaching and baptism is as much the beginning of the New Testament
dispensation as any starting point designated by a surveyor in marking off the
boundaries of a tract of land.
The testimony of our Lord, continued. When the Sanhedrin questioned our Lord as
to his authority for doing the things which he did, he met them with this
counter question: "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or from
man? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say from heaven; he
will say unto us, Why, then, did ye not believe him? But if we shall say, From
men; we fear the multitude; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered
Jesus and said, We know not. He also said unto them, Neither tell I you by what
authority I do these things" (Matt. 21: 25-27). Both Mark and Luke give an
account of the same question. The members of the Sanhedrin were not the only
ecclesiastics who have been unable to answer the question propounded by our
Lord. If John's baptism had been a ritualistic ordinance of the Old Testament,
or if it had been the latter Jewish proselyte immersion, any Jew could have
answered the question. Upon the same matter our Lord says in another
connection: "And all the people when they heard, and the publicans,
justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and
the lawyers rejected for themselves the counsel of God, being not baptized on
him" (Luke 7:29-30).
It has often been confidently asserted that John's baptism was not Christian
baptism. If not, then the baptism which Christ himself received was not
Christian baptism.
The most remarkable position ever assigned to baptism was John's baptism of our
Lord. All the Trinity were present: the Son was baptized, the Father from
heaven expressed his pleasure, the Holy Spirit rested like a dove upon his
head. And it was at this baptism that Jesus was manifested as the Messiah.
It is also true that the only baptism received by the twelve apostles was
John's baptism (Acts 1:22).
Upon these several testimonies, giving evidence absolutely unanswerable,
certain criticisms by way of objections have been offered:
First objection. The following words of Christ: "Verily I say unto you,
among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the
Baptist: yet he that is but little in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he"
.(Matt. 11:11). Before attempting to reply to this criticism, let us note that
the King James Version renders it: "He that is least in the kingdom of
heaven is greater than John," and the revised version renders it: "He
that is but little in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John." Dr.
Broadus well criticizes the soundness of the rendering in the revised version.
The Greek word is mikros, an adjective in the comparative degree. It is
somewhat defensible to say with the common version, "He that is least,"
in the sense that "less," or the comparative degree, is used to mean
less than all others, which would be equivalent to least. There is no defense
for the rendering in the revised version. This language is interpreted to mean
that Christ taught that John was not in the kingdom of heaven, but belonged to
the Old Testament dispensation. We have no right to set aside the plain meaning
of many passages, which have just been given, as to John's relation to the
kingdom and the New Testament covenant We have no right to interpret Christ in
this one case as contradicting what he had so many times expressed in
unequivocal language in other connections. Scripture must be interpreted by
Scripture. Most commentators take it to mean substantially this: That as John
merely introduced the New Covenant and passed away before the fulness of its
light was manifested, therefore one who later was permitted to understand more
and to enjoy the higher privilege and opportunity of more extended knowledge,
was greater than John in this respect. This interpretation would not destroy
the significance of Christ's other testimonies to John. I
J. R. Graves, in his Seven Dispensations, gives a different
interpretation. He says that the adjective mikros, in the comparative degree,
is used in this instance adverbially, qualilying the verb "is," and
not any person or class of persons, and translates thus: "Notwithstanding
he that is later in the kingdom is greater than John." The one greater
than John then, would be Christ Himself, and this would put the declaration
squarely in harmony with the following words of John himself: "I indeed
baptize you in water unto repentance: But he that cometh after me is mightier
than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy
Spirit and in fire" (Matt. 3:11); "And he preached, saying, There
cometh One after me that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am
not worthy to stoop down and unloose" (Mark 1:7); "John beareth
witness of him, and crieth, saying, This was he of whom I said, he that cometh
after me is before me: for he was before me" (John 1:15); "Ye
yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but, that I am
sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of
the bridegroom, that standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the
bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is made full. He must increase, but I
must decrease. He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth
is of the earth, and of the earth he speaketh: He that cometh from heaven is
above all" (John 3:28-31).
Dr. Graves then continues: "This translation of mikros makes Christ speak
the truth, and also makes all the statements of John coincide with that of
Christ. If mikros were nowhere else in the whole range of Greek
literature used adverbially, it evidently is here. The facts compel us to read
it. Both John and Christ were, therefore, in the kingdom." I have never
seen any reply absolutely conclusive against the contention of Dr. Graves. In
any event, I am quite sure that our Lord did not mean to contradict in one of
his statements quite a number of other unequivocal statements made by him.
Second objection. In Acts 18:24-26 it is said: "Now a certain Jew named
Apollos, an Alexandrian by race, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was
mighty in the scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord;
and being fervent in spirit, he spake and taught accurately the things
concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John: and he began to speak
boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him
unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more accurately."
Here the contention is that it was not sufficient for the preacher to know only
the baptism of John. It is admitted that twenty years after the death of John,
a Jew of Alexandria, knowing nothing further than John's original preaching
needed to be instructed in the additional light that followed the preaching of
John. You will please notice, however, that Apollos was not rebaptized nor
reordained. His knowledge of the events following John's baptism was increased
– that is all – and the case rather supports than condemns the position taken
that John's gospel was the boundary line between the two covenants.
Dr. Broadus uses this illustration, that John was like the middle platform of a
stairway – above those on the steps below him, and below those on the steps
above him. Others have used this illustration that John belonged to the new day,
just as the twilight of dawn belongs to the new day. Third objection.
"John's baptism was only a baptism of repentance." It has been
admitted in the first part of this discussion that John's was a baptism unto
repentance, but it was a baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins, and
no way different from what Peter said at Acts 2:38, and no way different from
the great commission given in Luke, that repentance and remission of sins
should be preached in his name among all nations. We in our time, like Luke in
his time, would baptize no impenitent candidate.
Fourth objection. It is contended that John himself instituted a striking
comparison between his baptism and the baptism of our Lord: "I indeed
baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier
than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy
Spirit and in fire" (Matt. 3:11). The answer is obvious. John instituted
no manner of comparison between his baptism in water and Christ's baptism in water,
but he does contrast his baptism in water with Christ's baptizing in the Holy
Spirit and in fire, proving Christ's superiority of power and position to John,
but in no way discriminating between the water baptism of the two, as has
already been shown.
Fifth objection. This objection is based upon the record at Acts 19:1-7:
"And it came to pass that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul, having
passed through the upper country, came to Ephesus and found certain disciples;
and he said unto them, Did ye not receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed? And
they said unto him, Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was
given. And he said, Into what then were ye baptized? And they said, Into John's
baptism. And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying
unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him,
that is, on Jesus. And when they heard this they were baptized into the name of
the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them the Holy Spirit came
upon them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied. And they were in all
about twelve men."
Here, it is contended, is a clear case that certain disciples baptized by John
were rebaptized by Paul, and therefore John's baptism was not Christian baptism.
The answer to this contention is, first, it is evident that John himself never
baptized these twelve men. It is twenty years since John died. Evidently they
had never heard John preach. They would not have been ignorant of the baptism
in the Holy Spirit, for John spoke very particularly of the baptism in the
Spirit to be administered by our Lord. John's office was peculiar: he had no
successor; no man had a right to perpetuate the work of John. He finished his
own course. And whoever originally baptized these twelve men did it without
authority. Their ignorance as to whether the Holy Spirit had been given was
proof positive that the flaws in their baptism were an unauthorized
administrator and an uninstructed subject.
I will not take time just now with showing the contention of some that there
was in this case no rebaptism in water. The claim is that Paul spake concerning
John in the fifth verse as well as in the fourth, and that the only baptism
they received at Paul's hands was the baptism in the Spirit. We will discuss
that contention when we come to the passage in Acts. My judgment is that Paul
not only baptized these twelve men in water on account of the flaws in their
former baptism through lack of proper administrator and a proper intelligence
on the part of the subjects, but that through him they were also baptized in
the Holy Spirit. Dr. Broadus well says that this isolated case, susceptible of
several explanations, cannot be used to discredit former clear statements
concerning the baptisms administered by John. Indeed, if there had been a flaw,
per se, in the baptisms administered by John himself, then would no baptism
administered by him have been received by our Lord and his apostles. It has
been shown, however, that the only water baptism they themselves received was
John's baptism, which was not repeated in any case.
QUESTIONS
1. Make out, in order, the
scriptural material for a life of John the
Baptist, giving an analysis.
2. What was the substance of
the testimony of Josephus concerning
John?
3. What questions arise
concerning John, his preaching, his baptism
and his place in the kingdom?
4. To what may be attributed
ninety-nine one hundredths of the
problems concerning John?
5. State in order the eleven
facts concerning John and his ministry
that cannot be disputed.
6. In determining John's
place in the kingdom, how may we save
ourselves much confusion of mind?
7. Give the testimony of
Mark bearing on this matter, and what
does it prove?
8. Give two passages
embodying the testimony of our Lord upon
the same matter.
9. Give the testimony of
Peter.
10. Cite two other prominent
testimonies of our Lord touching John's
baptism. . . .
11. Now, upon all these
several statements, cite the first objection
based on the words of Christ.
12. What is the difference
between the rendering in the common verrion and the revised version on this
passage?
13. What is the Greek word,
and what part of speech is it?
14. What does the objector interpret
Christ to mean by this statement, and how do you meet the objection?
15. Give clearly the
interpretation of J. R. Graves.
16. On what passage is the
second objection to John's place in the kingdom and his baptism based, and how
do you meet the objection?
17. Give the illustration of
Dr. Broadus, and one other, on John's
relative position to the two covenants.
18. What is the third
objection to John's baptism being Christian
baptism, and how do you reply to it?
19. What is the fourth objection
and your reply to it?
20. On what passage is the
fifth objection based, what the contention
of the objector, and your reply to it?
21. How do some contend that
Paul did not rebaptize in water these
twelve men?
22. On the author's
contention that Paul did rebaptize in water these twelve men, what were the grounds of the rebaptism?
THE KINGDOM OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST
Harmony page 12 and Matthew 3:1-12; Mark
1:1-8; Luke 3:l-18.
The Greek word, basileia, is correctly translated by our word
"kingdom." The New Testament usage of this word is extensive.
Generally, Matthew employs the phrase, "the kingdom of Heaven."
Generally, in the rest of the New Testament, the phrase usually employed is
"the kingdom of God." Sometimes, however, we find the word
"kingdom," several times "the kingdom of Christ," or
"the kingdom of Jesus," or "the kingdom of God and of
Christ." This difference in phraseology is wholly immaterial. Matthew's
"kingdom of Heaven," Mark's "kingdom of God," Paul's
"kingdom of Christ," John's "kingdom of God and of Christ,"
all mean. exactly the same thing.
In his commentary on the third chapter of Matthew, Dr. Broadus gives three
definitions to the general word, "kingdom." First, "kingship or
sovereignty," meaning the possession of royal authority. Second,
"reign," that is, the exercise of royal authority possessed. Dr.
Broadus adds, however, that sometimes the word means the period during which
royal authority is exercised. Third, "subjects, organization, or
territory." To which definitions he adds some observations which I quote
substantially. First, "That the territory idea of the definition is not
found in the New Testament concerning Messiah's kingdom and probably not the
idea of organization." Second, "That the idea of the New Testament
kingdom arises in the prophecies of the Old Testament," particularly
citing the second and seventh chapters of Daniel. Third, "That the kingdom
and the church are not the same."
Dr. Hengstenberg, my favorite of the distinguished German scholars, in his
introduction of his series of volumes on the Kingdom of God in the Old
Testament observes substantially, that when we speak of the kingdom of God in
nature, "Elohim is king and His government is by general providence, and
that this providence in its expression belongs to profane history. But the
kingdom of grace in the Old Testament has Jehovah for its king and that
government is expressed by special providence and lies within the domain of
sacred history."
Without commenting on these ideas of Dr. Hengstenberg, I must express dissent
from one observation of Dr. Broadus, to wit: "The territory idea of the
definition is not found in the New Testament concerning Messiah's kingdom and
probably not the idea of organization." When I come to give the reasons of
my dissent from this observation, I trust you will defer as much as you feel
inclined to his greater scholarship and greater leadership in New Testament
exegesis. And yet I must set forth my own views so that the reader cannot
misunderstand me.
THE ROOT IDEA OF THE KINGDOM
The root idea of the kingdom is threefold – creative, typical, and prophetic.
Indeed, all Bible ideas of the kingdom root in Genesis 1:26-28. The earth was
made for the habitat and heritage of the royal personage, man, who was himself
made in the image of God, with complete authority to have perpetual dominion
over its sky, land, and sea, and all their inhabitants and boundless resources,
and commissioned to bring it all into complete submission, with all its latent
and potential powers, populate and replenish it. The first Adam, then, was a
royal personage and his kingdom had very definite boundaries. The territory was
coextensive with this world. The creative root idea is further expanded in
Psalm 8:4-9. This first universal earth kingdom was lost through the fall of
the first race head, and Satan, by usurpation, became the de facto prince and
ruler of his kingdom.
From creation the root idea passed into type, Solomon, the king of peace (2
Sam. 7:12-13); and is further expanded in Psalm 45, 72. From type it passed to
direct prophecy in Daniel. And from the creative, typical and prophetic idea,
it will pass, and is passing into history through the last Adam to the historic
idea, (Heb. 2:5-9; Rev. 11:15).
In the Old Testament the kingdom of God is set forth in prospect. In the
Gospels we have an account of our Lord's institution of his kingdom. After his
ascension into heaven we have during the rest of the New Testament the kingdom
of God in its progress and administration. A reasonable date for the
commencement of this administration is the day of Pentecost. Then in the
prophecies of the New Testament we have the prospect of the glorious triumph of
the kingdom in its diffusion throughout the earth and finally we have in Paul's
first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 15, the consummation when our Lord at
his coming turns over the kingdom to the Father.
All of that part of the Four Gospels up to the incident that occurred at
Caesarea Philippi, found in Matthew 16, is exclusively devoted to the kingdom.
The annunciations are concerning the kingdom. The ministry of John the Baptist
and of our Lord himself up to that point in the history relate to the kingdom.
The Sermon on the Mount and all the parables throughout the gospel refer to
kingdom idea and not to church idea. So that the kingdom not only comes first
in the history and in the teaching, but a man must be in the kingdom before he
is entitled to be a member of the church.
Following Dr. Broadus' observations that the idea of Messiah's New Testament
kingdom arises in the prophecies of the Old Testament and is particularly set
forth in the book of Daniel, I wish to commence my discussion of the kingdom
with the God-given dream of Nebuchadnezzar as set forth in Daniel 2:
"But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and he hath made
known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dreams,
and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these: As for thee, O king, thy
thoughts came into thy mind upon thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter;
and he that revealeth secrets hath made known to thee what shall come to pass.
But as for me, this secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more
than any living, but to the intent that the interpretation may be made known to
the king, and that thou mayest know the thoughts of thy heart.
"Thou, O king, sawest, and, behold, a great image. This image which was
mighty, and whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the aspect
thereof was terrible. As for this image, its head was of fine gold, its breast
and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of brass, its legs of iron,
its feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut
out without hands, which smote the image upon its feet that were of iron and
clay, and brake them in pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the
silver, and the gold broken in pieces together, and became like the chaff of
the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that no place
was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain,
and filled the whole earth.
"This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the
king. Thou, O king, art king of kings, unto whom the God of heaven hath given
the kingdom, the power, and the strength, and the glory; and wheresoever the
children of men dwell, the beasts of the fields and the birds of the heavens
hath he given into thy hand, and hath made thee to rule over them all: thou art
the head of gold. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee;
and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over the earth. And
the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron, forasmuch as iron breaketh in
pieces and subdueth all things; and as iron that crusheth all these, shall it
break in pieces and crush. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of
potter's clay, and part of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom; but there shall
be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed
with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of
clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas
thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with
the seed of men; but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron doth
not mingle with clay. And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven
set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty
thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all
these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that a
stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces
the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath
made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is
certain, and the interpretation thereof sure" (Dan. 2:36-45).
I have ventured to cite this lengthy quotation because it contains the
prophetic root idea of the kingdom of God. It is evident that we have presented
in this passage five world kingdoms. The language is just as clear that the
fifth kingdom, or the kingdom of God, was to take in the whole world as its
territory, as that the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian, and Roman empires
attained to world empires. The territorial idea is the same throughout. Each of
the five is a universal kingdom.
The similarity does not stop with territory. As these four secular kingdoms had
a first small beginning and made progress to their final extent, just so the
God kingdom commences as a little stone, grows into a mountain and then fills
the whole earth. So that the progress idea of the five kingdoms is the same.
Again, as each of the four secular kingdoms had organizations, laws, subjects,
visibility, so the fifth kingdom would have the same. It is expressly set forth
in the passage under consideration, that this dream was to foreshadow things
that must come to pass historically.
So when we come to the New Testament, it is evident that every definition given
by Dr. Broadus of the word "kingdom" in general finds expression in
Messiah's kingdom. There is not only kingship, his first definition; and reign,
his second definition; but subjects, territory, and organization, his third
definition.
To make this point about the territorial idea still clearer, let us look for a
moment at the parable of the tares in Matthew 13. A parable, like a picture,
can present only one aspect of a subject, and it requires many parables, like
many pictures, to represent all sides of a subject. Now this parable of the
tares is intended to represent certain things in regard to the kingdom. Let us
see what they are: "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man that
soweth good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed
tares also among the wheat, and went away. But when the blade sprang up and
brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. And the servants of the
householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy
field? whence then hath it tares? And he said unto them, An enemy hath done
this. And the servants say unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them
up? But he saith, Nay; lest haply whilst ye gather up the tares, ye root up the
wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of
the harvest I will say to the reapers, gather up first the tares, and bind them
in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn. Then he left the
multitudes and went into the house, and his disciples came unto him.
saying". Explain unto us the parable of the tares of the field. And he
answered and said, he that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; and the field
is the world; and the good seeds these are the sons of the kingdom; and the
tares are the sons of the evil one; and the enemy that sowed them is the devil,
and the harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are angels. As
therefore the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be in the
end of the world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall
gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling and them that do
iniquity, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be the
weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun
in the kingdom of their Father."
I have given the full text of this parable and of its exposition by our Lord.
The statement of the parable is to represent a certain view of the kingdom. In
the parable the territory is called the field. In the exposition the field is
declared to be the world and is also said to be the kingdom. So that in this
connection field, kingdom, and world are coterminous expressions of territory.
It is evidently not a parable to represent the church. It takes in all the
inhabitants of the earth and it brings us to the windup of earth's affairs.
Suppose, therefore, we restate verse 41: "The Son of man shall send forth
his angels and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause
stumbling and -them that do iniquity." Now, let us attempt to substitute
for the word "kingdom" here any one of Dr. Broadus' definitions of
the general word "kingdom," except territory, and see if we can
possibly make sense out of it. We certainly could not substitute his first
definition of kingship. "The Son of man shall send forth his angels and
they shall gather out of his kingship, or sovereignty," etc. This would
not be true in fact, for even if evil men are cast out of the world into hell,
they are not beyond the "kingship or sovereignty" of our Lord.
Suppose we attempt to substitute the word "reign" or the exercise of
royal authority and it would not be true in fact that the angels could carry
evil men out of this world to any place where they would be free from the
exercise of Christ's royal authority. It is impossible to make any one of his
definitions fit here except the word "territory."
To proceed with the New Testament idea on territory, I quote Revelation 11:15:
"The kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of our Lord and his Christ
and he shall reign for ever and ever." Here I am bound to differ from Dr.
Broadus as to the sense of the word "kingdom" in this Revelation
scripture. This prophecy points to Christ's complete recovery of this lost
world. In interpreting the word "kingdom" in the New Testament we
must apply that common sense which would interpret the same word in its classic
or later secular use. This passage corresponds exactly with the thought
presented in Daniel that the little stone shall fill the whole earth.
I illustrate the ideas of the kingdom presented in this chapter. Our Lord Jesus
Christ made this earth and all that is in it. By right it is his. But through
the sin of man an enemy obtained possession of it and as a usurper became the
king of this world, a de facto king and not a de jure king, and his subjects,
willing followers of him, are but the seditious subjects of the true king. Take
a passage of French history for the illustration. In the days of Charles VII a
large part of the French territory was actually occupied by the English and the
king of England claimed to be also the king of France. Only that part of France
was obedient to Charles VII which was occupied by his flag and his armies. The
Maid of Orleans intervened. And through her leadership the expulsion of the
English commenced which ultimately became total and all France acknowledged the
sovereignty of Charles. So that we may say that his French subjects consisted
of two classes – those who were willing subjects and obedient to him, and those
who were seditious subjects and in arms against him and supporting a usurper.
This very thought is presented in the parable of the pounds, Luke 19:12-27. Here
a nobleman is represented as going into a far country to receive for himself a
kingdom and return. His "servants" in this parable represent his
willing or professed subjects. His "citizens" represent his unwilling
subjects, saying "we will not that this man reign over us," but we
find that when the king comes in judgment that he not only passes upon the
fidelity of those who profess to be his, but also says, "But these mine
enemies that would not that I should reign over them bring hither and slay them
before me." In plain terms the territory of the kingdom of the Messiah is
the territory that was lost through Satan's seduction of man and to be
recovered through the grace of the Redeemer. Paul, in his letter to the Romans
(chap. 8); Peter in his second letter, and John in Revelation, all tell us that
the whole of the territory that was cursed on account of sin and made subject
to vanity not willingly shall be purified by fire and there shall be a new
redeemed earth. When we say that Christians are children of the kingdom, we
refer to willing subjects of the Lord. When we say that evil men are children
of Satan's kingdom we mean that they are the unwilling subjects of Christ in
sedition and sustaining the usurper. But the effect of Christ's work will be
that every knee shall bow to him and his sovereignty shall be acknowledged by
all the inhabitants that ever occupied the earth.
Going back for a moment to the Daniel passage, just as the king of Babylon was visible
and the king of the Medes and Persians and the kings of the Greeks and the
Roman kings, so the Messiah, when he came out of the invisibility of prophecy
into the fact of history, becomes visible. The object of his teaching was to
secure visible subjects who would not be ashamed to profess his name and to
confess their faith in him. This visibility is brought out in the ordinances;
which he established, of baptism, and the Lord's Supper and particularly
baptism, which is a visible form of declaring faith and enlisting in his army.
We find also, as these visible subjects come out openly on his side, that he
commenced the steps of organization in the ordination of the apostles, in the
appointment of the first seventy evangelists. We find him declaring laws that
are to be executed after he leaves by a visible executive which he institutes.
Indeed, it is an unfortunate thing that this term "invisible" which
we have stolen from pedobaptists and applied to kingdom and church, had not
been long ago returned to its rightful possessor.
In prophecy or in prospect it is invisible because it is not yet a fact. And,
indeed, I oftentimes feel impressed to apply to the ardent advocates of
Christ's invisible kingdom and church a certain quaint passage in the King James
Version of I Samuel 10:14: "And Saul said, And when we saw that the asses
were no where, we came to Samuel." So it is desirable that our Baptist
brethren will perceive that the invisible kingdom is no where and return to the
visible.
Just now, above all things, be impressed with this thought, that the first
thing one must seek is the kingdom, and that when he finds the king, his
allegiance to him is paramount, and that no church has a right to stand between
him and his personal loyalty to Jesus. I knew a church that by usurping
authority forbade its members to make the mission contributions that they
wanted to make. They have no such authority. If I chanced to belong to a church
whose majority was opposed to foreign missions or home missions, or state missions,
or county missions, or town missions, I could not conceive how it could absolve
me from my obligation to obey the command of the Master toward these
enterprises.
QUESTIONS
1. What Greek word is
correctly translated, "kingdom"?
2. What are the New
Testament phrases showing the use of this
word, and what do they all mean?
3. What three definitions of
"kingdom" by Dr. Broadus, and what is the meaning of each?
4. What three observations
of Dr. Broadus on the kingdom of God?
5. What of the observation
of Dr. Hengstenberg on the kingdom of
God in the Old Testament cited by the author?
6. The author dissents from
what observation of Dr. Broadus?
7. What is the threefold
root idea of "The kingdom of God"?
8. Where do we find the creative
root idea and in what does it consist?
9. Where do we find an
expansion of the creative root idea and
what does that expansion include? (See the passage.)
10. How was the first
universal earth kingdom lost, who is the present ruler of this kingdom and in what sense is he prince and
ruler?
11. Where do we find the
typical idea of the kingdom, where is the
idea expanded, and what is to be the ultimate outcome of this idea?
12. How, then, is the
kingdom of God set forth in the Old Testament?
13. Where do we find an
account of the institution of the kingdom?
14. Where, its progress and
administration?
15. What is the reasonable
date for the commencement of its administration?
16. Where do we find the
prospect of its glorious triumph, and where
its consummation?
17. What part of the New
Testament is devoted exclusively to the kingdom?
18. What, then, the order of
the kingdom idea and the church idea?
19. Where do we find the
prophetic root idea of the kingdom?
20. What the five world
kingdoms presented in this passage and what is the argument from these for the
territorial idea of "the kingdom of God"?
21. What other similarities
between secular kingdoms and "the kingdom of God," & how does
"the kingdom God" fulfil every definition of Dr. Broadus? 22, How
does the "parable of tares" illustrate the territorial idea of
kingdom?
23. Prove the territorial
idea of the kingdom by the substitution of
Dr. Broadus' definitions for the word, kingdom.
24. What wag the territorial
idea in Revelations II :15 and what of the
Old Testament correspondent to this idea?
25. Restate the ideas of the
kingdom presented in this chapter and
illustrate by an incident in French history.
26. What parable presents
the same idea, and how?
27. Give the testimony of
three witnesses to the final recovery of this world?
28. What do we mean by
"children of Christ's kingdom" and "children of Satan's
kingdom"?
29. What are arguments from
the secular kingdoms of Daniel 2 for the visibility of the king and kingdom,
and how is this brought out in New Testament?
30. Which is first, the
kingdom or the church? Illustrate.
THE BEGINNING OF THE MINISTRY OF JOHN THE BAPTIST
Harmony pages 12-14 and Matthew 3:l-12; Mark 1:1-8;
Luke 3:1-18.
In a preceding chapter we have considered somewhat the biblical material for a
life of John the Baptist, and certain questions touching his position in the
kingdom of our Lord. The analysis of that material will constitute the outline
of all our discussion of John. We now take up the beginnings of his ministry.
The time, in our era, was A.D. 29, since John had been preaching several months
before he baptized Jesus, and Luke tells us that "Jesus himself, when he
began to teach, was about thirty years of age" (Luke 3:23).
The true time would be four years earlier, A.D. 25, if we are correct in our
revision of the Abbott Dyonisius Exiguus. It is characteristic of Luke to
collate his date with the world movements. It was the fifteenth year of
Tiberius Caesar who, as adopted son, succeeded Augustus, somewhat after the
time that Jesus, twelve years old, became conscious of his messiahship. Since
the deposition of Archelaus, Judea, ldumea, and Samaria had become an imperial
province, ruled by procurators appointed by Caesar, and subordinated to Syria
ruled by proconsul. About a year before Christ was baptized Tiberius had
appointed Pontius Pilate the sixth procurator, and he remained in office until
after Christ's death. Pontius Pilate obtained this office because he had
married the vicious granddaughter of Augustus; her profligate mother, daughter
of Augustus, was one of the most infamous profligates of a profligate age.
Strange it is that the New Testament is the only history that speaks a good
word of either Pilate or his wife. In its fidelity as history, it neither omits
the blemishes of its saints, nor withholds, when due, praise to the most
wicked.
The military headquarters of the procurator was Caesarea, built by Herod the
Great. But the turbulence of Jerusalem often required his presence in that
city, particularly at the three great feasts. Pilate had already steeped
Jerusalem in blood and had been forced by pressure of the Jews to withdraw the
idolatrous Roman eagles from the holy city. (See Josephus, Antiquities, Book
XVIII, Chapter 5, Section 1.) It was probably on this occasion that Pilate
"mingled the blood of Galilean Jews with their sacrifices" in the
Temple, to which our Lord later referred, at Luke 13:1-2. This Pilate, already
at bitter feud with the Jews, was Roman ruler of Judea, Samaria, and ldumea,
when John commenced his ministry.
At the same time Herod Antipas, who later beheaded John, and mocked our Lord at
his trial, was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea. At the same time Herod Philip II
was tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitus, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene.
At Jerusalem the infamous Annas, and his son-in-law~ Joseph Caiaphas, were both
high priests, contrary to Jewish law, but by Roman appointment. We shall see
our Lord, some three and a half years later, brought before them both. These
references of Luke enable us to understand the world political and ecclesiastic
conditions under which the ministries of John and our Lord commenced.
The place is at the fords of the Jordan near Jericho. Later we see John at
other places, higher up the Jordan, but never in the cities – always in the
desert places. This fact alone demonstrates that John is not officiating as a
priest of the Old Testament in either synagogue or temple, but as a reformer
prophet of the new dispensation.
John's dress, diet. and habits. "Now John himself had his raiment of
camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins, and his food was locusts
and wild honey." The angel who announced his coming declared, "He
shall drink no wine nor strong drink" (Luke 1:15). He fasted often, and
taught his disciples to fast (Matt. 9:14; Mark 2:18; Luke 5:35). Our Lord
himself said of him, "He came neither eating nor drinking," and adds,
"but what went ye out to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they
who are gorgeously appareled and live delicately are in kings' courts (Luke
7:25).
You must understand that "the locusts" eaten by John were not fruits
of the tree, "honey-locust," but migrating grasshoppers, a common
enough food with many eastern people, and permitted as food by Jewish law (Lev.
11:21-22).
His enduement for service. "He was full of the Holy Spirit from his
mother's womb" (Luke 1:15), and like Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5) and Paul (Gal.
1:15) and his Lord (Isa. 49:5), he was "set apart" to his office from
his mother's womb. Indeed, he was the only child known to historic records who,
before he was born, "leaped with joy" spiritual (Luke 1:44).
His preparation. Our only record is: "And the child grew, and waxed strong
in spirit, and was in the desert until the day of his showing unto
Israel."
He was no product of the schools, either secular or rabbinical. He derived his knowledge
from neither synagogue nor Temple, but was wholly taught by God. We have no
information of the character of his necessarily profound meditations in his
thirty years of desert life. The preparation was long, silent, and solitary.
But he shook the world in his few months of public ministry.
After what order was he a prophet? The record is clear. The order was as unique
as the order of his Lord's priesthood. Malachi says, "Behold, I will send
you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Jehovah come."
This prophecy made a profound impression on the Jewish mind, as is evident from
several New Testament incidents. It was a Jewish custom to place a chair for
Elijah at the family feast following the circumcision of a child. If the chair
was so placed when John was circumcised, they ought to have placed the baby in
it, for behold, Elijah had come. Our Lord says expressly that John was the
promised Elijah (Matt. 17:10-13; Mark 9:11-13). John himself disclaims being
Elijah, that is, in a literal sense (John 1:21), but the announcing angel
explains "He shall go before his face, in the spirit and power of
Elijah" (Luke 1:17). Indeed, Elijah himself appears on the scene at the
transfiguration of our Lord (Matt. 17:3). Elijah was by far the most dramatic
of the Old Testament prophets, in his garb, in his desert life, in the abrupt
entrances on the stage of life and sudden exits, in the long silences, in the
great issues of reformation suddenly thrust for instant decision on the king
and people. The resemblance between Elijah and John is every way striking. If
Elijah had his weak Ahab and relentless Jezebel, John had his weak Herod
Antipas and vindicative Herodias. If, through terror of Jezebel, Elijah flees
and despairs, so John, in a dungeon, apprehensive of the "convenient
day" of Herodias, falls into doubt.
His commission as Elijah. Malachi says, "And he shall turn the heart of
the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers;
lest I come and smite the earth with a curse" (Mal. 4:6). To this the
announcing angel refers, at Luke 1:17. The question arises, what is the exact
meaning of the passage? Does it imply an alienation between parents and
children, which John's mission is to remove by restoring proper parental love
and care toward their children and proper filial regard and reverence for
parents, according to the reciprocal obligations of the Fifth Commandment, and
on the line of Paul's precepts – "fathers, provoke not your children to
wrath, bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," and
"children, obey your parents in the Lord"? If so, it was a mighty
mission, for the earth is already cursed when these reciprocal obligations are
disregarded, to the moral destruction of the family. If so, the passage becomes
a golden text in all Sunday school movements. In my early ministry I so used it
as a text before the Sunday School Convention of Texas assembled at old
Independence. In my sermon I stressed the growing evil of race suicide, the
fashionable mothers depriving their children of maternal love and care in order
to attend the calls of a worldly, frivolous society, and the modern absorption
of fathers in business which led them to disregard the spiritual welfare of their
children.
But if this be the meaning, we fail to find this important matter the theme of
special discussion either by Elijah or John. But, perhaps, the marginal reading
of the revision conveys the true idea, "Turning the hearts of the fathers,
with the hearts of the children" toward God, and not toward each other,
and "turning the disobedient to the wisdom of the just." This last
accords with the preaching of both Elijah and John, and lifts their commission
from the fifth to the first commandment.
His commission as the messenger of the Temple visitor: "Behold) I send my
messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek,
will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant, whom ye
desire, behold, he cometh, saith Jehovah of hosts. But who can abide the day of
his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like the refiner's
fire, and like fuller's soap; and he will sit as a refiner and purifier of
silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi, and refine them as gold and
silver; and they shall offer unto Jehovah offerings in righteousness."
When men who remembered the glory of Solomon's Temple lamented the comparative
insignificance of Zerrubbabel's Temple, the prophet Haggai assured them that the
glory of the latter house should exceed the glory of the former house, because
to it "The Desire of all nations should come." Now, John is the
messenger who prepares the way for the Messiah to come suddenly to his Temple.
That John did prepare the way for the Messiah's searching and purifying visit
to his Temple is evident from John 2:13-17.
His commission as the voice and the grader of the highway to God, Isaiah
40:1-11. This passage of Isaiah is the most important of the Old Testament
forecasts of John, and perhaps it is the least understood in its richness. On
it observe:
(1) It is the beginning of the Old Testament Book of Comfort. Commencing with
the fortieth chapter, the last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah, treating of the
Messiah's advent and mission constitute the Old Testament Book of Comfort, as
John 14-17, treating of the Holy Spirit's advent and mission, constitute the
New Testament Book of Comfort.
Isaiah's paragraph commences: "Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people, saith
your God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her that her warfare
is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned." The voice of John the
Baptist is the response to this command to comfort.
(2) Therefore he is a preacher of the gospel, which means "good
tidings" – "O thou that tellest good tidings to Zion, get thee up on
a high mountain; O thou that tellest good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up thy
voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah,
Behold, your God!" (Isa. 40:9). Hence, as soon as John's voice broke the
prophetic silence of 400 years, Mark, in his first sentence drives down the
corner post that establishes the starting point of the New Dispensation:
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." And
when our Lord comes up to Mark's corner post, he puts up this discriminating
signboard: "The law and the prophets were until John, and since that time
the kingdom of heaven is preached and all men press into it."
What a pity that our pedobaptist brethren cannot lay aside their Old Testament
colored glasses, and our Campbellite brethren lay aside their Pentecostal
delusion concerning the kingdom, which mistakes the Spirit's advent for the
Messiah's advent, and both of them with unveiled faces behold Mark's corner
post and our Lord's signboard I
(3) Observe John's grading of the King's highway of Holiness (Isa. 40:3-5). In
this connection observe also the relevance of the Septuagint rendering of
Isaiah 35:1, "The waste places of the Jordan shall be glad," or as a
great scholar puts it: "The banks of the Jordan shall rejoice because of
them," i.e., because of John and Jesus.
The same great chapter of Isaiah also says of John's highway: "And a
highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called the way of holiness;
and the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for the redeemed; the
wayfaring men, yea fools shall not err therein. No lion shall be there nor
shall any ravenous beast go up thereon; they shall not be found there; but the
redeemed shall walk there. And the ransomed of Jehovah shall return and come
with singing unto Zion; and everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they
shall obtain gladness and joy, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away."
His commission as friend of the bridegroom. "He that hath the bride is the
bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom that standeth and heareth him
rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is
made full." The New Testament represents our Lord as the bridegroom of the
church in the divine purpose (Eph. 5:25-26) and at his first advent (Matt.
9:15; John 3:29) and at his final advent (Matt. 25:1-13; Eph. 5:27; Rev.
19:6-9).
In our context, "the friend of the bridegroom" is not what we call
the "best man," or first male attendant, who attends to the business
matters and arranges the details of a marriage. It has a much higher meaning,
to wit: the evangelist who, through his preaching, espouses the lost sinner to
his Saviour. As Paul expresses it: 'For I espoused you to one husband, that I
might present you as a pure virgin to Christ" (2 Cor. 11:2).
"The friend of the bridegroom" is even more than the officiating
clergyman, who merely performs a marriage rite, without having had anything to
do with bringing the groom and bride into loving relations. His business is to
"make ready the people prepared for the Lord." Through his preaching
the sinner is convicted of sin, and then through contrition led to repentance,
and then through faith, is mystically united to Christ.
The idea is somewhat presented in the mission of Abraham's servant (Gen. 24),
who went to Haran to seek a wife for Isaac. He faithfully negotiated the
business of his mission, and brought Rebekah to Isaac.
In this touching story, in which the old servant set forth in a matchless plea
the worthiness of his master, Abraham, and the desirableness of his son, Isaac,
so winning Rebekah to leave her father's house and to accept Isaac as a
husband, Edward Eggleston, in the Circuit Rider, makes his preacher take a
theme: "I have come to seek a bride for my Lord," and so happily
expounds it that a brilliant but worldly young lady arose at once, laid aside
all her jewels, and openly professed faith in the glorious Saviour so
faithfully presented by the preacher. What, then, every evangelist does in
individual cases, John the Baptist did on a large scale, introducing and
uniting a lost world to a gracious Saviour. To the sinner he said, "Behold
the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world!" How gloriously he
presented the excellencies of the Saviour appears from the record, and suggests
to every preacher a great lesson on how to present acceptably and savingly the
Saviour to the sinner. We must not, therefore, understand John's mission as
stern and sad, but full of joy.
His commission to give the knowledge of salvation in the remission of sins
(Luke 1:77). On many accounts we should stress this point, because a modern
denomination insists that God's "law of pardon" was not announced
until the first Pentecost after Christ's resurrection.
It was not Peter, in Acts 2:38, who first promulgated this law of pardon. The
honor belongs to John the Baptist. In my early ministry I held a debate with a
preacher who affirmed that the kingdom of heaven was not set up until this day
of Pentecost, and then in Acts 2:38 was the law of pardon first promulgated. I
asked him these questions:
(1) What did Christ give to Peter? He said, "The keys of the
kingdom."
(2) Did Peter have those keys on that Pentecost? He answered, "Yes."
(3) Did God then and there build a kingdom to fit the keys, or were the keys
made to fit the kingdom?
(4) Did Peter, using the keys, open the door of the kingdom that day? He said,
"Yes."
(5) Did he open it from the inside or from the outside? If from the inside, was
not Peter in it? If from the outside, when and how did Peter himself get in?
(6) And if from the outside, when the 3,000 were added to them, did that leave
them on the outside?
(7) Did Peter open the Jew door that day, and what door did he open in Acts to
10:43? And if Acts 10:43 was the Gentile door, why did he [that preacher] not
look there for the law of pardon to Gentiles, and why did he, a Gentile, deify
the Jew door, Acts 2:38?
(8) And what about the door that John the Baptist opened in Luke 1:77?
His commission to announce the antecedent withering work of the Spirit.
"The voice of one saying, Cry, And one said, What shall I cry? All flesh
is grass, and all the goodness thereof is the flower of the field. The grass
withereth, the flower fadeth, because the breath of Jehovah bloweth upon it;
surely the people is grass. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the
word of God shall stand forever."
On this text Spurgeon preached a great sermon. He said, "The command to
John was to speak comfortably to Jerusalem" (Isa. 40:1-2). And John asked,
in order to speak comfortably, "What shall I cry?" And the strange
answer comes: "Cry that all flesh is grass, and the grass withereth and
the flower fadeth." That is, before you get to the comfort, the carnal
nature must wither, then comes the spiritual nature, which abideth forever.
Therefore John said to fleshly Israel: "But when he saw many of the
Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said unto them, Ye offspring
of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth,
therefore) fruit worthy of repentance and 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 unto Abraham. And even now the ax lieth at the root
of the trees: every tree, therefore, that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn
down, and cast into the fire" (Matt. 3:7-10). This is John's sermon on the
necessity of regeneration.
This last commission of John leads up to a thorough discussion of the great
staple of his preaching, "Repentance toward God on account of sin."
QUESTIONS
1. What is the time ill our
era when John commenced preaching?
2. Show how Luke, in a
characteristic way, collates this date with
the political and ecclesiastical conditions of the world.
3. What was the place of
John's first preaching?
4. Describe his dress, diet
and habits.
5. What of his enduement for
service?
6. What of his preparation
for service? Answer negatively and positively.
7. After what order was he a
prophet, and what is the parallel between John and Elijah?
8. What was John's
commission as Elijah?
9. Which of the two meanings
of this commission seems best to fit
the work of John and Elijah?
10. What of his commission aa
the messenger of the great Temple
visitor? II. What was his commission as the voice and grader of the
highway of God?
12. What the Old Testament
book of comfort, and the New Testament book of comfort?
13. Describe how Mark and
our Lord marked the beginning of the
new dispensation.
14. What of the Septuagint
rendering of Isaiah 35:1, and its application to John's ministry?
15. What of the description
of the highway in that chapter, graded
by John?
16. In his commission as
"friend of the bridegroom," does it mean that he was only what we call "the best man," or does
it mean the same as the officiating
preacher, or does it mean something higher
than both? If so, what, and explain.
17. Illustrate by the
remarkable history in Genesis 24.
18. Describe the Methodist
preacher's sermon on that chapter.
19. What of John's
commission with reference to remission of sins, and why should we stress this point?
20. Give the several
questions propounded in a debate, where the
affirmation was made that the kingdom of heaven was set up on the day of Pentecost, and the law of pardon then
and there promulgated.
21. What of his commission
to announce the antecedent withering
work of the Holy Spirit?
22. Describe Spurgeon's
sermon on this text.
THE NATURE, NECESSITY, IMPORTANCE, AND
DEFINITION OF REPENTANCE
In the preaching of John the Baptist we come to the words "repent"
and "repentance," and here, as well as elsewhere, we may at length
consider the whole Bible doctrine of repentance. We will find that great
prominence is given in the Bible to the duty of repentance. It is a staple of
preaching and teaching in both Testaments. Among the noted Old Testament
preachers of repentance may be named Enoch, Noah, Moses, Samuel, Elijah,
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Hosea, Jonah, and Malachi. The more noted of the New
Testament preachers of this doctrine are John the Baptist, our Lord himself,
Peter, Paul, and John, the apostle. The universality of the obligation to
repent was announced by Paul at Athens in these words: "God now commandeth
all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). Of the necessity of
repentance, our Lord himself declares, "Except ye repent, ye shall all
likewise perish" (Luke 13:3).
It may be observed that all of God's commandments are not of equal importance.
Our Lord himself mentions one as the "first great commandment." A mistake
in obedience to some of these commandments is not necessarily fatal. For
example, a penitent believer may make a mistake about baptism. He may honestly
intend to be baptized, and yet, through a false education, he may not have
obeyed the commandment of God as to the act and design and administrator of
this ordinance. This mistake is not fatal, because God has not made baptism
essential to salvation, but salvation essential to baptism. But we cannot make
a mistake as to repentance with like impunity.
No matter how much one may desire to repent, nor how often he may resolve to
repent, unless he actually repents he is lost, because God has made repentance
a prerequisite to eternal life.
Another fact suggests its great importance. Paul declares it to be one of the
first principles of the oracles of God (Heb. 5:12; 6:1). The first principles
in any science are valuable because they are fundamental, that is, knowledge of
them is essential to further progress in that science. So Paul argues in the
scriptures cited. He complains that he must go back and teach them again the
first principles before they are ready to go on unto perfection. Fundamental
means "pertaining to a foundation," and in one of the scriptures
cited Paul says, "Not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead
works." This not only implies the fundamental character of repentance, but
its permanence. Indeed, this foundation can never be laid but once. Following
his hypothetical argument the apostle shows that if a regenerated man should
fall away it would be impossible to renew him again to repentance, so that this
work once done is done once for all. The reader will understand me in this to
refer to that primary repentance which precedes and induces the faith which
saves the soul. A Christian may often repent.
One cannot build a big house on a little foundation. The relation of a
foundation, therefore, to its superstructure is quite important. The size,
weight, and durability of the latter depend on the depth, breadth, and solidity
of the former. Hence it is never wise to economize in foundations. Our Lord
illustrates the value of the foundation at the close of his Sermon on the
Mount, both positively and negatively, in the following language;
"Therefore, whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I
will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock; and the rain
descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house;
and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth
these saying of mine and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man,
which built his house upon the sand; and the rain descended, and the floods
came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell, and great was
the fall of it" (Matt. 7:24-27). The same value appears in David's
inquiry: "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous
do?" (Psalm 11:3). Those vain imaginations which have no foundation in
fact are called air castles. From their insubstantial nature may be inferred
the little value of a profession of personal religion not bottomed on
repentance.
Repentance appears further as a first principle in that it is the required
preparation for the reception of Christ. The work of John the Baptist is the
most illustrious example of repentance as a preparatory work. John is called
the harbinger, or forerunner, of our Lord, and was commissioned to
"prepare the way before him and make ready a people prepared for him"
(Matt. 3:3). This he did by "preaching repentance" (Matt. 3:2). The
nature of his work as a preparation was foretold by both Isaiah (40:3-8) and
Malachi (3:1). The following words of Isaiah in a striking figure foreshow a
part of the characteristics of repentance: "Every valley shall be exalted,
and every mountain and hill shall be made low; and the crooked shall be made
straight, and the rough places plain" (Isa. 40:4). Elsewhere he uses the
following words: "Cast ye up, cast ye up, prepare the way, take up the
stumbling block out of the way of my people" (Isa. 57:14); "Go
through, go through the gates; prepare ye the way of the people; cast up, cast
up the highway; gather out the stones; lift up a standard for the people"
(Isa. 62:10). All the import of these figures can be expressed in the one word
"grading," so that the work of John the Baptist was compared to the
grading of a highway over which Christ was to come to his people. The value of
such work in the material things indicated by the figure is sufficiently
attested by those movements of ancient skills, the Roman and Peruvian roads,
and the modern railroads. Jeremiah presents the same thought negatively by
combating the evil results of impenitence to walking in a way not "cast
up" (Jer. 18:15). We may describe, therefore, the folly of trying to be a
Christian without repentance, by this similitude: An engineer trying to run a
train of cars through the woods, over the mountains, across rivers and ravines,
where there are no prepared tracks. But the richness of prophetic description
was not limited to one figure. We find Isaiah turning in the same connection
from the figure of grading to one of agriculture, expressing thereby the same
preparatory nature of John's work. The image employed is that of burning the
grass off a field (Isa. 40:6-8). John's preaching subsequently fulfilled this
figure, of withering the grass of the flesh, in the most striking manner, by
destroying all hope of fitness for the kingdom of God based on fleshly descent
from Abraham (Matt. 3:9). Both Hosea and Jeremiah employ the agricultural
figure, showing the preparatory nature of repentance. The words of Jeremiah
are: "For thus saith the Lord to the men of Judah and Jerusalem: Break up
your fallow ground and sow not among thorns." According to this figure we
may express the folly of trying to be a Christian without repentance, under the
similitude of a farmer expecting to reap a harvest from seed sown in a field
whose stubble and thorns had not first been burned off and whose sod had not
been broken. Our Saviour aptly describes the outcome of the folly of omitting
this preparatory work in the parable of the sower, where he compares such
people to stony, thorn-poisoned, pathtrodden ground which brought forth no
fruit.
Mark emphasizes the preparatory work of repentance by calling John's preaching
of it "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God"
(Mark 1:1), and Luke by the declaration, "The law and the prophets were
until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached and every man
presseth into it" (Luke 16:16). This is varied somewhat in Matthew's
statement: "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of
heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force" (Matt.
11:12).
The foregoing figures and images touching the nature of repentance enable us to
express its relation to eternal life in the statement that it is an essential
prerequisite to salvation to all subjects of gospel address.
Philosophically considered, repentance must precede faith. As a sick man must
be convinced that he is sick before he will turn to a physician, or take his
medicine, so the carnal mind must be withered before the renewed mind can be
superinduced. This precedence is proved also from the Scriptures. John the
Baptist put repentance before faith (Acts 19:4) ; so did our Lord (Mark 1:15);
and Peter (Acts 2:38-41); and Paul (Acts 20:21; Heb. 6:1, 2; 2 Tim. 2:25).
Indeed, there is no passage in the New Testament, naming both faith and
repentance, in which faith comes first.
From the discussion so far we may sum up the nature, necessity and importance
of repentance in the following brief statement: It is a staple of preaching in
both Testaments. It is of universal obligation. It is a first principle of the
gospel. It is fundamental and vital, being prerequisite to salvation. It is to
personal religion what the clearing and breaking up of new ground is to a
harvest, what the foundation is to a house, what the grading is to a highway,
what the initial point is to a survey. It is the boundary between the
covenants. It is the killing which precedes the making alive. It is that
conviction of sickness which turns the sick man to the physician.
We may then say of the preacher who dares to leave out repentance in his
preaching, that he leaves out one-half the terms of salvation and vitiates the
other half; that he builds only air castles; that he vainly attempts to run the
gospel relief train where there is no prepared track; that he commends the
doctor to well people; that he baptizes raw sinners and whitewashes the carnal
nature; that he sows among thorns and in stubble land, in stony ground and on
underlying rocks. We may also say of the preacher who minifies this doctrine
that he thereby minifies the necessity for Christ; hence dwarfs the Redeemer
himself. It is little sick – little physician; little sinner – little Saviour.
It must be evident, therefore, that it is the duty of every preacher of the
gospel to preach repentance just as often, and with as much emphasis, and to as
many people, as he preaches faith. As illustrative of the value of such
preaching it may be justly said of all the great preachers, like Spurgeon,
Bunyon Whitefield, Moody, Jonathan Edwards, and, indeed, all who have been
successful in winning souls to Christ, that they all laid great and frequent
stress on the duty of repentance. From all these things it certainly ought to
fol- low that preachers at least should have clear conceptions of the meaning,
place and relations of repentance. Usually, however, they have not these clear
conceptions. Many cannot define the term. If a thousand were asked to write out
in succession a definition in the fewest possible words, but few of them would
give the right definition, and there would be great vagueness, variety and
contradiction in the others. It is proper to state a few examples of variant
definitions given by prominent people:
Sam Jones: "Quit your meanness."
D. L. Moody: "Right about face."
Alexander Campbell: "Reformation."
The Romanist Bible (rendering Matt. 3:2) : "Do penance."
A. W. Chambliss: "Godly sorrow for sin."
Our common version, in Matthew 27:3, makes it equivalent to "Remorse of
conscience."
Many speakers and writers: "Restitution."
M. T. Martin: "Knowing God and turning from dead works."
Such variations in definitions (and many others might be added) sufficiently
indicate the necessity of a closer study of this doctrine in the New Testament
than is ordinarily given to it. Here it is important to observe that the New
Testament was written in Greek. Happily for us, we find in one brief paragraph
in 2 Corinthians 7 a number of terms covering the whole ground.
The verb, lupeo, to grieve, to make sorry.
The noun, lupe, grief, sorrow.
Lupe tou kosmou, a phrase signifying "worldly sorrow."
Lupe kata theon, another phrase meaning "godly sorrow."
The verb, metamelomai, to regret.
The noun, metanoia, repentance.
The adjective, ametameletos, not regrettable.
In this context, and elsewhere, our common version renders metamelomai, "repent."
As the instances of its use in the New Testament are few, I now cite every one:
Matthew 21:29: "Afterward he repented and went."
Matthew 21:32: "Ye repented not afterward, that ye might believe
him."
Matthew 27:3-5: "Judas repented himself . . . and went and hanged
himself."
2 Corinthians 2:8: "I do not repent, though I did repent."
Hebrews 7:21: "The Lord swear and will not repent."
A better rendering, perhaps, in every case of this usage would be obtained by
substituting the word "regret." "Repent" is an
inappropriate rendering for this verb, because, first, metamelomai does not
express the full idea of New Testament repentance. For example, Judas repented
and went and hanged himself, but "repentance is unto life," and it is
worldly sorrow that worketh death. Second, because there is another term always
employed in expressing New Testament repentance. That other term is the noun,
metanoia, from the verb, metanoeo. I cite for the benefit of the reader
every New Testament use of the verb, and ask him to look at each reference and
note its application to our doctrine. Matthew uses the term five times, as
follows: 3:2;4:17; 11:20-21; 12:41. Mark twice: 1:15; 6:12. Luke ten times in
his Gospel: 10:13; 11:32; 13:3, 5; 15:7, 10; 16:30; 17:3-4, 30. In Acts five
times more: 2:38; 3:19; 8:22; 17:30; 26:20. Paul once: 2 Corinthians 12:21.
John eleven times: Revelation 2:5, 16, 21-22; 3:3, 19; 9: 20-21; 16:9, II.
Thirty-four times in all. Matthew uses the noun three times: 3:8, II; 9:13.
Mark twice: 1:14; 2:17. Luke five times in his Gospel: 3:3, 8; 5:32; 15:7;
24:47. Six times in Acts: 5:31; 11:18; 13:24; 19:4; 20:21; 26:20. Paul seven
times: Romans 11:4; 2 Corinthians 7:9-10; 2 Timothy 2:25; Hebrews 6:1, 6;
12:17. Peter once: 2 Peter 3:9. In all, twenty-four. We thus observe that this
term, as a noun or verb, is employed fifty-eight times in the New Testament,
occurring in books by Matthew eight times; Mark four times; Luke twenty-six
times; John eleven times; Peter one time; Paul eight times; and in every
instance refers unmistakably to the New Testament doctrine of repentance, and
to nothing else.
It should be noted also carefully that repentance is declared to be the product
of godly sorrow, lupe kata theon; and that it always ends in salvation, eternal
life (Acts 11:18; 2 Cor. 7: 7-10). Hence it follows that repentance is always
ametameletos, "not regrettable." This adjective is compounded
from the verb melein and the preposition, meta, and the privative parti-
cle a.
We advance in our knowledge of metanoeo, to repent, and metanoia, repentance,
by considering that there is a Greek noun, nous, the mind. There is also a
Greek verb which tells what the mind does – noeo, to think, perceive,
understand. Then there is the preposition, meta, which, in composition with noeo,
expresses the idea of change, transition, sequence. Therefore, we may say that metanoeo
always means "to think back, to change the mind," while the noun, metanoia,
always means afterthought, as oonosed to forethought, chanere of
mind We may, therefore, give as the one invariable definition of New Testament
repentance that it is a change of mind, from which it is evident that its
domain is limited. It is necessarily internal, not external.
The necessity for its universal application as a prerequisite to Christian
character and life lies in the fact that the carnal mind, which is the normal
mind of fallen man, is enmity against God, not subject to his law, neither
indeed can be. To be carnally-minded is death, since they that are in the flesh
cannot please God. Hence, from enmity against God, repentance is a change of
mind toward God. It is a reversal of, or turning upside down, the carnal mind.
Perhaps one may say this makes repentance the equivalent of regeneration. My
reply is that our exercise of both repentance and faith is but the underside,
whose upper or divine side is called regeneration. This fact explains how
repentance is a grace. Hence the saying, "Jesus Christ was exalted a
Prince and Saviour to give repentance to Israel," and "God hath
granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life."
We are now prepared to show seriatim the folly of the false definitions cited.
First, worldly sorrow, or remorse of conscience, cannot be repentance because
of its origin and end. It is from the world and worketh death. For example,
Judas; for illustration, Byron's "Scorpion Girt with Fire:" So do the dark in soul
expire, Or live like scorpion girt with fire; So writhes the mind remorse hath
given; Unfit for earth, undoomed for heaven, Darkness above, despair beneath,
Around it flame, within it death.
Second, godly sorrow is not repentance, for it worketh repentance, and we may
not confound the producer and the product. For example, the Bible says,
"Tribulation worketh patience," and one would not say,
"Tribulation is patience." So neither should we say, "Godly
sorrow is repentance."
Third, Sam Jones' definition, "Quit your meanness," is not to repent,
for that is only one half and a negative half at that of Campbell's definition,
"Reform." Isaiah gives both halves thus: "Ceasing to do evil and
learning to do well." But neither the one nor the other is a definition of
repentance, since reformation is the "fruit meet for repentance," so
well stated in the following scriptures: "Bring forth therefore fruits
meet for repentance" (Matt. 3:8). ''Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of
repentance, and begin 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 unto Abraham. And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the tree;
every tree, therefore, which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and
cast into the fire. And the people asked him saying, What shall we do then? He
answered and said unto them, he that hath two coats, let him impart to him that
hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise. Then came also the
publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do? And he
said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you. And the
soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, and what shall we do? And he said
unto them, do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content
with your wages" (Luke 3:8-14). "So the people of Nineveh believed
God and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even
to the least of them. For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from
his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth and
sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh
by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, let neither man nor beast,
herd nor flock, taste anything; let them not feed, nor drink water; but let man
and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God; yea, let them
turn every one from his evil way and from the violence that is in their
hands" (Jonah 3:5-8). "For behold this selfsame thing, that ye
sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you; yea, what
clearing of yourselves; yea, what indignation; yea, what fear; yea, what
vehement desire; yea, what zeal; yea, what revenge! In all things ye have
approved yourselves to be clear in this matter" (2 Cor. 7:11). "Wash
you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes;
cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment; relieve the oppressed; judge
the fatherless; plead for the widow" (Isa. 1:16-17). "Many of them
also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them
before all men; and they counted the price of them and found it fifty thousand
pieces of silver" (Acts 19:19).
Fourth, acknowledging a fault or saying we are sorry is not repentance, though
repentance leads naturally to confession of sin, as appears from the fact that
John's penitents were baptized "confessing their sins," and from what
is said of the Ephesian penitents (Acts 19:18): "And many that believed
came and confessed and showed their deeds."
Fifth, Mr. Moody's definition, "Right about face," is not repentance,
for that is conversion in literal import. In the divine influence originating
it, conversion precedes repentance as thus expressed by Jeremiah 31:19:
"After that I was turned I repented." But in our exercise it follows
repentance, as expressed by Peter, "Repent and be converted" (Acts
3:19). Sixth, "Do penance." The Romanist translation of Matthew 3:2 conveys
an idea antipodal to repentance. Repentance is internal. Doing penance is
external. Repentance deals directly with God; penance obeys an earthly priest.
Penance inflicts punishment on the flesh. Repentance turns the spirit lovingly
to God.
Seventh, restitution is not repentance, but only one of its ripest fruits.
Zaccheus well illustrates this in his words to Christ: "Behold, Lord, the
half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken anything from any man
by false accusation, I restore him fourfold" (Luke 19:8).
Eighth, M. T. Martin's definition, "Knowing God and turning from dead
works," is not a definition of repentance, and without a clear explanation
is misleading as an equivalent. The idea of this so-called definition is derived
from two scriptures, to wit: "Repentance from dead works," (Heb. 6:1)
and "This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God,
and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" (John 17:3). In this latter
scripture the definer assumes that "knowing God" is repentance, and
"knowing Jesus Christ" is faith. The assumption is more plausible
than correct. In effect it changes the scriptural order of repentance and
faith, for we cannot know the Father except through the Son, which under the
definition would make us get to repentance only through faith. Moreover, if
knowing the Father and the Son as a means to eternal life must have an
equivalent, it would be more exact to make faith the equivalent of both. But,
arguing logically, the true equivalent of the "knowing" in this case
is eternal life, and as the life is a result, so must knowing, its equivalent,
be a result; and as the life results from faith, so must the knowing, its
equivalent, so result. The liability to abuse arising from making the phrase
"knowing God" a definition of repentance, and the phrase,
"knowing Jesus Christ" a definition of faith, lies in the common
misconception of the import of the word "know" in variant Bible
usage. It is often employed to express the idea of approbation rather than
information. There is no eternal life in the knowledge that stops at mere
information. The demon said to Jesus, "I know thee, who thou art, thou
Holy One of God" (Mark 1:24). And James also says, "The demons also
believe and tremble." It is therefore not so much information which men
need as a renewed mind. The fact is both notable and significant, that those
who most insist on knowing God as a definition of repentance are those who most
minify its importance, preach it seldom and virtually make it equivalent to a
mere intellectual perception logically resulting from a clear statement of a
truth.
Ninth, benevolence is not repentance, though surely an accompaniment or fruit
of it. A man once said in my hearing, "I can do more repentance with a
barrel of flour and a side of bacon than was ever found at a mourner's
bench." If this statement could be construed to mean that true repentance
evidences itself more in deeds of charity to the needy than in mere bemoanings
of one's self, whether at or aside from a bench, it might claim some merit, but
it is not fairly susceptible of such construction; hence is faulty at both
ends. The sneer at the mourner and the affirmation that one repents by deeds of
charity are alike unscriptural. Yea, they both embody deadly heresies. From the
first as a root, two baleful branches shoot out, to wit: One, that we may
cultivate the carnal mind into a Christian mind by a process of giving; the
other, that we may atone for sin by subsequent benefactions. Both are antipodal
to repentance, in that it signifies a supernatural renewal of the mind and
leads to faith, which lays hold on substitutionary atonement.
It may be said that there is in the most of these false definitions either such
an element of truth, or such nearness to truth, that the heresy is dangerous,
because plausible. It is important to account for this looseness in definition.
The average mind is not given to analysis, and hence, Judging from phenomena
alone, illogically blends or interchanges cause and effect, attributes
manifestations to wrong causes, or confounds things externally similar but
internally dissimilar. This may be illustrated by any one of the false
definitions cited. For example, the external symptoms of remorse, or worldly
sorrow, and godly sorrow, may easily be confounded by a superficial judge. Even
Dr. Adam dark evinces great lack of discrimination by finding hope of salvation
in the case of Judas, because under the promptings of remorse he threw down the
blood money, saying, "I have betrayed the innocent blood." So through
the ages, over-sanguine and sympathetic temperaments have been accustomed to
deduce most unwarranted inferences from the remorse of the ungodly
manifestations in a dying hour, and particularly in the case of criminals about
to be executed. Herein consists one of the excellencies of the divine judgment.
It is not according to appearances.
Again, because godly sorrow, the mediate agent of repentance, and confession,
conversion, reformation and restitution, its unfailing results, all have
external visibility; while repentance, itself being internal, is inscrutable,
it is quite easy for one who judges by the sight of his eyes, to miscall any
one of them repentance. We may get somewhat nearer to the heart of this matter
by noting the fact that, if from a given sentence you erase a word and
substitute an alleged definition therefor, the definition, if accurate, will
not only invariably make good sense, but will also certainly convey the true
sense, while a false definition so substituted will not likely make good sense,
and will certainly change the original meaning. For illustration, suppose we
write on a blackboard this sentence: "The gifts and calling of God are
without repentance," then erasing the word "repentance,"
substitute therefore successively the ten false and the one true definitions
heretofore given, and see which one not only makes the best sense) but conveys
the original sense. In trying this experiment it must be remembered that in
this sentence "without repentance" refers to God, and not to the one
who receives, or who is called.
The gifts and calling of God are without worldly sorrow, that is, on his part.
The gifts and calling of God are without godly sorrow, that is, on his part.
The gifts and calling of God are without quitting his meanness.
The gifts and calling of God are without reformation, that is, on his part.
The gifts and calling of God are without conversion, on his part.
The gifts and calling of God are without his doing penance.
The gifts and calling of God are without restitution, that is, on his part.
The gifts and calling of God are without his knowing God and turning from dead
works.
The gifts and calling of God are without benefactions.
Here let us substitute the true definition, "The gifts and calling of God
are without a change of mind," which means what? That God never takes back
what he gives; that he never reconsiders when he calls. That if he gives one
eternal life all the devils in hell can never pluck it away; that if he calls
one unto eternal life, that calling will insure every other step in the process
of salvation. The same thought is expressed in that other scripture, which says
of God, "He is without variableness or shadow of turning," or that
other scripture which declares him to be "the same yesterday, today and
forever." It follows that this scripture teaches the doctrine of the final
preservation of the saints, based upon the unchangeableness of the divine
purpose.
QUESTIONS
1. What prominence is given
in the Bible to the duty of repentance?
2. Mention some noted Old
Testament preachers of the doctrine;
some New Testament preachers.
3. What says Paul about the
universality of the obligation?
4. What says our Lord of its
necessity?
5. Are all God's commandments
of equal importance?
6. Is a mistake about
baptism fatal? Why not?
7. A mistake as to
repentance? Why?
8. What other fact suggests
its importance?
9. State the value of first
principles in any science.
10. What is the meaning of
fundamental?
11. Cite a scripture which
calls repentance a part of the foundation
of Christian doctrine.
12. Can one build a big
house on a little foundation?
13. State the relation of a
foundation to its superstructure. Is it wise to economize in foundations? How
does our Lord illustrate the value of the foundation? How David?
14. What do we call these
vain imaginations which have no foundation in fact?
15. What then is the value
of a profession of religion not bottomed
on repentance?
16. How else does it appear
that repentance is a first principle?
17. Illustrate this by the
work of John the Baptist.
18. What prophets foretold
the nature of John's work?
19. Cite Isaiah's words
foreshadowing a part of its characteristics.
20. Elsewhere what words?
21. What one word expresses
all this work?
22. Apply this to ancient
Roman and Peruvian roads and to modem
railroads, showing its utility.
23. Cite the words of
Jeremiah showing the evil results of impenitence, by comparing it to walking in
a way not cast up.
24. What similitude,
therefore, describes the folly of trying to be a Christian without repentance?
25. What agricultural figure
does Isaiah also employ to express the
nature of this preparatory work?
26. How did John's preaching
fulfil this figure of "withering the grass" of the flesh?
27. How did other prophets
extend the agricultural figure, showing
the preparatory nature of repentance?
28. According to this figure
what similitude expresses the folly of
trying to be a Christian without repentance?
29. How does our Saviour
describe the outcome of the folly of omit
ting this preparatory work?
30. In what way does Mark
emphasize the preparatory work of repentance? How Luke? How Matthew?
31. What then may we say of
the relation of repentance to eternal life?
32. Why, philosophically,
must repentance precede faith?
33. Prove this precedence
from the scriptures.
34. Is there any passage in
the New Testament containing both terms
in which faith comes first?
35. From the discussion so
far, sum up the nature, necessity and importance of repentance.
36. What can you say of the
preacher whose preaching leaves out
repentance?
37. Of the one whose
preaching minifies it?
38. What, then, is every
preacher's duty concerning this doctrine?
39. What may be justly said
of all the great preachers who have been
successful in winning souls to Christ?
40. What ought to follow
from all these things?
41. Have they usually these
clear conceptions?
42. Cite examples of variant
definitions by prominent people.
43. Are you now willing to
go into a New Testament examination of
this fundamental and vital doctrine?
44. In what language was the
New Testament written?
45. What Greek terms bearing
on this subject are to be found in one
paragraph of 2 Corinthians 7?
46. How does the common
version render the verb metamelomai in
this chapter?
47. Does it always so render
this verb?
48. Cite every instance of
its use in the New Testament.
49. How may you give a
better rendering?
50. Why is
"repent" an inappropriate rendering of this verb?
51. What is the other Greek
term?
52. Cite every New Testament
use of both the verb and the noun, noting its application to the doctrine.
53. What may be said of this
use?
54. Of what is repentance
declared to be the product?
55. In what does it always
end?
56. What follows?
57. What other New Testament
use of this adjective?
58. Tell us more about metanoeo,
to repent, and metanoia, repentance.
59. Therefore what do these
terms always mean?
60. What, then, is the one
invariable definition of New Testament
repentance?
61. How, then, is the domain
limited?
62. Wherein lies the
necessity of its universal obligation as a pre
requisite to Christian character and life?
63. But does this make
repentance the equivalent of regeneration?
64. What fact does this
explain?
65. Show now seriatim, the
folly of all the false definitions.
66. If from a given sentence
we erase a word and substitute therefore
an alleged definition, what follows?
67. Illustrate the folly of
the false definitions given by a blackboard
exercise on the sentence, "The gifts and calling of God are
without repentance."
THE OBJECT OF REPENTANCE
It was recognized as impossible to embody in one discussion a well-rounded view
of the doctrine of repentance. The first discussion closed with an illustration
designed to impress the accuracy of the definition that repentance is a change
of mind toward God, and to expose the inaccuracy of prevalent popular
definitions. This illustration consisted in taking the sentence, "The
gifts and the calling of God are without repentance" (Rom. 11:29), and
substituting in turn the various so-called definitions in the place of the word
"repentance," to determine which one made the best sense. Resuming
the discussion at that precise point, attention is called to a possible
objection based on the fact that the phrase "without repentance" in
Romans 11:29, is but a rendering of the adjective ametomeletos, which is
not derived from metanoeo, but from metamelei. If anyone should
be disposed to consider that this fact impairs the force of the illustration,
he may bring out the idea sought to be conveyed just as forcibly by using as a
base some sentence which has in it unmistakably metanoia. For example,
let the reader try the same procedure with Hebrews 12:17: "Esau found no
place of repentance though he sought it carefully, with tears." Here it is
important to observe that the repentance of this verse does not, as is commonly
supposed, refer to an exercise of the mind of Esau. The sentence means that
Esau found no place for a change of mind on the part of his father, Isaac,
though he sought to change his father's mind with many tears. This change on
the part of Isaac was impossible, notwithstanding he preferred Esau above
Jacob, because he could not change the blessing pronounced on Jacob through
divine inspiration. Hence the margin of the common version renders the passage,
"Esau found no way to change Isaac's mind," thus harmonizing with
Paul's version of the same matter as thus expressed: "And not only this,
but when Rebekah also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac (for the
children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the
purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of him that
calleth), it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is
written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is
there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have
mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have
compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but
of God that sheweth mercy" (Rom. 9:10-16). If, therefore, we want an
illustration of confusion confounded, we have only to write Hebrews 12:17,
erase the word "repentance," and substitute therefore successively
the false definitions heretofore cited.
Here another objector may ask: If we define repentance as only a change of
mind, does not that belittle a great doctrine? That depends on the "from
what" and the "to what." Remember that the carnal mind is enmity
against God, not subject to his law, neither indeed can be. To change that mind
into love of God and subjection to his law is no small change. It is as
difficult as to raise the dead or make a world. It calls for the exercise of
supernatural, creative, omnipotent energy.
It still may be objected: How, then, can we repent, as a stream can rise no
higher than its source? The answer is obvious. We cannot repent except by
divine grace. Remember this scripture cited: "Jesus Christ was exalted a
prince and a Saviour to give repentance," and remember also what has been
stated, that the exercise of repentance on our part is but the under side; the
upper side is regeneration. We work out what God works in, both to will and to
do according to his good pleasure, and therefore our "confession of
faith" makes repentance a fruit of regeneration.
If it be objected again that according to this definition there is no element
of sorrow in repentance, our reply is, etymologically and abstractly, no. But
again, everything depends OD "from what" and "to what." We
should never forget the standpoint. Gospel repentance necessarily involves the
idea of sorrow, because we repent from the standpoint of sin against the holy
God, whose righteous law that sin has transgressed. Hence, like Job when he saw
the Holy One, our convicted spirit cries out, "Behold, I am vile. What
shall I answer thee? I will lay my hand upon thy mouth. . . . I have heard of
thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore, I abhor
myself and repent in dust and ashes." This view makes clear the relation
of repentance to godly sorrow.
Godly sorrow, or contrition, is God-wrought sorrow, that is, God is its author.
This makes godly sorrow the result of conviction of sin. Conviction is the work
of the Holy Spirit. Contrition is our exercise under conviction.
In referring to the Holy Spirit our Lord says, "When he is come he will
convict the world of sin." The sinner's way, though leading to death,
seems right to him until he is convicted that it is wrong. When so convicted,
he changes his mind and thus godly sorrow worketh repentance. The Day of
Pentecost furnishes a notable example of this order of procedure. On that day
the Holy Spirit came down, enduing the disciples with power, and through their
preaching convicted the Jews of sin. When these so convicted cried out,
"Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Peter replied, "Repent
ye." The phrase expressing this conviction is, "They were pricked in
their heart." This fulfils an Old Testament prophecy. Jeremiah, in stating
the nature of the new covenant, says, "I will put my laws into their mind
and write them in their hearts." Paul refers to the same thought when
describing the conversion of the Corinthians: "Written not with ink but
with the Spirit of the living God; not on tables of stone but in fleshly tables
of the heart" (2 Cor. 3:3).
It is very important to observe just here that when we say that the carnal mind
is enmity against God and that repentance is a change of mind toward God, we by
no means intend to teach by the change alleged that the carnal mind itself is
transformed, converted into a loving mind, because the carnal mind is
inconvertible. It can never be made subject to God's law by any possible
process. The change of mind is not the turning of one mind into another, as
wheat is converted into flour, retaining its substance while changing its form,
but it is a change by substitution. One thing takes the place of another
radically different thing, as a child is said to be a changeling who in infancy
was substituted for the true offspring that had first been removed.-Only we
must remember that in repentance the mind substituted for the carnal mind is a
new creation. Ezekiel expresses that thought thus: "A new heart also will
I give you and a new spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the
stony heart out of your flesh and I will give you a heart of flesh, and I will
put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall
keep my judgments and do them." Paul calls this the "putting off of
the old man and the putting on the new man." Observe, however, that when
speaking of repentance, or faith, as the under, or human side of regeneration,
we do not mean that repentance alone expresses all the change set forth in the
paragraphs from Ezekiel and Paul. Faith must be included to insure this full
result. As our Articles of Faith declare, "Repentance and faith are
inseparable graces wrought in our souls by the regenerating Spirit of
God." We may well here be asked, "How then can we discriminate
between the work of repentance and faith?" By recurring to the
illustration of a changeling we may be able somewhat to discriminate.
Repentance takes away the first child; faith substitutes the other. The taking
away is but preparatory, as John's preaching withered the grass of the flesh,
utterly consuming any hope of fitness for the kingdom of heaven based on carnal
descent from Abraham, to make them ready by faith to receive Christ. And so in
Hebrews 8 Paul describes the changing of the covenants, "In that he saith,
a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth
old is ready to vanish away." In other words, one is taken away as a
preparation for the institution of the other, and this is equally a change.
Having now considered somewhat in detail its nature and meaning, some attention
will be given to the object of repentance.
Paul discriminates sharply between repentance and faith, as to their respective
objects, when he says, "Repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord
Jesus Christ" (Acts 20:21). Observe, therefore, that gospel repentance is
only toward God, but as repentance is a general term, we must not forget that
we may repent toward other objects. One may change his mind about multitudinous
matters, from one thing or person to another thing or person. He may repent
toward his earthly parents, toward death, toward shame. From this fact arises a
liability to mistake one of these repentances for gospel repentance. Indeed, it
is often done. A wild young man, away from home, has been stirred to tears by
some preacher's description of the old homestead, and reflecting upon the grief
and pain his disobedience has wrought in the parental heart, he is led by
sorrow to change his mind toward his faraway parents. In this case, his
repentance is toward his earthly parents, and may not have in it a single
element of spirituality, in the gospel sense. Again, a profane, dissipated, and
wicked man, when suddenly confronted with death, or threatened with exposure of
his unrighteousness, is stricken with remorse, which leads to a change of mind
as to the evil done, or rather its consequences. Here the repentance is either
toward the horrors of apprehended death or toward the shame of being found out.
That we may be well guarded against this liability to mistake, it may be
necessary to illustrate repentance of this kind.
Years ago a Texas paper recited a thrilling incident aboard a ship in the Gulf
of Mexico. It was just after a gale. The passengers, rejoicing in the
subsidence of the storm, were variously occupied, according to inclination or
habit, some swearing, some drinking, some gambling. Suddenly the captain, his
face white, his lips quivering, rushed into the cabin and startled the
unprepared passengers with the awful announcement, "The ship has sprung a
leak and will go down in five minutes!" The effect was instant and all-pervasive.
The oath and ribald jest were arrested, half-uttered, on the lips of profanity;
the drunkard dropped untasted the half lifted bottle; the gamblers threw down
their unplayed cards and ignored the tempting gold they had staked on their
game. All of them, panic-stricken, by one impulse) fell on their knees in
prayer. They all repented toward sudden death. Now, if that ship had gone down,
instantaneously engulfing all but one of that crew in a watery grave, and that
one survivor had reported that all his shipmates died in the act of prayer,
having each one "quit his meanness," their relatives at home would
have deduced great hopes of their condition in eternity, and some preachers in
funeral services would have preached their souls right into heaven. But, alas!
for such repentance, such hopes, such preaching, in the light of subsequent
facts. The history proceeds to say that while yet in their fear-prompted
devotions the carpenter of the ship appears with the cheering statement that
the pumps are lowering the water in the hold and the leak will soon be stopped.
The effect of this assuring announcement was like that ascribed to the touch of
a magician's wand. Devotion and panic depart together and wicked inclinations
and habits resume their wonted sway. Indeed, the oaths are more frequent, the
jests more obscene, on profanity's lips. The gamblers renew their interrupted
game with doubled stakes to make up for loss of time. The drunkard treats
himself to an extra two fingers in compensation for his brief abstinence. We
may call this "India rubber repentance," because it is like the
schoolboy's hollow ball, which flattens under pressure but resumes its original
form when the pressure ceases.
Mark Twain in a very humorous account of this method of getting religion gives
us a second illustration, substantially after this fashion: He tells of three
men lost in a snowstorm, wearily riding in a circle, until the increasing cold
admonishes that they must have a fire or die, and how every match and every
powder flash failed to ignite the wet boughs gathered by their benumbed
fingers, and how at last the certainty of death called for a preparation for
eternity, and how each proposed to get religion by quitting his particular
meanness. The first throws down his pipe and promises never to smoke again. The
second hurls away his bottle and vows to drink no more. The third scatters to
the winds his pack of Mexican cards, pledging to deal monte never again. And
then, shaking hands and crying all around, they yield up their ghosts to –
sleep. The beautiful snow gathered around them its white mantle as a shroud,
but lo I when morning came they awoke to find themselves alive and within sight
of the very stage stand they had vainly sought in the darkness. With sheepish
faces and in silence they sought its hospitable walls, where, after thawing the
outside at the blazing hearth and filling the inside with generous food and
drink, they were surprised to find how secular they felt. But each was ashamed
for the others to know he had so soon fallen from grace, and so sought solitude
after his own fashion. The smoker, when left alone, slipped out, sought, found,
and filled his pipe, and stealing behind one corner of the barn to
surreptitiously strike a match, surprised the drunkard at the other corner just
lifting his recovered bottle to his lips, while both stood aghast at beholding
under an old stagecoach the third playing solitaire with his refound pack of
Mexican cards.
Henry Ward Beecher says that "one might as well repent toward the jaws of
a crocodile as toward the law." The question then may well be asked,
"How may one safely distinguish between gospel repentance and repentance
toward other objects?" This may be done by keeping in mind the following
characteristics of gospel repentance: First, as to its nature. It is spiritual,
a new creation, wrought by the omnificent energy of the Holy Spirit. The tree
is first made good. Second, it is always the product of contrition, whose marks
are thus described by Paul: "For godly sorrow worketh repentance to
salvation not to be repented of, but the sorrow of the world worketh death; for
behold this self-same thing that we sorrow after a godly sort, what carefulness
it wrought in you; yea, what clearing of yourselves; yea, what indignation;
yea, what fear; yea, what vehement desire; yea, what zeal; yea, what revenge.
In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter."
Third, as to its objects. It is always toward God. It recognizes, abhors and
turns away from sin as a transgression of his holy law, and confesses the guilt
of alienation from it. Fourth, it always leads to loving acceptance by faith of
the Lord Jesus Christ, as the soul's only prophet, priest, and king. Fifth,
being a radical and fundamental change, it always bears fruit in confession,
conversion, reformation, and even restitution when possible.
When theologians speak of repentance in a somewhat broader sense than its
etymological import, that is, including both anterior and subsequent or
accompanying exercises, they find in it these three elements: First, an
intellectual element, which recognizes sin as involving personal guilt,
defilement and helplessness. Paul calls this "knowledge of sin,"
Greek, Epignosis, Hamartias, Romans 3:20. Second, an emotional element,
called contrition, or godly sorrow, Greek, lupe kata theon. Third, a
voluntary element, Greek, metanoia, that is, a change of mind or
disposition which turning from sin and self-help seeks pardon and cleansing in
a Redeemer.
Here, as a guard against a widespread misconception, it is important to observe
that the penitent state is not a passive state, but exceedingly active. The
mind acts, the heart acts, the will acts, the whole being is stirred, every
faculty is alive and employed, and every means or resource available is
utilized. The penitent is indeed no sluggard. With him there is no folding of
the hands, no lying supinely on his back, no foolish waiting. He burns, he
moves, he tries. He is a very live man. It is well to specify three phases of
this activity. First, the penitent is a mourner on account of sin. Second, the
penitent prays for pardon and cleansing. Third, the penitent is a seeker after
salvation. It perhaps would take up too much time and space to cite the very
words of all the scriptures proving these three phases of activity, and yet the
reader should take down a list of the more important ones and privately examine
them. I suggest the following: Zechariah 12:9; 13:1; James 4:8-10; Isaiah
57:15; Psalm 34:18; 51:1-10; Jonah 3:4-10; Luke 18: 9:14; Psalm 4:1-3;
107:10-14, 17, 20; Isaiah 55:6-7; Jeremiah 29:12-13; 50:4-5; Luke 18:13;
Matthew 6:33. The characteristics of the gospel mourner presented in the
passage from Zechariah it is quite important to note. First, it was a great
mourning; second, it was an individual mourning, husband and wife apart; third,
it is declared to be such a mourning as parents indulge over the death of their
first-born, or as Israel indulged over the death of Josiah, their king. Fourth,
it was truly lupe kata theon; that is, the Holy Spirit was its agent. Fifth,
the preached word, lifting up Christ, was its instrument (compare John 19:37
and Acts 2:17-37). And finally it leads to the fountain of cleansing (Zech.
13:1). Our Lord, in referring to the mourning of the Ninevites, who put on
sackcloth and ashes and cried mightily to God, says that they repented at the
preaching of Jonah. He had just said that if Tyre and Sidon had received the
light bestowed upon Chorazin and Bethsaida they would have repented long ago in
sackcloth and ashes.
While discussing the penitent's activity as a mourner, it may be well to refer
somewhat to what is popularly called the mourner's bench. Within modern times
revivalist preachers fell upon the method of inducing movement upon the part of
those whom they addressed by asking them to come forward to a designated seat,
where they might be instructed and where the people of God could approach them
knowing that the approach would not be offensive to them. This method has its
dangers and its abuses. There is always danger of making it a fixed
institution, and even without intending it, of allowing the popular mind to
regard it as a fact that salvation can be found nowhere else than at the
mourner's bench. Then well known excesses have taken place in connection with
what are called altar scenes, which have brought this method into reproach with
many pious, thinking people. There is equal danger in the opposite extreme of
preaching which has no tendency to induce action, movement, decision, which
draws no line of demarcation. The Baptists and the Methodists employ the
mourner's bench, as it is called, or some form of that method, more than other
denominations. Those popularly known as Campbellites and Martinites most oppose
it. Where one is wise a golden mean between these extremes can be profitably
found.
A notable case of the second activity, the penitent's praying, is furnished by
our Saviour in the case of the publican, whose prayer is thus expressed in the
Greek: “O theos, hilestheti moi toi hamartoloi." It may be
translated: God, be propitious to me, the sinner; (or, forgive me through the
atonement) . As Baptists usually teach the penitent to pray for the pardon of
his sins, it may here be asked whether they call upon him to pray for pardon
independent of the atonement wrought by Christ. No one who has ever taught a
penitent to pray, at least no Baptist inculcates such teachings apart from the
means appointed to secure the remission of sins. If then the penitent is taught
to seek pardon in prayer through the appointed means of pardon, this conforms
our Baptist teaching to that of our Lord Jesus Christ in the parable of the
publican.
And, indeed, it is improbable that any man was ever saved who did not mourn on
account of his sins and pray for pardon through Christ and seek eternal life.
And we may regard with well-grounded distrust any alleged Christian experience
unaccompanied with these exercises of mind and heart.
False teachers have applied to this mourning, praying, and seeking activity of
the penitent the opprobrious phrase, "dirt and straw religion." If
modern seekers after eternal life were to act as did the Ninevites, fasting,
putting on sackcloth and crying mightily to God in prayer, doubtless these
dry-eyed, short-cut teachers would ridicule it as "dirt and straw
religion," or as doing penance; and yet our Saviour, in referring to these
exercises says that the Ninevites repented at the preaching of Jonah. Most
probably the real objection of these false teachers to what they call the
mourner's bench, lies more against the mourning, the praying, and the seeking
than against the bench. In an effort to avoid the opprobrium heaped upon this
method we should take good heed lest we run into the opposite extreme, that is,
leave out the mourning, praying, and seeking, while leaving out the bench. The
Scriptures prescribe no fixed measure of mourning, praying, and seeking as
necessary to salvation. Indeed, it is not a measure of time and process. If in
one moment the soul is contrite enough to turn in abhorrence of sin against God
from all self-help to our Lord Jesus Christ by faith, it is sufficient.
The reader is called upon to note that when we say that repentance is toward
God, we do not mean that only preaching about the law or about God the Father
can produce repentance. That is not meant at all. The preaching that leads to
repentance toward God is the preaching of Christ and him crucified, for in
Christ alone is the Father revealed and the majesty of his law fully set forth.
This is abundantly proved by the Scriptures. Our Lord said that in his name
should repentance and remission of sins be preached throughout the world.
Peter's sermon on the Day of Pentecost is an illustrious example of how
preaching Christ leads to repentance, and the passage from Zechariah, before
quoted, says that it is only after they looked on him whom they had pierced
that they mourned, and then was opened a fountain for sin and uncleanness. What
the Scriptures teach) experience corroborates. Observation of revival meetings
shows that hearts are not broken by dry, abstract preaching of the law, but are
melted into contrition by Christ lifted up, and set forth as crucified before
the eyes of the people. On this account Paul declared that be gloried in
nothing save the cross of Christ, and in his preaching knew nothing other than
Christ and him crucified. I would commend, therefore, to young preachers and
all Christians desirous of leading men to repentance or faith or consecration,
or any other gospel exercise whatever, the supreme theme, Christ and him
crucified; always Christ, whether to saint or sinner. Preach Christ – not
morality, not philosophy, not deeds of charity, not civilization, never
anything but Christ.
QUESTIONS
1. How do you meet the
objection that the phrase "without repentance" in Romans 11:29 is a
rendering of the adjective ametameletos and is not derived from
melanoeo?
2. Show how the definition,
"Repentance is a change of mind," does not belittle a great doctrine.
3. If repentance calls for
the exercise of supernatural, creative and
omnipotent energy, how then. can we repent?
4. Is there necessarily an
element of sorrow in repentance? Show
clearly the relation of repentance to godly sorrow.
5. Cite a notable example of
this order of procedure.
6. What phrase expresses the
conviction?
7. What Old Testament
prophecy did this fulfil?
8. How does Paul express the
same thought?
9. By the change of mind in
repentance is it meant that the carnal
Blind itself is transformed, converted into a loving mind?
10. How does Ezekiel express
the nature of this change? How Paul?
11. Does repentance alone
express all of the changes set forth in the
paragraphs from Paul and Ezekiel?
12. How then can one discriminate
between the exercises of repentance and faith?
13. How does Paul
discriminate between repentance and faith as to their respective objects?
14. May we not repent toward
other objects?
15. Is there a liability to
mistake one of these repentances for gospel
repentance?
16. Illustrate repentance of
this kind.
17. Recite substantially
Mark Twain's humorous account of getting
religion after this fashion.
18. How did Henry Ward
Beecher describe repentance toward the law?
19. How then may one safely
distinguish between the real repentance
and the spurious?
20. What three elements do
theologians find in repentance considered in a broader than the etymological
sense?
21. Is the penitent state
active or passive?
22. Specify three phases of
this activity.
23. Cite scriptures proving
that the penitent is a mourner.
24. Proving that he is a
seeker.
25. Proving that he prays
for pardon.
26. What are the
characteristics of the mourning mentioned in Zechariah?
27. What does our Lord say
about mourning and praying of the
Ninevites?
28. What about Chorazin and
Bethsaida (Matt. 11:20-21)?
29. Cite the origin and
history of the mourner's bench.
30. What are its dangers and
abuses; dangers of opposite extreme?
31. What denominations most
employ this method? Who most oppose it?
32. What is the golden mean?
33. Cite the Greek text of
the publican's prayer; its meaning.
34. Do Baptists teach the
penitent to pray for pardon of sins in dependent of the atonement wrought by
Christ?
35. If then the penitent is
taught to seek pardon in prayer through the appointed means of pardon, to whose
teaching does this conform?
36. Is it probable that any
man was ever saved who did not mourn on account of his sins, pray for pardon
through Christ and seek eternal life?
37. How may we regard any
alleged Christian experience unaccompanied with these exercises?
38. What opprobrious phrase
do false teachers apply to mourning,
praying and seeking?
39. If modern seekers after
eternal life were to act as did the Ninevites, what would these dry-eyed
teachers say about it?
40. What does our Saviour
say about it?
41. What does he say of Tyre
and Sidon?
42. What most probably is
the real objection of these teachers to
the mourner's bench?
43. What caution is
necessary in avoiding the evils of the so-called mourner's bench?
44. What measure of
mourning, praying, and seeking do the Scriptures require as necessary to
salvation?
45. What kind of preaching
most conducive to repentance?
46. Prove this by the
Scriptures.
47. How does experience
corroborate this?
48. On this account what
said Paul as to the matter of his preaching?
49. What theme is commended to
young preachers and other Christians desirous of leading men to repentance, or
faith, or any other gospel exercise?
MOTIVES AND ENCOURAGEMENTS TO REPENTANCE
Before considering the Bible motives and encouragements to repentance let four
correlative thoughts take deep root in the reader's mind.
First, sinners alone can or should repent. The righteous are not called to
repentance, because just men need no repentance. Second, and therefore, men ought
and must repent of their sins only. We ought not, must not repent of
righteousness. Where there is no transgression, there is no obligation to
repentance, no necessity for it, no propriety in it.
Third, since all men are commanded to repent, it follows that all are sinners.
Let us never allow ourselves to be deceived at this point by the familiar
phrases of worldly judgment. Men are called good or righteous by the world on
account of their supposed conduct toward men. Women are called good or righteous
because of supposed amiability of character or propriety of conduct in human
relations. The world does not take into account our relations to God. And yet
sin cannot be sin unless against God. And all people, aside from the provisions
of divine grace, are out of harmony in their relations toward God. The world's
best man, even if he be our father, society's fairest, sweetest, most amiable
woman, even if she be our mother, wife, or sister, or daughter, is a sinner,
under the just condemnation of God.
Fourth, without repentance they are forever lost. God himself cannot forgive
the impenitent. The following scriptures may suffice to prove that it is sin
alone that must be repented of: "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness,
and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee"
(Acts 8:22). "Lest . . . I shall bewail many who have sinned already, and
have not repented of the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness,
which they have committed" (2 Cor. 12:21). "I gave her space to repent
of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed,
and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they
repent of their deeds" (Rev. 2:21-22). "And the rest of the men,
which were not killed by these plagues, yet repented not of the works of their
hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold and silver, and
brass, and stone, and of wood; which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk.
Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their
fornication, nor of their thefts" (Rev. 9:20-21). In all these instances
the thing calling for repentance is sin.
Just here the reader is requested to note a difference between the idiom of the
Greek and of the English. We observe that in our English translation of all
these passages the verb "repent" is followed by the preposition
"of" – "repent of" the sin, whatever it may be. But
strictly speaking, we cannot "repent of" anything. Our English idiom,
"repent of," is used to avoid circumlocution. It does not, however,
strictly accord with the definition or grammatical usage of the Greek verb, metanoeo,
or its noun, metanoia. This is evident in the Greek text of all the
passages just cited. In Acts 8:22: "Repent of thy wickedness," the preposition
following the verb is apo – "repent from" which phrase,
according to Dr. Hackett, is used in a pregnant sense and is equivalent to
"repent and turn from." With this compare Hebrews 6:1:
"Repentance from dead works," and the Septuagint of Jeremiah 8:6:
"No man repented him from his wickedness." In 2 Corinthians 12:21:
"Have not repented of the uncleanness," etc., the preposition is epi,
i.e., "have not repented on account of uncleanness." It is true that
Meyer and others, connect epi, in this passage, not with metaiweo,
i.e. "repent on account of the uncleanness," etc., but with penthesa
i.e., "mourn on account of the uncleanness." But both the common and
revised version are against this construction. Moreover, passages may be cited
not only from classic Greek authors and the Septuagint, but also from
postapostolic authors connecting metanoeo with epi, i.e.,
"repent on account of" (cf. Joel 2:13; Jonah 3, Septuagint). Lucial
(A.D. 160), says, "Repent for what {epi) or on account of what he
did." Josephus (Greek text) referring to Exodus 14:5, says, "The
Egyptians, however, soon repented that the Hebrews were gone," i. e., on
account of (epi) the departure of the Hebrews, (Ant. 2, 15, 3). In all
the passages cited from Revelation, "to repent of fornication,"
"repent of their deeds," "repented not of their works,"
"repented not of their murders," the preposition is ek
("out of," or "from") which is elliptical and is somewhat
more than equivalent to "repent and turn from." The difference
between apo and ek is one of degree, not kind, ek having
greater force; as, "to drive from (apo) the gate and to drive from
within (ek) the gate." It conforms therefore more accurately with
the meaning and usage of the Greek terms to Bay, "repent on account of
sin," rather than "repent of sin," and to say, "repentance
from sin," rather than "repentance of sin."
We. now approach the subject of motives. As man is a rational, accountable,
moral being, his actions are induced by motives, and in these motives, lies
very largely, the moral quality of the actions. These facts should bear heavily
on the conscientious preacher of repentance. His zeal should .not be allowed to
outrun his knowledge. He should, as a teacher of the gospel, urge only right
motives to induce sinners to repent. All appeals, based on mere expediency, or
on worldly reasons; and all help sought in mere human devices to attract and
hold and stir a crowd are unworthy of his high calling, and unsuitable and
inefficient in themselves. A change of mind or reformation brought about by
merely worldly considerations, is devoid of any religious element and
transitory in nature, however promising or startling at first.
The fleeting results of meetings conducted by some sensational evangelists
serve for illustration. There is no step taken in religion that steps not
toward God. Sin is against God. Repentance, being on account of sin, is toward
God. Nor is there need to seek beyond the Scriptures for motives and
encouragements to repentance, because they abound with all incentives that will
likely quicken the conscience, stir the heart, or influence the will; and
because the word of God alone has the promise of the Spirit's power without
which there-can be no repentance. No evangelist, however abundant his labors or
frequent his services, need fear an exhaustion of this Bible material or a
monotony of service in confining himself to it. The supply is inexhaustible in
quantity, infinite in variety, perfect in adaptation and omnipotent in
efficacy. It must be premised, therefore, that our present citation of
scriptural motives and encouragements to repentance pretends to indicate only a
very few of many available resources, and our brief exposition thereof pretends
to be suggestive only and not exhaustive in any case.
MOTIVES AND
ENCOURAGEMENTS
"The Lord is willing that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter
3:9). This scripture expresses not an irresistible decree, but the attitude of
the divine mind toward all men. As repentance must be toward God, if he, one of
the two at variance, and withal the one aggrieved, is willing to accept the
repentance of the transgressor as a step toward reconciliation, it places the
responsibility of decision on the man, and teaches that the final damnation of
any soul on account of sin is suicide – the sinner destroys himself. The
emphasis should be placed on "willing" and "all." The Lord
is willing; is the sinner willing? The willingness of God is toward all,
excluding no nation, no class, no individual: "How often would I have gathered
you but ye would not," "Ye will not come unto me that ye might have
life," "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."
No view of the divine decrees, no interpretation of the doctrines of election
and predestination should be allowed to obscure the brightness, or limit the
broadness, of this attitude of the divine mind toward sinners. Our own hearts
should be full of it when we preach or teach the gospel to lost men. And we
should prayerfully and diligently labor to possess their minds with the
conviction that if everything else in the universe be a lie, it remains true
that "God wishes all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the
truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). We must not, dare not, doubt his sincerity, nor
impugn his veracity, when he says, "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have
no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way
and live" (Ezek. 33:11).
This willingness of God that all should come to repentance is evident (a) by
his abundant provision of mercy – "God so loved the world that he gave his
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have
eternal life," (John 3:16) ; "That by the grace of God he should
taste death for every man," (Heb. 2:9); "He is the propitiation for our
sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world," (1 John 2:2).
(b) It is evident in that the terms of this mercy are simple and easy -0-
repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ (Mark 1:15; Acts
20:21; Rom. 10:8-9). (c) It is evident in that, by the church and ministry, he
has provided for a perpetual and worldwide publication of this mercy and its
terms (Luke 24:47; Matt. 28:19; Acts 17:30). (d) It is evident by the
earnestness and broadness of his gracious invitations (Isa. 55:1; Matt. 11:28;
Rev. 22:17). (e) It is evident by his suspension of the death penalty, assessed
against the sinner, that space for repentance may be allowed (Gen. 6:3; Matt.
3:10; Luke 13:6-9; Rom. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9, 15; Rev. 2:21). (f) It is evident by
his joyous welcome to the penitent (Luke 15:20, 24) who returns in this space,
(g) It is evident by his sincere grief over the finally impenitent who allow
the space to pass away unimproved (Luke 19:41-44). What mighty motives are in
all these thoughts! What an inexhaustible supply of sermon themes! What
preacher has drawn all the water out of these wells of salvation? For an
elaborate discussion of God's willingness that all sinners should come to
repentance, it may not be regarded as immodest for me to refer the reader to
the sermon, "God and the Sinner," in my first volume of published
sermons.
The sinner's great need and heaven's great supply. "And when he came to
himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and
to spare, and I perish here with hunger!" (Luke 15:17). How touching, how
realistic this picture! He has spent all. He is in want. He perishes. He is a
prey to dissatisfaction, unrest, unutterable woe. Well might he make his own
the words of England's great poet, Byron: My days are in the yellow leaf, The flowers, the
fruits of love are gone; The worm, the canker and the grief Are mine alone. The
fire that on my bosom preys Is lone as some volcanic isle; No torch is lighted
at its blaze, A funeral pile.
Over against this, behold the light, the feasting, the joy, the merry-making in
the father's house, and hear its music I Another scripture sharply contrasts
the needs and the supply: "Thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and
blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou
mayest be rich; and white raiment that thou mayest be clothed, and that the
shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eye-salve,
that thou mayest see. . . . Be zealous, therefore, and repent" (Rev.
3:17-19).
The prodigal was deeply conscious of his needs and heaven's supply. The
Laodiceans were profoundly ignorant of both. The latter said, "I am rich
and increased with goods and have need of nothing." With the former there
was complete disillusion. This fact, man's need and heaven's plenty, or rather
the awakened soul's consciousness of it, will never cease to be an effective
plea for repentance till Jesus comes. Let the evangelist, therefore, who would
be successful in winning souls to Christ, play often on his harp. It has many
strings and many tunes.
But this special motive is only a shoot from a greater radical motive which
bears many other offshoots, to wit: God is the only satisfying portion of the
soul.
Who has God and nothing beside is rich indeed; who tins him not, though all
things else, is poor indeed.
"The Lord is my portion," said David and Jeremiah (Psalm 73:26; Lam.
3:24). "All my springs are in thee," says the psalmist (87:7). From
the fact, inhering in the very constitution of our being, that alienation from
God is bankruptcy, arises the vanity of all other sources of satisfaction. To
the ' demonstration of this proposition the whole book of Ecclesiastes is
devoted, which aptly closes: “This is the end of the matter; all hath been
heard: Fear God and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of
man." Any earnest preacher may find a suitable text for enforcing this
motive in Jeremiah 2:12-13: "Be astonished, O ye heavens, at this, and be
horribly afraid, be ye very desolate, saith the Lord. For my people have
committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and
hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water." An easy
and natural outline for the sermon suggests itself: (a) It is needless work to
build cisterns where there are natural fountains. (b) It is hard work to hew
them out of rock. (c) It secures at best only a limited supply, the biggest
cistern being unequal in capacity to a living stream, (d) This limited supply
is always insecure through a possible break in the cistern. (e) It fills the
heavens with astonishment, horrible fear and desolation that men should be
guilty of this folly in spiritual things, (f) Illustration: If this whole
earth, 8,000 miles in diameter, 25,000 miles in circumference, were a full
cistern, without a leak, there would come a time when one soul alone would
exhaust its limited supply, and then confront an eternity of thirst, ever
tantalized by the memory of a forsaken and now inaccessible fountain, whose
perennial and inexhaustible flow, clear as crystal, cold as ice, refreshing as
life, constitutes the mirage of eternal hell.
QUESTIONS
1. Who alone should repent?
2. Of what alone should they
repent?
3. What follows if all men
are commanded to repent?
4. What follows if they
repent not?
5. Cite all the New
Testament passages, common version, expressly showing that men should
"repent of" sin.
6. Strictly speaking, can we
"repent of" anything?
7. Explain the difference between
the English idiom, "repent of"
and the Greek original in Acts 8:22; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Revelation
2:21-22; 9:20-21, setting forth clearly the import of the several prepositions
following the Greek words for "repent" and "repentance."
8. According to the meaning
of these words and their grammatical
usage with the prepositions opo, epi, ek, what should we say
instead of "repent of" and
"repentance of"?
9. What illustrative
passages can you cite from the ancient classics, postapostolic authors, Septuagint,
and Josephus, connecting metanoeo or metanoia with the prepositions, apo, epi
or ek?
10. Why are man's actions
incited by motives?
11. In what resides, very
largely, the moral quality of his acts?
12. Where must the preacher
find the motives to repentance he urges
on the sinner?
13. Why no need to seek
elsewhere?
14. Cite first motive given
in this chapter (2 Peter 3:9) and state
its force.
15. Cite other scriptures of
equal import.
16. How much, in your own thought
and practice, are these scriptures weakened, or how much are you hampered in
their use, by your views of election
and predestination?
17. State in their order the
seven evidences of God's willingness that all should come to repentance given
in this chapter and cite clear scriptural proof of each.
18. If you are a preacher
and were conducting a meeting, would it not be well to prepare and preach a
sermon on each one of these seven evidences as taught in the Scriptures cited,
or in others that may occur to yourself?
19. Have you read the
sermon, "God and the Sinner," referred to in this chapter, as an
elaborate discussion of God's willingness to save all men?
20. Cite second motive to
repentance given in this chapter based on
Luke 15:17, and state its force.
21. What other scripture
showing the great contrast between the sinner's needs and heaven's supply, is
cited in the chapter?
22. What difference do you
note in the sinner's consciousness of the need and its supply in two cases
cited (Luke 15:17 and Rev. 3:17-19)?
23. Repeat the poetic
excerpt illustrating the first case, give name of author, and the connections of the extract.
24. Of what greater radical
motive is this special motive but an off
shoot?
25. Cite the pertinent declarations
of David and Jeremiah (Psalm 73: 26; Lam. 3:24). What else, David (Psalm 87:7)?
26. What book of Bible is
wholly given to a discussion of the subject?
27. State its summary of the
whole case, revised text.
28. What scripture is
commended as a suitable text for a sermon on
this subject?
29. State the outline
suggested.
30. Recite the illustration
given: "If the earth were a cistern," etc.
31. Recite for further
illustration what Pollok, in "The Course of Time." writes of Byron.
MOTIVES AND ENCOURAGEMENTS TO REPENTANCE
(CONTINUED)
"Repent ye and turn again that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts
3:19).
This motive – one of the mightiest that ever influenced human action – is, in
the Scriptures, urged on sinners with many shades of variety, and from many
standpoints. Appealing, as it does, to the conscience and to that inherent and
indestructible craving for happiness and permanent future good, lodged in every
heart, this motive must ever be a mighty factor. Let us first inquire what it
implies:
It implies man's accountability to God.
It implies a law measuring that accountability, prescribing the right and
proscribing the wrong.
It implies transgressions of that law.
It implies a record of every transgression.
It implies a provision of grace by which the sinner may escape the penalty of
sin.
It teaches, first, that this way of escape from penalty consists in blotting
out, effacing, erasing the record of sin, so that the book of indictments, or
accusations, presents no charges against the transgressor. This cancellation of
offenses is so accordant with principles of righteousness, so meets every demand
of the violated law, so satisfies the law-giver, that no being in the universe
can revive the charges, and no competent court would entertain them if revived.
In such case, indeed, the Scriptures triumphantly inquire: "Who shall lay
anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth; who is he
that condemneth?" The blotting out is represented as so complete that the
sins become invisible forever; they are put so far away none can find them;
they are buried so deep none can revive them. There remains no more trace of
them than passing clouds leave in the bright blue sky after they are gone –
than fleeting shadows impress on the sunlit lawn when they have vanished.
Very expressive, very beautiful, sublime, and consoling are the scriptural
declarations on this point: "I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy
transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins" (Isa.
42:35). "I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and as
a cloud thy sins" (Isa. 44:22). "As far as the east is from the west,
so far hath he removed our transgressions from us" (Psalm 103:12).
"Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea" (Micah
7:19).
The Scripture teaches, second, that repentance is an indispensable prerequisite
to the blotting out of sin, and herein lies the strength of the motive. Here we
strike the bedrock of essential and vital doctrine: "Repent ye, THAT your
sins may be blotted out." If the repentance be not indispensable the
motive is broken and the exhortation becomes sounding brass and tinkling
cymbal. It is as empty as a blasted nut – as lifeless as a hearted grain of
corn. There is no escape from the doctrine of universal salvation if sinners
may be forgiven without repenting of their sins. Moreover, the most prevalent
delusion in the world today is the impression cherished by guilty hearts, that
in some way they shall become the beneficiaries of divine mercy at last, even
though they do not in this life repent and turn from sin. And so regarding
repentance as not absolutely essential they despise the exhortation to repent.
It becomes a matter of supreme importance therefore that teachers and preachers
of the gospel should be so thoroughly rooted and grounded in the doctrine of
the necessity of repentance as a term, or condition of forgiveness, that they
will, in their teaching and preaching, sternly and relentlessly shut every gate
of hope for pardon except the one approached by penitence. Here apply the words
of our Lord: "Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art with him
in the way; lest haply the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge
deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto
thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou have paid the last
farthing."
The relation between repentance and its fruits (confession, reformation, and
restitution where possible) on the one hand, and remission of sins on the other
hand, is so essential and withal so little understood, the reader may
profitably give the matter special attention. As indicative of this relation we
cite and emphasize the following scriptures: "Thus it is written . . .
that repentance and [rather unto; see Vatican Mss.] remission of sins should be
preached in his name unto all nations, beginning from Jerusalem" (Luke
24:46-47). Thus our Lord.
"Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
unto the remission of your sins" (Acts 2:38). Thus his apostle.
"Beginning from Jerusalem, John . . . preached the baptism of repentance unto
the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4). Thus his harbinger in "the
beginning of the gospel."
The God of love and mercy and forgiveness cannot forgive the impenitent. This
proposition is generally accepted and maintained by Christians in the case of
God and the sinner. But in the case of man against man, some Christians
entertain curious and illogical notions which virtually subvert the original
proposition, that is, they hold and teach that Christians should forgive an
impenitent brother. To meet this harmful view the proposition is enlarged.
In every case, whether of trespass against God or man or the church, repentance
is indispensable to forgiveness. I cite the law: "If thy brother sin,
rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he sin against thee seven
times in the day, and seven times turn again to thee, saying, I repent, thou
shalt forgive him" (Luke 17:3-4). The terms of this statute are express
and unequivocal: "If he repent, forgive him." Repentance settles the
case between individuals. But if he repent not, then the remedy is not
forgiveness, but another law, to wit: "And if thy brother sin, go right
along, convince him of his sin between thee and him alone: if he hear thee,
thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or
two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be
established. And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he
refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the
publican. Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven: and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall
be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:15-18).
Upon this law I remark: To forgive is a legal term, meaning to release or loose
from a claim. Its opposite, "to bind," means to retain or hold
against one the account as unsettled. "To gain your brother" means
that one has so convinced him of the sin against him, that he repents and
confesses and asks for forgiveness.
His repentance is an indispensable condition of forgiveness. If he forgive
without his "hearing you" he has no case then to present to the two
or three others and none to present to the church, and by his illegal
settlement he has not only brought law and order into reproach, but also left
his brother "ungained" and stopped the process of gaining, which God,
in mercy. appointed.
If all personal and joint labors do not bring about "repentance unto the
acknowledgment of the truth," then he is not to him a brother, but a Gentile
and publican.
The church then binds, not looses.
The law having been followed strictly, in both letter and spirit, by both him
and the church, heaven ratifies the binding. He is therefore not forgiven.
In the language of Shakespeare: "Can a man be pardoned and retain the
offense?" In case the offense is not merely against an individual but
general, that is, against the church or society we have another law, set forth
in a noted example (1 Cor.5:1-13): "One of you hath his father's wife. And
ye are puffed up and did not rather mourn, that he that hath done this deed
might be taken away from among you. For I verily, being absent in body but
present in spirit, have already, as though I were present, judged him that hath
so wrought this thing, in the name of our Lord Jesus, ye being gathered
together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, to deliver such a
one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the Spirit may be saved
in the day of the Lord Jesus . . . Put away the wicked man from among
yourselves."
The conclusion of the case appears in 2 Corinthians 2:4-11: "Sufficient to
such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the many; so that
contrariwise ye should rather forgive him and comfort him lest by any means
such a one should be swallowed up with his overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech
you to confirm your love toward him. For to this end also did I write, that I
might know the proof of you, whether ye are obedient in all things. But to whom
ye forgive anything, I forgive also: for what I also have forgiven, if I have
forgiven anything, for your sakes have I forgiven it in the person of Christ;
that no advantage may be gained over us by Satan."
God thus demands of the church, as well as of the individual, proof of obedience
to his law of forgiveness. There must be no forgiveness without repentance. To
forgive without it, while possibly easy to us, is ruinous to the transgressor.
To gain him – to so labor in love and firmness as to lead him to repentance –
this is toil indeed and travail of soul.
But let us look more closely into this matter. If we forgive the trespasser
against ourselves, without repentance on his part, we must claim to do so on
some Christian principle. But where is our principle? We admit that out of regard
for the majesty of the law and justice, God did not forgive us, while we were
impenitent, and that God's mercy toward us is the only measure of forgiveness
we may extend toward others. "How, then, readest thou?" "And be
ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving each other, EVEN AS God also
in Christ forgave you" (Eph. 4:32). Mark the measure – "even as"
– and note that God never forgave us except (a) "in Christ," who
satisfied the law claim, and (b) on condition of our repentance.
Again: "Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors"
(Matt. 6:12): "Release, and ye shall be released" (Luke 6:37).;
"Forgive us our sins; for we ourselves also forgive everyone indebted to
us" (Luke 11:4); "And whensoever ye stand praying, forgive, if ye
have aught against anyone; that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive
you your trespasses" (Mark 11.: 25); "Forgiving each other, if any
man have a complaint against any; even as the Lord forgave you, so also do
ye" (Col. 3:13).
Very clearly these scriptures teach that our measure of duty and model in the
exercise of forgiveness toward each other are found in God's mercy toward us.
We cannot be more righteous or merciful than God.
Suppose a case: A man who has forgiven a sin against himself without penitence
on the part of the offender, begins to pray to God: "Father, forgive my
sins against thee as I have forgiven sins against me!" Do look at that
prayer! Analyze and interpret it! Here is the analysis and import: (a) The roan
offers himself as a model for God. (b) The man forgiving an impenitent offender
against himself, asks God, on that account, to forgive him without requiring
repentance, (c) The man forgives a debtor owing him one farthing and asks, on
that account, that himself be forgiven ten thousand talents – a lucrative
transaction! (d) "As I, the model of God, forgive sins against myself
without requiring repentance therefore, let all sinners gather from my case,
that they may reasonably hope to be forgiven at last, even though living and
dying without repentance, for God ought to be as merciful as I am."
The whole case may be summed up thus: Outside of Christ the law demands the
uttermost farthing – there is no forgiveness. In Christ there is abundant
forgiveness, for he has satisfied law. But there is no access to the
forgiveness in Christ without repentance. Therefore there can be no release, no
loosing, no remission of sin) in any case, without repentance. In the case of
the sinner against God the gospel says, "Repent that your sins may be
blotted out." In the case of thy brother against thee: "If he repent,
forgive him." In the same case, if he repent not, it being now a case
against the church: "Loose" him, if he hear the church and repent –
otherwise "bind" him. In the general offense against the church:
"Put him away from among you, until in his repentance he is likely to be
swallowed up with overmuch sorrow, then forgive him." Such is the divine
law.
The reader may easily master the whole subject of man's forgiveness by first considering
the Greek terms employed in such cases, all of which in our common version are
translated "forgive." These terms are:
Apoluo, to release, employed in Luke
6:37.
Charizornai, to freely forgive,
employed in 2 Corinthians 2:7, 10; 12:13; Ephesians 4.32; Colossians 3:13.
Aphiemi, to loose, to remit, employed in Matthew 6:12, 14-15; 18:21-35;
Mark 11:25-26; Luke 11:4; 17:3-4.
Second, by considering our Lord's four lesson connecting our forgiveness of
each other with our own prayers for divine forgiveness. These, in the order of
time, are: (a) Matthew 6: 12-15; (b) Matthew 18:21-35; (c) Luke 11:1-4; (d)
Mark 11:25 (v. 26 omitted in revised text as not genuine).
Third, by noting; (a) The law of forgiveness in regard to an offense against an
individual so long as it remains an individual matter (Luke 17:3-4) ; the law
in the same case when it becomes a church matter (Matt. 18:15-20) ; the law in
general offenses against the church or society (1 Cor.5:1-13; 2 Cor. 2:5-11).
Just here are restated the broad propositions maintained in this discussion:
The gospel requires repentance as an indispensable condition of forgiveness in
the case of all offenses, whether (a) against God; (b) the church; (c) or an
individual. God's method of mercy toward us, is the standard measure or model
toward each other. The only part of either proposition, usually denied by some
Christians, is that repentance must be required in individual offenses. They
affirm that we must forgive offenses against us, absolutely, without any regard
to repentance.
This view seems obnoxious to the following criticisms: (1) It arises from a
misconception of the import of forgiveness. Forgiveness must not be confounded
with benevolence. Our Heavenly Father causes his sun to shine and sends the rain
on the evil as well as the good, but he will not forgive them without
repentance. Forgiveness is not simply to be free from malice. Our hearts may be
full of love, tenderness, compassion, and solicitude for the offender whom we
may not forgive in his impenitence. Forgiveness is not leaving vengeance to
God. This we must do, no matter how great the offense against us, nor how
impenitent the offender. Withholding forgiveness until the offender repents
does not stop us from loving, persistent, prayerful labor to lead him to
repentance. Nor does it imply the absence of a forgiving spirit – a readiness
and desire to forgive – when it can be done consistent with God's will and the
offender's good. Whoever cherishes bitter and malicious feelings, thinks vengeful
thoughts, cultivates censorious and uncharitable judgments concerning an
offender, and withholds in his behalf love, compassion, prayer, and labor,
while sheltering under the plea: "I may not forgive him until he
repents" misses the mark all along the line, manifests an utterly
unchristian spirit and is himself in danger of the judgment. Forgiveness is a
law term implying the fair cancellation of the accounts releasing or loosing
from what was done, but is now fully satisfied. Hence it is in Christ, who met
all law claims, only this abundance of forgiveness is not available or
accessible to the impenitent. No man can check on this fund in favor of an
impenitent offender.
(2) To forgive without repentance is therefore doing despite to the majesty of
the law.
(3) It not only does not "gain thy brother," but it obstructs and
stops God's gracious means for gaining him, thereby doing him a grievous
injury.
(4) It works incalculable injury to the one who so forgives. seeing it arises
from his selfishness, which finds it easier to remit an offense than to labor
to restore and gain his offending brother, in God's appointed but painful and
wearisome way.
(5) It feeds sinners with false and fatal hopes, who say, "If these
Christians, who are representatives and exponents of the gospel, forgive
impenitent offenders against them, surely God, who is infinitely more merciful
than they are, will find some way to forgive us at last, even though we live
and die without repentance."
We close this discussion with the forceful words of Dr. John A. Broadus.
Commenting on the expression in our Lord's prayer, (Matt. 6:12) "Forgive
us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors," he says: "But
like many terms expressive of Christian duty, the word forgive has come to be
often used in a weakened sense, and many anxious minds are misled by its
ambiguity. If forgive means merely to 'bear no malice' (Eccl. 28:7), to abstain
from revenge, leaving that to God (Rom. 12:19), then in that sense we ought to
forgive every wrongdoer, even though impenitent, and still our enemy. But this
is not the Scripture use of the word forgive; and in the full sense of the term
it is not our duty, and not even proper, to forgive one who has wronged us,
until he confesses the wrong, and this with such unquestioned sincerity and
genuine change of feeling and purpose as to show him worthy of being restored
to our confidence and regard. Thus our Lord says (Luke 17:3, Rev. Ver.), If thy
brother sin, rebuke him: and if he repent, forgive him.' Here again the example
of our Heavenly Father illustrates the command to us. He sends rain and
sunshine on the evil and the good (comp. on 5:45), but he does not forgive men,
restoring them to his confidence and affection, until they sincerely and
thoroughly repent. In judging as to the sincerity and trustworthiness of those
who profess repentance our Lord inculcated great patience and charitable
judgment. If a wrong forgiven is repeated a second or third time, we are apt to
lose all patience and refuse to forgive again; but he said, If he sin against
thee seven times in the day, and seven times turn again to thee, saying, I
repent; thou shalt forgive him' (Luke 17:4, Rev. Ver.). Nay, in Matthew 18:21f,
he makes it even 'seventy times seven' – not, of course, as an exact limit, but
as a general and very strong injunction of long-suffering and charitable
judgment toward human infirmity." (Corn. on Matt. pp. 137-138.)
The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance (Rom. 2:4). The motives and
encouragements to repent, that may be deduced from God's goodness, are
necessarily in line with the first motive presented, "The Lord is willing
that all men should repent," but deserve separate treatment.
We cite two scriptures: "Despisest thou the riches of his goodness and
forbearance and long-suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth
thee to repentance." (Rom. 1:4.) "Account that the long-suffering of
our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul, also, according to the
wisdom given to him, wrote unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in
them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the
ignorant and unsteadfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto
their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:15-16). On these scriptures, construed
together, observe:
(1) The meaning of the terms "goodness, forbearance, and
long-suffering." They express, in general, the kindness and benevolence of
God in bestowing favors on sinful men, his slowness to take offense and his
long-withholding of well merited punishment.
(2) The object of this goodness is the "salvation" of its
beneficiaries.
(3) We are not allowed to discredit or set aside this object by our
construction of other scriptures, "hard to be understood," which treat
of election and predestination. For example, we must not so construe Romans
9:11-23 as to over turn Romans 2:4. We must not "wrest" these hard
scriptures to the "destruction" of men, when God requires us to
"account his goodness as meaning their salvation."
(4) In this goodness is not merely a vague desire for men's salvation, but an
active, positive "leading to repentance" as a step toward salvation.
(5) Through guilty ignorance of the object of this goodness, men despise it and
resist its leading.
In awakening and stimulating motives to repentance, this theme affords
wonderful opportunity for displaying the impartial benignity of our Heavenly
Father, who not only in nature "maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the
good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust," thus "not leaving
himself without witness that he did good to men, giving them from heaven rains
and fruitful seasons, filling their hearts with food and gladness," but
also in the riches of grace has provided abundant salvation for the greatest
sinners, "so loving the world as to give his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth on him might not perish, but have eternal life."
But the capital point – the one calling for special emphasis in treatment – is
the active, positive leading of this benignity towards repentance; a leading
which can be felt and appealed to; a leading or "drawing of the
Father," John 6:44, as though he took a prodigal's band in his, that he
might guide him safely over dangerous paths; a leading which is but another
word for the Spirit's striving; a leading that softly and lovingly persuades,
but will not drive; a leading of attraction emanating from him who said,
"And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me." And yet a
leading that may be resisted. Ah! the sad picture, God's goodness leading and
guilty man's resisting! Let the preacher remember that he is dealing with dense
ignorance, sinners "not knowing" the direction and object of this
leading. "I wot, brethren that through ignorance ye did it," says Peter
to the murderers of Jesus. "I did it ignorantly and in unbelief,"
says Paul of his persecutions. Let the preacher also remember that he
represents One "who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that
are out of the way," One who "is merciful and gracious, slow to
anger, and plenteous in mercy," who also "knoweth our frame and
remembereth that we are dust."
QUESTIONS
1. Repeat in scriptural
language the third motive to repentance.
2. What does this
exhortation imply?
3. Illustrate the completeness
of the "blotting out."
4. Quote the scriptures
cited to prove this completeness. (Isa. 43:25; 44:22; Psalm 103:12; Micah
7:19.)
5. State, in clear, strong
terms, the relation between repentance and
the blotting out of sins as taught in Acts 3:19.
6. Yet what delusion
prevails in the world?
7. How alone may teachers
and preachers of the gospel dispel this illusion?
8. Quote the three other
scriptures cited which show the relation between repentance and remission of sins
(Luke 24:46-47; Acts 2:38; Mark 1:4).
9. Do Christian teachers
generally concede and teach this relation in the case of God and the sinner?
10. In what case do some of
them deny its application?
11. Quote the New Testament
law (Luke 17:3-4) showing that repentance is indispensable to forgiveness, even
in the case of man's sin against man.
12. Quote the law when this
individual offense becomes a sin against
the church. (Matt. 18:15-18.)
13. State the analysis of
this law as embodied in the six remarks on it.
14. Quote the question
Shakespeare puts in the mouth of Hamlet's uncle, state the circumstances
calling it forth, and show the application to the principle under discussion.
15. State the case and the
law as embodied in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13;
2 Corinthians 2:4-11, where the offense is not merely against an
individual but general, i.e., against the church and society.
16. Which is easier, to
forgive an offense without requiring repentance, or to bring the offender to repentance?
17. On what Christian
principle may forgiveness be extended to an
offender who will not repent?
18. Quote Ephesians 4:32;
Matthew 6:12; Luke 6:37; 11:4; Mark II:
25; Colossians 3:13 and answer: Is the principle here?
19. What measure and model of
duty concerning forgiveness do they teach?
20. If a man forgive an
offense against himself without requiring
repentance of the offender, and then prays, "Father, forgive my
sins against thee, as I have forgiven sins
against me," analyze the prayer.
21. How may the whole case
be summed up?
22. By what three
considerations may we master the whole subject
of man's forgiveness of man?
23. Restate the two broad
propositions maintained in this discussion.
24. To what five criticisms
is the view that "we ought to forgive offenses against us without
requiring repentance," justly obnoxious?
25. On the other hand, who
misses the mark all along the line?
26. What said Dr. Broadus
about it in his commentary?
27. Repeat in. scriptural
language the fourth motive to repentance,
as given in this chapter.
28. Quote in full the two
scriptures cited as teaching this motive.
29. Give the analysis of
their teaching as embodied in the five observations.
30. Can you repeat Cardinal
Newman's poem, "Lead, Kindly Light"?
31. In awakening and
stimulating repentance, what opportunity does
this theme afford?
32. What capital point in
the treatment of the theme calla for special emphasis?
33. What also should the
preacher remember?
MOTIVES AND ENCOURAGEMENTS TO REPENTANCE
(CONCLUDED)
Joy in heaven – "There shall be Joy in heaven over one sinner that
repenteth, more than over ninety and nine righteous persons that need no
repentance." "There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over
one sinner that repenteth." "It was meet to make merry and be glad;
for this thy brother was dead, and is alive; and was lost, and is found"
(Luke 15:7, 10,32).
First, in deriving motives to repentance from these scriptures, we should note
the occasion and object of the three parables – the lost sheep, or one out of a
hundred; the lost coin, or one out of ten; the lost son, or one out of two. The
occasion was: "Now all the publicans and sinners were drawing near unto
him to hear him. And both the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying, This
man receiveth sinners and eateth with them" (Luke 15:1.) Our Lord's object
was to justify his own interest in sinners and to rebuke those who murmured at
it.
Second, we must determine whose was the joy; who the sharers of the joy; where
the joy was exercised and exhibited, and the reasonableness and propriety of
its exercise and exhibition. It is easy to determine whose was the joy. It was
the owner of the lost sheep, who, having found it, laid it on his shoulder,
rejoicing. Well might he say, "It was my sheep. It was lost. I have found
it. I rejoice." It was the owner of the lost coin, who, having found it,
said to others, "Rejoice with me. It was my money. It was my loss. Its
finding is my gain. The joy is mine." It was the father of the lost boy
who, seeing the prodigal coming home, ran to meet him and kissed him much and
rejoiced the most. And as the shepherd and woman and father of the parables
represent respectively God the Son, who came to seek and to save the lost; God
the Spirit, by whose light and sweeping the lost is discovered; God the
Heavenly Father, who welcomes the returning prodigal, evidently the joy is the joy
of the triune God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So testifies the prophet:
"The Lord thy God . . . he will save; he will rejoice over thee with joy;
he will rest in his love; he will joy over thee with singing" (Zeph.
3:17).
It was the prospect of this very joy, set before him 88 a recompense, which
enabled God the Son to endure the cross and despise the shame (Heb. 12:2), and
having endured the one and despised the other, though for a time they made him
"a man of sorrow and acquainted with grief," now awaits the
fulfilment of another scripture: "God, thy God, hath anointed thee with
the oil of gladness above thy fellows." "Verily, he shall see of the
travail of his soul and shall be satisfied." "When he shall come to
be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe, in that
day." Mark the tense: "There shall be joy." The sharers of the
divine joy, represented in the first two parables by "the friends and
neighbors," and in the third by "his servants," are evidently
the "angels of God" (v. 10). "Are they not all ministering
spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation"
(Heb. 1:14)? The place of the joy is heaven – God's home – the Father's house
of "many mansions." As saith the Scripture: "Sing, O ye heavens;
for the Lord hath done it" (Isa. 44:23). The reasonableness and propriety
of the Joy lies in the fact that an owner has recovered vaulable property of
which he was wrongfully bereft; a father recovers his own lost child, yea,
finds him alive that had been dead.
Third, we must carefully note (a) that all this joy was over the fact that
"one sinner repented," and (b) it was more joy than heaven
experiences over all the Pharisees in the world, who murmur at or are
indifferent to the salvation of sinners. Having thus determined the occasion
and object of the three parables – whose the joy; who its sharers; where the
joy and why, and that so great joy is over the salvation of every one penitent
– even greater joy than over all the impenitent in the world, we are now
prepared to construct a motive to repentance of great power. We may even
anticipate the process of thought by which it works its silent, conquering way
into the sinner's mind, unsealing his tears, bringing him down on his knees,
causing him to smite his wicked heart and cry out: "God be merciful to me,
the sinner."
For, beholding the foregoing facts, how can he help reasoning thus: Surely
heaven's view of this soul-saving business is widely different from earth's
view? And as heaven is higher and better than earth, that must be the just
view. And if God and angels are thus concerned over one soul, that soul must be
of infinite value – so valuable that there is no exchange for it, no profit in
gaining the whole world if I lose it. Hitherto I have made hell glad, but now
by pulling this rope of penitence down here, I can set to ringing all the bells
of heaven. Surely if Jesus so loves me as to leave heaven to find and save me;
if "the love of the Spirit" is a lighted lamp illuminating the darkness
where I wander; if the Father is waiting to welcome me, the prodigal, and ready
to embrace and kiss me much, giving white robes for my pitiful rags, a royal
feast for the husks, fit only for swine, on which hitherto I would fain satisfy
my hunger – ah! my soul – then thou hast misunderstood God; and now I change my
mind toward God – I repent! I repent!
"For the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2). This phrase,
meaning reign or sovereignty of heaven, is peculiar to Matthew's Jewish Gospel.
It presupposes a familiarity with both earlier and later prophetic utterances
(Isa. 1:39; 9:6-7; 11:1-10; Micah 4:1-8; Jer. 23:5-6; Ezek. 37:24; Dan. 2:44;
7:13-14), and an expectation of their fulfilment. The announcement, therefore,
that this frequently foretold and long-awaited reign "has drawn
near," and the making this nearness a ground for repentance, suggests at
once to the mind the character of the motive. The primal idea is prompt and
urgent preparation to meet and receive the kingly guest Just at hand, with all readiness
of submission to his government. That is, there must be prepared at once a
straight, open way to the heart for this King, almost here; room provided in
the heart for his abode; a suitable fitting up of the room for his indwelling,
which implies the expulsion of all preceding guests, and the removal of all
furniture, hitherto used, repugnant to him; a standing ready at the door to
welcome him; a recognition in the welcome of his sole sovereignty, with
unqualified submission to his rule. We see then that if repentance means
preparation to receive God, and if God's visible coming and reign, far off in
the prophecies, is now at hand, the motive to repent must connect with and
gather force from that nearness, which makes it one of urgency, calling for prompt
and exclusive attention. In railroad parlance, John's exhortation,
"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," is equal to the
dispatch announcing: "Through passenger train coming, with full right of
way; clear the main track, sidetrack everything, and close against them all the
switches connecting with the main line." Yea, in the exhortation, we not
only see the distant smoke and hear the faint rumble of the rapidly rolling
cars, but we hear the shriek of the whistle and see the glare of the headlight.
The motive is an awakening one, dispelling all drowsiness; a stirring one,
exciting all activities; a masterful one, subordinating all other concerns. The
"at hand" of the kingdom suggests a secondary but very precious
motive to repentance, thus: Repentance is a change of mind toward God
concerning a course of sin leading rapidly down to death and eternal ruin. Now,
if man be on this road to death, it seeming right to him, I have been cruel,
not benevolent to him in dispelling his illusion by a revelation of the certain
speedy, irreparable ruin ahead of him; if there be no available way of escape.
I only make him die in apprehension before the reality, hastening and
multiplying his hell. But if, as a motive to change his mind and turn, I
announce the kingdom of heaven, with its forgiveness and salvation, not afar
off, but "at hand"; if he be even now on the crumbling verge of hell,
almost aflame as a brand exposed to the burning, and I can show him, in the
nearness of the kingdom of heaven, salvation, instant, perfect, and eternal
(Luke 23:43; Rom. 10:6-8), then I do him inestimable good, and not evil at all.
"The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth
men that they should all everywhere repent" (Acts 17:30). This motive arises
from the obligations of light, privilege and opportunity. Its strength is
measured by the degree of the light. It is supplied from many other scriptures
– indeed, from the tenor and trend of all the scriptures. It reveals the
justice of God in requiring of men according to what they have, and not
according to what they have not. As this is a great principle of the divine
justice, the reader would do well to study it in the light of the following
scriptures, which will furnish many sermons, and in which this great motive may
be defined, illustrated and enforced: Numbers 15:24-31; Psalm 19:12-13; Matthew
11:22-24; 12: 41-42; Luke 23:34; Acts 3:17; 1 Timothy 1:13; Hebrews 10:26-29.
God's sovereignty in the degree of light given. "For if the mighty works which
were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented
long ago in sackcloth and ashes." This is a marvelous scripture, teaching
a solemn lesson, and suggesting an urgent motive to instant repentance. The
facts disclosed are: (a) That the people of Tyre and Sidon, as well as the
people of Chorazin and Bethsaida, had light enough for repentance, (b) That the
latter people had more light than the former people, (c) That neither people
repented and both are lost. (d) That if the former had been blessed with as
much light as the latter enjoyed, they would have repented, (e) That it shall
be more tolerable in the day of judgment for the people who had less light.
The emphatic point in the lesson is that men have no claim on God as to the
amount of light, privilege and opportunity; and may not presume that he will
increase them until they do repent.
The Ninevites found sufficient light in one sermon of just eight words – a
sermon announcing ruin – uttered by a stranger who earnestly desired their
overthrow and deprecated their salvation. A preacher, ignorant of God's
sovereignty and man's extreme peril, once said, "Whenever God cuts off a
wicked boy or man by early death, it is proof that he foreknew that the boy or
man would not have repented under any circumstances." This statement from
the pulpit is a flat and palpable contradiction of our Lord's own words (Matt.
11:20-24), and was well calculated to encourage sinners to delay repentance, in
the delusive hope of greater light some future day.
God's sovereignty in the space given for repentance. The Scriptures do teach
that God graciously allows the wicked space for repentance, during which the
death penalty already deserved and pronounced is suspended, while the Spirit
strives and Jesus pleads, but they nowhere leave the measure of that space to
the sinner, and seldom, though sometimes, disclose its extent. The space of the
Antediluvians was, "while the ark was a preparing" (1 Peter 3:20). In
this space, Christ in the Spirit (1 Peter 3:19; Gen. 6:3), through Noah (2
Peter 2:5), preached righteousness. The Ninevites had a space of forty days
(Jonah 2:4). Nebuchadnezzar had a space of twelve months after the sentence
"hew down the tree" (Dan. 4:14-15, 27, 29). The Jews had their final
year, their day of visitation, which they did not know (Luke 13:6-9; 19:42;
Mark 11:12-14, 21-22). Even the woman Jezebel had her space (Rev. 2:21), as
also did Esau (Heb. 12:16-17).
This motive, like the preceding one, obtains its force from the fact that we have
no more power to increase the time which God, in his sovereignty, may allot for
repentance than to increase the light, which is given according to his own good
pleasure. Hence we should repent now and walk heavenward in the first beam of
light, lest there be no tomorrow and lest the light shine no more forever.
Repent ye therefore . . . that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the
presence of the Lord; and that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed
for you, even Jesus: "whom the heaven must receive until the time of
restoration of all things" (Acts 3:19-21). Here are four mighty motives
grouped (beside one already discussed), which cannot be fully understood or
felt except from a Jewish standpoint. Hence we prefer to discuss them together,
(a) The first is suggested by the "therefore" pointing back to their
denial and crucifixion of their own Messiah (w. 13-17), while blinded by the
veil of ignorance (v. 18; 2 Cor. 3:14-15). This dark sin calleth for
repentance. It is a Jewish sin even till this day. (b) The second points to
"the seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord," which will
never come to the Jewish people and land until they repent and "look on
him whom they have pierced" (Zech. 12:10-14; 13:1; Rom. 11:1-36). (c) This
national repentance and salvation of the Jews must precede the second coming of
our Lord. Their delay of repentance delays his coming – their repentance will
hasten and herald his coming (v. 20; 2 Peter 3:4-10). Repent ye Jews, that
Jesus may come. (d) The restoration of all things (Rom. 8: 19-24; 2 Peter 3:13;
Rev. 21:1) follows our Lord's coming (v. 21) which awaits the repentance of the
Jews. Repent therefore, ye Jews, that the Father may send our Lord, bringing a
restoration of all things. He has promised to come quickly – why comes he not?
He is not slack concerning that promise, but is unwilling that Israel should
perish, and awaits their life from the dead.
Then, O ye Gentiles, where is your mission to the Jews? Where are your prayers
for ancient Israel? How long will you prefer to tread down Jerusalem? Is it
nothing to you, as you pass by, that no rain has fallen on Israel for nearly
two thousand years?
0 the drouth! The drouth! O the desert! The desert! whose wastes are burning
sands and whose skies are molten brass! Cannot you, the beneficiaries of
Israel's fall, pray for rain that the Jewish desert may blossom as a rose? Do
you want Jesus to come? Then help Israel. Do you long for the good country
whose inhabitants are never sick, and never weep, and never die, but ever see
the face of God – then HELP ISRAELI "Because he hath appointed a day, in
which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath
ordained ; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised
him from the dead" (Acts 17:31). Here looms up the "great white
throne" as a motive to repentance. We see the judge coming in flaming
fire, with angels and justified spirits (2 Thess. 1:7-8; 1 Thess. 4:14; Jude
14-15) ; the resurrection of the dead, and transfiguration of the righteous
living (1 Cor.15:51-52; 1 Thess. 4:16-17); the gathering of all the dead before
the throne (Rev. 20:11-12) ; the great separation (Matt. 25:31-32); the final
destiny (Matt. 25:46; Rom. 2:6-11; 2 Thess. 1:6-10; Rev. 20:12-15; 22:4-15).
Surely that wicked heart is adamant that gathers no motive to repentance from
these certain, rapidly approaching, sublime, dreadful and glorious
transactions. And the assurance of that judgment is Christ's resurrection (Acts
17:31).
If the tomb be empty the judgment cometh.
"Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:35). This
motive is twofold: (a) "perish;" (b) "likewise," that
perish suddenly, unexpectedly, for so perished the Galileans at their altars,
and the eighteen on whom the tower of Siloam fell. The "perishing"
has been set forth in the Scriptures under the preceding motive; its suddenness
must be considered here. In a thunderstorm we expect to see some tree riven by
lightning – in the cyclone some uprooted. These calamities have their forecast
and take us not by surprise. But if when the summer sky is bright and the air
is deadly still, a giant tree of the field, under which weary laborers rest at
noon, falls without wind or warning, that is the unexpected disaster. So perish
the impenitent. So it was in the days of Noah; they were eating and drinking,
marrying and giving in marriage when the flood came, and swept them all
suddenly and unabsolved into eternity. So perished Sodom and Gomorrah, now
suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. And so it shall be in the day of the
Son of Man (Luke 17:26-30). "He that, being often reproved, hardeneth his
neck, shall suddenly be destroyed and that without remedy" (Prov. 29:1).
"Their foot shall slide in due time" (Deut. 32:35). Though for a time
"they are not in trouble as other men; though their eyes stand out with
fatness; though they set their mouth against the heavens and their tongue
walketh through the earth," yet, "surely thou dost set them in
slippery places; thou castedst them down into destruction." "How are
they brought into desolation, as in a moment! They are utterly consumed with
terrors" (Psalm 73:5,7,9, 18-19). The power of this motive finds an
unparalleled illustration in the effect of Jonathan Edwards' great sermon,
"Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God."
And now, in a very imperfect way, far below the transcendent importance of the
theme, I have brought to a close my discussions on repentance. I have felt
constrained to deal earnestly with so great a subject, because impressed with
the shallowness of treatment it usually receives in modern pulpits. O young
preachers, remember that the plow is needed, and I exhort you to plow deep when
you break up fallow ground!
I may add only that all the relations of repentance have not been considered in
these four chapters. Its important relation to baptism and church membership
has not been noted. Let it suffice here to state as a vital law that only
penitent believers are gospel subjects of baptism and church membership. Nor has
opportunity been afforded to discriminate, in important particulars, between
the one repentance of the sinner culminating in faith, and the many repentances
of the Christian after conversion – a discrimination so wanting in the
Philadelphia Confession of Faith, and which confession was borrowed from the
Westminster Confession.
QUESTIONS
1. What fifth motive to
repentance is given in this chapter?
2. In what book and chapter
of the New Testament do we find it?
3. In what kind of teaching is
it embodied?
4. Quote the three passages
cited which enforce the motive.
5. In deriving a motive to
repentance from these scriptures what three things must be done?
6. State then first, the
occasion and object of these three parables: Whose is the Joy? Repeat Zephaniah
3:17 and Hebrews 12:2. Who are the sharers of it? What have they to do with
men's salvation (Heb. 1:4)? Where is the joy exercised and exhibited? What is
the reasonableness of it? What two other things must be noted?
7. State the probable
process of reasoning in the sinner's mind from the foregoing facts, leading up
to repentance.
8. State, in scriptural
language, the sixth motive cited.
9. What means the phrase,
"kingdom of heaven," and to what gospel is it peculiar?
10. With what Old Testament
prophecies does it presuppose familiarity and expectation of fulfilment?
11. What fact concerning
this kingdom is made the ground of the exhortation to repentance?
12. What then is the primal
idea involved?
13. Describe the urgency by a
railway illustration.
14. What secondary idea
involved suggests an additional motive?
15. State, in scriptural
language, the seventh motive.
16. From what obligation
does the motive arise?
17. What principle of divine
justice rules in the matter?
18. What other scriptures
define, illustrate, and enforce this motive?
19. From what proposition is
derived the eighth motive?
20. Quote the scripture
(Matt. 11:21-24) establishing the truth of the proposition.
21. What five facts does this
scripture set forth?
22. What is the emphatic
point in the lesson?
23. On what minimum of light
did the Ninevites repent?
24. What said a preacher
once on this subject?
25. What is the author's
criticism on his statement?
26. From what kindred
proposition is derived the ninth motive?
27. What do the Scriptures
teach about this space?
28. Is the measure of this
space left to man?
29. Cite the measure of the
Antediluvian space and the scripture bearing on it.
30. How long was the Ninevite
space? Nebuchadnezzar's?
31. What scriptures show the
space allotted to the Jews in the time of Jesus?
32. What concerning this
space is said of Jezebel? Of Esau?
33. From what fact does this
motive derive its force?
34. Recite verbatim revised text
of Acts 3:19-21.
35. How many distinct
motives are appealed to here?
36. Which one had already
been considered?
37. From what standpoint
must the remaining four be best understood?
38. How is the first of the
four suggested?
39. To what facts calling
for repentance does the "therefore" point back?
40. To what hope does the
second of these four motives point?
41. What two scriptures,
designated from many, bear on the withholding of "refreshings" from
the Jews until they repent (Rom. 11:1-36; Zech. 12:10-14; 13:1)?
42. To what hope does the
third of these motives point?
43. What is the relation of
time and order of precedence, according to this text, between the national
Jewish repentance and Christ's second advent?
44. What bearing, according
to 1 Peter 3:4-10, has their delay in repentance on the second advent?
45. To what hope does the
fourth of these motives point?
46. What scriptures show the
nature and extent of this restoration of all things, and that it follows our
Lord's second coming?
47. How should these facts
affect the Jew?
48. What duties to the Jews
ought the facts to suggest to Gentile Christians?
49. Recite, in scriptural
language, the eleventh motive.
50. State what order of
stupendous events this motive brings to view citing the scriptures which teach
them.
51. In what stupendous fact
has God given assurance of this judgment to all men?
52. State in scriptural
language the twelfth motive.
53. State the twofold nature
of the motive.
54. The first fold having
been previously considered, what is the essence of the second fold.
55. Illustrate from trees.
56. Illustrate by the days
of Noah – by the case of Sodom and Gomorrah.
57. Quote the pertinent
passage from Proverbs; from Deuteronomy from the psalms.
58. What is the relation
between repentance and baptism and consequently between repentance and church
membership?
THE MINISTRY OF JOHN THE BAPTIST
(CONTINUED)
Harmony pages 14-16 and Matthew 3:11-17; Mark 1:1-11;
Luke 3:15-23.
In several preceding chapters we have turned aside somewhat from the regular
course of the narrative to consider, at length, at its first New Testament
appearance, the vital and fundamental doctrine of repentance, as preached
originally by John the Baptist, and continued by our Lord and all his apostles.
We have seen that while John had clear conceptions of the etymology of words
and of doctrines in their abstract sense, he was no mere theorist, but
intensely practical, insisting on concrete truth as embodied in the daily life.
To him, therefore. repentance was as inseparable from fruits, worthy of it, as
a tree is from its proper fruits. Hence he not only urges reformation in its
positive and negative sense of "ceasing to do evil and learning to do
well," but the instant and continuous responsibility to an inexorable
judgment at the hands of the coming Messiah. "And even now the ax lieth at
the root of the trees; every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit
is hewn down and cast into the fire. . . . Whose fan is in his hand, and he
will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor; and he will gather his wheat into
his garner, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire." We now
come to the comparison instituted by John between Christ and himself: "I
indeed baptize you in water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is
mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you in
the Holy Spirit and in fire." On this remarkable passage observe:
First, no comparison is instituted between the water baptism of John and the
water baptism administered by our Lord through his disciples. They are exactly
the same in subject, act and design, as has already been shown, but the
comparison is wholly between the dignity of Christ's superior person, office
and power, and John's inferior person, office and power. la dignity of person
John counts not himself worthy to loose the latchet of the Messiah's sandals.
The Messiah is mightier than John, equaling him indeed in water baptism, but
exceeding him in two other baptisms, to wit: baptism in the Holy Spirit, and
baptism in fire.
The controversies of the ages arise on the meaning of "He shall baptize
you in the Holy Spirit and in fire." The first question to be answered is:
Do baptism in the Spirit and in fire mean the same thing? In other words, is
"baptism in fire" epexegetical of baptism in the Spirit? If they are
identical in meaning, then what is the baptism in the Holy Spirit and in fire?
And when, where, how, and why first administered by our Lord? And is it
continuous now as well as then? But if baptism in the Spirit and baptism in
fire be two distinct things. then what is the baptism in fire, and where, when,
why and by whom administered? There is more confusion of mind, and more
inconsistency of interpretation on these questions than on any other New
Testament problems.
My own interpretation of the passage, and my answers to the questions are worth
no more than the common sense and argument back of them. In general terms I
refer first to three sermons in my first volume of sermons, entitled severally:
(1) baptism in water; (2) baptism in the Holy Spirit; (3) baptism in fire.
Second, in my interpretation of Acts 2 there is an elaborate discussion of the
baptism in the Holy Spirit, where for the first time in the history of the
world it ever occurred. Just here we need something, clear indeed, but far less
elaborate. Here, on one point at least, and much as I deprecate it, I must
utterly dissent from Dr. Alexander Maclaren, commonly regarded as the prince of
Baptist expositors.
In the first volume of his elaborate exposition of Matthew, he labors at great
length to prove that "baptism in fire" is epexegetical of "baptism
in the Holy Spirit." leaving the general impression on my mind, at least,
that "baptism in fire" means cleansing or purification, about equal
in force to sanctification. At other times I don't know what he means. For if
baptism in the Spirit and in fire is equivalent to sanctification, then how is
it there was never in the history of the world, a baptism in the Spirit before
the first Pentecost after Christ's resurrection? Surely men were spiritually
cleansed, sanctified before that date. My own mind is clear on the following
negations:
(1) Baptism in the Holy Spirit is not regeneration, nor conversion, nor
sanctification, but an entirely new thing, a thing of promise, unknown to the
world until the first Pentecost after our Lord's resurrection and exaltation.
Whatever it is, it is wholly connected with the advent and administration of
that "other Paraclete," the Holy Spirit, who as Christ's alter ego,
rules the churches on earth, while Christ remains, rules, and interests in
heaven.
(2) The baptism in fire is not cleansing, but destructive and punitive, the
exercise of sovereign judgment by our Lord, unto whom as the Son of Man, all
judgment has been committed. Its punitive character as judgment takes
cognizance only of one's attitude toward and treatment of Christ in his cause
and people as presented by the gospel. It is exercised now on nations or
cities, as Jerusalem A.D. 70, and on the souls of the wicked when they die, as
Dives in the parable (Luke 16:2324); and on the bodies of all the living wicked
in the great world-fire of the final advent (Mal. 4:1-2; 2 Peter 3:7-10) and
finds its highest expression, when after the final judgment, the wicked, both
souls and bodies, are baptized in the lake of fire (Matt. 10:28; Rev.
20:14-15).
That Dr. Maclaren is mistaken about the import of baptism in fire appears from
the context. Read carefully the three verses, Matthew 3:10-12. The tenth verse
closes: "Every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn
down, and cast into the fire." The eleventh verse closes: "He will
baptize you in fire." The twelfth verse closes: "But the chaff he
will burn up with unquenchable fire."
It violates every sound principle of interpretation to make "fire" in
the middle verse of the context mean something radically different from the
"fire" in the first and third verses. There can be no doubt of the
destructive, punitive character of the fire in verses ten and twelve; there
should be none of the like import in verse eleven intervening. This becomes more
evident when we consider that John is interpreting Malachi 3:1 to 4:3. The
whole context of the prophecy shows that when the Messiah comes he will
discriminate between evil and good persons (not mixed evil and good in one
person), and separate them one from another by diverse fates, so that there
would be no difficulty in discerning between the righteous and the wicked,
between him that serveth God, and him that serveth him not. The refiner's fire
of Malachi 3:2-3 has not a different purpose from the fire that burns like an
oven in 4:1. We doubt not the appropriateness of using the refiner's fire to
represent the purifying work in individual character, as set forth by the hymn:
"Thy dross to consume, thy gold to refine." And this would be a genuine
work of sanctification. But such is not Malachi's idea, in this connection, nor
that of John the Baptist, as appears not only from 3:5-6, 16-18; 4:1-2, but
from the historical fulfilment of 3:12, when he does come suddenly to his
temple at the beginning and end of his ministry, John 2:13-18; Matthew
21:12-13; Mark 11:15-18; Luke 19:45-46. In neither of these Temple purgations
was there a work of individual sanctification, but the latter is indirectly
connected with the cursing of the barren fig tree, as in Matthew 3:10, the
barren tree is hewn down and cast into the fire. Malachi is not considering a
mixture of good and evil in one individual, the evil to be eliminated by the
fire of chastisement; but he is considering a mixture of good people and evil
people. God's fire will be used to separate them and make evident the
difference between them. So Paul discusses the same thought: "But if any
man buildeth on the foundation gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble;
each man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because
it is revealed in fire; and the fire itself shall prove each man's work of what
sort it is. If any man's work shall abide which he built thereon, 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 through fire." Here Paul's use of the
fire, at the last great day, is not to separate the evil from the good in
individual character, but it is to separate evil people from good people, who
by unwise builders have been mingled together in building a temple upon the
foundation, Christ. If the builder puts on the foundation, Christ, the
unregenerate, hypocrites, formalists, ritualists, then that fire will separate
them, and the builder who put them on will suffer loss to the extent that his
work is destroyed in the revelation of that great fire test.
To find a fulfilment of the identity of the "baptism in Spirit and
fire" in the "tongues of fire" at Pentecost is merely silly,
since they were not tongues of fire, but “tongues like as of fire.” A rising
flame parts itself into the appearance of tongues. So the luminous appearance
at Pentecost distributed itself into tongues, as fire seems to do.
On our paragraph, Matthew 3:10-12, Dr. Broadus, in his commentary, ably shows
that we may not interpret the "fire" in v. 11 as differing in import
from the "fire" in vv. 10, 12. To pray that we may "be baptized
in fire," while not so meant, is equivalent to praying that we may be cast
into hell. The baptism in fire is the punitive destruction of the wicked. A few
terse sentences will enable us to discriminate:
In the baptism in fire, Christ is the administrator, an in- corrigible sinner
is the subject, the element is fire, the design is punitive.
In the baptism in the Holy Spirit, Christ is the administrator, the Holy Spirit
is the element, the subject is a Christian, the design is to accredit and
empower him for service.
In regeneration the Holy Spirit is the agent or administrator, the subject is a
sinner, the design is to make him a Christian.
In sanctification the Holy Spirit is the agent, the subject is a Christian, the
design is to make him personally holy, i.e., a better Christian. Regeneration
and sanctification have been wrought by the Spirit in all dispensations since
Adam.
The baptism in the Holy Spirit never occurred in the history of the world until
the first Pentecost after Christ's exaltation.
But it was prefigured twice in types. First, when Moses had completed the
tabernacle, or movable house of God, the cloud, representing the divine
inhabitant, came down and filled it (Ex. 40:33-38). Second, when Solomon had
completed the Temple, the fixed house of God, the cloud, representing the
divine inhabitant, came down and occupied it (1 Kings 7:51 to 8:11).
So when Jesus had built his church, antitype of tabernacle and Temple, the Holy
Spirit came down to accredit, empower and occupy it (Acts 2:1-33). In other
words –
The baptism in the Spirit was the baptism of the church – the house that Jesus
built to succeed the house that Solomon built, as that had succeeded the house
that Moses built.
From that date the church was accredited, occupied and empowered by the other
Paraclete, the Promised of the Father and the Sent of the Father and Son.
Daniel, in his great prophecy, fixing the date and order of events, says,
"Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to
finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation
for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision
and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy" Here "the Most Holy"
is a place, a house, and not the person, Christ. His anointing came at his
baptism when the Spirit came on him.
As the sanctuary of both Moses and Solomon has been anointed when ready for
use, so in this verse, following Messiah's advent and expiation, a new most
holy place was anointed by the coming of the Holy Spirit on the new Temple.
Because the old Temple had served its day, the very hour Christ said, "it
is finished," referring to the expiation of sin by the true Lamb of God,
"the veil of the temple was rent in twain from top to bottom." The
new Temple was ready, waiting for its anointing on the day of Pentecost. Hence,
I repeat, when we come to interpret Acts 2, all the words of John the Baptist
and our Lord, in the Gospels, which speak of the baptism in the Spirit as a
promise, and all the fulfilments, Acts 2: 4; 8:17; 10:44-46; )9:6, and Paul's
great exhaustive discussion at 1 Corinthians 12-14, will be fully considered.
The import of John's comparison between Jesus and himself is, therefore, that
Jesus is mightier than himself. John himself was not the Messiah, but only his
herald. John is but a voice soon to be silenced forever. John must decrease, as
the morning star pales and fades before the increasing light of the day. John
is not the true light, but only a witness to the light. John indeed baptizes
-penitent believers in water, but the one who follows him will not only
continue the baptism in water, but will also baptize in the Holy Spirit and in
fire.
THE CULMINATION
OF JOHN'S MINISTRY
This predetermined culmination of John's ministry was the manifestation of the
Messiah to Israel. This manifestation would directly connect with his
administration of the ordinance of baptism. He himself declares: "And I
knew him not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, for this cause
came I baptizing in water. . . . And I knew him not, but he that sent me to
baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit
descending, and abiding on him, the same is he that baptizeth in the
Spirit" (John 1:31, 33). When by this sign the as yet unknown person of
the Messiah is disclosed to John himself, then must he who had hitherto spoken of
the coming Messiah in general terms now identify the person, and by repeated
testimony lead Israel to accept him so identified, in all his messianic
offices. So that the culmination of John's ministry consists in two
particulars:
(1) John must baptize the Messiah, receiving for himself in the ordinance
demonstrative evidence of the right person.
(2) This person of the Messiah so manifested to John, must by him be identified
to Israel and through his repeated witness, set forth in all his messianic offices
as the object of their faith. These two things accomplished, his mission is
ended forever. We can do no more in rounding out this chapter than to consider
the first part of this culmination, reserving for the next chapter John's
identification to Israel of the person of the Messiah and his presentation of
him in all his messianic offices as the object of faith. For the present,
therefore, our theme is…
The Harmony, in three parallel columns, pages 15-16, gives us the record of
this momentous event, according to three historians (Matt. 3:13-17; Mark
1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22). All these historians identify the person so baptized as
Jesus. Matthew says, "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto
John, to be baptized of him." Mark says, "And it came to pass in
those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John
in the Jordan." Luke says, "Jesus also having been baptized."
Thus the person of the Messiah is Jesus of Nazareth in Galilee. All of them give
two heavenly attestations to Jesus as the Messiah; the visible descent on him
of the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, and the voice of the -Father from
the most excellent glory, declaring Jesus his most beloved Son in whom he is
well pleased. He himself came to John and solicited baptism at his hands. The
ordinance was administered in the river Jordan.
According to these and correlated passages, the honorable position of this
ordinance in the kingdom of God is as follows:
(1) In it is the Messiah manifested.
(2) In it the whole Trinity are present. The Son is being baptized, the Holy
Spirit and the Father attesting the Son. Hence in our Lord's Great Commission,
reaching to all nations throughout all time, those disciples must be baptized
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Thus the
doctrine of the Trinity is indissolubly connected with baptism and is
proclaimed wherever in pool, lake, river, or sea the ordinance is administered.
(3) Therefore it is a confession on the part of every disciple submitting to
the ordinance that he accepts Jesus as the sent of the Father, and anointed of
the Spirit to be his sacrifice, prophet, priest, king, and judge.
(4) Its symbolism expresses the heart, of the gospel and unites therein our
Lord and all his disciples who follow his example (Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; 1
Cor.15:1,29).
A great sermon on the position of baptism has been translated into foreign
languages. This was a sermon before the Southern Baptist Convention by Dr.
Henry Holcombe Tucker, editor of the Christian Index. From this honorable
position of the ordinance it follows that it should never be belittled or
despised as a matter of small moment.
The act of John in baptizing Jesus was one thing and not three things. John did
not sprinkle water in Hesys (rantizo) and pour water on Jesus (cheo) and
dip Jesus in water (baptizo). He did a specific thing. Whatever the
specific thing John did, to which Jesus submitted, is the thing which Jesus did
when he also (through his disciples) baptized. (Compare John 3:22-23; John
4:1-2.) And it follows that the specific thing which John did, to which also
Jesus submitted, and which he himself did (through his disciples) is the very
thing which he commanded) in Matthew 28:19, to be done unto the end of time.
Apart from the clear meaning of baptizo, we may settle the question in
another way. The argument of Romans 6:3 and Colossians 2:12 shows that Jesus
was figuratively buried and raised in baptism, and that we who follow him are
planted in the likeness of his death and also raised in the likeness of his f
resurrection. Therefore baptism is indissolubly connected with the resurrection
of the buried dead.
Since John administered a baptism (eis metanoian) unto repentance, a
baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins (eis aphesin hamartion),
we have the question, why should Jesus seek baptism at John's hands, seeing he
needed no repentance and no remission of sins? John himself raised this
question: "But John would have hindered him, saying, I have need to be
baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? But Jesus, answering said unto him,
Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he
suffereth him" (Matt. 3: 14:15). The answer is clear, as John understood
later. (See John 1:31, 33.) John's baptizing had a twofold purpose.(l) as
related to penitent believers, (2) as to the Messiah himself. In no other way
could John complete his ministry. Out of this comes another question, How
harmonize John’s protest (Matt. 3:14) with his subsequent declaration, "I
knew him not, at John 1:31, 33? John could not know the person of the Messiah
until he saw the appointed sign, the visible descent of the Spirit upon him,
but he could be impressed in mind, in other ways, that Jesus was not a sinner
needing repentance.
One of the most remarkable things about Jesus was a presence that at times
filled friend and foe with awe and amazement. A glory of irresistible power
radiated from him. I cite five instances of the radiating power of this presence
on his enemies: Twice when he alone purged the Temple, driving all his
panic-stricken enemies before him (John 2:13-16; Matt. 21:12f; Mark 11:15-17;
Luke 19:45f); the overawing of the Nazarenes when they rejected and sought to
kill him (Luke 4: 29-30); the prostration of those who sought to arrest him
(John 18:6) ; the outcry of the demons when brought into his presence (Matt.
8:29f; Mark 5; Luke 8.) Not only John the Baptist felt the radiating power of
this sinless, awful presence, but Christ's own disciples many times later. For
example, Peter, at the miraculous draught of the fishes (Luke 5:8); Peter and
others at the stilling of the tempest (Mark 4:41); at the transfiguration
(Matt. 17:6-7); all the disciples on the last journey to Jerusalem (Mark
10:32). We thus understand how John the Baptist (Matt. 3:14) could be impressed
with the sinlessness of Jesus, and yet not really know he was the Messiah until
the sign came.
Now we have seen why Jesus should be baptized of John, but why baptized at all,
that is, why to his own mind? The reasons are as follows:
(1) As he foreknew, in connection with this ordinance, it would be his own
inauguration as Messiah. Therefore he overcame John's scruples. Therefore, when
baptized, he prayed for his spiritual anointing and the attestation of his
Father. His prayer was not vague and indefinite. He knew he must be anointed as
prophet, priest, and king, and sealed as the sacrifice for sin. He knew he must
be endued for service as Messiah by the Holy Spirit. He must be equipped to
resist and overcome the devil. All this appears as follows:
Anointing as Prophet: Read Isaiah 11:1-5; 42:1-2, which describe his spiritual
equipment for service. He prayed for that. The fulfilment is, "God gave
not the Spirit to him by measure," but immeasurably (John 3:34). Read
Isaiah 61:lf and his declaration, Luke 4:16-21. He was anointed to do this very
preaching.
Sealed for Sacrifice: Referring to this descent of the Spirit our Lord says,
"Him hath God, the Father, sealed" (John 6:27).
On receipt of this enduement of the Spirit: He went at once to meet the
temptation of Satan, as the Second Adam (Matt. 4: If; Mark l:12f; Luke 4: If).
So, also, the descent of the Spirit: Was his anointing as King and Priest.
(2) He was baptized to set forth in symbol the great truths of his gospel – his
death, burial, resurrection (Rom. 6:1f; Col. 2:12; 1 Cor.15:1,29).
(3) As an example for all his followers (see same scriptures).
However, he had the messianic consciousness before his baptism. He sought the
baptism; he overcame John's scruples; he prayed for the anointing and
attestation before he received them.
The meaning of his reply to John, "Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness"
is that neither he nor John must stop at only one of the purposes of John's
baptism, but meet all the other purposes of that baptism. And evidently, as set
forth in 2 above) this baptism would memorialize all righteousness, which comes
by vicarious expiation, burial and resurrection. It would be a pictorial
gospel.
QUESTIONS
1. What comparison did John
institute between Christ and himself?
2. Was this a comparison
between John's baptism in water and Christ's baptism in water? If not, what is
the point of comparison?
3. On what phrase of this
comparison arise the controversies of the ages, and what two questions are
involved in the controversies?
4. From what great Baptist
expositor does this interpretation dissent, and what is the point of the
dissension?
5. What negations express
the dissent from Dr. Maclaren?
6. How is the baptism in
fire exercised?
7. Give the argument to show
that Dr. Maclaren is mistaken about the baptism in fire.
8. Reply to the contention
that tongues of fire at the first Pentecost after the resurrection, prove the
identity of baptism in the Spirit and fire.
9. Analyze, in a few terse
sentences, the baptism in fire, the baptism in the Holy Spirit, regeneration,
and sanctification.
10. Show how the baptism in
the Holy Spirit was twice prefigured.
11. Explain the baptism in
the Holy Spirit from the passage in Daniel 9.
12. What of the
predetermined culmination of John's ministry, and what were his own words to
show that it connected with his baptism in water?
13. It what two things,
then, does the culmination of John's ministry consist?
14. Who are the historians
that give an account of John's baptism of the Messiah?
15. In whom, as a person, do
all these historians identify him?
16. What two attestations of
Jesus as the Messiah do all the historians give?
17. According to these and
correlated passages, what of the honorable position of this ordinance in the
kingdom of God?
18. What great sermon on the
position of baptism has been translated into foreign languages?
19. What follows from this
honorable position of the ordinance?
20. What was the act of John
in baptizing Jesus?
21. Apart from the clear
meaning of baptize, how otherwise may we settle the question?
22. Why should Jesus seek baptism
at John's hands, seeing he needed no repentance and no remission of sins?
23. How may we harmonize
John's protest (Matt. 3:14) with his subsequent declaration, "I knew him
not," (John 1:31, 33)?
24. But why should Jesus be
baptized at all?
25. How does it appear that
he had the messianic consciousness before his baptism?
26. What, then, is the
meaning of his reply to John, "Thus it becometh us to fulfill all
righteousness"?
THE CULMINATION OF JOHN'S MINISTRY
In the preceding chapter we have considered the first part of the culmination
of John's ministry, to wit: his baptism of the Messiah, in which, by a divine
sign, and the Father's attestation, he was able to identify Jesus of Nazareth
as the person of the Messiah. There remains for consideration in this chapter
his testimony to the person so identified, and his presentation of him to
Israel in all his messianic offices as the supreme object of faith. Thus as he
was the first to preach evangelical repentance, so now must he be the first to
preach evangelical faith. His continuation of his ministry after the baptism of
the Messiah, was to afford opportunity of this completion of his testimony.
All of this testimony of John the Baptist, after the baptism of Jesus, comes to
us through one historian, the apostle John, himself a disciple of John the
Baptist. There are four distinct occasions and one general reference, doubtless
identical with one of the four. Three of these occasions come in three
successive days, certainly full forty days after the baptism, for the forty
days of the temptation of Jesus intervene.
The first (and doubtless the second) is John's reply to a deputation from
Jerusalem (John 1:19-28). The second is the following day when he sees Jesus
the first time since the baptism (John 1:29-34). The third is the morrow after
when he identifies him to two of his own disciples (John 1:35-36). The fourth
occurred in the early Judean ministry of Jesus after his first Passover in
Jerusalem since his baptism (John 3:22-30). The general reference of John 1:15
applies to the second of these four.
It was impossible for the ecclesiastical authority at Jerusalem to ignore the
ministry of John. The whole nation was stirred. The people generally accepted
him as a reformer and prophet. And yet his ministry was entirely independent of
the Sanhedrin, and of Jerusalem, and of the Temple ritual. Questions were
arising in men's minds, Is this the Messiah, or is it Elijah who precedes the
Messiah (Mal. 4:5), or is it the great prophet whose coming was predicted by
Moses, (Deut. 18:1518), what signs accredit him, who sent him, what is the
source of his authority, and what is his mission?
Finally, at the instance of the Pharisees, whom he had denounced as the
offspring of vipers, a deputation from the Sanhedrin, consisting of priests and
Levites, were sent to press him for a definite answer on these points. They
found him at the fords of the Jordan (Bethany or Bethabara), but sharp and curt
in replying to their inquisition. He disclaimed promptly being either the
Messiah, or Elijah, or the Moses prophet. For himself he was only the voice of
one crying in the wilderness as predicted by Isaiah. To their questions,
"why baptizeth thou, then, and what sign showest thou," and by whose
authority he acted, he returned no definite reply the first day, but bore this
testimony: "In the midst of you standeth one whom ye know not, even he
that cometh after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to
unloose."
The next day, however, the deputation doubtless yet with him, he seeth Jesus
returning from the temptation, and answers more particularly, pointing to him:
"Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world! This is he
of whom I said, After me cometh a man who is before me; for he was before me.
And I knew him not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, for this
cause I came baptizing in water. And John bare witness saying, I have beheld
the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven; and it abode upon him, and I
knew him not; but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon
whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same
is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit. And I have seen, and have borne
witness that this is the Son of God."
This is his great testimony: "Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. I saw him
anointed by the Holy Spirit. I heard the Father's attestation. This is the Lamb
of God that penally bears the sin of the world – the great expiatory sacrifice
– this is the Son of God – this is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit."
Prophets, priests, and kings are anointed with the holy anointing oil whose
recipe was prescribed by Moses (Ex. 30:22-23). With this was Aaron anointed
(Psalm 103:2); and David (Psalm 89:20); and Elisha (I Kings 19:16). Messiah
means the Anointed One. In the case of Jesus he was anointed with the Spirit,
which the holy oil symbolized. To two of his disciples he repeats on the
morrow: "Behold the Lamb of God!"
The account of John's last testimony to Jesus is a singular bit of history:
"After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea;
and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in
Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there; and they came and were
baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison. There arose therefore a
questioning on the part of John's disciples with a Jew about purifying. And
they came unto John and said to him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond the
Jordan, to whom thou hast borne witness, behold, the same baptizeth and all men
come to him. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it have
been given him from heaven. Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am
not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the
bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, that standeth and heareth him,
rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is
made full. He must increase, but I must decrease." "He that cometh
from above is above all; he that is of the earth is of the earth, and of the
earth he speaketh; he that cometh from heaven is above all. What he hath seen
and heard, of that he beareth witness; and no man receiveth his witness. He
that hath received his witness hath set his seal to this, that God is true. For
he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God; for he giveth not the Spirit
by measure. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son
shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." "When
therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and
baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself baptized not, but
his disciples), he left Judea and departed again into Galilee" (John 3:22;
4:3).
The first thought suggested by this narrative is the concurrent ministry of
Jesus and John brought near together. The time was when Jesus was closing his
early Judean ministry, having just left Jerusalem, where he attended the first
Passover after his baptism, where he purified the Temple according to Malachi
3:1-2, wrought many signs and was visited by Nicodemus.
Jesus was on the northern line of Judea, for the record says that when he left
for Galilee "He must needs go through Samaria." John was close at
hand at a place called Aenon, near to Salim, where was much water or many
waters. The site has not been thoroughly settled. Dr. Barclay locates it in a
valley five miles northeast of Jerusalem (City of the Great King, pp. 558-570).
Robertson {Biblical Researches, Vol. Ill, p. 333) conjectures
"Salim over against Nabulus." C. R. Conder (TEnt Work in
Palestine, Vol. I, p. 91f) locates it: "Salim near the
Shechem." Professor McGarvey, one of the best writers on the Holy Land,
thinks he found the identical site in a beautiful valley of the Wady Farra,
about one mile wide and three miles .long, where were abundant places for
baptism in which he saw "swarms of brown-skin boys, both large and small,
bathing at different places." (Cited in "Hovey on John's
Gospel," from Journal and Messenger, September 10, 1879.) My own mind is
impressed that Professor McGarvey found the Aenon of our text.
Some suggest this rendering of John 3:23: "And John was holding a camp
meeting at Aenon, near to Salim, because there was much water there for the
campers, their camels and other beasts, and they came and were baptized."
A significant fact about the work of both appears from John 4:1, viz.: Both
made disciples before baptizing them and they both made disciples in the same
way, by leading them to repentance and faith. Proof for John, Matthew 3:2; Acts
19:4. Proof for Jesus, Mark 1:15. Another fact is disclosed by John 4:1, viz.:
By this time Jesus was increasing and John was decreasing, since Jesus was
making and baptizing more disciples than John. But the Pharisees discovered and
made use of this fact to make a breach between John and Jesus. When Jesus heard
of this meanness, he prudently left Judea, where his work was close enough to
John for enemies to make invidious comparison, and passed on into Samaria.
The insidious trouble was brought to John's disciples at Aenon by a Jew,
doubtless a Pharisee, who taunted John's disciples with the increase of Jesus
and the decrease of John. The matter arose this way: "Therefore [referring
to the increase of one and the decrease of the other] there arose a questioning
about purifying between John's disciples and a Jew." The following may be
inferred from its being made a question of purifying:
(1) That the law and its traditions already, and by real authority, provided
for purifying ablutions of the body (See "divers washings" (Greek,
baptize) at Hebrews 9:10, and "bathe themselves" and
"washings" at Mark 7:4 (Greek, baptize).
(2) That, therefore, a Pharisee would contend, denying that John or Jesus had
authority to institute an ordinance, particularly in John's case, since Jesus
by his baptizing more was supplanting him.
John's disciples, jealous for their leader against Jesus, felt it keenly, hence
they say to John, in bitterness, "Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond the
Jordan, to whom thou hast borne witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all
men come to him" (John 3:26).
The greatness of John's reply in the last testimony to Jesus is seen from the
following items:
(1) He was entitled to nothing more than had been given him.
(2) He reminded them that he had already borne witness that he was not the
Messiah, but only his forerunner.
(3) That Jesus was the Messiah and hence, as he had already borne witness, must
increase while he decreased.
(4) That Jesus was the bridegroom, entitled to the bride, while he was only the
friend of the bridegroom.
(5) That what depressed them was John's fullness of joy.
(6) That Jesus, being sent from heaven, and having the Spirit given him without
measure, must be above any earthly man, and would speak the words of God.
(7) That Jesus, as the Son of the Father, was beloved of the Father and had
rightly all things given to him.
(8) Therefore "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that
obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on
him" (John 3:36). This is his last and sublimest testimony.
John should have gone on with his work after he baptized Jesus, as has already
been said, to have opportunity to complete his testimony and to present Jesus
in all his messianic offices as the supreme object of faith.
A singular book of the baptismal controversy arose from this passage, setting
forth two points:
(1) Dr. Edward Beecher, son of Dr. Lyman Beecher and brother of Henry Ward
Beecher, followed the Jew-Pharisee in contending that baptism was only a
question of purifying.
(2) And as purifying among the Jews was a general term, some purifying done by
sprinkling, some by pouring, and some by dipping, it was immaterial which of
the three ways should be employed in baptizing.
The great fallacy of his book is that only purifying by immersion was involved
in this question. But regarding this last testimony of John we cannot be sure
that John 3:31-36 are the words of John the Baptist and therefore we cannot be
dogmatic about it. The historian John does not always make it clear where his
quotation stops and where he resumes his narrative. In this case, if the words
be the evangelist's, he is only filling out the conclusions of John's
testimony. He leaves us in the same doubt at 1:15-18.
1. From which historian
cornea all John's testimony concerning Jesus after his baptism?
2. What four occasions?
3. To which of the four
belongs the general reference in John 1:15?
4. What makes the first
occasion very important, and how did it naturally arise?
5. What was the sum of
John's testimony the first day?
6. Was the deputation
present the next day, and why do you think so?
7. What of the sum of the
testimony this time?
8. What part of this testimony
repeated to two of his disciples the third day?
9. What does
"Messiah" mean?
10. Where do you find Moses'
recipe for the holy anointing oil?
11. What high officers were
anointed with it, and what one case each?
12. In the case of Jesus, how
anointed?
13. What is the account of
John's last testimony to Jesus?
14. What is the first
thought suggested by this narrative?
15. What is the time?
16. Explain their proximity.
17. What is the matter with the
rendering of John 3:23 as suggested by some?
18. What fact about the work
of both appears from John 4:1?
19. What scriptures show
that both made disciples in the same way?
20. What other fact
disclosed by John 4:1?
21. Who discovered and made
use of this fact to make a breach between John and Jesus?
22. When Jesus heard of this
meanness what did he do?
23. How was the insidious
trouble brought to John's disciples at Aenon?
24. In what form did the
matter arise?
25. What may be inferred from
its being made a question of purifying?
26. How did this affect
John's disciples?
27. What of the greatness of
John's reply in the last testimony to Jesus?
28. Why should John have
gone on with his work after he baptized Jesus?
29. What singular book of
the baptismal controversy arose from this passage, what its points and what its
great fallacy?
30. May we be sure that John
3:31-36 is the testimony of John the Baptist?
THE TEMPTATION OF CHRIST
Harmony pages 16-17 and Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13;
Luke 4:1-13.
The theme of this chapter is Satan's first temptation of Jesus, our Lord. The
lesson is found on pages 16-17 of the Harmony. There are three historians of the
great event: Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13. Following closely the
text, let us note these general observations.
(1) All the historians agree on five express particulars and one implication,
to wit:
The temptation of our Lord immediately follows his baptism, in which the Father
audibly proclaimed him as his Son, and the Spirit visibly accredited, anointed,
and endued him as the Messiah. So that the temptation is hell's prompt response
to heaven's challenge in the inauguration.
Our Lord was Spirit-guided to meet the issues of the conflict.
The scene of the battle was "in the wilderness."
The time of the struggle was "forty days."
The tempter was Satan himself.
The implication is clear that no human being stood with Jesus. On the contrary,
Mark adds: "He was with the wild beasts."
(2) Matthew and Luke agree: In expressing the Spirit guidance as a leading –
"led of the Spirit." But Mark expresses it as a propulsion –
"driven of the Spirit," while Luke adds he was "full of the
Spirit."
He fasted throughout the forty days and afterward hungered.
In the consummation Satan visibly appeared and verbally submitted three special
temptations, though Luke reverses
Matthew's order of the last two.
Satan commenced two of these special temptations with the phrase, "If thou
art the Son of God," showing his knowledge of the Father's avowal at the
baptism.
Jesus triumphed over Satan in them all.
In achieving this victory, Jesus used only the sword of the Spirit, the word of
God, quoting from Deuteronomy only.
Satan also quoted Scripture.
Then Satan left him. But Matthew adds that Satan left because Jesus recognizes
his adversary and peremptorily dismissed him, "Get thee hence,
Satan," and Luke adds he left him only "for a season," so it was
not the final battle.
Matthew and Mark agree that when Satan left him "angels came and
ministered unto him," meaning, at least, that they supplied him with food
and encouraged him. Thus three worlds were interested in the great conflict.
(4) Mark implies that in some form the temptation lasted throughout the forty
days, which Luke seems to confirm by saying, "When Satan had completed
every temptation." From this implication it follows that the form of the
temptation up to the culmination when Jesus hungered was by mental suggestion
only, Satan holding himself invisible, but when Jesus was faint with hunger,
then, as Matthew and Luke agree, he appeared visibly and submitted audibly the
three great special temptations.
Thus face to face, the two great warring personalities conducted the verbal
duel and spiritual wrestling. This is evident from our Lord's recognition of
his adversary and his peremptory dismissal of him by name, "Get thee
hence, Satan." We need not stagger at Mark's implication when we reflect
how easy it is for one spirit, by direct impact, to impress another, chough the
one impressed may not be conscious of it, nor when we consider how many of what
we consider our own thoughts are not self-originated, but suggestions from
without. Bunyan represents his Pilgrim, when passing through the valley of the
shadow of death, as being horrified at curses, slimy thoughts, and blasphemies
in his mind, which he supposed were his own, whereas, they were suggestions
from without by invisible whispering demons. The capital point is that our Lord
was tempted in both forms – first for many days by invisible external
suggestions; second, when Apollyon, as in the case of Bunyan's Pilgrim,
visibly, audibly, palpably, horribly, and suddenly came upon him in his weakest
hour, straddled across his narrow way, and buried his fiery darts in rapid
succession.
(5) We should carefully note, as illustrative of the value of harmonic study of
the testimony of several witnesses, the special contribution of each historian.
We see the force of Matthew's "Get thee hence, Satan" and Mark's
"driven of the Spirit," and his implication of continuous temptation,
and Luke's "full of the Spirit," and especially his "left him
for a season."
(6) The Greek word rendered "tempt" means "to try, prove, or
test." The moral character of the "testing" depends upon the
object and methods. If the object be to incite or to entice to sin, or the
means be guile, flattery, lying, indeed any form of deception that would turn
the tempted one from God and appeal to lower motives, then it is bad, whether
coming from Satan or from his subordinates. But if the object be to honorably
ascertain or prove character by lawful methods, or to fairly develop and
discipline the inexperienced soul, then it is good. We may lawfully prove or
test God himself in any way appointed by him whether of promise or precept. We
may sinfully tempt him by creating situations not appointed by him and then
claiming his help.
In the sense of enticing to sin, God tempts no man. In the sense of proving his
people, he is always tempting us, as he did Abraham. In his providence he often
permits us to be tested with evil intent by Satan, as in the cases of Job and
Peter. In this providential permission to Satan there are always great
limitations.
We are never tempted in a good sense nor allowed to be tempted in an evil sense
beyond our ability to bear or to resist. And always the decision and the
responsibility are upon the tempted one.
He himself must yield in order to fall. The words of James and Paul are
pertinent: "Blessed is the man that endureth temptation; for when he hath
been approved, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord promised to
them that love him. Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for
God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man: but each man
is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust and enticed. Then the lust,
when it hath conceived, beareth sin; and the sin when it is full grown,
bringeth forth death" (James 1:12-15). "There hath no temptation
taken you but such as man can bear: but God is faithful, who will not suffer
you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation make
also the way of escape, that ye may be able to endure it" (1 Cor.10:13).
Our English word "tempt" once had both the good and evil senses of
the Greek word, but now is limited to the evil sense.
(7) The exact site of the temptation in the wilderness has never been
determined. It is quite probable that on this point the Scriptures are
designedly silent, as in the case of the burial place of Moses, to hedge
against superstitious pilgrimages and shrines. If it be lawful to venture on
conjecture, I would suggest the wilderness of the Arabian peninsula, for these
reasons:
There is a strong scriptural parallel between our Lord and Israel as a nation.
Israel, as a nation, was not only tempted and fell in this Arabian wilderness,
but also there evilly tempted God.
There is a correspondence between their forty years and Christ's forty days.
There both Moses and Elijah "fasted forty days."
All of our Lord's quotations 'in his temptation are from the Pentateuch, word
fruitage of Israel's wilderness life.
As the forty years wilderness life and the wilderness words quoted by our Lord prepared
God's son, Israel, for the national life, so this forty days fasting and
triumph over Satan's temptations prepared his Son, Jesus, for his great
lifework of Israel's redemption.
Before Paul enters his great work for the salvation of the Gentiles it was
necessary that there should be a period of seclusion for meditation, for
receiving his gospel, for settling great questions between himself alone and
God on the one hand, and the devil on the other hand. He says, "I
conferred not with flesh and bloodù1 went not to Jerusalem – but I went into
Arabia." Evidently not to preach, but under the shadow of Sinai where the
Law was given, there in the light of the gospel to gain that view of the Law so
powerfully set forth in his letters to the Galatians and the Romans. Why not,
then – if we must guess – follow these analogies and this fitness, and suppose
that this was the wilderness site of Christ's temptation, returning from which
to deliver his marvelous Sermon on the Mount, which, after all, is but the highest
spiritual exposition of the Law?
(8) Can a man do without food forty days? It has been objected against the
credibility of the Bible, that it represents Moses, Elijah, and our Lord
fasting forty days. Within my own memory this fact has been demonstrated
scientifically. A Dr. Tanner, after a careful preparation, did, in the presence
of competent witnesses, fast forty days. He ate no food. The only thing he
allowed himself was occasionally to rinse his mouth with water, and very rarely
to swallow just a little of the water. He was not sustained by the high
spiritual exaltation of Moses, Elijah, and our Lord.
(9) From Christ's fast of forty days two new words, or institutions, have been
derived:
Etymologically, our English word "quarantine." The wholly unscriptural
"forty days of Lent" preceding the equally unscriptural festival of
Easter observed by Romanists and Episcopalians. The word "Easter" in
the common version of Acts 12:4 is simply the Jewish Passover and is so
rendered in our best English versions.
(10) Was this a real temptation of our Lord? In other words, was it a case of
"Not able to sin" (non posse peccare) or "able not to
sin" (posse non peccare)1 This is a vital question and must be squarely
answered. The temptation of our Lord was not only real, but was an epoch in his
own life and in the history of the race. It was no sham battle.
The teaching of the Scriptures is express and manifold. It was not the
essential deity of our Lord on trial, but his humanity, and also in an emphatic
sense his representative humanity. There is no stronger proof that the Messiah
was really a man and had a human soul than his susceptibility to temptation and
his successful resistance to it as a man. This becomes the more obvious when we
consider the later battles with Satan in Gethsemane and on the cross, to which
this wilderness temptation was no more than a preliminary skirmish. The true
answer to this question lies in the answer to a broader question: Why should
Jesus be tempted?
We must fairly answer this broader question:
He was the Second Adam – the new race-head (1 Cor.15: 45-49; Rom. 5:12-21).
"The first Adam was tempted in a garden full of permitted fruits, and by
his fall converted it into a desert. The Second Adam was tempted in a desert,
faint with the hunger of a forty days' fast, and by his victory converted it
into a garden." The new race head was on probation like the first.
In the highest sense he was Israel, God's Son: "Out of Egypt have I called
my Son." He was Isaiah's "Servant of the Lord," so marvelously
foreshadowed in the last twenty-seven chapters of that book. National Israel
failed under temptation in every probation – under the theocracy established by
Moses, under the monarchy established by Samuel, under the hierarchy established
by Ezra, Nehemiah, Zechariah, Haggai, and Malachi, culminating in its rejection
of the Messiah. If "all Israel is to be saved" as taught by Ezekiel,
Zechariah, and Paul, then this "Son which God called out of Egypt"
must triumph over real temptation.
He could not become man's vicarious substitute in death and judgment unless on
real probation from birth to death, he himself was demonstrated to be "a
lamb without spot or blemish, holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from
sinners." "For it became him, for whom are all things, and through
whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the author of
their salvation perfect through sufferings" (Heb. 2:10).
He could not destroy the work of the devil and rescue "the lawful
captives," "the prey of the terrible one," "except as he
shared the common lot of humanity." "Since then the children are
sharers in the flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the
same; that through death he might bring to nought him that had the power of death,
that is, the devil; and might deliver all them who through fear of death were
all their lifetime subject to bondage" (Heb. 2:14-15).
Without enduring real temptation in his humanity he could not become a
sympathizing and efficient high priest: "Wherefore it behooved him in all
things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a faithful and
merciful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the
sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is
able to succor them that are tempted" (Heb. 2:17-18). "Having then a
great high priest, who hath passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God,
let us hold fast our confession. For we have not a high priest that cannot be
touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that has been in all
points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore draw near with
boldness unto the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and may find
grace to help us in time of need" (Heb. 4:14-16).
He could not seat humanity on the throne of the universe as King of kings and
Lord of lords except by emptying himself of heavenly glory, laying aside the
form of God and assuming the form of a slave, and when found in the fashion of
a man he should through every temptation be perfect in obedience to every
precept and submissive to every penal sanction of the Law (See Phil. 2:6-11).
He could not, as the Son of Man, become the judge of the world except he had
triumphed in real temptation as a man. (Note carefully John 5:22, 27; Acts
17:31; Matt. 25:31f.) Not otherwise as enduring temptation could he become an
example to his people in their hours of trial. (See Phil. 2:5; 1 Peter 2:21-23;
4:1.)
In assigning these reasons for Christ's real temptation we have not limited
ourselves to Satan's first temptation of our Lord.
(11) On the subject of the temptation, what may we say of Milton's Paradise
Lost and Paradise Regained?
Paradise Regained is very inferior, as a literary epic, to Paradise Lost.
The Devil of Paradise Lost is a far grander personage than the Devil of
Paradise Regained. Says Robert Burns, "The Devil is the hero of Paradise
Lost, but in Paradise Regained he is a sneak nibbling at the heel of
Jesus." In neither have we a true portrait of Satan.
In closing his Paradise Regained at the preliminary skirmish between Jesus and
Satan, he virtually acknowledges his failure to master his great theme.
Reserving the discussions of the three special temptations of Jesus to the next
chapter, we close the present discussion by citing from Dr. Broadus' great
treatment of this theme in his commentary these quotations:
"Christ hungered as a man, and fed the hungry as God. He was hungry as
man, and yet he is the Bread of Life. He was a-thirst as a man, and yet He
says, Let him that is athirst come to me and drink. He was weary) and is our
Rest. . . He pays tribute, and is a King; he is called a devil, and casts out
devils; prays, and hears prayer; weeps, and dries our tears; is sold for thirty
pieces of silver, and redeems the world; is led as a sheep to the slaughter,
and is the Good Shepherd" – Wordsworth.
"Observe (1) that the first word spoken by Christ in His ministerial
office is an assertion of the authority of the scripture. (2) That He opposeth
the word of God as the properest encounterer against the words of the devil.
(3) That He allegeth scripture as a thing undeniable and uncontrollable by the
devil himself. (4) That He maketh the scripture His rule, though He had the fullness
of the Spirit above measure" – Lightfoot.
"The devil may tempt us to fall, but he cannot make us fall; he may
persuade us to cast ourselves down, but he cannot cast us down" –
Wordsworth. "True faith never tries experiments upon the promises, being
satisfied that they will be fulfilled as occasion may arise. We have no right
to create danger, and expect providence to shield us from it. The love of
adventure, curiosity as to the places and procedure as vice, the spirit of
speculation in business, the profits of some calling attended by moral perils –
often lead men to tempt God. It is a common form of sin" – Broadus.
"The successive temptations may be ranked as temptations over-confidence,
and over-confidence, and other confidence, The first, to take things
impatiently into our hands; the second, to throw things presumptuously on God's
hands; the third, to transfer things disloyally into other hands than
God's" – Griffith.
QUESTIONS
1. Who were the historians
of Satan's first temptation of Christ?
2. In what particulars do
the historians agree?
3. In what particulars do
Matthew and Luke agree?
4. In what particulars do
Matthew and Mark agree?
5. What is the strong
implication of the continuance of the temptation throughout the forty days by
Mark?
6. What was the form of the
temptation during the forty days? Explain and illustrate its possibilities.
7. In what part of the
temptation does Satan appear visibly face to face with and tempt and wrestle
with Christ?
8. What is the value of
harmonic study illustrated in the special contributions of each historian?
9. What is the meaning of
our Greek word rendered "tempt"?
10. Upon what does the moral
character of the tempting depend?
11. How may we lawfully in
one case, and unlawfully in another case, tempt God himself?
12. Give Scripture proof
that in the bad sense of the word God tempts no man, and proof that in the good
sense of the word he does tempt man.
13. Give proof that he does,
under great limitations, permit Satan to tempt us in an evil sense
14. When tempted by Satan,
upon whom do the decision & responsibility rest?
15. Cite the pertinent words
of James and Paul.
16. To what sense is our
English word "tempt" now limited?
17. Why, probably, are the
Scriptures silent on the exact spot of the temptation in the wilderness?
18. If we venture on a
suggestion of the site, give the reasons, in order of the wilderness of Arabia
as the place.
19. Prove scripturally and
scientifically that a man can fast forty days.
20. How is our English word
"quarantine" derived etymologically?
21. What two institutions
observed by Romanists and Episcopalians are without scriptural warrant?
22. What is the meaning of
the Greek word rendered "Easter" in the common version at Acts 12:4?
23. Was the temptation of
our Lord a real one? In other words, was it a case of "Not able to
sin" or of "Able not to sin"?
24. Give, in order, the
great reasons why Christ should be really tempted.
25. Concerning the
temptation, what may we say of Milton's Paradise Lost, and Paradise Regained?
26. In what commentary may
we find the most critical and rational treatment of the temptation of our Lord?
27. Cite, in order, Dr.
Broadus' quotations of practical observations from Wordsworth, Lightfoot,
Broadus himself, and Griffith.
SATAN'S THREE SPECIAL TEMPTATIONS OF OUR
LORD Harmony pages 16-17 and Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-18.
In the preceding chapter we have submitted some general observations on the
wilderness temptation of Jesus, and its continuance throughout the forty days'
fast by mental suggestion from Satan, himself invisible. We are now to consider
the three special temptations at the conclusion of the long fast, when to
Jesus, exhausted and faint with hunger, Satan visibly appears and urges on him
in rapid succession the consummation of his assault. We follow the better and
more logical order of Matthew's history.
"If thou art the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of
bread." Here, first of all, it is important to note that the mood,
"if thou art," is indicative, not subjunctive. We must not let the
"if" mislead us. So the word "Son" is emphatic in the
Greek. In some way Satan had learned that at the baptism the Father in heaven
audibly proclaimed, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well
pleased." Therefore it does not fall in with his plan of temptation to
commence with an express doubt of the Sonship of Jesus, as the subjunctive
mood, "If thou be," would have certainly implied. The phrase means,
"Since," or "seeing thou art the Son of God" – Son
emphatic. In other words, his first temptation assumes the Sonship, with all
power to work miracles: "Being God's Son in the highest sense, able to do
wonders, being faint with hunger after a long fast, far from any food supply,
convert this stone into a loaf of bread and satisfy thy hunger." The
temptation was very subtle.
Our Lord replies at once with a scripture magnifying the written word as the
standard of human life, quoting Deuteronomy 8:3: "It is written, Man shall
not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of
God," which means, "I am here and hungering under divine appointment.
The Spirit led me here. In the way he appointed I must wait on his word and
trust him to supply my needs. To resort to miracle to supply my need would show
under confidence in God."
He might have truly said, "I will never work a miracle in my own behalf.
The miracle-working power I possess is for the benefit of others."
Or, as truly, "I will never do a wonder at the demand of others,
particularly of my enemies, nor to gratify curiosity, nor for self-display. Or,
he might have said, "If I, at the first difficulty after my inauguration,
extricate myself as selfish miracle, bow can my people in their trials find in
my course an example?" The passage in Deuteronomy clearly shows that God
often placed his people in trying circumstances, "to humble them, to prove
them, to know what was in their hearts," in order to see if they would
trust him and obey him. Life is not a matter of food and clothes and shelter,
but of fearing God and keeping his commandments. The thirty-seventh Psalm
expresses our Lord's attitude: Trust in Jehovah, and do good; Dwell in the land, and feed on his
faithfulness. Delight thyself also in Jehovah; And he will give thee the
desires of thy heart. Commit thy way unto Jehovah; Trust also in him, and he
will bring it to pass. And he will make thy righteousness to go forth as the
light, And thy justice as the noonday. Rest in Jehovah, and wait patiently for
him: They shall not be put to shame in the time of evil; And in the days of
famine they shall be satisfied. A man's goings are established of Jehovah; And
he delighteth in his way. Though he fall, be shall not be utterly cast down;
For Jehovah upholdeth him with his hand. I have been young, and now am old; Yet
have I not seen the righteous forsaken, Nor his seed begging bread. The law of
his God is in his heart; None of his steps shall slide.
– PSALM 37:3-7, 19, 23-25, 31
I cite a simple, practical illustration: In my early pastorate at Waco, I found
one of my members keeping a retail dramshop. He was much confused at seeing me,
and said:
"Well, parson, a man must live."
"Not necessarily," I replied; "it may be best for him to die.
But it is necessary, while he lives, to live in God's ways and to trust him.
You cannot serve God in this business."
Another case I recall, while holding a meeting at Chappel Hill, Texas. Through
the unswerving faith, labors, and prayers of a Christian wife, a hard, bad man
was brought to accept Christ. Just as he was about to be baptized, I put my
hand on him and said:
"Isn't there something you ought to say to these people before you are
baptized?"
He knew that I knew his sole business was the keeping of a low liquor house
with a gambling adjunct.
"You mean about my business?"
"Yes."
"Parson, everything I have in the world is in that business; what ought I
say?"
"Don't ask me. You are now the Lord's man; ask him."
He put his hand in his pocket and drew out a key, passing it to a deacon, and
said:
"There's the key to my liquor shop. Don't sell my stock. Pour it out. Lock
the door. I will never enter it again while I live."
Then, with face illuminated, he was baptized.
The bread and meat question can never be answered right, apart from our higher
relations with God and confidence in his care. Well did our Lord say later,
"Be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink;
nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than the
food, and the body than the raiment?"
THE TEMPTATION –
IN THE HOLY CITY
"Then the devil taketh him into the holy city; and he set him on the
pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto him, if thou art the Son of God, cast
thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning
thee: and, on their hands they shall bear thee up, lest haply thou dash thy
foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, Again it is written, Thou shalt not
make trial of the Lord thy God."
What a change of scene! We have left the wilderness. This is Jerusalem. This is
the Temple. The transition is rapid. There is no delay. On a wing of the Temple
our Lord looks down from his dizzy height into the deep chasm far below. Satan
is with him. Having failed on the line of "under-confidence" in God,
he resorts to the other extreme, "over-confidence," or presumption.
It is as if he had said, "You did well to trust God for food. It is that
trust to which I now appeal. You did well to cite the Holy Scriptures. To the
Scriptures I now appeal. Trust God, believe this scripture, and cast thyself
down this precipice." And what a scripture he cites!
Psalm 91 is the loftiest hymn of confidence in God and the highest expression
of the security of one trusting in God in the whole Bible and in all the
literature of the world.
It commences: "He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall
abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of Jehovah, He is my refuge
and my fortress; my God, in whom I trust." Let the reader read all of it
over again, and imagine that he sees Satan's finger pointing to the angel
passage, and hears him say, "It is written."
Our Lord's reply comes like a double bolt of lightning, "Again it is
written, thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." What a light on biblical
interpretation – "Again it is written!" Scripture must interpret
scripture. We may not draw a vital conclusion from a single detached passage,
severed from its context, and dislocated from the unity of truth. What a lesson
to text heretics and faddists going off on a tangent from the circle of truth!
That very psalm illustrates the power of the reply of Jesus: "For he will
deliver thee from the snare of the fowler" (Psalm 91-3).
The devil and infidels are never harmonists. They try to make one passage
contradict and fight another. They misapply. They put the finger on David's sin
with Uriah's wife, and then say, "It is written that David was a man after
God's own heart."
"Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." We have already shown that
the word "tempt" may have a good or bad sense according to the object
or method. We may test or prove God by implicit obedience when he commands, and
by absolute trust in his promises when we are in his appointed way. Hear
Jehovah's own words: "Bring ye the whole tithe into the storehouse, that
there may be food in my house, and prove me now herewith, saith Jehovah of
hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven and pour you out a
blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it" (Mal. 3:10).
"Prove me now herewith." It would have been presumption for Israel to
have rushed into the Red Sea on their own initiative, but it was the sublime
audacity of faith after God said, "Go forward" It was the devil, not
Jehovah, who said, "Cast thyself down." The psalm passage cited would
have been pertinent if Jehovah had said, "Cast thyself down." We may
not claim God's promise in obeying the Devil. We may not invent or create
situations of difficulty in order to prove God's protecting care. Let us stick
to the King's highway and we will find no lion there.
It is said that when one of the fathers rebuked a demon for taking possession
of a Christian, the demon replied: "I never went to the church after him;
but when he came to the drinking and gambling hells, on my territory, I
occupied him."
To whom the father replied, "To be perfectly fair, even to the devil, I
must admit that you make out your case as to occupying him when found in your
territory, but as he now comes penitently home, you can't stay in him. So get
out. But, by the way, you may roar at any other Christian, sojourning in your
territory."
There is a last change of scene. So far, there is no reason to suppose a
miracle in the shifting of the scenes. Jesus went in a natural way to Jerusalem
as he had gone to the wilderness, and as he now ascends the mountain. But there
is something above the natural in the way Satan, "in one moment of
time" exhibits and Jesus sees the kingdoms of the world and the glory of
them. We may not crudely suppose that from any mountain, however high, the
whole world would be visible to the natural eye, nor even if the world were
flat instead of a globe, that any natural eye would have the keenness of vision
to sweep discerningly so vast a horizon, nor especially to master and weigh its
complicated details in a moment of time.
But the inner eye may see things invisible. Satan, the high intellectual
spirit, in addressing the higher intellectual spirit of Jesus could exhibit the
world kingdoms and their glory in one great cyclorama. One may ask, Why then
ascend a mountain for a viewpoint? The answer is not difficult when we consider
that all these temptations are addressed to Jesus, the man. It will help us to
get at the reason if we recall the history of Balaam (Num. 22:24) where by
changing the place of divination a new effort was made to curse Israel (Num.
23:13). Or by recalling Grant's assaults on General Lee: if he failed at one
point, he rapidly shifted the scene of the battle to another point, calling for
new and swift readjustment. It is human nature for an army to fight better when
it knows and has tried a battlefield, and to be subject to disorder and panic
when called suddenly to a new and untried field, necessitating rapid movement
of troops, new plans of defense, and new lines of battle.
Jesus was a man. As a man he was subject to all the sensations attending the
rapid shiftings of the scenes of conflict, particularly in the faintness of
hunger called to make long marches. As has been said, the temptations are on
the line of "under-confidence, over-confidence, and other
confidence." This last temptation touches the very mission of Jesus. He
came to fulfil man's original commission to "subdue the earth and exercise
dominion over it." He came to set up a world kingdom. Satan exhibits the
kingdoms of the world and the glory of them. Then hear him: "All these
things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me" (Matt.
4:9). "To thee will I give all this authority, and the glory of them: for
it hath been delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will give it. If thou,
therefore, wilt worship before me it shall all be thine."
First of all, let us consider the veracity of Satan's claim to world empire,
and his power to bestow it. Commentators generally allege that Satan lied
outright. If their contention be true, there was no temptation at all. On the
other hand, he became de facto prince of this world when he defeated the first
man, God's son by creation. He confirmed his title by defeating Israel, God's national
son. The world empires, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome were
largely raised to power by him and derived their systems of idolatry from him.
The Scriptures call him the prince of this world and add that through his
domination "the whole world lieth in wickedness." He is the author of
"the course of this world." Through "the lust of the flesh, the
lust of the eye, and the pride of life," he reigns over all his usurped
territory. He had "the power of death, and through the fear of death kept
the people in bondage." As mammon he rules the business world and supplies
its maxims of greed. Through national jealousies and ambitions and godless
politics he keeps up the burdensome armaments of rival nations.
It is true that Satan's power is never supreme – that God's providence
overrules all – that limitations tether Satan to a stake, no matter how long
the rope. Yet we must concede much of Satan's high claim.
Our next thought is that Satan's temptation is on the line of Jewish desire
expectation. They wanted a world kingdom with the Jews on top. They were ready
at any time to make Jesus king if only he would free them from Roman domination
and make Jerusalem the capital of the world. A million Jews would have leaped
to arms in a day to follow such a leader.
But look at the Scriptures. God, by prophecy, had said to Jesus, "Ask of
me and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance and the uttermost
part of the earth for thy possession." This, however, was to follow the
cross and the resurrection. Satan says, "Worship me, and I will give thee
the kingdoms of the world without the cross." This daring impious
proposition of Satan to turn God out of his world stirred our Lord into a flame
of righteous indignation. He tore all the masks off the tempter. He dragged him
into the open light in all his loathsome serpentine length. He uttered the
prophetic sentence of final eviction: "Get thee hence, Satan," and
struck a conquering blow with the sword of the Spirit: "It is written,
Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt -thou serve"
(Matt. 4:10). So the first battle ended. It was a presage of the victory in all
succeeding battles. It became the slogan of the saints: "Resist the devil,
and he will flee from you." "Whom resist stedfast in the faith."
At the close of this chapter we may raise another question: Judging from the
silence of the Scriptures, our Lord had not been assaulted by Satan since
through his agent, Herod, he sought to take the young child's life in the
massacre of the innocents at Bethlehem. The question is, Why did Satan permit
him to grow to manhood without further effort to defeat his mission, till this
great occasion? My own judgment is that as Satan is neither omnipresent nor
omniscient, he must have supposed that Herod had succeeded in destroying the
One concerning whom the Wise Men asked, "Where is he that is king of the
Jews?" The flight into Egypt, and the seclusion at Nazareth, Satan does
not seem to have known or understood. What startled him from his long
inactivity was the inauguration of Christ at his baptism: that voice of the
Father; that descent of the Spirit. God kept him in quiet until he had grown in
wisdom, until he had been endued with power, until he was ready to undertake
his great mission of saving the world.
QUESTIONS
1. Whose order of the three
special temptations is the logical one?
2. What was the scene of the
first temptation?
3. Does the phrase, "if
thou art the Son of God," imply a doubt of his being the Son of God? If not,
explain the "if."
4. What were the words of
the first temptation?
5. In his replies to all the
temptations, what does our Lord make the standard of human life?
6. From what book of the
Pentateuch are all of our Lord's quotations taken?
7. Give the meaning of our
Lord's use of the quotation, "Man shall not live my bread alone, but by
every word that proceedeth from the mouth of .God."
8. What other things might
he have truly said?
9. What words of Psalm 37
express the Lord's attitude?
10. Give the substance of
the two practical illustrations.
11. In what way alone can
the bread and meat question ever be answered right?
12. In the Sermon on the
Mount, what pertinent words did our Lord afterward use?
13. What was the scene of the
second temptation?
14. In what three words does
a writer express the three temptations?
15. Show the process of
Satan's proceeding from the line of under confidence to overconfidence.
16. From what marvelous
psalm does Satan quote?
17. From our Lord's reply,
"Again it is written," what lesson of interpretation may be drawn?
18. In the second part of
his reply, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God," prove that the
word "tempt" when applied to God on the part of man, may be lawful
and unlawful, and illustrate.
19. Relate the legend of one
of the fathers and a demon.
20. What was the scene of
the third temptation?
21. la there necessarily any
miracle in shifting the scenes from the wilderness to Jerusalem, and from
Jerusalem to the top of the mountain?
22. Show, however, that
there must have been something above the natural in Satan's exhibiting and
Christ's seeing the kingdoms of the world and their glory in a moment of time,
and yet how could this be done?
23. Explain why the ascent of
the mountain was not for the purpose of a viewpoint, and the reason of Satan's
shifting the scene.
24. This last and crowning
temptation touches what.?
25. Give the words of this
last temptation.
26. How much of truth is
there in Satan's claim to the sovereignty of the world kingdoms and his
authority to give them to whom he will, and yet what the limitations of Satan's
governing the world?
27. How was Satan's last
temptation on a line with Jewish desire and expectation?
28. Prove from a prophetic
scripture that God calls upon the Son to ask of him for this world empire, and
at what point in the life of Christ to the words of the psalm touch it?
29. When Satan, therefore,
tempted Christ to worship him, and receive from him the kingdoms of the world,
what the daring and impiety of his proposal?
30. What was the effect on
our Lord of this final temptation of Satan's, and how does he reply?
31. How may we account for
Satan's letting Jesus alone from the time that he sought his death through Herod
until this series of temptations?
JOHN'S TESTIMONY TO JESUS, JESUS' FIRST
DISCIPLES AND HIS FIRST MIRACLE
Harmony pages 18-19 and John 1:19 to 2:11.
The subject matter of this chapter is in John's Gospel alone, 1:19 to 2:11.
There are two places only, Bethany beyond Jordan and Cana of Galilee. The whole
period of time is one week. Four consecutive days are specified and the seventh
day. The very hour of one day is also given. The time of year is near the
Passover, therefore in the spring (John 2:13), the first Passover in the
ministry of Jesus. The important divisions of this chapter are (1) John's
testimony to Jesus, (2) the first disciples, and (3) the first miracle of
Jesus.
This chapter commences a series of first things. The whole series comprises (a)
John's first testimony, (b) first disciples of Jesus, (c) first miracle, (d)
first introduction of his mother in his public ministry, (e) first (and perhaps
last) marriage attended by Jesus, (f) first residence in Capernaum, (g) first
Passover, (h) first purgation of the Temple, etc.
The first scene is on the left or east bank of the Jordan. This we know from
the word "beyond" as spoken from Aenon on the west bank, John 3:26.
There is a difference in text as to this first place. The common version,
following later authorities, locates it at Bethabara. All the older manuscripts
followed by the Canterbury revision, say that it was Bethany. If Bethany be the
true text, it cannot be the Bethany near Jerusalem, mentioned in John 11:1 as
the home of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha, but some now unknown locality in either
Perea or Iturea. Bethany certainly suits the context and has the testimony of
tradition. Such also is the testimony of Origen.
JOHN AS A
WITNESS
One of the most important functions of John's office was to bear witness to
Jesus as the Christ. His whole mission was to prepare the way for him, to make
ready a people for him and then to bear witness to him. The witness-bearing
feature of John's mission is particularly brought out and emphasized in the
Fourth Gospel alone.
I will now give the outline of John's work as a witness for Christ, from which
any preacher may preach a sermon.
Text: John 1:6-7.
Theme: John the Baptist a witness to Jesus as the Messiah.
Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16 give the testimony before he knew Jesus as the
Messiah, as to the office, dignity, and work of the Messiah.
Office: "The Lord," "The One coming after me," "The
Christ."
Dignity: "One whose shoe latchet I am unworthy to unloose."
Work: "Who baptizeth in the Holy Spirit and in fire," separating the
wheat from the chaff, determining and fixing the destiny of both.
Testimony as to purity and sinlessness (Matt. 3:14): "I have need to be
baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" Testimony to the deputation from
Jerusalem, John 1:15; 1:19-28; 5:32-33; as to his office and dignity.
Testimony to Jesus as the vicarious Lamb, bearing or taking away the sin of the
world, as to his pre-existence, anointing by the Holy Spirit, as the baptizer
in the Holy Ghost and as the Son of God (John 1:29-34).
Testimony to his own disciples that Jesus was the Lamb of God (John 1:35-37).
Testimony to a Jew (a) that Jesus was the bridegroom, (b) that he must
increase, (c) that he was divine – “come down from heaven," (d) that he
was sent of the Father, (e) that he speaketh the Father's words, (f) that the
Spirit was given without measure to him, (g) as to the filial object of the
Father's love, (h) that all things were given into his hands, (i) that he is
the object of faith, (]) the source of eternal life, (k) that unbelief in him
and disobedience to him bring instant, persistent and eternal wrath (John
3:22-36).
Resuming the discussion, let us look at John's Bethany testimony.
The occasion of this testimony was the visit to John of a formal deputation
from the Jerusalem authorities, the Pharisees, sent to ascertain from John
himself Just who he was, what his mission and what his authority.
The fact that the authorities of Jerusalem deemed it important and necessary to
take this step is remarkable evidence to the great impression which John's
early ministry had made on the public mind, and the direction of this
impression shows how widespread was the expectation of a Messiah and how
earnestly the restless and burdened Jews longed for deliverance from Roman
oppression.
In a previous chapter has been shown the out-cropping and direction of this impression
concerning John (Luke 3:15). Subsequent testimony shows how the public mind was
similarly agitated about Jesus and his work (Luke 9:7-9; Matt. 16:13). And
still later, at the trial of Jesus, we find the Jerusalem authorities
endeavoring to secure from Jesus by judicial oath his testimony concerning
himself (Matt. 26:63; Mark 14:60f).
The earnestness of the inquirers is manifested by their many, rapid and
searching questions: "Art thou the Christ? Who then? Elijah? That prophet?
Why baptizeth thou then? What sayest thou of thyself?"
In John's replies two things are most striking: first, he minifies himself;
second he magnifies Jesus.
This suggests an important lesson to all preachers and indeed to all
Christians: get behind, and not before the cross.
It also teaches that between the purest and greatest men on the one hand and
Jesus Christ on the other, there is infinite distance, which establishes his
divinity.
It is also quite important to note how clean and manifold is John's testimony:
(a) as to dignity of person ("shoelatchet,") (b) his divinity and
pre-existence ("from heaven," "Son of God,") (c) His
vicarious mission, the object of faith, (d) his anointing (Messiah) and its
fulness, "without measure."
Testimony to his own disciples: (a) "Lamb of God," (b) "Leave me
. . . go to him." Compare John 3:26; Matthew II: 2-3; 14:12.
These were John's disciples. It proves that John had made ready a people for
the Lord, thus fulfilling that part of his mission and also preparing the way.
Cf. Acts l:21f, which gives the successor to Judas. The names of first two are
John and Andrew. The important lessons are: (a) If we know Jesus let us follow
him, and (b) bring others to him. Then follows the case of Andrew and Peter.
Here we have the change of Peter's name from Simon to Cephas. (See the author's
sermon "From Simon to Cephas," first book of sermons, p. 279). The
case of Philip and Nathanael follows, showing the evidence on which Nathanael
believed. This section closes with the angels ascending and descending upon the
Son of man which is the antitype of Jacob's ladder.
Now let us consider this passage more in detail. The first thought of the
passage is a shepherd finding a sheep; Jesus is the shepherd and Philip the sheep.
Jesus finds Philip. It is a wonderful thing when Jesus finds any of us. He came
to seek us out; to find the lost. It is his great office, as the shepherd, to
find that which was driven away, to find that which was lame; to seek it until
he does find it, and then to bring it home again healed and saved. Such finding
is an event. It is an event of a lifetime. But when he does find us it seems to
us as if we had found him; and when we tell about it we don't say, "Jesus
found me;" we say, "I found Jesus." That is as it appears to our
consciousness. Speaking from our experience, we state it as if Jesus had been
lost and we had found him. While history says, "Jesus found Philip,"
Philip says, "We found him." And we can understand how that is. If a
child should lose himself in the woods, trying to find his father who had gone
out hunting, and the father, returning home, should ascertain that the child
was lost and go out to seek the child and search until he struck the trail of
the little wanderer, and follow it until he at last discovered him, the true
account would be that the father found the child. But the child would say,
"I have found my papa at last." Both have been seeking. They have
been seeking each other. But in the experience of the child it will be as if he
had found his father. So, whenever Jesus finds a lost soul, that lost soul
which has also been searching in an aimless kind of way, searching and desiring
– that soul will look at its own experience and say, "I have found the
pearl of great price. I have come upon it at last." This paradox of
experience runs all through our religious life – human consciousness appearing
to contradict both doctrine and fact. There are two parties, God and man; God
working, man working; God seeking, man seeking; God finding, man finding. And
if we should stand on the God side of it and shut ourselves up entirely to
that, we can preach some very hard, but true, though one-sided doctrine; and if
we stand on the man side of it and shut ourselves up to that, we can preach some
very unsound doctrine.
Now, when Jesus finds anyone, and that one realizes that he is found of Jesus,
then what? If Jesus has found us, and if we, looking at it from our own
consciousness and experience, have found Jesus, then what? Oh, Christian, what?
Here is the answer; Every one who has been found of Jesus must become a finder
for Jesus; that is, just as soon as Jesus finds Andrew, Andrew finds Peter for
Jesus. As soon as Jesus finds Philip, Philip finds Nathanael for Jesus. Whoever
is found of Jesus becomes a finder for Jesus. What then must a Christian do?
Find people for Jesus. Surely any little child can understand that. Every one
whom Jesus finds becomes a finder for Jesus.
Having settled it that our mission as "found-ones" is also to find others
for Jesus, now let us see if we can also learn, not only that we are to do
this, but how we are to do it. And not only how we are to do it, but when we
may know that we get to the end of our duty; that is, let us seek to find the
limit of human endeavor and stop when we get there and not try to go beyond
that. We have done much when we can ascertain the limit of human effort, and
then don't try to do what we cannot do and what we never were required to do.
Therefore to find out the salient points of Christian duty, and the limit of
human endeavor, is to settle a great many things. What is it then? As soon as
Jesus found Philip, Philip determined somebody else should know about Jesus, so
he exercised his mind. He reasoned within himself: "To whom shall I go and
tell this? I must make a selection of somebody. I must begin somewhere. Well,
there is one man that I think about Just now, a man named Nathanael. I will go
and tell Nathanael about it." So he proceeds to Nathanael and commences
with the following clearly stated and comprehensively stated proposition:
"We have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write. We
have found him to be Jesus. We have found him to be Jesus of Nazareth. We have
found him to be Jesus of Nazareth, reputed to be the son of Joseph. He is in
Galilee. He is in Nazareth of Galilee. His name is Jesus. We have found that
this man Jesus lives in Nazareth, is the one of whom Moses in the law and the
prophets did write."
Now that leads to the next point. When we go to find people for Jesus what kind
of an argument had we best employ in endeavoring to get them to come to Jesus?
This argument: "We have found him." What is the import of that
argument? That argument is our Christian experience. "Nathanael, we have
found him." It is a very simple argument, but it is very convincing. Now
suppose Philip had said, "Nathanael, you ought to seek him of whom Moses
in the law and the prophets did write." "Where is he?" Nathanael
would very properly reply, "Do you know?" "No." "Do
you know his name?" "No." "How, then, are you going to
guide me, since you are Just as ignorant as I am?"
Please notice this point, that whenever we go to find anyone for Jesus,
whatever power we may have will be based upon the fact that we ourselves have
found Jesus. "We speak that we do know, we testify that which we have
seen." We come to men, not with speculations, however fine spun; not with
theories, however plausible; not with reasonings, however cogent, but as
witnesses of a fact, saying, "Here is what I have experienced. I have felt
this myself. I have tasted of this myself. I know whereof I affirm. I have
found Jesus."
The mightiest argument that the apostle Paul ever employed in his preaching was
his own Christian experience. Whether he stood before Felix, Festus, Agrippa,
or the Sanhedrin, his answer was one: "I will tell you what happened to
me: I was on my way to Damascus on a certain occasion," and then details
how he found Jesus and how Jesus found him. Suppose there had been a tradition
that in a certain section of a state, in the mountains somewhere, was a
wonderful cave; the opening of it hard to find, but inside of it marvelous
things to see; and many people had been for a long time trying to find it, and
many very wise people had set up very plausible theories as to its locality,
and each confident theorist should dogmatically insist that it ought to be and
must be where his argument placed it. But in the midst of their disputations an
ignorant Negro should appear and say, "I know it is not at any of those
places, because I have found it and been in it." And suppose that each
learned disputant should demand that he should answer his argument locating it
elsewhere. Would not the Negro say, "Master, I know nothing of argument,
but I do know where the cave is. If you don't believe me, come and see." I
venture to say that crowd would follow the Negro. If I had heard of a wonderful
cave, or a gold mine, or any strange thing and desired to see it and a man
should come to me, bearing honesty and frankness in his face, and say, "I
have found it; I have seen it; I have been in it myself," that would make
an impression upon me. But if he were to say, "I want to present to you a
line of argument to show you about where it must be," that would not make
much impression upon my mind. He is theorizing. He is doing no more than I
might do; than ten thousand others have done. But whether he is a rustic or
city man; whether he is a scholar or a boor, if he comes with an honest front
and says, "I have found it," that makes an impression.
What is our chief business? Finding people for Jesus. What is our chief
argument in inducing people to come to Jesus? Testify that we have found him
ourselves – the power of our own Christian experience. Speak to them of a fact
within our personal knowledge; speak of the precious thing within our own
heart. There is our power in dealing with the world.
Now, as soon as we begin to tell about finding Jesus we will strike a
difficulty. What is it? Some preconceived opinion in the mind of men is an
obstacle in the way, and it does not make an atom of difference what it is) for
if it is not in one thing it will be in another. Take, for example, this
particular case: "We have found him of whom Moses wrote." Nothing
wrong there. "We have found him of whom the prophets wrote." Nothing
wrong there. "We have found him to be Jesus." Nothing wrong there.
"Of Nazareth," ah, of Nazareth! "Now, I have a preconceived
opinion about that." What is that preconceived opinion? "No good
thing can come out of Nazareth." What an awful thing that preconceived
opinion is! If we can establish the main point, first, the character of the
person, "such as Moses wrote of, such as the prophets wrote of," and
if we can find the person himself – Jesus – why will one allow a preconceived
opinion about locality to keep him from accepting him? But there stands that
preconceived opinion: "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" Now
the most ingenious device of the devil is his use of proverbs, either lying proverbs,
or proverbs so misapplied that they are made to be lying proverbs, and that was
one of them, that no good thing could come out of Nazareth.
The Old Testament does not mention Nazareth, nor does Josephus. Its bad
reputation is to be gathered from the New Testament. There are two instances in
the New Testament history that tell about its bad character, the incorrigible
unbelief of its inhabitants and their cruelty when, first, they not only
refused to hear Jesus, but sought to slay him by casting him over the face of
the precipice, and then their later rejection of him caused him to change his
place of residence. So he left Nazareth forever, and moved to Capernaum. They
were a hard lot of people; that much was true. And now Nathanael asks:
"Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?"
The place where a man has lived has a great deal to do with his opportunities
of usefulness in after life, and the reputation of the place clings to him; but
if he be in himself strong and true, and there be real power in him, he will be
a man and make his mark, no matter where he hails from. But there was that
preconceived opinion now. If it had been rightly considered, that objection was
one of the demonstrations of the messiahship of Jesus Christ; that objection
was one of the arguments in favor of him. The prophets had declared that he
should be called a Nazarene. I do not mean to say that any prophet had
specified Nazareth as his home, but more than one of the prophets had described
him as "one who is despised," and the word "Nazarene" was a
term of contempt and reproach and is so used in the New Testament repeatedly.
Yet that name which was a term of reproach became a name of glory. It was
inscribed upon his cross: "Jesus of Nazareth," and he himself avowed
his connection with Nazareth after his resurrection, and "the sect of the
Nazarenes" took the world. The Apostate Julian when dying is reported to
have said, "Thou Nazarene, hath conquered."
We meet some preconceived opinions in every man that we approach who is outside
of Christ. He will spring some little point of objection. The ground in his
mind is occupied, the preconceived opinion stands in his way. In other words,
he has accepted a certain premise as established, and that premise being
established in his mind, it keeps him from accepting any conclusion not
deducible from it. Now what are we going to do when we strike a difficulty of
that kind? Do not argue with that man; he will argue until doomsday. We need
not scold; that won't do any good. But we may propose to him this practical and
experimental test: "Come and see."
So as our business is to be a finder for Jesus, our argument must be that we
have found him ourselves. When any sort of a preconceived opinion is given as an
objection, our remedy for that preconceived opinion is the simple invitation to
put the matter to a personal, practical test: "Come and see." I don't
know any shorter or more efficient way to settle all doubt. It should not make
any difference to us what is the character of any man's objection to the Bible,
what is the character of his objection to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, what
is the mental difficulty or moral difficulty in his way, if he will only put it
to a personal, practical test, we may have hope of him, and none under heaven
unless he will. What is the next point? When we bring a man to Jesus that is
the end of our work. We cannot convert a man not to save our life. That does
not rest with us; that is not a part of our duty; we have reached our limit
when we have brought him to Jesus. He will attend to his part of it. And yet
how many of the human family have been devoted to doing God's work – men trying
to make Christians out of other men, and giving formulas for it, and
prescribing rites by which it is to be accomplished – a certain form of words
to be pronounced! I say our limit is reached when we have brought that man to
Jesus; and the sooner we find that out the better. God alone can forgive sins.
It is blasphemy for any man to claim that power. When they took a bed up, on
which a man with the palsy was lying, and when they had exhausted their efforts
to get in through the door and could not, and then climbed up on the house and
took up the tiles of the roof and let him down before Jesus, their work was
done. They could not cure the palsy. They brought him to Jesus and stopped.
That is the limit of our work.
Let us restate: The points are very simple. If we have been found of Jesus,
then our chief mission is to be finders for Jesus, and our chief argument in
bringing people to Jesus is the fact that we have found Jesus ourselves; that
is, our Christian experience; and as a remedy against any objection in the way
of a preconceived opinion on the part of the one that we are trying to lead to
Jesus, we are to use no argument, no scolding, but simply "Come and
see." "Let him that heareth say, some." Oh, that power of such
witnessing cannot be attained by any sort of argument in which we might be
pleased to indulge!
The reader may recall a touching poem in McGuffey's old Fourth Reader. It tells
a sad and tragic story of a bride who, in all the loveliness of youth and
beauty, just after the marriage ceremony, turns for a moment from the happy
bridegroom and, looking back with eyes full of love's sweet light, disappears
through the doorway, never to be seen again. And the reader may recall the
poet's description of her father, representing him as one always looking for,
and never finding his missing child. Looking in every room, over all the grounds,
the suddenly demented mind always searching, never finding. So is the sinner.
There is an unrest, an anxious void, a felt need of obtaining something he
knows not what, for which he is ever seeking but which he has never found,
something that will give even peace to his soul.
Let us look for a moment at that fig tree incident. It is not clearly stated
why he went out to that tree; but it is very clearly implied that this was a
private place. A man sitting under his own vine and fig tree, secluded from the
world. Perhaps in his garden, where, sheltered from every eye, he could be
alone; and out there alone, he kneels down to pray, and express his wants, and
gives voice to his desires, and manifests his unrest and longing of his soul.
No human eye is on him. He is alone. But the eye of Jesus is on him. That is
the very thing that made Nathanael believe that he was the Messiah; because,
hidden from human observation, in the secrecy of his most private devotion,
here is one who reads every thought of his heart, and registers every index of
his character. "Whence knowest thou me? How knowest thou that my heart is
sincere, without any guile?" "I read your heart, Nathanael, when you
were praying alone." So he sees us in the privacy of our closet when the
door is shut. He knows whether we are in earnest, or merely affecting an
interest we do not feel. He knows when we come from curiosity. How readily he
discovers to Ezekiel the character of his hearers: "Also, thou son of man,
the children of thy people still are talking against thee by the walls and in
the doors of the houses and speak one to another, every one to his brother,
saying, Come, I pray you, and hear what is the word that cometh forth from the
Lord. And they that come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before
thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them; for with
their mouth they show much love, but their heart goeth after their
covetousness. And, lo, thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one that
hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument; for they hear thy
words, but they do them not." Such discernment of the heart is within the
power of God alone. It convinced the woman of Samaria at the well that Jesus
was the Messiah. So it satisfied Nathanael, evoking his ready response:
"Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel."
Whoever comes without guile, comes with a true and worthy purpose; coming to
find – that man will believe on the very first clear proof. And after all, whenever
any man is convinced, it is but one proof that convinces; and, indeed, we never
need but one good reason for anything. One good proof is sufficient.
And now here is my last point: While it is true that one who comes without
guile, not to argue, not to satisfy curiosity, not to be entertained, but
conscious of need, desiring to find a Saviour, finds it easy to believe, and
while one proof satisfies the soul, yet he does not suffer that faith to rest
always on that one proof, but ever confirms it by new and greater proof. So
reads the passage: "Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto
thee, I saw thee under a fig tree) believest thou? Thou shalt see greater
things than these. And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and
descending upon the Son of man." This is not "you shall see heaven
opened;" it has long been open; but "you shall see an open
heaven." It is not that it is now to open, but that it has been open, and
you did not heretofore see it. "You accepted as a proof of my divinity
that I could read the heart. Here is proof mightier than that proof that
reaches from high heaven down to earth; proof that reaches from the very throne
and heart of God. Proof which says, Angels coming down en me; therefore, I am
divine. There is a way from me to heaven, therefore, I am divine. I am the
Messiah, the one who brings heaven and earth together. My right hand is on the
throne, my left hand is on the sinner." We shall see it, if, without
guile, honestly coming, we accept the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Yes,
heaven was already open over sleeping Jacob in the beginning of his religious
life and over dying Stephen before he fell asleep in Jesus. Here I am a witness
and not a theorist. To me, by faith) has that open heaven long been visible. By
faith I have seen the angels ascending and descending upon the Son of God. It
is no distempered fancy, no freak of the imagination, but a sweet and
substantial reality. As, like Jacob, I have seen that gate of heaven and found
in lonely places the house of God, and in my travels have met the "hosts
of heaven," so when, like Stephen, I come to die, whenever and wherever
and however that may be, I, too, shall be able to "look up stedfastly into
heaven and see the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of
God" to receive and welcome my spirit. Yes, God will confirm our faith by
even greater proofs. Angela will come down to us in our sorrows. They will
minister to us as heirs of salvation. And when, like Lazarus at the rich man's
gate, our bodies die, they will catch away our parting souls and convey them to
our heavenly home.
On page 19, Section 19, of the Harmony we have an account of the first miracle
of Jesus. At this point in our studies it is fitting that we should take a
general view, somewhat, of the miracles which occupy an important place in the
Bible. The names used to describe miracles, according to their effect on the
beholder, their design, their source, or the thing accomplished, are wonders,
signs, powers and mighty works, respectively. See Acts 2:22; 2 Corinthians
12:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:9, e. g., the incarnation of Christ, the healing of
the paralytic (Mark 2:12), the raising of Lazarus, and the resurrection of Christ.
The following are some definitions of a miracle:
"A miracle is an effect in nature not attributable to the ordinary
operations of nature, nor to the act of man, but indicative of superhuman
power, and serving as a sign or witness thereof; a wonderful work, manifesting
a power superior to the ordinary forces of nature." – Century Dictionary.
"A miracle is a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition
of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent." – Hume.
"A miracle is an event or effect contrary to the established constitution
and course of things, or a deviation from the known laws of nature; a
supernatural event, or one transcending the ordinary laws by which the universe
is governed." – Webster.
"A miracle is an extraordinary event, discernible by the senses,
apparently violating natural laws and probabilities, inexplainable by natural
laws alone, produced by the agency of a supernatural power, for religious
purposes, usually to accredit a messenger or to attest God's revelation to
him." – The Author.
It needs to be emphasized in this connection (1) that a miracle is not a
violation of natural law, (2) not a greater power, but a different and
particular method and (3) not a disregard of natural law, but it is superhuman
and may come from God or the devil (2 Thess. 2:9-10). If it comes from God it
corroborates that which is good; if from the devil, that which is evil. True
religion rests on divine revelation. ID the beginning man dealt directly with
God and God sufficiently revealed his divinity and the vital principles of
religion. But the devil approached man through an accredited intermediary. The
miracle should not have been accepted as proof, because the alleged message was
contrary to what had been revealed by God directly. (See Deut. 13:3; Gal. 1:8;
Matt. 24:24; 2 Thess. 2:9; Rev. 13:13.) After man's fall God could reveal
himself only through an intermediary, hence the necessity of miracles. So man
has neither warrant nor power to invent or impose a religion. Whatever claims
to be a religion (a) must harmonize with previous revelation and nature, and
(b) the messenger must be accredited and the message must be attested, as in
the case of Jonah.
There are certain tests which must be applied to every miracle before we can
know whether it is from God or from the devil. If from God, it must (1) not be
immoral, (2) not a mere freak in nature, but it must (3) aim at that which is
good, (4) result in good, and (5) establish right doctrine. So John says,
"Try the spirits." Therefore Moses, the elders and Pharaoh had a
right to test the miracles they witnessed. (See Interpretation, volume,
Exodus-Leviticus.)
There are three great groups of miracles in the Bible, each showing the
intervention of God in a great crisis in the history of the true religion: (1)
In the time of Moses; (2) In the time of Elijah and Elisha; (3) In the time of
Christ and his apostles. The third group, which we are now to study, may be
classed as follows: those wrought on Christ, such as (a) his incarnation, (b)
the descent of the Spirit upon him, (c) the transfiguration, (d) the voice of
John 12:28, (e) the events of Gethsemane, (f) the events of the crucifixion,
(g) his resurrection. Those wrought by him, beginning at Cana of Galilee and
ending with the inspiration of the apostles (these we will study in order).
Those wrought by his apostles which we find mainly in the book of Acts and will
be considered in the interpretation of that book. If we admit the incarnation,
all the others follow. The test miracle is the resurrection of Christ. He made
it the test, his disciples accepted it as the test, and they ever afterward
rested everything on it. (See 1 Cor.15.)
Now we will take up this first miracle and discuss it briefly. The time was the
third day after our Lord's interview with Nathanael. The place was Cana of
Galilee. The occasion was a marriage to which our Lord and his disciples were
invited. The incident leading to it was the failure of the wine, upon which the
mother of Jesus intervenes and states the case. The Romanists set great store
by this incident as teaching the mediatorial position of Mary, but there is not
a hint at such teaching in this miracle. The story of the miracle is simple and
impressive. The water turned to wine. As Milton says, "The unconscious
water saw its God and blushed." The whiskey men try to find in this
incident a justification for their nefarious business, but the ground of their
justification in this passage is the sinking sand of delusion, and their claim
is as utterly false as is the claim of the Romanists for the mediatorial work
of Mary based upon the same incident. This miracle manifested the glory of
Christ and strengthened the faith of his disciples. The purpose of this miracle
as viewed by John was to attest the divinity of Jesus Christ. Thus he uses the
word "sign" for this great event, which word is most common with him,
and indicates the purpose of his gospel, viz: to prove that Jesus is the
Christ.
QUESTIONS
1. In what Gospel is the
subject matter of this chapter?
2. What two places are
named?
3. What was the period of
time, what points of time mentioned, and what the time of the year?
4. What are the important
divisions of this chapter?
5. What are the
"first-things" in the whole series introduced by this chapter?
6. What is the first scene,
where and what the proof?
7. What was one of the most
important functions of John the Baptist and what was his whole mission?
8. Where is the
witness-bearing feature of his mission brought out?
9. What was the testimony of
John to Jesus before he knew him as the Messiah?
10. What was his testimony
to the purity and sinlessness of Jesus?
11. What was his testimony
as to his office and dignity?
12. What was his testimony
as to his vicarious work, his pre-existence, his anointing, etc.?
13. What was his testimony
to him as the Lamb of God?
14. What was the bundle of
testimony to Jesus in John 3:22-36?
15. What was the occasion of
the Bethany testimony?
16. What was the
significance of this event?
17. Show the progress of the
concern of the authorities relative to the ministry of John and Jesus,
18. How is their earnestness
manifested here?
19. What two striking things
in John's replies?
20. What lesson suggested to
all preachers and Christiana by this attitude of John?
21. What additional lesson
does this testimony of John teach?
22. How is the clearness of
his testimony marked?
23. What was John's
testimony to his own disciples?
24. How were John and Jesus
related in their work, and what things in general, to be noted in John 1:35-51?
25. Taking this passage more
in detail, what was the first thought and what its application?
26. What is the duty of
every one who has been found by Jesus and how is it illustrated here?
27. How then are we to do
this and what important fact to be learned here?
28. What is the argument to
be used, how illustrated here and how illustrated by Paul?
29. Give the author's
illustration.
30. What difficulty is often
found in this work and how is it illustrated here?
31. What of the character
and reputation of the people of Nazareth and what reference to it here?
32. What are we to do with
the man with preconceived opinions?
33. Where does our work in
the salvation of people end, and how is it illustrated in the Bible?
34. What is the lesson from
the fig tree incident here?
35. What is the meaning of
"in whom is no guile"?
36. How does Jesus confirm
the faith of them that receive him?
37. Explain the
"Jacob's Ladder" antitype here.
38. What were the names used
to describe miracles and what their meaning, respectively?
39. Give the definition of
miracle according to the Century Dictionary.
40. Give Hume's definition.
41. Give Webster's
definition.
42. Give the author's
definition verbatim.
43. What things need to be
emphasized in this connection?
44. What are the two sources
of miracles and what is the distinguishing characteristics in general?
45. On what does true religion
rest, and what is its bearing on the question of miracles?
46. What was the first
miracle, what was its purpose, what was the proof that it should not have been
received as proof?
47. What of the necessity of
miracles after the fall of man and what was its bearing on the question of
man-made religions?
48. What are the tests of
true religion?
49. What are the tests of a
God-given miracle?
50. What are the three great
groups of miracles in the Bible and why did they come as they did?
51. What is the
classification of the third group and what is included in each class?
52. What miracle admitted
and all others follow?
53. What was the time,
place, and occasion of and the incident lead ing to the first miracle of Jesus?
55. What was the Romanist
teaching based on this incident and how do you meet it? . 56 Tell the story of
the miracle, giving quotation from Milton.
57. What use do the whiskey
men make of this incident and how do you offset their contention?
58. What was the effect of
this miracle?
59. What its purpose? .
60. What word did John moat
frequently use for miracle and what the significance of his use of it?
THE SOJOURN OF JESUS AT CAPERNAUM, HIS
FIRST PASSOVER DURING HIS MINISTRY AT WHICH HE CLEANSES THE TEMPLE AND
INTERVIEWS NICODEMUS
Harmony pages 20-21 and John 2:12 to 3:21.
After the events at Cana Jesus went down to Capernaum with his kindred and early
disciples and there abode a short time. Nothing further of this brief sojourn
at Capernaum is known. From Capernaum he goes to Jerusalem, where two
significant events take place, viz: the cleansing of the Temple and the
interview with Nicodemus. It is well to note here the scenes of his early
ministry: beside the Jordan, at Cana of Galilee, at Capernaum, at Jerusalem, in
Judea, and in Samaria.
A remarkable deed characterized both the beginning and end of his ministry in
Judea. This was the cleansing of the Temple. At this first passover in his
ministry he found the money-changers and those who sold animals for sacrifice
in the Temple, making the Temple a house of merchandise. He at once proceeded
to drive out the animals and to overturn the tables of the money-changers, an
act which the Son of God only could perform without a protest from the
offended. But the majesty of our Lord here doubtless beamed forth in such
splendor that they were completely overawed and dared not resist, but simply
demanded a sign of his authority. To which he replied that if they should
destroy the temple of his body, in three days he would raise it up. This is the
first reference to his resurrection which he thus made the test of his
messiahship early in his ministry and referred to it many times later, making
it the test, both to his disciples and to his enemies. This cleansing of the
Temple fulfilled two prophecies – Psalm 69:9 and Isaiah 56:7. Then follows a
statement of the response of the people to his signs which he did: "Many
believed on his name." But Jesus did not trust himself to any man because
his omniscience saw what was in man.
The second great event of this visit to Jerusalem was our Lord's interview and
discourse with Nicodemus, which furnishes us our most profitable lesson on…
The occasion of this discussion of our Lord was the coming to him of Nicodemus,
by night at some unknown place in Jerusalem, to learn more of this great
miracle worker. Our English word "regeneration," etymologically, is a
compound word. Generation means the act of begetting; regeneration, the
begetting anew. Theologically it means a radical change in the soul or spirit
of a man by the action of the Holy Spirit. But this change does not affect the
substance of the soul, or impart any new faculty. It is not limited to the
intellect, or to the will or to the affections, but it applies to the soul as a
unit, including all its faculties or powers – intellect, will and affection. It
consists in spiritual quickening or making alive, in illuming the mind, in
changing the will, in awakening new affections, and in spiritual cleansing. We
say this radical change in the soul or spirit, called regeneration, is by the
action of the Holy Spirit. How can the Holy Spirit of God act immediately on
any other spirit, i.e., by direct impact of Spirit on spirit, or must he act
mediately, i.e, by the use of means? He acts both ways, immediately and
mediately. The scriptural proof that the Holy Spirit can act directly, or
immediately, is as follows:
(1) On inanimate matter, Genesis 1:2, 2:7; Psalm 104:32.
(2) On beasts, Psalm 104:29-30.
(3) On babes in the womb, Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:41-44.
(4) In inspiration, I Samuel 10:10.
(5) In dreams and visions, Genesis 28:11-17; I Kings 3:5; Matthew 2:12.
(6) In demoniacal possessions, Acts 5:3; John 13:27.
(7) In regeneration of infants dying in infancy -implied – 2 Samuel 12:23.
(8) In the call to the ministry by impressions.
Some theologians hold that in the new birth the subject is passive and the Spirit's
power is immediate, i.e., the direct impact of Spirit on spirit. Others held
that in the new birth the subject is active and that the Spirit employs the
word of God as a means, but I say that there is an element of truth in both
positions. Antecedent to all human effort a direct power of the Holy Spirit
quickens the soul or makes it sensitive to impressions by the word. For
example, "The Lord opened the heart of Lydia that she should attend to the
words spoken by Paul." Now if this first touch of the Spirit is what we
mean by the new birth, the first position is undoubtedly correct. But while
insisting on the necessity and reality of this initial and direct power of the
Spirit, if one should hold that this is not what the Scriptures call the new
birth he would be able to support his view by many scriptures. This appears
from the fact that when one is born into the kingdom of God he is fully a child
of God. But if the subject of the hew birth is passive only – if regeneration
is completed without the use of means and before the subject is penitent or
believing, then we have a child of God who is yet in his sins, impenitent,
without faith, and hence without Christ, which is philosophically impossible.
Moreover, it is contrary to Scripture, as witness James 1:18: "Having
willed it, he begat us (apekuesen) by the word of truth" (1 Peter
1:23) : "Having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by the word of the living God. But this is the word which was
announced to you" (Gal. 3:26): "For ye are all the children of God
through faith in Christ Jesus." Romans 10:17: "So then faith cometh
by hearing and hearing by the word of God." Moreover, in John 3:9-18, when
Nicodemus asks, "How can these things come to be," that is, what is
the instrumental means of the new birth, Jesus explains by telling that Christ
must be lifted up as an object of faith, as Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness. Again, John 1:12-13: "But as many as received him, to them
gave he the right to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his
name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will
of man, but of God." This teaching may be put into a syllogism, thus:
Every one born of God has the right to be called a child of God. But no one has
the right until he believes in Jesus. Therefore the new birth is not completed
without faith.
The true scriptural position then is this: There is, first of all, a direct
influence of the Holy Spirit on the passive spirit of the sinner, quickening
him or making him sensitive to the preaching of the Word. In this the sinner is
passive. But he is not a subject of the new birth without contrition,
repentance and faith. In exercising these he is active. Yet even his contrition
is but a response to the Spirit's conviction, and the exercise of his
repentance and faith are but responses to the antecedent spiritual graces of
repentance and faith. To illustrate take this diagram:
Conviction – Grace of Repentance – Grace of Faith
= New Birth
Contrition – Repentance – Faith
The upper or divine side represents the Spirit's work. Then contrition,
repentance, and faith are the constituent elements of the human side of
regeneration.
When we say repentance and faith are fruits of regeneration we simply mean that
in each case the Spirit grace above originates and works out the respective
human exercise below. The following scriptures prove that repentance is a grace
as well as a human exercise: Acts 5:31; 11:18. That faith also is a grace, is
seen from 1 Corinthians 2:4-5; 3:5; 2 Peter 1:1. The Holy Spirit then is the
agent in regeneration and the instrumental means of regeneration is the Word of
God, or the preaching of Christ crucified, yet the power of the Spirit does not
reside in the word as inspired by him, but the agency is positive and active in
the use of the word. This is illustrated by the use of the ax and the sword. We
say that an ax is adapted to cutting down trees, and not that it has power to
cut down a tree apart from its intelligent use by the woodsman; and we say that
the sword is adapted to cut or thrust, not that it has in itself the power to
kill apart from its intelligent wielding by the swordsman. So, though the Word
of God is represented as "quick and powerful and sharper than any
two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and
of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the
heart, neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight, but all
things are naked and open unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do,"
yet this Word is but the Spirit's sword, powerful only when wielded by him.
The scriptural proof that dying infants are regenerated is constructive and
inferential rather than direct. Infants partake of the fallen nature of the
parents, and without a change of that nature would be unfitted for heaven. The
Scripture says that we are all by nature the children of wrath, but David says
with reference to his dead child, "I shall go to him, but he cannot return
to me." As they cannot enter heaven without a change, and as the Spirit is
the author of all the change that makes one meet for heaven, it is justly to be
inferred that infants are regenerated.
While out hunting on a Western mountain I turned over a huge rock on the
mountainside that seemed to be evenly balanced. Under this rock was a den of
rattlesnakes, some of them very small, without rattles, and with the fangs not
yet developed nor the poison secreted in the sac. These little snakes had never
yet bitten any man, and yet if one of them bad been taken to a home and fed
upon the milk which nourishes a child, as the snake grew the rattle would form,
the fang would develop, the poison would secrete, and even if in its infancy it
had been carried to heaven itself without a change of its nature, there, hard
by the throne of God, it would have matured the deadly venom. The necessity for
the regeneration of infants if they, when dying, are to enter heaven, is
imperious. The nature vitiated through the fall of the first Adam is changed by
the Spirit through the virtue of the Second Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ. In
their case the Spirit's power is immediate.
The principal passages of Scripture defining, embodying or illustrating the
doctrine of regeneration are as follows: Psalm 51:2-10; Ezekiel 36:25-27; John
1:12-13; 3:3-15; Romans 12: 2; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 2:1-10; 4:22-24;
5:25-27; Colossians 2:13; 3:9-10; Titus 3:5; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23. All of
these passages, and others like them, are to be carefully studied in order to a
full understanding of this theme. Greek students will find it very profitable
to look carefully at the original terms employed in these passages, but we may
say for English students that among these terms are: "Born from above,"
"born again," "to make alive," "to quicken,"
"to raise from the dead," "to transform," "to
renew," "to create," "to illumine," and "to
cleanse." These terms imply supernatural power.
It has been said that the most important passage on regeneration is the third
chapter of John. Returning to that chapter, we find that Jesus and Nicodemus
talk of two births, the natural and the spiritual birth. The Spirit birth is
first designated as "born from above." It is next designated 8.3
'born of water and spirit." Theologians usually refer the phrase,
"born of water" to baptism, but there are certain evils of this
reference, viz: The doctrine of baptismal regeneration the conditioning of
salvation upon external ordinances. It is impossible to exaggerate the fearful
evils that have followed this wrong interpretation of the phrase, "born of
water."
It led directly to the doctrine of infant baptism. The logic would be this: If
infants are lost without regeneration, and regeneration is by baptism, in order
to save the infants they must be baptized. The teaching of history is very
clear as to the origin of infant baptism, that it arose from the preceding
doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Then there followed also historically and
quite naturally a change of baptism itself into sprinkling or pouring, to meet
the case of infants, though the Greek church yet practices the immersion of
infants.
The phrase, "born of water," cannot be explained by baptism.
The argument is very conclusive. Christ and Nicodemus discuss but two births,
the natural birth and the spiritual birth; "that which is born of the
flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." The
phrase, "born of water and Spirit," cannot mean two births, one of
water and one of Spirit, because there is no article in the original before the
words. Whatever it means, it is one birth. It must be either baptism or Spirit,
and both terms express only one birth. Otherwise our chapter talks of three
births – the natural birth, the baptism birth, and the Spirit birth, which is
contrary to the context. Moreover, the context shows that the salvation
involved in the third chapter of John is a salvation of grace and not of
sacraments. But what is most conclusive is that our Lord rebukes Nicodemus for
not understanding what he meant by "born of water and Spirit,"
Nicodemus being a teacher of the Old Testament. But as the Old Testament has
not a word about baptism, he would not be censurable for failing to understand
the meaning of this phrase, if "born of water" referred to baptism.
The censure lies in the fact that what is meant by "born of water and
Spirit" is clearly set forth in the Old Testament, which is so silent
about baptism, and with which Nicodemus, as a master in Israel, ought to have
been well acquainted.
The phrase, "born of water and Spirit," is but an expansion of the
previous phrase, "born from above." It interprets and develops the
first phrase, bringing out the two elements in regeneration, namely, cleansing and
renewing. It is only when we lose sight of the cleansing element in
regeneration that we are liable to go astray in interpreting the phrase
"born of water." The matter is clearly set forth in Ezekiel 36:25-26,
which declares: "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall
be clean; from all of your filthiness and from all of your idols, will I
cleanse you." This is the cleansing element of regeneration. The passage
adds: "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put
within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will
give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you
to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." And
this is the renewing element. Clean water in this passage does not mean pure
water or just water. It means water of cleansing, or water of purification.
There was a special recipe for the compounding of this cleansing water, or
water of purification.
This recipe is found in the book of Numbers, where Moses is directed to take a
red heifer and burn her with red cedar wood, and to cast scarlet thread into
the fire, and then to gather up the ashes and mingle them with running water,
in order to put them into a liquid form, and this is the clean water, or water
of purification of the Bible. It was administered by taking a bunch of hyssop
and dipping it into this liquid and sprinkling it upon the one to be
ceremonially cleansed. We can thus easily understand the fifty-first Psalm, in
which David says, "Purge me [or cleanse me] with hyssop, and I shall be
clean. Wash me and I shall be whiter than snow." He thus brings out in
type the cleansing element in regeneration.
Now, this water of purification was a type. It was typical of the blood of Christ.
Concerning this the letter to the Hebrews says, "For if the blood of bulls
and of goats and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to
the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who
through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God purify your
conscience from dead works to serve the living God." So that the Old
Testament idea of clean water was equal to the ashes of the heifer, and that
typified the blood of Christ, applied in regeneration by the Holy Spirit. This
produces the cleansing element of regeneration, and with this Nicodemus ought
to have been familiar.
"Born of water and spirit" simply means "cleansed by the blood
of Christ and renewed by the Holy Spirit."
The New Testament with even greater clearness brings out these two elements of
regeneration. Paul writes to Titus (3:5): "Not by works of righteousness
which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of
regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." The same thought is
presented in his letter to the Ephesians, when he says, "Christ also loved
the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with
the washing of water by the Word." Here is a strange kind of washing – a
washing through the Word, indicating the instrumentality of the Word in
effecting regeneration, and yet showing that the washing is a figurative
washing, a washing that accomplishes cleansing, and that cleansing is applied
by the Holy Spirit.
So that the phrase, "born of water and Spirit" means the same as
"born from above," and it means the same as the "washing of
regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit."
Christ says, "Ye must be born from above in order to see the kingdom of
God," and he says, "Except a man be born of water and Spirit he
cannot enter the kingdom of God." This language emphasizes the necessity
of regeneration in the strongest possible way. Now let us clearly and forcibly
state the reason or ground of this necessity. The necessity lies in the fact
that man is fallen and depraved, and without the change effected by
regeneration could not enjoy heaven, even if he were permitted to enter it.
Therefore in any true system of theology the doctrine of human depravity is a
vital and fundamental doctrine. It is a touchstone that when applied clearly
defines every man's position and shows his proper alignment. If he does not
believe that man is fallen he sees no necessity for the regeneration and
sanctification by the Holy Spirit.
The doctrines of depravity and regeneration irreconcilably antagonizes the
modern doctrine of evolution, which teaches that man has never fallen; that he
is continually ascending; and hence no full-fledged Darwinian evolutionist
believes in the historic veracity of the account in Genesis of the fall of man,
nor does he believe in the necessity of either regeneration by the Spirit, or
sanctification by the Spirit, holding that man can be cultivated and trained
into the highest possible development.
Another vital scriptural doctrine is involved in this antagonism, viz., the
vicarious expiation of Christ. If spiritual cleansing, secured by the
application of the blood of Christ, is an essential and integral part of
regeneration, the doctrine of the vicarious expiation of Christ is necessarily
involved in this antagonism, and hence, consistently, the full-fledged
Darwinian evolutionist like Mr. Haeckel, boldly denies any necessity for an
atonement, or any virtue in this direction in the death of Christ.
Justification comes in touch with regeneration at that point where the Spirit
of God by the application of the blood of Christ, cleanses the soul. When the
man accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as. his Teacher, Sacrifice, Priest, and King,
and trusts in him for salvation, then God in heaven justifies the man, or
declares an acquittal of him) through his faith in the blood, but the blood is
applied in the cleansing part of regeneration, so that we see again from this
relation between regeneration and justification how it is that regeneration
cannot be complete without faith.
QUESTIONS
1. Trace Jesus in his early
ministry from the banks of the Jordan to the beginning of his great ministry in
Galilee.
2. What remarkable deed
characterized both the beginning and the end of his ministry in Judea?
3. How do you explain this
bold act of Jesus?
4. What sign of his
authority did he here submit and how did he here afterward make this the test
of 1) is messiahship?
5. What prophecies were
fulfilled ill these two incidents of cleansing the Temple?
6. What statement here of
the omniscience of Jesus?
7. What was the second great
event of this visit to Jerusalem and what the great lesson from it?
8. What the occasion, time,
and place of this interview with Nicodemus?
9. What the etymological
meaning of the English word "regeneration"?
10. Theological meaning?
11. Does it change the
substance of the soul, or impart any new faculties?
12. Is its effect limited to
the intellect, or to the will, or to the affections?
13. In what then does it
consist?
14. Can the Holy Spirit
operate immediately on another spirit, i.e., direct impact of Spirit on spirit,
or must he operate immediately, i.e., through the use of means?
15. Cite scriptural proof
that the Spirit may act immediately in at least eight different cases.
16. According to
theologians, does the Holy Spirit in regeneration operate mediately or
immediately?
17. But what do you say?
18. While insisting on the
immediate operation of the Holy Spirit how do you make it appear that the
scriptural new birth is not complete without the use of means?
19. Cite the scriptural
proof.
20. Put the scriptural proof
of John 1:12-13 in the form of a syllogism, its human exercise.
21. What then is the true
scriptural teaching?
22. Illustrate this by a
diagram.
23. Explain the diagram.
24. How then may we rightly
say that repentance and faith are fruits of regeneration?
25. Cite Scripture proof
that the divine grace of repentance precedes
26. What is the similar
proof concerning faith?
27. Who then always is the
efficient agent of regeneration?
28. The instrumental means?
29. What part of the Word of
God, the Law or the Gospel?
30. When we say the Spirit
is the power and the Word is the means, does the Spirit power reside in the
Word because inspired, or is the Spirit agency positive and active in the use
of the Word?
31. Illustrate this by the
ax and the sword.
32. In the case of infants
dying are they saved with or without regeneration?
33. What is the constructive
scriptural proof?
34. In their case is the
Spirit's operation mediate or immediate?
35. Cite the principal
passages. Old Testament and New Testament, embodying the doctrine of regeneration,
36. What words are here
employed to define or illustrate regeneration?
37. What do they imply?
38. Greek students cite the
principal Greek words employed to define or illustrate regeneration, citing one
passage in which each separate word is used, giving the inflection of the word
these used (i.e., the case and number and person of the noun or the voice,
mood, tense, number and person of the verb).
39. Of how many births do
Nicodemus and Jesus talk?
40. How is the Spirit birth
first designated?
41. How the second time?
42. To what do theologians
generally refer "born of water"?
43. What the evils of the
doctrine?
44. Show why it cannot be so
explained.
45. What then does it mean?
46. Christ says, "Ye
must be born from above to see the kingdom of God . . . Except a man be born of
water and Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God." State clearly and
forcibly the reason, or ground, of this necessity.
47. What then is the
position of the doctrine of depravity?
48. How do the doctrines of
depravity and regeneration irreconcilably antagonize the modern doctrine of
evolution?
49. What other vital
scriptural doctrine is involved in this antagonism?
50. At what point in
regeneration does justification come in touch with it?
THE EVIDENCES OF THE SPIRIT IN THE NEW
BIRTH AND THE MEANS BY WHICH THE NEW BIRTH IS ACCOMPLISHED
Harmony page 81 and John 3:8.
Following the line of thought discussed in the preceding chapter, we take up
the verities of the Christian experience as stated by Jesus in John 3:8:
"So is every one that is born of the Spirit." The "so"
refers to the preceding statement that the wind blows where it pleases. We can
hear the wind, but we cannot tell whence it cometh nor whither it goeth.
The first thought presented is that there are inscrutable mysteries in both
nature and grace. No man has ever been able to thoroughly understand any of the
mysteries of either. He is just as much staggered when he tries to explain the
source of the life of the plant as he is about the life of a Christian. Both
are beyond him. He reaches the limit of his investigation. He gets to a point
where he has to say, "Here I don't know. I see the demonstration; the fact
is manifest, but if you ask me to explain, I cannot explain. I do not know
enough." Most striking is the mystery in that most wonderful of all events
that takes place upon this earth – the conversion of a sinner. Those whose
attention has been most earnestly and most persistently devoted to the study of
that subject all their lives, fall as far short of a real and comprehensive
explanation as one who has never given the matter any attention. It is therefore
of no more practical use for one to urge the mystery of it as an objection
against the teaching of the Bible on the conversion of the soul by the power of
the Spirit, than to foolishly scorn the botanist who cannot explain just how
the flowers are colored.
One proposition of the context, however, finds ready acceptance wherever there
is common sense: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; that which is
born of the Spirit is spirit." It goes back to a fundamental law of being
as developed in the creation, when God said that every seed should bear after
its kind. These boundaries have never been crossed. A man may, by care and
attention, bring about varieties, but he cannot cross the line of species. It
has never been done. Each seed bears after its kind. In full accord with that
law, our Saviour says to Nicodemus, "That which is born of the flesh is
flesh; that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." And whoever
comprehends the kingdom of God, whoever is able to see it, to get in touch with
it, must do so spiritually, because it is a spiritual kingdom. He must be the
subject of divine influence. The carnal man cannot understand it. Paul's
proposition is self-evident: "The natural man receiveth not the things of
the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them,
because they are spiritually discerned." The criticisms of carnal men,
however wise in other things, on conversion, revivals of religion, clearly
evince that the supernatural is utterly incomprehensible by them.
How often have we seen even such a case as this: One who has been a warmhearted
Christian finds that after awhile his love waxes cold; his fervor leaves him.
When we talk to him about it, it appears that he recognizes the decadence as
readily as we do, and deplores it a great deal more. But no effort of mere will
on his part can restore what has been. He will open the Book and read its
consolations and promises, and say: "I know that this is true. I know that
by my past experience, but I cannot get hold of it now as I once did. I did not
go down to my business today without first getting down on my knees and asking
God's blessing upon me, that is, I went through the form of prayer, but without
being able to explain it, I do know that it is different in its effect upon me,
upon my own feelings, from the prayers I once offered. Under different or
similar circumstances I miss the power of prayer. The Spirit of God is not now
resting upon me."
This isolated individual experience is not so remarkable as another well-known
historical fact, that every now and then in the history of the world there
comes over Christians, not in one little range of country, not in one
community, but over the whole sweep of the world, what may be called a
declension in spiritual religion. People begin to talk about how it used to be,
and mourn for the joys of other days. They begin to compare experiences with
one another and inquire what is the matter. "Why is it that I cannot take
hold of such matters now like I did at a certain time?" What are we going
to do about it? And insensibly as this spiritual power declines, they begin to
reach out for and rely upon fleshly counsels and means for manufacturing power
and are all the time conscious of the fact that their efforts do not touch the
main question; that flesh has failed to do anything in the premises. And
arguing from such failures, directly there are men who rise up and say,
"It is quite evident that religion is becoming a back number. Science is
spreading its light over the world and men are turning to science and turning
away from religion, and if this thing goes on awhile longer there will be no
Christian religion."
It is one of the most curious things in history, the number of times men
otherwise intelligent, in such a state of spiritual declension, have preached
the funeral of the Christian religion, and maybe within one week of the time
that pious hearts were failing them, and the enemy was triumphing and gloating
over the seemingly rapid decay of that religion which had rebuked their
immorality, and which had made such demands upon them for purity and integrity
of life – inside of one week – no one could tell where it came from, any more
than we can trace the lines of the wind – but suddenly here, there, yonder,
over all parts of the country, men are becoming earnest upon the subject of
religion. Sinners are inquiring the way of life; Christians are meeting
together and talking to one another; little meetings are appointed in private
houses, then in the church; soon what is called a revival of religion of
tremendous power has come upon the people, and perhaps in one month's time a
complete revolution has been brought about, and we stand there and look upon
the phenomena and begin to philosophize about the forces, so far as we are able
to see them, so far as they are tangible to us. If we begin to try to account
for these things by the natural forces that are in sight, we are struck with
this thought: The instrumentalities in sight are utterly inadequate. They are
weak things; some of them are just nothing; and yet these instrumentalities
under this condition of affairs, have become as potent as Omnipotence itself,
in revolutionizing a county, a state, a nation, a large section of the world.
We take up the Bible and its words are just as plain as can be that it is the
work of the Spirit; that it was not because Paul planted and Apollos watered;
it was God that gave the increase; that it did not grow out of any will of man;
it did not come from blood, from human blood; it was from heaven; it was from
that sovereign Spirit of God that breathes where he pleases and when he likes,
that has brought about this strange state of affairs.
Now, to make the application: What can we do, in view of such a state of facts?
What can Christians do? What can ministers do? There is one thing that can
always be done; one thing that has not merely the command of God, but the
promise of God, and ten thousand confirmations of the wisdom of its
application; and that is, feeling human helplessness, feeling the inadequacy of
any means without our power to bring about a different state of affairs,
realizing our own worthlessness in the sight of God, we can pray, we can kneel
down and say, "Our Heavenly Father, thou giver of every good and precious
gift, give us thy Spirit, so that our cold hearts may be melted; so that our
inattentive minds may be fixed on heavenly things and fired with old-time zeal
in our religious duties; so that when we speak the hearer's ear will be opened
and his attention gained, and so that the Word of God can run and not be
hindered."
The prayers of God's people, so it seems to me from the teachings of the Bible,
are the appointed means, the means which he has designated – clearly and
unmistakably designated – for bringing about revivals of religion. And yet even
here we confront an insuperable difficulty if we leave out God's absolute
sovereignty. The difficulty can be best stated by an illustration: Water from
above must be poured down a pump long dry before it can pump up water from
below. We work the pump handle in vain. We go through the motion, but it will
not draw. So a drought comes into the soul. Our graces languish. We try to pray
and are conscious of failure. In one scripture it is stated as a reason why
such weak instrumentalities are employed that no flesh shall glory in God's
presence, that it should become manifest to angels in heaven and devils in hell
and men on earth that power belongeth to God; that the Lord, he is mighty and
no other is great. It is with God, and with God alone.
I cannot describe – have never been able to describe – the processes of my own
mind by which from time to time over again, and every time just as fresh as if
it had never happened before, comes the realization of all these things. I go
back and compare the present with past experiences, and I find that these
coincide exactly with those. And I ask myself why it is that I cannot at my
option, whenever and wherever I choose, bring about this state of mind within
myself. And then some day, some hour) all at once, I feel overpowered with the
sense of God's presence. The Bible becomes a different book to me; the
Scriptures, which had seemed to lose their edge and force and light, become
full of light, full of power. My courage rises, my spirit rouses itself. I
instantly feel led and impelled to undertake things that I would not have had
the courage to undertake except under the impulse of this Spirit of God within
me. Every Christian knows these things.
Now I want to add, especially, this: The exhortation needs to be continually
repeated. It is one of the things that should forever be kept before the
people. Always, if we expect to accomplish anything that shall redound to the
glory of God and the good of man, we must come out solely and wholly in the
strength of the Spirit of God, and if we are not endued with that power we
should seek to be so endued. We should come with our empty hand and empty heart
and knock and ask and seek and never forego our petitions until we realize that
God has heard and answered the prayer, and that with us has commenced the work
that we so ardently hope to see carried throughout the whole community.
In connection with this is the strange use of his Word. Times without number
have I repeated that passage of the prophet, that "as the rain cometh down
and the snow from heaven and returneth not thither until it has watered the
earth and caused it to bring forth seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
so shall my Word be that goeth forth out of my mouth." And contemporaneously
with this influence of the revival of the Spirit of God in the community is the
revival of reliance upon the plain and simple statements of God's Word. Men
will instantly lay aside the stilted method of presenting things; they stand
upon a solitary passage of God's Word, presented in the simplest form, and
themselves expect developments from its presentation that they never in their
hearts expected from all the appliances that worldly men would bring to bear
upon the accomplishment of a sentence.
Right here, then, on these two points, is the hope of the church and the hope
of the world – it is that there shall be cultivated in our hearts and in our
lives a profounder reverence, day by day, for the Word of God in its
simplicity. The truth itself – take that, and always count it hazardous, always
consider that it is the part of danger to depart even in little things from
what God's Word teaches. We should feel in our souls that every jot and every
tittle of the Word is as certain to be fulfilled as that God himself lives, and
that we could with more reason expect to get up some morning and see the
heavens rolled together as a scroll, and feel the foundations of the solid
earth give way, than to expect any promise in that Book to fail, any threat in
that Book to become powerless of accomplishment, any passage in it to lose the
force with which God has clothed it. Now, just to the extent that we have this
feeling about the Book and its teachings, and have the spirit of prayer for the
Holy Spirit to be with us and in us, and to clothe us with power and strip
ourselves of self, to take all of our conceit and pride and vanity and
selfishness out of us, and make us humble, and as little children come into the
presence of God, and say, "Lord, restore not only the joy of salvation,
but give back to us the power, the conscious power, that God is with us, will
the world be impressed by our lives and by our doctrine." It is perfectly
idle to stand back on account of its mysteries. Its mysteries no man can
explain, but the fact is there, and being there it is no part of wisdom for us
to disregard the methods which God prescribes by which we shall be brought back
into touch with him, and by which being in touch with him we shall reach the
souls of the people that give us so much concern.
What led me to this thought was a singular case, a case of a remarkable kind
where there had been after an interview with the man, a total change in the
conditions of the case. Here was the same man that before, with good humor, but
without ever being moved by anything on the earth that I could say to him on
the subject of religion, now with his heart as tender as a little child.
Arguments that I presented before with much greater force than I now present
them, and which before had no effect upon him at all, now at a word he seems to
comprehend and his whole soul seems to realize how perfectly plain and simple
is the path that leads to God and forgiveness and heaven. "It shall come
to pass," saith the Lord, "in the last days, that I will pour out my
Spirit upon all flesh, and until my Spirit is poured out the land shall be full
of thorns and brambles, but when I pour out my Spirit the desert shall blossom
as a garden." The hope of the world is, in this promise of God. We, as
Christian people, desirous before God to do our part of Christian duty in the
battle of life that is before us, ought to get our faces like a flint against
any reliance whatever upon any mere human power. And we ought also to keep it
before us as a truth that needs to be reaffirmed and kept all the time bright
and shining, that if we are to do any good in reaching men, in impressing men,
it must come from our being in touch with God's Spirit, and that means a
continuous call to prayer.
Let us now consider the means by which the new birth is accomplished. This we
find in John 3:14-21. No event of the past, no matter how stupendous a
transaction it was at the time, is worthy of being recorded, or is worthy of
remembrance, except it has some bearing, practical and profitable, on the
affairs of the present. As strange an incident as ever did occur in the history
of the world, and as strange a method of deliverance from a great affliction,
was the incident of the brazen serpent. Moses lifted up the brazen serpent in
the wilderness that those bitten by the fiery serpents might look upon that
symbol, and looking, be healed of the bite of the serpent. Now, if that was
written for our admonition, it becomes us to address ourselves mainly to the
New Testament lesson on the subject, and hence John 3:14-21: "And 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. For God so loved the
world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him
should not perish, but have eternal life. For God sent not the Son into the
world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him. He
that believeth on him is not judged; be that believeth not hath been judged
already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of
God. And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men
loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For every
one that doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his
works should be reproved. But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that
his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God."
The first thought impressed upon my own mind concerns the origin of all divine
movements or remedies looking to the relief of man from the troubles which have
come upon him through his own sin. The source or foundation from which flow all
streams of mercy to man is expressed in these words: "For God so loved the
world." The love of God prompted every step ever taken under God's
direction for the redemption of man. And the word "world" is here
used in its broadest sense, in its most universal significance. It means the
entire race of man, not in one generation but in all generations, and it looks
upon the whole family of man as in a ruined condition, brought about by man's
own sin. And it says that God so loved the world – the sinful, erring, fallen,
lost world – that he inagu- rated and put in motion a scheme of redemption. The
value of this thought consists in this, that it gives us an insight into the
mind of God: it reveals his attitude toward a sinner. It reveals him to us in
his gracious and merciful character. It shows that man's ordinary conception of
him is a slanderous one. God loves the sinner; salvation is of grace: it arises
from no original movement of the sinner, but solely and wholly from the heart
of God.
The next thought that impresses itself most on my mind is that until a sinner
is brought into very serious trouble by his sins, his mind and heart revolt
from any presentation of the subject of religion. As those Israelites said,
"We loathe this light bread," the bread that God had provided for
their nourishment. So now the carnal mind – the mind of man in his natural
state – turns away in loathing from spiritual religion. It indicates this, that
as the stomach and taste of a man corrupted by a luxurious diet revolt as
simple, nourishing and wholesome food and call for more highly spiced, pungent
food, so the soul that has become corrupted through indulgence in vices and sin
loathes any kind of reading that does not minister to a morbid appetite for
highly spiced things. There might be held a convention of ten thousand people,
solely for the purpose of devising ways and means of having the religion of
Jesus Christ presented to a lost world, and it would not attract half the
attention nor excite one-tenth part of the comment in the secular press, that a
prize fight would. The question was asked a leading journalist, the editor of
one of the largest dailies of the South, "Why is it that you continually
put such matter in your paper? Why is it that you rake the world over for every
startling incident, every sensational item, items of murder, items of lust, items
of horrible tragedy? Why do you do this?" "Because it pays. The
people generally loathe any other kind of reading. That is what they want. They
call for that." Approach a sinner, before the afflicting hand of God is
laid upon him, with spiritual food and he loathes it. He turns away from it.
But here is the important question, one that ought to concern us more than any
other. When a man is in a desperate condition; when the things upon which he
had relied heretofore have failed; when the serpent is in the camp and biting;
when death is ensuing from the bite, or when his hold upon life relaxes and its
landscapes recede from the vision of his blurred eyes, and when the sands of
time upon which he stands are crumbling under his feet, and eternity looms up
before him, the supreme question in such an hour is, "What shall we hold
up before that man?" To what shall he look? Here this statement
intervenes, that as, under circumstances of dreadful affliction upon the
children of Israel, when on account of their sins they were bitten by fiery
serpents and were dying, Moses lifted up the brazen serpent, even so must the
Son of man be lifted up so that whosoever believeth on him should not perish
but have everlasting life.
The world has seen many a procession of this kind. In our minds let us behold a
plague-stricken city. The people are dying like sheep with the rot. A remedy is
announced. A procession is appointed to move through the principal street.
There the crowds gather, pressing against one another, filling both sidewalks.
Their hungry eyes are full of expectation. The procession comes bearing aloft
some holy object of sight. The people prostrate themselves and adore. What is
lifted up? It appears to be a piece of bread. But the priest assures the people
that by his consecrating act it has been converted into the veritable body and
blood of Jesus Christ; that by that act of consecration he had created God, and
hence, notwithstanding the testimony of the senses, what is lifted up is Jesus
Christ. It does not look like him; it looks like bread. But that is lifted up
and as it moves along through the street the people bow down before it,
prostrate themselves before it, and this is what is called adoring the mass.
If, indeed, that was Jesus Christ; if that is what this scripture means,
"Even so must the Son of Man be lifted up," then it was a proper
thing to do and it was a proper thing to prostrate one's self before it, look
to it, and trust in it. But I venture to say that this was not even accorded to
the symbol, that the typical serpent was not lifted up for such an object.
There did come a time when men looked upon that brazen serpent as God. There
did come a time when the priest filled his censer with incense, and kindling
it, came before that brazen serpent and waved his censer as in the presence of
God himself, and men worshiped him. But when that took place, God's servant,
Hezekiah, though that relic had been preserved seven hundred years from the
time that it was first exhibited in the wilderness, brake it in pieces and said
nehushtan, "it is just a piece of brass."
Let us turn to the Second Commandment. Let us listen to it again, as familiar
as it may seem to our mind. We read it from Exodus 20: "Thou shalt not
make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven
above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the
earth." Well, but Moses made the likeness of a serpent; did he violate
that law? Evidently not, because I have not given the whole of the Commandment.
Listen again, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or any
likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to
them nor serve them." That is, the Commandment does not forbid all
sculpture and painting. It was not intended to prevent us from painting the
picture of a bird or carving the likeness of a lion or erecting a statue of a
man; that was not its object. "But thou shalt not make unto thee any likeness
of anything that is in heaven above or on earth beneath, to bow down before it,
as an object of worship." And when it is proposed to make any likeness an
object of worship, then the law of the Second Commandment becomes operative,
and therefore the brazen serpent was destroyed by Hezekiah. The thought is this
– that nothing on the earth cognizable by natural sight can supply a remedy for
sin, and it was not the fact that they saw that brazen serpent with the natural
eye that delivered them. It was the faith in their hearts that looked to God,
their true deliverer, that delivered them.
Now, let me apply this. In the illustrated histories of the world (and we have
a great many of them) we may see marvelous pictures of great battles. Here has
been planted a battery; yonder is its path of death. Here charges a column of
cavalry. There passes a division of infantry with fixed bayonets, and in the
track of all of these columns of death men are prone in the dust. They are
bleeding; they are dying and some are dead. And on that battlefield, over which
the breath of war has breathed and its storm has swept, we see the picture of a
man in a long robe. As he walks along he looks to see who is dead, who is yet
living. There lies a man not yet dead. He is nearly dead. His head is lifted
up, that dying man. What does the long-robed man hold up before him? The priest
lifts up right before his eyes a cross on which is the likeness of Christ. As
Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so shall the Son of man be
lifted up. Now, is it meant that there shall be lifted up before the eyes of
that dying man any likeness of Jesus Christ or any likeness of the cross upon
which he died, that his natural eye shall see, and from seeing shall put his
heart in contact with the love of God? That is the question.
I will answer that question. It is a very important one because it settles the
whole question of the work of the church. If in lifting up Jesus Christ before
the world we fulfill our mission by lifting up a picture of him – if we
accomplish the work which was given us by our Saviour himself when we hold up
before the sick and dying, bread that is said to be transmuted into God, or a
likeness of Jesus Christ upon the cross, or if we put into the lips of a dying
man a wafer that is said to be God – if that is our mission, then we ought to
know it, and we ought to address ourselves to that method of lifting up Jesus
Christ.
How is he to be lifted up? The Bible answers it with remarkable clearness. I
will give it to you first in prophecy and then in the fulfilment of that
prophecy. I quote from Zechariah 12: "And it shall come to pass in that
day, . . . And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of
Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look upon me
whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him." Does that mean that
they shall look upon a picture of him? Does that mean that they shall look upon
his actual flesh and blood, either in its natural state or as it is claimed
when transmuted into such from the bread of the communion? Notice the reading
of it: "They shall look upon me whom they have pierced." Now they
must see the pierced One. That is conceded, and the seeing of the pierced One
is to bring about the good effect. That is conceded. But the question is, in
what guise or shape or form is the pierced One to come within the range of
their vision? In what way is he to be lifted up before the sight? That is the
question.
I turn to Acts 2, where the prophecy was fulfilled, according to the record of
God himself. The marvelous effect described in Zechariah 12 did not occur on
the day that Christ was crucified, when men beheld his actual body on the
cross, but it did take place fifty days later on the day of Pentecost. In what
way on that Pentecost was Christ lifted up? In what way did they see him whom
they had pierced? We have only to read to find out. The Spirit of God was
poured out on that day – poured out in enduing power upon the apostles – poured
out in convicting power upon the sinner. Now, when the apostle, endued with
power, lifted up Christ, and the sinner, convicted by the Spirit, looked upon
Christ that was lifted up, the question recurs, "How was he lifted
up?" Here is the answer to it:
"Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of
God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the
midst of you, as ye yourselves also know; him being delivered up by the
determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked
hands were crucified and slain: whom God hath raised up, having loosed the
pains of death, because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For
David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face; for he
is on my right hand that I should not be moved. Therefore did my heart rejoice
and my tongue was glad; moreover, also, my flesh shall rest in hope; because
Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to
see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me
full of joy with thy countenance.
"Men and brethren, let me speak freely unto you of the patriarch David,
that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcre is with us unto this day.
Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him,
that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up
Christ to sit on his throne: he seeing this before, spake of the resurrection
of Christ that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see
corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Therefore) being by the right band of God exalted, and having received of the
Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye now see
and hear."
"Being by the right hand of God exalted. [What does that word
"exalted" mean? Lifted up.] "Therefore let all the house of
Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus whom ye have
crucified, both Lord and Christ." How did he make him Lord as well as
Christ? He made him Lord by exaltation, by lifting him up, by lifting him up
from the grave, by lifting him up above the clouds and the stars to the throne
of power and the majesty of might. Jesus Christ was lifted up before the
people, not actually in the flesh, but he was lifted up through the preaching
of Peter. Peter states the facts of the life of Christ and the object of his
coming into the world, and of his death, and his resurrection. He addresses the
sight, but not the natural sight. He addresses the eye of the soul. He says,
"I will lift up something, not before your natural eye, not something that
you can touch with your finger, not something that you can see, that is of
material likeness, but I hold up before the eye of your soul Jesus Christ. Look
at that." Now, what was the result of their looking upon Jesus Christ so
lifted up? The result was that three thousand souls were converted in one day.
Consider another scripture. I quote from Galatians 3: “O foolish Galatians, who
hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus
Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?" These
Galatians saw Jesus Christ lifted up, but they did not see him lifted up in the
flesh. They were not witnesses of the transaction that took place in Judea when
he was really nailed to the cross. This incident, here recorded as historical,
was long subsequent to the crucifixion. The question is, Who set forth before
their eyes Jesus Christ? Paul did. Did he set forth Jesus Christ in a likeness
that such likeness might become an object of worship? No. How did he hold up
Jesus Christ before these Galatians? He did it by going among the people and
preaching the gospel, relating to them Christ's coming into the world, and why
he came into the world, and calling upon them with the eyes of their minds, of
their understanding, of their souls, to look upon Jesus Christ and to be saved
by that look.
I submit only one other Scripture, and then we come to the application of it
all. I quote from Romans 10, which tells us how it is – that is, in what
manner, through what means, through what process faith comes. Now, as it is
said that whosoever believeth on him that is lifted up, shall not perish; but
shall have everlasting life – how did they believe on him? What things are done
in order that faith may come? "So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing
by the Word of God. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed, and how
shall they believe on him of whom they have not heard, and how shall they hear
without a preacher, and how shall they preach except they be sent?"
Here is explained to us how we get at the real vision of Jesus Christ. We take
hold of him, not by natural sight, but by faith, and that this faith comes from
hearing the Word of God preached, and because it comes in that way, God sent
forth men to do what? Preach. Did he send forth carvers in wood and stone? Did
he send forth painters to make a likeness of Jesus Christ and hold it up before
the people? On the day of his departure from the earth he said, "All power
in heaven and on earth is given unto me, therefore go make disciples of all
nations." How? "Go preach the gospel to every creature." Now, in
that way he is to be lifted up, by telling of Jesus, by preaching Jesus. Men
who live subsequently to the actual crucifixion, sinners who live until his
second coming, do see the real risen body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and do with
the natural eye look upon him whom they have pierced, but they see him on the
judgment seat – see him with mourning that hath no repentance in it and with
tears that do not fall in mercy's sight.
We come now to the application. Here is a man for whom we have been praying.
When he was well and strong he had little thought on the subject of religion.
His soul loathed this light food. But when his steps draw near to the river of
death; when the earth recedes from his sight; when his hold on time and things
of time relaxes its grasp, what can we hold up before him, and how shall we
lift it up? Those who visit him see him in as wretched a condition as that of
the snakebitten Israelites in the desert. It is no time for mockery. It is no
time for delusion or experiment. Something before the glazing eyes of the dying
must be lifted up. Something efficacious must be set forth before him.
Something with speedy power to secure the remission of sins and make him feel
in his own soul that God has blotted out his iniquities and washed him whiter
than snow. 0, may heaven forbid that any visitant to a sick couch shall lift up
anything before such a one but Jesus Christ and him crucified, and may heaven
forbid that he shall lift up before him Jesus Christ in any other way than in
the way which God prescribed when he told his church to go out and publish
these good tidings.
Now, the last point of the application. There are times when Christ is preached
and men hear the preaching and yet no such effect follows as is described in
the prophecy of Zechariah. They hear, but it seems to be a profitless hearing.
There is a preaching, but it seems to be a profitless preaching. Here is a
secret – an open one. There never has been a failure from the true lifting up
of Jesus down to the present time. The true effect, as presented in Zechariah,
follows the true lifting up of Jesus Christ.
No matter how many exceptions there may seem to be, I declare here, without any
fear of successful contradiction, that Jesus Christ has never been lifted up in
vain if lifted up as that prophecy prescribes.
I mean that "as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and
returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and
bud, that it may give seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall God's
Word be that goeth out of his mouth; it shall not return unto him void, but it
shall accomplish that which he pleases and it shall prosper in the thing whereto
he sent it."
I mean that God's true minister today, as Paul in his time, may exclaim:
"Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and
maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. For we are
unto God a sweet savor of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that
perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the
savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?"
And when the gracious effect does not follow, there is some defect in either
the lifting up by the preacher or in the looking by the sinner. Now, what is
that defect on the part of the church? When he commanded the preacher to go out
and preach Jesus Christ, he was required to have more than a tongue that could
talk, and physical strength to move about. He said to these men before he sent
them out: "Wait until you are endued with power from on high." What
does Zechariah say? "And it shall come to pass in that day that I will
pour out upon the house of David the spirit of grace and of supplication."
And in that marvelous example recorded in Acts 2 the element of power is
manifest – power on the preacher and power on the hearer.
And it is so till this day that whoever will go in the power of the Spirit and
tell the story of the cross to a dying man whose heart is convicted by the
Spirit of God, will be the means of salvation in every instance. There never
will be any failure, and the whole effect upon us as far as this application
goes may be summed up in just two things: We are to concern ourselves in
lifting Christ up by the gospel, and we are to lift him in reliance upon the
Spirit of God which makes the sight of him efficacious to the sinner's eye.
These two prescriptions contain in themselves, however, two proscriptions, that
as it is our concern to lift up Jesus before the dying, it means that we are to
lift nothing else up; that we ourselves are not to put any dependence upon
anything else; we are not to seek out for dependence something sensational and
startling. I venture to say that if it were published in the city papers that
there would be enacted The Passion Play, promising that if the people would
come they should see a drama representing the betrayal of Christ by Judas and
his crucifixion on the cross, that every seat in the house would be occupied.
They would come to look at a likeness. They would come to take hold of
something with the natural eye. They would say, "How beautiful one sight;
how horrible another sight!" What artistic skill in the representations!
What a Judas! Every single motion of his body and play of his features and tone
of his voice indicates a master actor, representing a likeness of a reality.
But there would be no saving power in it. It would not convert anybody. It would
be a disgrace to the congregation, and it would convict the church of going
into the picture business, the likeness business, in contravention of the
express command of God in Exodus 20.
And that applies equally to the sensational preaching and singing and praying.
Whatever of it is devoid of the Spirit of God is contrary to the duty which is
enjoined upon us as a church in lifting up Jesus Christ. I say that we cannot
lift him up so a dying man can see him, by art, by declamation, by anything
that appeals to the natural sight, anything sensual, anything that takes hold
of the animal part of our nature. Christ is not so lifted up nor so preserved.
God lives in a song that makes melody in the heart, that comes from the
prompting of the Spirit and that soars as a skylark soars, and mounts up as the
incense mounted when it arose ascending to the throne of the Lord.
So is the song that converts and prayer that converts, and the sermon that
converts. Now, "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so
must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on him should not
perish but have everlasting life."
QUESTIONS
1. What is the import of
John 3:8 and what is the force of the word "so" in this verse?
2. What can you say of the
mysteries in both nature and religion?
3. What one proposition of
the context here finds ready acceptance, and to what fundamental law does it
refer?
4. What is Paul's statement
of this same truth?
5. How does this discussion
of the work of the Holy Spirit apply to a backslider?
6. What historical fact is
cited and how does the case apply here?
7. What is the danger which
accompanies a spiritual dearth?
8. What one remedy offered
for this condition? Illustrate by the case of the dry pump.
9. What are the effects of
the enduement of the Spirit on the life?
10. What is our dependence
for power in our work?
11. What means does the
Spirit use and upon what rests the hope of the church?
12. What observation of the
author led him into an appreciation of this fact?
13. What is the means by
which the new birth is accomplished as taught by Jesus in this passage?
14. What is the origin of
the remedy for the relief of man from his Bin and what the breadth of its
application?
15. What special value of
this thought?
16. What preparation by the
Holy Spirit on the part of the sinner for this remedy and why? Illustrate.
17. What important question
arises in this connection and what is the answer?
18. What modern procession
is here described, with what ancient idolatrous movement is it in line, what
commandment does it violate and how?
19. How is Jesus to be
lifted up? Cite scriptural proof.
20. Illustrate the
application of this principle.
21. Is the preaching of
Christ always accompanied with success? Ex plain.
22. What two prescriptions
for success here and what two proscriptions contained in them.
THE GUILT OF SIN STATED AND THE REMEDY FOR
SIN ILLUSTRATED
Harmony pages 21-24 and John 3:16 to 4:45.
Continuing the study of the discourse of our Lord to Nicodemus, in John
3:16-21, with John 5:40; 7:17, we have the guilt of unbelief and the
reasonableness of its punishment. John 3:16-21 shows the condemnation because
of the rejection of Christ and the light which he brought, and also their love
of darkness rather than light: "And this is the condemnation, that light
is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their
deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh
to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh
to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in
God." John 3:19-21; 5:40; 7:17; 18:37 show the state of the will: "Ye
will not come to me that ye may have life. If any man willeth to do his will he
shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God. Every one that is of the truth
heareth my voice." To these scriptures may be added others which show
intellectual pride, viz.: Matthew 11:25: "Hid from the wise and prudent
and revealed it unto babes." Romans l:21f: "When they knew him they
glorified him not as God. Professing themselves to be wise they became
fools." 1 Corinthians 1:18-21: "For the preaching of the cross is to
them that perish, foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the power of
God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring
to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? Where is the
scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the
wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom
knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that
believe." (For a detailed analysis of Sec. 22 of the Harmony see chapter
XXII of this volume of the Interpretation.)
In John 3:22-23 the contemporaneous ministries of John and Jesus approach each
other. John 4:1-2 shows the identity of their process of discipling. A certain
brother once wrote me, who was troubled over John 4:2, which reads,
"Though Jesus himself baptizeth not, but his disciples." This
brother's trouble was a novel one. He not only held to the theory shared by
some other people – that the apostles were neither baptized themselves, but he
said they never baptized others, nor ever preached a sermon before the
Pentecost in Acts 2. This text, John 4:2, as commonly interpreted being in the
way of his theory, he wanted to know if it might not be construed to mean that
the baptism through the disciples took place after Pentecost. His suggested
construction is quite impossible. This would be to wrest the Scriptures from
their meaning rather than to interpret them. It is better to give up an
unscriptural theory, than resort to such great violence to God's Word. No
commentator of any denomination would dare to put such a meaning on John 4:2.
Let us consider in this connection, John 3:22-23; 4:2. The connected reading
is: "After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of
Judea, and there he tarried with them and baptized, and John also was baptizing
in Aenon, near to Salim, because there was much water there. When, therefore,
the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing
more disciples than John (although Jesus himself baptizeth not, but his
disciples)." From this fairly connected reading the following things are
evident:
(1) The ministries of John and Jesus were here simultaneous.
(2) John made disciples and baptized them.
(3) Jesus also at the same time made disciples and baptized them, only he made
and baptized more disciples than John.
(4) Yet Jesus did not personally administer baptism as John did. His baptisms
were performed through his disciples.
(5) The imperfect tense in John 4:2 shows continuous action, that Jesus was
accustomed to make and baptize disciples.
This is all so plain it would seem impossible to misunderstand it. It is just
as plain as that "Christ died for our sins according to the
scriptures." The brother's unfortunate theory is wrong on every other
point. It is difficult to understand how he could say that Christ's apostles
never preached a sermon before the Pentecost of Acts 2. In reply to this theory
let us consider Matthew 10:5-42 and Mark 6:12-13, 20. Here after Jesus had
personally instructed his apostles in the things of the kingdom, he sends them
out charging them, "As ye go, preach. What I tell you in the darkness,
speak ye in the light, and what ye hear in the ear, proclaim upon the
housetops." Mark says, "And they went out and preached that men
should repent." Then he tells how, later, they returned and reported to
Jesus, "Whatsoever they had done, and whatsoever they had taught." This
commission, and the preaching done under it, and the report made of it, may be
compared with the commission of the seventy and their report (see Luke
10:1-24). The brother contended also that it was only after his resurrection
that he gave them a commission and commanded them to baptize. He is again
mistaken. The commission to the twelve in Matthew 10, and to the seventy in
Luke 10, are as clean-cut commissions as the later ones in Matthew 28 and Mark
16. The chief difference between the earlier commissions and the later ones is
that the former were limited to the Jews (Matt. 10:5-6), and the latter was to
all nations (Matt. 28:19). The passages cited from John 3-4 show that they made
disciples and baptized them as regularly under the former commission, when
preaching to Jews as under the latter commission, when preaching to all
nations, The command in each case is precisely the same. In John 4 they made
and baptized disciples. In Matthew 28 they are commanded to make and baptize
disciples. While executing the first commission Jesus himself was their power,
he being on earth. In executing the latter commission Jesus is to be yet with
them, for he says, "Lo I I am with you all the days even unto the end of
the world." Only in this case he was not to be present in person, but in
the Holy Spirit, the other Paraclete. In the ministry limited to the Jews
during Christ's lifetime, whether conducted by John the Baptist (Acts 19:4), or
by Jesus himself (Mark 1:15), or by the twelve apostles and the seventy (Mark 6:12),
the duties commanded were the same – repentance toward God, faith in the Lord
Jesus Christ and baptism upon the profession of that faith. just as Peter on
the day of Pentecost and later (Acts 2:38; 3:19) and Paul (Acts 20:21). Peter
himself baptized sometimes through other disciples (Acts 10:47-48), as did also
Paul (1 Cor.1:14-17).
The design of John's Gospel (20:31) was (1) to prove that Jesus was the
Messiah, the Son of God, and (2) that, believing on him, one might have
everlasting life. This is beautifully illustrated in the incident of the
Samaritan woman by which the gospel was introduced into Samaria. But this
involves the history of the Samaritans as a background of the story. In 975
B.C. Jeroboam revolted and carried with him the ten tribes of Israel who
afterward established their capital at Samaria, but in 721 B.C. the ten tribes
were all led away captive to Assyria, except a small remnant of the very
poorest of the population. The Assyrian government drafted a population from
the heathen nations to fill the vacancy caused by this removal and then sent a
priest to teach them of God, but they feared the Lord and served other gods.
The descendants of this mixed population of Jews and heathen constituted the
Samaritans of Christ's day. In 588 B.C. Judah was captured and carried away to
Babylon, upon which the poor was left in the land as in the case of Israel, but
in 536 B.C. Judah returned under Zerubbabel and Joshua, after which the
hierarchy was established by Ezra. When they went to build the Temple the
Samaritans asked to help, but they were refused with scorn. Here the
hostilities between the Jews and Samaritans commenced. The Samaritans built a
temple on Mount Gerizirn to which the woman referred in her conversation with
Christ. They also preserved the Pentateuch, with some corruptions, as their
Scriptures. The hostility between the Jews and the Samaritans lasted till
Christ's day. The Samaritans would not receive the Jews into their homes if
they were going toward Jerusalem, but they were more hospitable to those going
north, or away from Jerusalem, This accounts for their reception of Christ and
his disciples on their way to Galilee, as recorded in John 4.
We will now take up the incident of Christ winning the woman at the well of
Sychar. He had walked all the way from Judea and was weary and hungry. Thus he
sat by the well. It was about noon and while he was there alone (the disciples
having gone to Sychar to buy food) there came a woman to the well to draw
water. Christ at once sets himself to the task of winning her. Let us note here
the method of Jesus. First, he secured her attention by asking her for a drink.
Second, he directed the thought from the matter in hand. Third, he attracted
her by speaking where she did not expect it: "Jews have no dealings with
the Samaritans." Fourth, he at once introduced the spiritual correspondent
to the thing in her mind: "If thou knewest the gift of God and who it is
that speaketh with thee, thou wouldest have asked of him and he would have
given thee living water." But her mind clings to the earthly:
"Nothing to draw with; the well is deep; art thou greater than
Jacob?" "But," says Jesus "the water which I give is living
water and quenches thirst forever." It is living (1) because it is
eternal. The water in the well was temporary. (2) Because it symbolized the
Holy Spirit's work. (3) Because it was not local and immovable but in him. (4)
Because it ends in eternal life. All this seta forth the work of the Holy
Spirit in regeneration. But she is still earthly in mind: "That I may come
hither no more to draw."
Our Lord then sets himself to the task of convicting her of her sin: "Go
call thy husband," upon which she makes her confession. Building upon
that, Christ reveals her heart and her life to her by telling her of her sins,
to which she at once responded with an element of faith: "I perceive that
thou art a prophet." The light is coming to her gradually, but just here a
difficulty arises, the place of worship: "Is it Jerusalem or Gerizirn?"
This is a subtle scheme of the devil to defeat the honest inquirer: "There
are so many denominations, and so many conflicting claims, what can I do?"
Christ's answer is to the point. He demands more faith: "Believe me,"
and then proceeds to lead her away from the limitations of fame and place in
worship and to reveal both the nature of God and the characteristics of his
true worshipers: "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship
in Spirit and truth." Augustine said: "If, by chance, you seek some
high place, some holy place, within thee erect a temple to God." The poet has expressed it
thus: Once for prayer and lonely thought, Fitting time and place I sought; Now
in heart, I always pray, Am alone where'er I stray.
Upon this she expresses her faith in the coming Messiah, her as that Promised
One: "I that speak unto thee am he." Faith was consummated and the
work was done. The Messiah was found and the impulse to tell it to others finds
expression. The water pot is left and the city of Sychar hears the glad news of
the promised Messiah. But the disciples, returning in time to witness a part of
the conversation, wondered that he was speaking to a woman, especially a
Samaritan woman, but they did not have the courage to express their surprise to
him. At once the crowds were flocking from the little city to see the Lord for
themselves and in the midst of these things his disciples plead with him to
eat, but his meat was spiritual and more invigorating than temporal food. This
furnishes the occasion for our Lord to call the attention of the disciples to
the ready harvest of missionary work opened up by the conversion of this one
soul. He exhorts them to look at the fields, to expect immediate results, to
enter into the harvest, not of their own sowing. Here is emphasized the blessed
truth that the various laborers in the kingdom should not only labor together,
but they shall rejoice together. After all this he abode there two days and
many of the Samaritans believed on him because of the testimony of the woman, but
many more believed because of his own word. This distinction in faith is that
of the distinction between hearing of the sun and feeling the sun.
After these two days he went on into Galilee and had a warm reception there,
because the Galileans had witnessed what he did at the feast in Jerusalem.
It will be noted that Jesus "in His early ministry allowed himself to be
regarded as the Messiah by his first disciples, and personally declared that He
was the Messiah to the woman at the well, which many other Samaritans also
personally believed. He never declared this to the Jewish rulers at Jerusalem
till the very end, doubtless because such an avowal would lead them to kill
Him, and so must not be made until His work in teaching the people and training
His disciples should be completed." – Broadus, Harmony p. 24.
QUESTIONS
1. Show the guilt and
reasonableness of the punishment of sin.
2. Where, in the history, do
the contemporaneous ministries of Jesus and John approach each other?
3. What sentence of John's
Gospel shows the identity of their process of discipling?
4. What was a certain
brother's trouble and theory about John 4:27
5. What was the reply to his
theory that the apostles were not baptized and did not baptize others?
6. What things are evident
from John 3:22-23 and 4:2?
7. What was the reply to his
contention that Christ's apostles never preached a sermon before Pentecost?
8. What was the reply to his
contention that Christ gave his com mission to them only after his resurrection?
9. What is the chief
difference between the earlier commissions and the later ones?
10. What, from John 3-4, is
evident as to these commissions?
11. What is the difference
as to the power to execute under the commissions?
12. What were the specific
duties commanded in all Christ's commissions?
13. What is the purpose of
John's Gospel (20:31)?
14. By what personal
incident was the gospel introduced into Samaria?
15. Give a brief historical
account of the Samaritans.
16. What were the issues
between them and the Jews?
17. Why would Samaritans
receive Jews going north more kindly than when going south?
18. Give the story leading
up to the incident of the woman.
19. What four elements in
Jesus' method here noted?
20. Why was the water which
he offered the woman "living water"?
21. How did Jesus convict
her of sin?
22. What was the first
manifestation of her faith?
23. What difficulty did she
here suggest?
24. What was Christ's answer
to this difficulty; How does demand more faith?
25. What remarkable
declaration from Jesus concerning the nature and disposition of God and the
consequent nature and place of worship?
26. What said Augustine on
this point?
27. What said the poet?
28. What was the next step
in the development of her faith and what the response of Jesus?
29. At what point was she
converted and how did she manifest it?
30. At what part of the
incident did the disciples marvel and why?
31. Describe the results of this
conversion.
32. What encouraging
teaching from Jesus resulting from this incident?
33. What of the reception of
Jesus into Galilee and why?
34. Why did Jesus allow his
early disciples to regard him as the Messiah and so announce himself here to
the woman, but never declared this to the Jews at Jerusalem till the end of his
ministry?
OUR LORD'S GREAT MINISTRY IN GALILEE
Harmony pages 85-39 and Matthew 4:17-85; 8:2-17;
9:2-26; Mark 1:14 to 2:22; 5:22-43; Luke 4--14 to 5:39; 8:41-56; John 4:46-54.
We now come to our Lord's great ministry m Galilee. We will take a sort of preview
of this whole division and then follow it up with more detailed discussions.
The general theme of this division of the Harmony is "The kingdom of
heaven." We are prone at times to fall into errors of interpretation
concerning the kingdom similar to those which led ancient Israel so far and so
harmfully astray concerning the advent of the Messiah. Either we so fill our
minds with the sublimity of world redemption, as applied to the race, in the
outcome, so satisfy our hearts with rhetorical splendor in the glowing
description of universal dominion that we lose sight of its application to
individuals in our day, and the responsibilities arising from the salvation of
one man, or we so concentrate our fancy upon the consummation that we forget
the progressive element in the development of the kingdom and the required use
of means in carrying on that progress. The former error breeds unprofitable
dreamers – the latter promotes skeptics. The preacher is more liable to be led
astray by the one, the average church member by the other.
Perhaps the most unprofitable of all sermons is the one full of human eloquence
and glowing description excited by the great generalities of salvation, and
perhaps the most stubborn of all skepticism is that resulting from disappointment
as not witnessing and receiving at once the very climax of salvation, both as
to the individual and the race.
Such a spirit of disappointment finds expression in words like these: "The
prophecies here of the kingdom are about 1,900 years old. Nineteen centuries
have elapsed since the Child was born. Wars have not ceased. The poor are still
oppressed. Justice, equity, and righteousness do not prevail. Sorrow, sin, and
death still reign. And I am worried and burdened and perplexed. My soul is cast
down and disquieted within me." In such case we need to consider the false
principles of interpretation which have misled us, and inquire: Have we been
fair to the Book and its promise?
Here I submit certain carefully considered statements: (1) The consummation of
the Messiah's kingdom was never promised as an instantaneous result of the
birth of the Child. (2) The era of universal peace must follow the utter and
eternal removal of things and persons that offend. This will be the harvest of
the world. (3) Again, this consummation was never promised as an immediate
result, i. eä without the use of means to be employed by Christ's people. (4)
Yet again, this aggregate consummation approaches only by individual reception
of the kingdom and individual progress in sanctification. (5) It is safe to say
that the promises have been faithfully fulfilled to just the extent that
individuals have received the light, walked in the light and discharged the
obligations imposed by the gift of the light. These receptive and obedient ones
in every age have experienced life, liberty, peace, and joy, and have
contributed their part to the ultimate glorious outcome. (6) And this
experience in individuals reliably forecasts the ultimate race and world
result, and inspires rational hope of its coming. This is a common sense
interpretation. In the light of it our duty is obvious. Our concern should be
with our day and our lot and our own case as at present environed. The
instances of fulfilment cited by the New Testament illustrate and verify this
interpretation, particularly that recorded by Matthew as a fulfilment of the
prophecies of Isaiah 4-13 inclusive, of his gospel. What dispassionate mind can
read these ten chapters of Matthew, with the parallel passages in Mark and
Luke, without conceding fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecies uttered seven
centuries before?
Here is the shining of a great light, brighter than all of the material
luminaries in the heavens which declare the glory of God and show his
handiwork. This is, indeed, the clean, sure and perfect law of the Lord,
converting the soul, making wise the simple, rejoicing the heart, enlightening
the eyes, enduring forever, more desirable than gold and sweet "r than
honey in the honeycomb. Here are judgments true and righteous altogether.
Here in sermon and similitude the incomparable Teacher discloses the principles
and characteristics of a kingdom that, unlike anything earth-born, must be from
heaven. Here is a fixed, faultless, supreme, and universal standard of
morality. The Teacher not only speaks with authority and wisdom, but evidences
divinity by supernatural miracles, signs, and wonders. But there is here more
than a teacher and wonder worker. He is a Saviour, a Liberator, a Healer,
conferring life, liberty, health, peace, and joy. To John's question – John in
prison and in doubt – the answer was conclusive that this, indeed, was the one
foreshown by the prophets and there was no need to look for another: "Go
and tell John the things which ye hear and see: the blind receive their sight,
and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are
raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And whosoever shall
find no occasion for stumbling in me, blessed is he" (Matt. 11:1-4).
The special matter here most worthy of our consideration is that the kingdom of
heaven was not expanded by instantaneous diffusion over a community, a nation,
or the world, regardless of human personality, activity, and responsibility ill
receiving and propagating it, but it took hold of each receptive individual's
heart and worked out on that line toward the consummation.
To as many as received him to them he gave the power to become the sons of God.
Those only who walked in the light realized the blessings of progressive
sanctification. To the sons of peace, peace came as a thrilling reality. From
those who preferred darkness to light) who judged themselves unworthy of
eternal life, the proffered peace departed, returning to the evangelists who
offered it.
The poor woman whom Satan had bound for eighteen years experienced no imaginary
or figurative release from her bonds (Luke 11:10-16). That other woman, who had
sinned much, and who, in grateful humility, washed his feet with her tears –
was not forgiveness real and sweet to her? That blind Bartimeus who kept
crying, "Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me" – did he not
receive real sight? That publican, who stood afar off and beat upon his breast,
crying, "God, be merciful to me, the sinner" – was he not justified?
And when the Galilean disciples went forth in poverty and weakness preaching
his gospel, did they not experience the Joy of the harvest on beholding the
ingathering of souls? And when they saw even demons subject to them through the
name of Jesus, was not that the joy of victory as when conquerors divide the
spoil?
When the stronger than the strong man armed came upon him and bound him, might
not our Lord justly say, "As lightning falls from heaven, I saw Satan fall
before you"? And just so in our own time.
Every conversion brings life, liberty, peace, and joy to the redeemed soul.
Every advance in a higher and better life attests that rest is found at every
upward step in the growth of grace. Every talent or pound rightly employed
gains 100 per cent for the capital invested, and so the individual Christian
who looks persistently into the perfect law of liberty, being not a forgetful
hearer but a doer of the Word, is blessed in every deed. Willing to do the will
of God, and following on to know the Lord, he not only knows the doctrine to be
of God, but experimentally goes on from strength to strength, from grace to
grace, and is changed into the divine image from glory to glory.
In the light of these personal experiences he understands how the kingdom of
God is invincible, and doubts not the certain coming of the glorious
consummation foreshown in prophecy and graciously extended, in the hand of
promise. His faith, staggering not through unbelief, takes hold of the
invisible, and his hope leaps forward to the final recompense of the reward.
The opening incident of the Galilean ministry is the healing of the nobleman's
son, the second miracle of our Lord in Galilee, and a most remarkable one. The
nobleman was Herod's steward, maybe Chuza, as many suppose, but that is
uncertain. The nobleman manifested great faith and it was amply rewarded. This
is an illustration of the tenderness with which Jesus ministered to the
temporal needs of the people, thus reaching their souls through their bodies.
The effect of this miracle was like that of the first: "He himself
believed, and his whole house."
The next section (Luke 4:16-31) gives the incident of his rejection at
Nazareth. The account runs thus: "And he came to Nazareth, where he had
been brought up: and he entered, as his custom was, into the synagogue on the
sabbath day, and stood up to read." How solemn, how sad in its immediate
result – how pathetic that scene in Nazareth when the Redeemer announced his
mission and issued his proclamation of deliverance: The Spirit of the Lord is
upon me, Because he anointed me to publish good tidings to the poor: He hath
sent me to proclaim deliverance to the captives, And recovering of sight to the
blind, To send crushed ones away free, To proclaim the acceptable year of the
Lord.
Oh! what a day when this scripture was fulfilled in the hearing of the captives
I But the Spirit on him was not on them.
As Jewish widows in Elijah's day, perished of famine, through unbelief, and
left to Sarepta's far-off widow in a foreign land to believe and be blessed
with unfailing meal and oil, as Jewish lepers, through unbelief, in Elisha's
day died in uncleanness and loathsomeness while touching elbows with One having
power to heal, leaving to a Syrian stranger to wash in Jordan and be clean, so
here where Jesus "had been brought up," the people of Nazareth shut
their eyes, bugged their chains and died in darkness and under the power of
Satan – died unabsolved from sin, died unsanctified and disinherited, and so
yet are dying and shall forever die.
The Year of Jubilee came to them in vain. In vain its silver trumpets pealed
forth the notes of liberty. They had no ear to hear, and so by consent became
slaves of the Terrible One forever.
This brings us to church responsibility and ministerial agency in the
perpetuation of this proclamation of mercy. As Paul went forth to far-off
shores, announcing in tears, yet with faith and hope and courage, the terms of
eternal redemption, so now the churches find in the same mission their warrant
for existence, and so now are we sent forth as witnesses to stand before every
prison house where souls are immured, commissioned "to open the eyes of
the prisoners 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 Christ." Ours to blow the
silver trumpets and proclaim to captives the year of jubilee. Ours is the
evangel of liberty – ours to make known that "if the Son of God make men free,
they shall be free indeed."
Leaving Nazareth, Jesus went to Capernaum, where he made his residence from
which he radiates in his ministry in Galilee, teaching and healing on a large
scale. His work here in Zebulun and Naphtali is a distinct fulfilment of Isaiah
9:1-2, in which he is represented as a great light shining in the darkness. By
the sea of Galilee near Capernaum he calls four fishermen to be his partners –
Peter, Andrew, James, and John, two sets of brothers. Here he announces his
purpose for their lives – to be fishers of men. What a lesson! These men were
skilled in their occupation and now Jesus takes that skill and turns it into
another direction, toward a greater end, "fishers of men." Here he
gives them a sign of his authority and messiahship in the incident of the great
draught of fishes. The effect on Peter was marvelous. He was conscious of
Christ's divinity and of his own sinfulness. Thus he makes his confession:
"Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” But our Lord replied to
Peter: "Fear not, from henceforth thou shalt catch men." Later (John
21), when Peter and his comrades went back to their old occupation, the risen
Lord appeared to them and renewed their call, performing a miracle of a similar
draught of fishes.
In Section 28 we have his first case of healing a demoniac. What is the meaning
of the word "demoniac"? It means demon-possessed, and illustrates the
fact of the impact of spirit on spirit, many instances of which we have in the
Bible. Here the demons recognized him, which accords with Paul's statement that
he was seen of angels. They believed and trembled as James says, but they knew
no conversion. The lesson there is one of faith. The effect of this miracle was
amazement at his authority over the demons.
In Section 29 we have an account of the healing of Peter's mother-in-law, which
incident gives us light on the social relations of the disciples. Peter was
married, the Romanist position to the contrary notwithstanding. Further
scriptural evidence of his marriage is found in 2 Corinthians 8:5. It is
interesting to compare the parallel accounts of this incident in the Harmony
and see how much more graphic is Mark's account than those of Matthew and Luke.
There is a fine lesson here on the relation between the mother-in-law and the
son-in-law. Peter is a fine example of such relation. Immediately following the
healing of Peter's wife's mother those that had sick ones brought them to Jesus
and he healed them, thus fulfilling a prophecy of Isaiah, that he should take
our infirmities and bear our diseases. Our Lord not only healed their sick
ones, but he cast out the demons from many, upon which they recognized him. But
he would not let them speak because they knew that he was the Christ.
The effect of our Lord's great work as described in Section 29 was that Peter
tried to work a corner on salvation and dam it up in Capernaum. This is
indicated in the account of the interview of Peter with our Lord as described
in Section 30. Here it is said that Jesus, a great while before day, went out
into a desert place to pray, and while out there Peter came to him and
complained that they were wanting him everywhere. To this our Lord responded
that it was to this end that he had come into the world. So Jesus at once
launched out and made three great journeys about Galilee. His first journey
included a great mass of teaching .and healing, of which we have a few
specimens in Sections 31-36, which apparently occurred at Capernaum, his
headquarters. A second journey is recorded by Luke in Section 47 and a third
journey is found in Section .55. (For Broadus' statement of these tours, see
Harmony, p. 31.)
Here we have the occasion of one of the special prayers of Jesus. There are
four such occasions in his ministry: (1) At his baptism he prayed for the
anointing of the Holy Spirit; (2) here he prayed because of the effort to dam
up his work of salvation in Capernaum; (3) the popularity caused by the healing
of a leper (Sec. 31) drove him to prayer; (4) the fourth occasion was the ordination
of the twelve apostles. The immense labors of Jesus are indicated in Matthew 4:
23-24. These labors gave him great popularity beyond the borders of Palestine
and caused the multitudes from every quarter to flock to him. Attention has
already been called to the popularity caused by the healing of the leper (Sec.
31) and Jesus' prayer as the result.
In the incident of the healing of the paralytic we have a most graphic account
by the synoptics and several lessons: (1) That disease may be the result of
sin, as “thy sin be forgiven thee”; (2) that of intelligent cooperation; (3)
that of persistent effort; (4) that of conquering faith. These are lessons
worthy of emulation upon the part of all Christians today. Out of this incident
comes the first issue between our Lord and the Pharisees, respecting the
authority to forgive sins. This was only a thought of their hearts, but he
perceived their thought and rebuked their sin. From this time on they become
more bold in their opposition, which finally culminated in his crucifixion. Let
the reader note the development of this hatred from section to section of the
Harmony.
In Section 33 we have the account of the call of Matthew, his instant response
and his entertainment of his fellow publicans. Here arose the second issue
between Christ and the Pharisees, respecting his receiving publicans and
sinners and eating with them. This was contrary to their idea in their
self-righteousness, but Jesus replied that his mission was to call sinners
rather than the righteous. This issue was greatly enlarged later, in Luke 15,
to which he replied with three parables showing his justification and his
mission. In this instance (Matt. 9:13) he refutes their contention with a
quotation from Hosea which aptly fitted this case: "I desire mercy, and
not sacrifice."
Then came to him the disciples of John and made inquiry about fasting, to which
he replied with the parable of the sons of the bride chamber, the
interpretation of which is that we should let our joy or sorrow fit the occasion,
or set fasting ments and old bottles, the interpretation of which is to let the
form fit the life; beware of shrinking and expansion.
In Section 35 we have the account of his healing of Jairus' daughter and the
healing of the woman with the issue of blood. Usually in the miracles of
Christ, and in all preceding miracles, there was the touch of some kind between
the healer and the healed. We are informed that great multitudes of people came
to Jesus with this confidence, "If I but touch him I shall be
healed." Accordingly we find that Christ put his fingers on the eyes of
the blind, on the ears of the deaf, or took hold of the hand of the dead. In
some way usually there was either presence or contact.
We will now consider the special miracle connected with the fringe of the
garment of Jesus which the Romanists cite to justify the usage concerning the
relics of the saints. In Numbers 15:38 we have a statute: "Thou shalt put
fringes on the wings or ends of the outer garment," and this fringe had in
it a cord or ribbon of blue, and the object of it was to remind the wearer of
the commandments of God. The outer garment was an oblong piece of cloth, one
solid piece of cloth, say, a foot and a half wide and four feet long. The edge
was fringed on all the four sides, and in the fringe was run a blue thread, and
the object of the fringe and of the blue thread also was to make them remember
the commandments of God. The statute is repeated in Deuteronomy 22. Again in
Deuteronomy 6 is the additional law of phylacteries, or frontlets – little
pieces of leather worn between the eyes – on which were inscribed the
commandments of God. The people were taught to instruct their children in the
commandments of God: "And they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes,
and thou shalt put them upon thy door posts, and when thou goest out and when
thou comest in, and when thou sittest down and when thou gettest up, and when
thou liest down, thou shalt at all times teach thy children the Word of God.”
Now, because of these statutes a superstitious veneration began to attach to
the fringe and to the phylacteries. So we learn in Matthew 23, as stated by our
Saviour, that the Pharisees made broad the phylacteries between their eyes and
enlarged the fringe of the outer garment. They made the fringe or tassel very
large. They did it to be seen of men. The law prescribed that when the wearer
should see this fringe on his garment he should remember the commandments of
the Lord his God. But these Pharisees put it on that others might see it, and
that it might be an external token to outsiders of their peculiar sanctity and
piety. What was intended to be a sign to the man himself was converted by
superstition into a sign for other people. Hence this woman said within
herself, "If I but touch that sacred fringe – the border of his
garment." She could not go up and touch the phylactery between his eyes,
in case he wore one, but he did wear the Jewish costume with the fringe or
border on his outer garment, and she could reach that from behind. She would
not have to go in front of him. She argued: "Now, if I can in the throng
get up so that I can reach out and just touch that fringe, I shall be
saved." We see how near her thought connected the healing with the fringe
of the garment, because by the double statute of God it was required on the
Jewish garment to signify their devotion to his Word – the matchless Word of
Jehovah. Mark tells us that she was not the only woman, not the only person
healed by touching the border of his garment (6:56). Her sentiment was not an
isolated one. It was shared by the people at large. Multitudes of people came
to touch the fringe of his garment that they might be healed.
The question arises, Why should Christ select that through contact with the
fringe on his outer garment healing power should be bestowed? He did do it. The
question is, why? There shall be no god introduced unless there be a necessity
for a god. There shall be no special miracle unless the case demands it. Why?
Let us see if we cannot get a reason. I do not announce the reason
dogmatically, but as one that seems sufficient to my own mind. Christ was among
the people speaking as never man spake, doing works that no man had done. He
was awakening public attention. He was the cynosure of every eye. They came to
him from every direction. They thronged him. And right here at this juncture
Jairus had said, "Master, my little girl, twelve years old, is even now
dead. Go and lay thy hand upon her that she may live." He arose and
started, the crowd surging around him and following him, and all at once he
stopped and said, "Who touched me?" "Master, behold the crowd
presseth thee on every side, and thou sayest, who touched me?" Here was a
miracle necessary to discriminate between the touches of the people. "Who
touched me?" Hundreds sin sick touched him and were not saved. Hundreds
that had diseases touched him and were unhealed. Hundreds that were under the
dominion of Satan looked in his face and heard his words and were not healed.
It was touch and not touch. They touched, but there was no real contact. They
rubbed up against salvation and were not saved. Salvation walked through their
streets and talked to them face to face. The stream of life flowed right before
their doors and they died of thirst. Health came with rosy color and bright eye
and glowing cheek and with buoyant step walked through their plague district)
and they died of sickness. But some touched him. Some reached forth the hand
and laid hold upon the might of his power. This woman did.
Poor woman! What probably was her thought? "I heard that ruler tell him
that he had a little girl twelve years old that was just dead, and he asked him
to go and heal her, she twelve years old, and for twelve years I have been
dead. For twelve years worse than death has had hold on me and I have spent all
my money; have consulted many physicians. I have not been benefited by earthly
remedies, but rendered worse. Twelve years has death been on me, and if he can
heal that, girl that died at twelve years of age, maybe he can heal me twelve
years dead. If that ruler says, 'If you will but go and lay your hand upon her
even now she will revive,' what can I do? In my timidity, in the ceremonial
uncleanness of my condition, in my shame, I dare not speak. I cannot in this
crowd, for if they knew that I were here they would cast me out; for if any of
them touch me they are unclean in the eyes of the law. I cannot go and kneel
down before him, and say, 'Master, have mercy on me.' The ceremonial law of
uncleanness forbids my showing my face, and if I come in contact with his power
it must be with a touch upon the garment. And I beg for that. I say within
myself, that if I but touch the fringe with its blue thread in it that reminds
him of God's commands, I shall be healed."
There was the association of her healing with the memento of the Word of God.
There was the touch of her faith, that came into contact with that Word of God
and with him. So her faith reasoned, and virtue going out from him responded to
her faith. And she felt in herself that she was healed. Well, he healed her and
there it stands out one of the most beautiful lessons in the Word of God. Oh,
what a lesson! Some will say at the judgment, "Lord Jesus, thou hast
taught in our streets and we have done many wonders in thy name," and he
will say, "I never knew you." "You were close to the Saviour.
You did not touch him. You were his neighbor. You did not touch him."
There were many lepers in Israel in the days of Elisha, the prophet – lepers
that could have been healed of leprosy by an appeal to the power of God in
Elisha. They died in leprosy, but Naaman came from afar and touched the healing
power of the prophet and was healed. There were many widows in Israel whose
staff of life was gone, whose barrel of meal was empty, whose cruse of oil had
failed, and here was the prophet of God, who by a word could supply that empty
barrel, that failing cruse, but they did not touch him. They did not reach out
in faith and come in contact with that power. The widow of Sarepta did, and her
barrel of meal never failed, and her cruse of oil never wasted. Now, the
special miracle: It was designed to show that if there be a putting forth of
faith, even one finger of faith, and that one finger of faith touches but the
fringe, the outskirts of salvation – only let there be a touch, though that
touch covers no more space than the point of a cambric needle – "let there
be the touch of faith and thou art saved."
In the midst of this stir about the woman the news of the death of Jairus' daughter
burst forth upon them with the request to trouble not the Master any further.
But that did not stop our Lord. He proceeded immediately to the house to find a
tumult and many weeping and wailing, for which he gently rebuked them. This
brought forth their scorn, but taking Peter, James, and John, he went in and
raised the child to life and his praise went forth into all that land.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the general theme
of this division of the Harmony?
2. What common errors of
interpretation of the kingdom? Illustrate.
3. What was the offspring of
these errors respectively and who the most liable to each?
4. What, perhaps, was the
most unprofitable sermon and what was the most stubborn skepticism?
5. How does such
disappointment find expression?
6. Give the author's
statements relative to the kingdom,
7. Where do we find the
fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecies relative to the kingdom?
8. What specific prophecy in
Isaiah fulfilled in Matthew?
9. Where do we find the
principles of the kingdom disclosed?
10. What great office did
our Lord fill besides teacher and wonder worker and what proof did he submit to
John the Baptist?
11. What thing most worthy
of special consideration in connection with the kingdom?
12. What the opening
incident of the Galilean ministry, what its importance, what its great lesson
and what its effect?
13. Give an account of our
Lord's rejection at Nazareth.
14. Why was he thus
rejected?
15. By what incidents in the
lives of the prophets does he illustrate the folly of their unbelief?
16. What is the church
responsibility and ministerial agency in the proclamation of mercy?
17. Where does Jesus make
his home after his rejection at Nazareth and what his first work in this
region?
18. Recite the incident of
the call of the four fishermen and its lessons.
19. What was Christ's first
case of healing a demoniac and what the meaning of the term
"demoniac"? Illustrate.
20. What was the lesson of
this miracle and what was its effect?
21. Recite the incident of
the healing of Peter's mother-in-law and give its lessons.
22. What were the great
results of this miracle and why would not Christ allow the demons to speak?
23. How did Peter try to
work a "corner" on salvation and how did our Lord defeat the plan?
24. How many and what
journeys did Jesus make about Galilee?
25. Give the four special
prayers of Jesus here cited and the occasion of each.
26. Describe the incident of
the healing of the paralytic and its les sons.
27. What issue arises here
between our Lord and the Pharisees and what was the final culmination?
28. Give an account of the
call of Matthew, his entertainment, the second issue between our Lord and the
Pharisees and how Jesus met it.
29. What question here
arises, how was it brought up, how did our Lord reply and what the meaning of
his parables here?
30. What double miracle
follows and what was the usual method of miracles?
31. What was the law of fringes
and phylacteries and what were their real purpose?
32. Why should Christ select
that through contact with the fringe on his outer garment healing power should
be bestowed?
33. What, probably, was the
thought of this woman as she contemplated this venture of faith?
34. What was the great
lesson of this incident of her healing?
35. Describe the miracle of
raising Jairus' daughter and its effect.
OUR LORD'S GREAT MINISTRY IN GALILEE
Harmony -pages 89-45 and Matthew 9:27-34; John 5:1-47;
Matthew 12:1-21; Mark 2:23 to 3:19; Luke 6:1-16.
This is a continuation of the great ministry of our Lord in Galilee and the
next incident is the healing of the two blind men and the dumb demoniac. It
will be noted that our Lord here tested the faith of the blind men in his
ability to heal them, and when they were healed he forbade their publishing
this to the people, but they went forth and told it and spread his fame in all
the land. It was "too good to keep." Immediately after this they
brought to him one possessed with a demon and dumb, and he cast out the demon.
This produced wonder among the common people, but brought forth another issue
between our Lord and the Pharisees. Tins is the third issue with them, the
first being the authority to forgive sins at the healing of the paralytic; the
second, the eating with publicans and sinners at the feast of Matthew; the
third, the casting out of demons by the prince of demons, which culminated later
in the unpardonable sin.
The next incident in our Lord's ministry is his visit to Jerusalem to the Feast
of the Passover (see note in Harmony, p. 39), at which he healed a man on the sabbath
and defended his action in the great discourse that followed. In this
discussion of our Lord the central text is v. 25 and there are three things to
be considered in this connection.
THE OCCASION
The scriptural story of the circumstances which preceded and called forth these
utterances of our Saviour is very familiar, very simple, and very touching. A
great multitude of impotent folk, blind, halt, withered, were lying in
Bethesda's porches, waiting for the moving of the waters. It is a graphic picture
of the afflictions and infirmities incident to human life; the sadness of
ill-health; the unutterable longing of the sick to be well; the marvelous power
of an advertised cure to attract to its portals and hold in its cold waiting
rooms earth's despairing sufferers, so grouped as to sicken contemplation by
the varieties and contrasts of all the ills that flesh is heir to.
Blindness groping its way trying to see with its fingers; deafness vainly and
painfully listening for a voice it cannot hear – listening with its eyes;
lameness limping along on nerveless, wooden feet; blistered, swollen tongues,
dumb and senseless, appealing to fingers for speech and to nostrils for taste;
the pitiful whining of mendicancy and vagabondage and raga timidly dodging from
an expected blow while begging alms; the hideousness of deformity, either
shrinking from exposure or glorifying to make conspicuous its repulsiveness,
while a side-light reveals, crouched in the misty background, Sin, the fruitful
mother of all this progeny of woe.
Ah I Bethesda, Bethesda, thy porches are the archives of unwritten tragedies!
If the hieroglyphics inscribed by suffering on thy cold stone pavements could
be deciphered, the translations age by age, would be but a repetition of
sorrow's one prayer to pitying heaven: Oh heaven! have compassion on us! Oh heaven I send a
healer to us.
It was a sad sight. Now, among the number gathered about that pool was a man
who had an infirmity thirty-eight years. His infirmity was impotence – lack of
power. His physical and his mental powers were prostrated, paralyzed. His
affliction was so great that it prevented him from availing himself of any
chance of being cured in this pool, and he was tantalized by lying in sight of
the cure, continually seeing cures performed on others, and never being able to
reach it himself. Such a case attracted the attention of Jesus. He came to this
man and propounded an important question: "Do you want to be healed? Are
you in earnest? Do you really wish to be made whole?" The man explains the
circumstances that seemed to militate against his having a desire to be made
whole: "I have not continued in this condition thirty-eight years because
I did not try to help myself. I would be cured if I could be, but I cannot get down
there into that water in time. Somebody always gets ahead of me. There is
nobody to put me into the pool. My lying here so long and suffering so long,
does not argue that I do not wish to be healed." Now, here is the key of
the passage. Without employing the curative powers of the water, without
resorting to any medical application whatever, by a word of authority, Jesus
commanded him to rise up: "Be healed and walk." Now, do not forget
that it was by a simple command, an authoritative voice, that that cure was
consummated.
The time was the sabbath. There were certain bigots and hypocrites who imagined
that they were the conservators of religion, and the only authoritative
interpreters and expounders of the obligations of the Fourth Commandment:
"Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy." They preferred two
charges against the Lord Jesus Christ. The first charge was that he had
violated the sabbath in performing that cure on the sabbath day. He worked on
the sabbath day, whereas the commandment said that there should be a cessation
from work on that day. And the second count in the charge was that he had
caused another to work on that day, in that he made this man take up his bed
and walk. Now, that is the first controversy. It is a controversy with
reference to the violation of the Fourth Commandment. Jesus defended himself:
"My Father worketh on the sabbath day. You misunderstand that commandment.
It does not say, 'Do no work,' but that commandment says, 'Do no secular and
selfish work.' It does not gay, 'Do no work of mercy.' It does not say, 'Do no
work of necessity.' And as a proof of it, God, who rested upon the day
originally and thereby hallowed it, himself has worked ever since. True, he
rested from the work of creation, but my Father worketh hitherto and I
work." His defense was this: That they misunderstood the import of the
commandment, and that what he did had this justification – that is was
following the example of the Father himself. Now comes the second controversy.
Instantly they prefer a new charge against him, growing out of the defense that
he had made. The charge now is a violation of the First Commandment, in that he
claimed God as his father, his own father, and thereby made himself equal with
God, which was blasphemy.
The keynote grows out of his defense against this second charge – not the
charge about the violation of the sabbath day, but the charge suggested by his
defense – the charge that he made himself equal with God. His defense is this:
"I admit the fact. I do make myself equal with God. There is no dispute
about the fact. But I deny the criminality of it. I deny that it furnishes any
basis for your accusation." And then he goes on to show why. He says,
"As Son of man, in my humanity I do not do anything of myself. I do not
put humanity up against God. As Son of man I never do anything unless I first
see my Father do it. Then, if my Father doeth it, I do it. In the next place,
everything that the Father doeth I see. He shows it to me." What infinite
knowledge; what intimacy with the Father! Why does he show it? "He shows
it to me because he loves me. Why else does he? He shows it to me in order that
he may induce all men to honor me as they honor him, and therefore he does not
himself execute judgment upon anybody. He hath committed all judgment to me. He
hath conferred upon me all authority and all power. And whoever hears my voice
and believeth in me hath eternal life and shall not come unto condemnation, but
is passed from death unto life." Thus he claims omniscience – that he sees
everything that the Father does. He claims omnipotence – that he does
everything that bis Father does. He claims supreme authority – that he
exercises all the judgment that is exercised upon this earth and in the courts
of heaven and in the realms of woe. He claims that he does this because, like
the Father, he hath life in himself – underived life, self-existence. Now, that
brings us to the key verse: "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." Hence the theme of this passage is "The
Voice and the Life."
Everyone that hears the voice of the Son of God, from the moment that he hears
it, is alive forevermore; is exempt from the death penalty; is possessed of
eternal life and shall not receive the sting of the second death and shall
stand at the right hand of the Father, happy, saved forever!
THE EXEGESIS
The meaning of this passage is easily determined. We have only to compare this
verse with a statement of the context. Let us place them side by side:
"The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the
Son of God: and they that hear shall live. Marvel not at this: for the hour is
coming [not "now is,"] in the 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." Here are two things set over against each other. One present,
the other future. Two kinds of dead people: Those who are alive and yet dead,
and those who are dead and in their tombs. The dead who are alive may now hear
and live. The dead in their graves cannot hear until the resurrection. It
follows that the first is spiritual death and the second physical death. The
dead soul may now hear and live; the dead body not now, but hereafter. As there
are two deaths, there are two resurrections. Spiritual resurrection is now –
resurrection of the body is not now. And the meaning is that the death in each
case is broken by the voice. The voice gives life now to those "dead in
trespasses and sins." "You hath he quickened." The voice raises
the dead in the tombs at the second coming.
I have already called attention to this fact, that that impotent man was
healed, not by the application of any medicine; that he was healed by a word of
authority. He spoke and it was done. The thought that runs all through this
passage, that indeed is the essence and marrow of it, is that the voice which
confers life is a voice of command, is a voice of authority, is a divine voice,
speaking from the standpoint of sovereignty and of omniscience and of power,
and commanding life, and life coming in a moment, at the word. That is the
thought of it. The dead shall hear his voice. The dead shall hear his voice
when he says, "Live," and, hearing, shall live. I want to impress
that idea of the voice being a voice of command, a voice of authority and of
irresistible power.
Let me illustrate: John, in the apocalyptic vision, sees the Son of God, and I
shall not stop to describe his hair, his voice, his girdle, his feet, or his
manner. He is represented as opening his lips and a sword coming out of his
mouth – a sword!
The word of God is quick and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword. The
command that issues from the lips of Jesus Christ is irresistible. No defensive
armor can blunt the point of that sword. No ice can quench the fire that is in
it. No covering can protect from it. It reaches into the joints and into the
marrow, and it touches the most secret things that have been hidden even from
the eyes of angels.
Let me illustrate again: Once there was chaos, and chaos was blackness – wave
after wave of gloom intermingled with gloom. Suddenly a voice spoke, "Let
there be light," and light was. What means were employed? No means. Only
the voice. He spake and it stood fast. It was the voice of authority. It was
the voice of God. It was the voice of commandment, and nature obeyed her God.
Read Psalm 28. A mountain is described in that psalm – a mountain covered with
tall cedar trees – and then it says God spoke and the mountain trembled and the
cedar trees snapped in twain and skipped like lambs, carried away, not on the
breath of the wind, but on the voice of God.
Take but this case: Job had some ideas about salvation. God spoke to him and
after asking how much knowledge he had, "Where were you when I laid the
foundations of the world? What do you know about the heavenly bodies? What do
you know about the giving of color, and the father of the rain, and in what
womb the hoar frost and the ice are gendered? What do you know? Then what power
have you? Can you feed the young lions when they lack? Can you drag out
Leviathan with a hook? Can you pierce Behemoth with a spear when he churneth
the deep and maketh it hoary?" Now comes the climax: "Have you a
voice like God? If you think you have, rise up and speak; and speak to all the
proud, and by your voice cast the proud down and bind their faces in secret.
Then I will confess that your right hand can save you. But if you have no such
knowledge; if your knowledge is not infinite; if your power is not infinite; if
you cannot bind the sweet influences of the Pleiades or loose the bands of
Orion; if you cannot abase the proud by a word, then do not attempt to say you
save yourself."
Notice again: A man had one of his senses locked up – the sense of hearing. He
had an ear, but it could not hear, and be came to Jesus. There he is, the deaf
man. Jesus spoke one word, Ephphatha. What does it mean? "Be open."
And the ear opened.
Occasionally now for the benefit of the gullible and the credulous some man
will claim to have such vast powers as that he shall put his hand upon the sick
and they shall be made whole – for two dollars a visit! But the whole of it is
a fraud.
Here is one who spoke to an ear whose power of hearing was destroyed, and to
give hearing to that ear meant creative power, and he simply said, "Be
open," and it was open.
Take another case: A centurion comes upon the recommendation of the Jews to
Jesus. He says, "Lord, I have a servant very dear to me and he is very
sick. He is at the point of death. But I am not worthy that you should come to
my house. You just speak the word and my servant shall be healed. I understand
this; I am a man of authority myself. I have soldiers under me and I say to
this one, Do that, and he doeth it. And I say to another, Do this, and he doeth
it. Now you have authority. You need not come. You need not go through any
movements of incantation. Speak the word and my servant will be healed."
Jesus says, "He is healed."
Take another case: In Capernaum was a nobleman. He had one child, just one, a
little girl twelve years old and she died. His only child is dead, and he comes
to Jesus, and Jesus follows him, comes into the house, pushes people aside that
are weeping there and wailing, walks into the room of death, takes hold of that
dead girl's hand, and he says, "Talitha Cumi – damsel, arise." And at
the word of the Son of God, the dead girl rose up and was well.
Take another. He is approaching a city. There comes out a procession, a funeral
procession. Following it is a brokenhearted widow. On the bier is her son – her
only son. The bier approaches Jesus. He commands them to stop. They put it
down. He looks into the cold, immobile, rigid face of death, and he speaks:
"Young man, I say unto thee, arise." And at the voice of the Son of
God he rises.
Take another. In Bethany was a household of three, but death came and claimed
one of the three, and the sisters mourned for the brother that was gone. And he
was buried four days; he had been buried, and decay and putridity had come.
Loathesomeness infested that charnel house, and the Son of God stands before
that grave, and he says, "Take away that stone." And there is the
presence, not of recent death, as in the case of that girl on whose cheek
something of the flush of life yet lingered; not like the young man of Nain,
who had not been buried. But here was hideous death. Here was death in all of
its horror and loathesomeness. The worms are here. And into that decayed face
the Son of God looked and spoke, "Lazarus, come forth!" And he rose
up and came forth. He heard the voice of the Son of God, and he lived.
Take yet another, Ezekiel 37. There is a valley. That valley is full of bones –
dead men's bones – dead longer than Lazarus – dead until all flesh is gone, and
there is nothing there but just the dry, white bones. And the question arises,
"Can these dry bones live?" And there comes a voice, “O breath,
breathe on these slain." And at the voice they lived. That is why I said
that the voice of this passage is the voice of authority. It is a voice of
power. It is an irresistible voice. And whoever hears it is alive forevermore.
It is winter, and winter has shrouded the world in white and locked the flow of
rivers and pulsation of lakes; stilled the tides which neither ebb nor flow,
and there comes a voice, the voice of a sunbeam shining, the voice of a raindrop
falling, the voice of a south wind blowing, and winter relaxes his hold. Cold
winter is gone and the waters flow, and the juices rise, and the flowers bud
and bloom, and fruit ripens and the earth is recreated. That represents the
voice of God.
THE DOCTRINE
Now, what is the doctrine? The doctrine of this
passage is that Jesus Christ is God Almighty manifest in the flesh – the
self-existent, eternal, immutable, all-powerful God. That his word is
authoritative; that his word conveys life; and that he speaks that word when,
where, bow, and to whom he wills. He is the sovereign.
If there are many lepers in Israel he may speak to Naaman, the Syrian, only,
"Be thou clean." If there are many widows in Israel he may speak to
the widow of Sarepta alone, "Be thou saved from famine." If there are
a multitude lying impotent around this pool he may speak to this one only and
say, "Rise up and walk." He is a sovereign. The election is his.
I can no more tell to whom he will speak than I can count the stars, or the
leaves, or the grains of sand. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me. I know
to whom I speak. I do not know to whom Jesus shall speak.
But I can tell the evidences from which we may conclude that he has spoken when
he does speak, and that is the great point here. It is the ringing trumpet note
of the Eternal God. How may we know that we hear him? Paul says in his letter
to the Thessalonians, "This gospel came unto you, not in word only, but in
power." In power I If, then, we hear the voice of Jesus, there will be
energy in it. There will be vitality in it. There will be life in it. It will
not be mere sound, but Bound embodying life. And how is that power manifested?
It is manifested in this, that if we hear him we feel that we are singled out
from all the people around us. We feel that we are cut out from the crowd. We
feel that his eye is on us. We feel that we stand before God in our
individuality alone. If we hear his voice, it discovers our heart to us. It
shows us what we are. And not only that, but if we hear his voice there is a
revelation to us of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. What says the
Scripture? "If our gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost in whom
the god of this world hath blinded the eyes of them that believe not, but God,
who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined into our hearts,
revealing the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." Now look back to
that first scripture, "Let there be light, and light was." God, who
commanded the light to shine out of the darkness, hath shined into our hearts,
into the chaos and gloom and blackness of our hearts, and by that shining he
has revealed to us his glory. Where? In the face of his incarnate Son, the Lord
Jesus Christ.
Continuing his discourse, Jesus refers to John as a witness and he says that
his witness was greater than that of John, because his works bear witness of
him. He then asserts that they had never heard God's voice nor did they have
his Word abiding in them; that they were destitute of the love of God; that
they sought not the glory of God; that they were convicted by the law of Moses
because it testified of him and they received not its testimony. This he said
was the reason that they would not believe his words. The reader will note how
tactfully our Lord here treats his relation to the Father in view of the
growing hatred for him on the part of the authorities at Jerusalem (see note in
Harmony, p. 41).
On his way back from Jerusalem to Galilee he and his disciples were passing
through the fields of grain and the disciples, growing hungry, plucked the
heads of grain and rubbed them in their hands, which they were allowed to do by
the Mosaic law. But the Pharisees, in their additions to and expositions of the
law, had so distorted its true meaning that they thought they had ground for
another charge against him. But he replies by an appeal (1) to history, the
case of David, (2) to the law, the work of the priests, (3) to the prophets,
and (4) to his own authority over the sabbath. This fourth issue with the
Pharisees is carried over into the next incident where he heals the man with a
withered hand on the sabbath day. Here he replied with an appeal to their own
acts of mercy to lower animals, showing the superior value of man and the greater
reason for showing mercy to him. Here again they plot to kill him.
When Jesus perceived that they had plotted to kill him, he withdrew to the sea
of Galilee and a great multitude followed him, insomuch that he had to take a
boat and push away from the shore because of the press of the crowd. Many were
press- ing upon him because of their plagues, but he healed them all. This is
cited as a fulfilment of Isaiah 42:1-4, which contains the following items of
analysis: (1) The announcement of the servant of Jehovah, who was the Messiah;
(2) his anointing and its purpose, i. e., to declare judgment to the Gentiles;
(3) his character – lowly; (4) his tenderness with the feeble and wounded; (5)
his name the hope of the Gentiles.
After the great events on the sea of Galilee our Lord stole away into the
mountain and spent the whole night in prayer looking to the call and ordination
of the twelve apostles. Then he chose the twelve and named them, apostles, whom
both Mark and Luke here name. (For a comparison of the four lists of the twelve
apostles see Broadus' Harmony, p. 244.)
QUESTIONS
1. How did our Lord test the
faith of the two blind men whom he healed?
2. What was our Lord's
request to them and why, and what was the result and why?
3. What was the result of
his healing the dumb demoniac and what the culmination of the issue raised by
the Pharisees?
4. What were the great
events of our Lord's visit to Jerusalem to the Passover (John 6:1)?
5. What was the occasion of
his great discourse while there?
6. Describe the scene at the
pool of Bethesda.
7. What was the time of this
incident and the issue precipitated with the Pharisees?
8. How did Jesus defend
himself?
9. What was new charge
growing out of this defense and what our Lord's defense against this charge?
10. How does Jesus here
claim omniscience, omnipotence, and all authority?
11. What was the bearing of
this upon the key verse (25) of this passage?
12. Give the exegesis of w.
25-29.
13. What was the main
thought running all through this passage? Illustrate by several examples.
14. What was the doctrine
here expressed and how does the author illustrate it?
15. What were the evidences
of the voice of the Son of God?
16. How does Jesus proceed
to convict them of their gross sin and what the charges which he prefers
against them?
17. Show how tactfully Jesus
treated his relation to the Father and why.
18. State the case of the
charge of violating the sabbath law in the cornfields and Jesus' defense.
19. How does he reply to the
same charge in the incident of the man with a withered hand and what the
result?
20. Describe the scene that
followed this by the sea of Galilee.
21. What prophecy is here
fulfilled and what was the analysis of it?
22. What the occasion here
of all-night prayer by our Lord?
23. What the order of names
in the four lists of the twelve apostles as given by Mark, Luke, and Acts?
OUR LORD'S GREAT MINISTRY IN GALILEE
Part III THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT
Harmony pages 45-82 and Matthew 5:1 to 7:29; Luke
6:17-49.
The historians of the Sermon on the Mount are Matthew and Luke, mainly Matthew.
The scene of that sermon was a level place upon the mountains of the
northwestern shore of the sea of Galilee. The audience consisted of the twelve
disciples whom he had just appointed and of a large number of other disciples
who had been instructed somewhat in the principles of his kingdom, and of a
vast multitude of people from Judea and Samaria and Phoenicia. It was an
immense audience. Luke says, "The company of his disciples, and a great
multitude of people out of all Judea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of
Tyre and Sidon." It was such an audience as one could not put in a house –
any kind of a house. And it is a noticeable fact that whenever a great
reformation commences, I mean a movement that has life and fire in it – then
the reformers take to field preaching. They quit the houses; they go into the
streets or fields or out in the open somewhere, for only such places as have
the skies for a ceiling and the horizon for a boundary can hold the crowds of
people that will always gather when a deep and fiery movement of the Christian
religion is in progress. So with this audience of Jesus.
The occasion of the Sermon on the Mount was this: He had Just selected twelve
men, commencing the organization of his movement. These twelve men were to
share with him the burden of responsibility and labor, and it was quite
important that they should be thoroughly instructed in the first principles of
the kingdom which he announced. It was equally necessary that the larger body
of his disciples should understand those fundamental principles, and that the
miscellaneous and ever-shifting crowd, drawn together by their expectations of
a king, and looking to the establishment of an earthly monarchy which would
overturn Roman supremacy and give to Judea the sovereignty of the universe –
that this mixed rabble should have their misconceptions concerning the nature
of the kingdom of Jesus Christ removed, and forever.
The setting or background of the sermon must never be overlooked. The
multitudes, incited mainly by desires of relief from physical, temporal, and
external woes – even the better informed and more spiritually minded but dimly
recognizing the greater spiritual needs – these constituted the occasion of the
Sermon on the Mount.
The design of it has been partly suggested by the occasion, but we need to
erect just here a pillar of caution. The design has a negative as well as a
positive aspect. First, then, negatively: It was not intended to be, as some
have supposed and claimed, an epitome of doctrine and morals, neither of the
one nor of the other. It falls very short of being a full synopsis of the
doctrines of Jesus Christ. There is not a word in it directly of regeneration.
There is nothing in it concerning the doctrine of the vicarious atonement and
justification by faith, so elaborately set forth by the Saviour himself and his
apostles. So there are some departments of morals not here inculcated. Hence,
one makes a very great mistake when he counts the Sermon on the Mount as a
complete standard of life. We hear people say sometimes: “If I live by the
Sermon on the Mount that will do." I say that this sermon is not all of
the standard.
Positively, then, what was the design of it? The design of it was introductory
– an opening or rudimental discourse setting forth the foundation principles of
the messianic kingdom, showing that these principles are internal, spiritual,
practical and not external, ritualistic, theoretic; setting forth first the
characteristics, privileges, and happiness of the messianic subjects in the
Beatitudes. Showing next the importance, influence and responsibility of the
messianic subjects, comparing them to the light of the world and the salt of
the earth. Then follows a discussion of the relations of the messianic kingdom.
Relations to what? Relations to the Jewish law, whether ceremonial, civil or
moral; to the prophets; to rabbinical traditions ; to the world; to practical
life, and to destiny. Such was the design of the Sermon on the Mount, intending
afterward, as in fact he did, to unfold, to develop other doctrines related to
these, and letting his whole life's teaching present the fulness of his
doctrine and of his morality.
So the Sermon on the Mount is not a disconcerted jumble of fine sayings, but
exhibits remarkable unity as a discourse, as will be observed when I briefly
state the outline and analysis of it. Indeed, I much question if any speech has
ever been delivered more remarkable for unity than the Sermon on the Mount.
Next, the matter of this sermon is every bit every-day matter, but while
every-day matter, it is as deep and as important as human life and destiny. One
makes a great mistake in supposing that great teaching touches only the
strange, exceptional, and startling. The best and sublimest teaching upon the
earth concerns the every-day life, and such is the matter of this sermon.
The following adjectives will convey a description of the style:
It is simple, familiar, direct, sententious, paradoxical, startling,
illustrative, conversational, practical, and authoritative.
It is a simple talk. I mean that every one in that audience could understand
it. There was no attempt at big words; the language of the common people, as
they spoke it and as they understood it, was used by our Saviour. It was
familiar in that it was as homely in its phrases as if he were sitting by the
fireside or out on the housetop in the cool of the evening or on the curbing of
the street and talking with the passing people. It was not an oration, for
there is an utter absence of declamatory, theoretical elocution, and rhetoric,
as there must be in all great teachers. I mean to say that there is not an
indication of a single strained mental effort after rounded phraseology,
euphonious diction, rhetorical effect, dramatic gesticulation. It is direct. I
mean to say that it does not intend to reach things by cannoning, hitting here
and intending by glancing shot to strike out yonder. He moves right straight
forward to the accomplishment of his object.
The style is paradoxical. A paradox is something which seems to be
contradictory and is not contradictory, as, for instance, "happy are the
unhappy" – that is, "Blessed are they that mourn." That is a
paradox, but there is nothing contradictory about it. There is a comparison
between present unhappiness and future happiness. As Luke keeps bringing it
out, "Blessed are ye that hunger now, for ye shall be filled
hereafter." "Woe unto you that are rich now, for ye shall be poor
hereafter." Yes, it is intensely paradoxical. It is illustrative. The
illustrations do not have to be explained, as some men's illustrations. They illustrate.
They preach a sermon by themselves – that is, they carry in their familiar
imagery their own application. He selects objects that are perfectly well known
to the people and so thoroughly familiar that when used as an illustration
there can be no misconception as to the meaning. Sometimes he illustrates by a
hen and chickens, sometimes by a lily, other times by rocks and thorns and
sheep and birds. It is conversational in its style, and unquestionably the
greatest preachers are preachers who adopt the easy, off-hand, conversational
style, like Dr. Broadus. But the distinguishing characteristic in style is that
which most impressed his audience, because of its intrinsic power and of its
marked dissimilarity to the methods of their ordinary religious teachers. He
taught as one having authority, and not as the scribes and Pharisees. The style
then was authoritative. Just look at the difference. A rabbi would get up
before the people and with his eyes cast down would begin to say, "Rabbi
Ben Israel says in the Talmud that Rabbi Joseph said that Rabbi Amos said that
maybe such is the interpretation of the passage, but Rabbi Issachar quotes
Rabbi Ephraim as saying that Rabbi Eleazer thought it might mean a different
thing." It was all indeterminate, uncertain; it did not take any positive
shape. The pupil was perplexed by a balancing of conflicting probabilities. One
leader doubtfully said, "Lo, here," while another distrustfully said,
"Maybe, yonder." But Jesus spoke with authority – authority vested in
himself. He leaned on no human buttresses – did not attempt to defend his
doctrine, nor to vindicate it. He spoke as God speaks, and without stopping to
give an explanation of his manner – and so ought men always to speak who speak
for God. Let him speak as the oracles of God. Now as to the rank of this
Sermon. Daniel Webster says that no mere man could have produced the Sermon on
the Mount.
Old age and wisdom bow before the simplicity and sublimity of this incomparable
teaching. Little children sweetly imbibe its spirit as if it were milk, and
aged saints draw from it the strong meat which supplies their sinews of
strength. Babes in Christ by it take their first step in the practical walk of
Christian life while the men or women in Christ Jesus by it soar on eagles'
wings into the anticipations of the heavenly world. It is peerless, matchless,
divine.
To show the unity of the Sermon on the Mount, I will give an outline of it that
consists of only three great heads. First, the characteristics, privileges, and
happiness of the messianic subjects as set forth in the beatitudes. Second, the
importance, influence, and responsibility of the messianic subjects, as set
forth in the images of salt and light. And third, the relations of the
messianic kingdom or doctrines – that is, its relations to the Jewish law,
whether ceremonial) civil or moral; its relations to the rabbinical traditions;
its relations to the prophecies; its relations to the outside world in its
spirit and maxims and chief good; its relations to human destiny, closing with
"Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them," he shall
be like the man who built his house upon a rock, and when the floods came and
the storms buried, that house stood, for it was founded upon a rock. All
through it, in all of its great divisions and subdivisions, is brought out in
clearest light that the principles of the Christian religion are internal,
spiritual and practical. It is not, "Do this that you may be seen of
men." It is not to wash the outside of the cup or platter. It is not a
painted sepulcher, holding inside rottenness and dead men's bones. It consists
not in meat and drink, not in observances of days and months and seasons. It
has not ten thousand ordinances that touch our dress and our manner. Oh, the
mass of stuff that has been imposed upon the Christian religion which, in its
foundation principles, was all spiritual and not ritualistic. All through it is
practical. I mean to say, as opposed to theoretic or speculative. There is not
a single part of it that is presented to the curious human mind as something
calculated to entertain an idle person – not a thing. The whole of it is
designed to be not abstract, but concrete – to be incarnated, to be embodied –
practical, all of it.
Having presented that outline of this Sermon, I want to illustrate it by
considering briefly the first two divisions. First, the characteristics,
privileges, and happiness of the messianic subjects, as set forth in what are
called the beatitudes, commencing with a few general remarks. There are ten of
these characteristics, with ten corresponding privileges or ten alternative
woes. Every one of the privileges is based on character, and every one of the
particular measures of happiness is based on a privilege, showing the relation
between character and happiness – a fixed relation, an indissoluble bond. If a
man possess the kingdom of God; if a man is allowed to see God and live with
him; if a man receives a reward from God at the last great day, these
privileges are the springs of his happi-ness, but every privilege is predicated
upon character in the man, upon the inside state of the man's soul. As Burns
expresses it: It
is no' in titles, nor in rank; It is no' in wealth like London bank, To
purchase peace and rest; If happiness have not her seat And center in the
breast We may be wiser or rich or great But never can be blest.
This sermon explains why Paul, covered with wounds and in prison, at midnight,
and with death awaiting him in the morning, could sing praises to God. It explains
how it is, as recorded in Hebrews II, that the ancient martyrs took joyfully
the spoiling of their goods, and who, while flames wrapped them about, shouted,
"Hallelujah to God"; who leaped for joy that they were counted worthy
to suffer for Christ's sake. The Beatitudes express the only great philosophy
as contrasted with Epicureanism and Stoicism. The Epicurean taught: "You
have appetites; if you would be happy, gratify them. Eat, drink, and be
merry." The Stoic said, "You have appetites; if you would be happy,
extirpate them – dig them up by the roots." This sermon says, "You
have appetites; if you would be happy, regulate them. Neither gratify them
immoderately nor suppress them, but divert them from improper channels and fix
them upon worthy objects. You want to be rich; that is right, only what kind of
riches? You want to live? Yes, but when – now or hereafter? You want great
substance? That is all right, but what kind – evanescent or that which endures?
You would treasure up – yes, but where? Where neither moth nor rust corrupt,
nor thieves dig through and steal."
It will be observed that these Beatitudes are all double. I mean that they have
a probable sense and an absolute sense. Take this one. Luke says, "Blessed
are ye poor." Matthew says, "Blessed are the poor in spirit."
The probable sense is always this, that comparing the two estates of poverty
and riches, it is more probable that a poor man will get to heaven than that a
rich man will. I mean to say that it is hard for a rich man to enter into the
kingdom of heaven. If one's rent roll is $100,000 a year, then one's chances of
heaven are very slim, but that is not the absolute sense. The absolute sense
is, "Blessed are the poor in spirit." Again, "Blessed are they
that mourn." The probable sense is that it is a rule better to go to the
house of mourning than to the house of feasting; that as a rule afflicted
people are more apt to seek the kingdom of heaven than people who are not
afflicted, but its meaning in its absolute sense is not merely to be a mourner,
but to mourn in spirit for spiritual things.
We next note, generally, that each Beatitude has a corresponding woe, either
expressed or implied. Luke mentions four of them. For instance, when he says,
"Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of heaven," he then
adds the alternative, "But woe unto you rich, for you have had your
consolation." So with all the others, the corresponding woe is either
expressed or implied.
After these general references to all the Beatitudes, let us examine somewhat
particularly the first two. Take the first, "Blessed are the poor in
spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." What does that mean? I
believe in close analysis and clear definition. Now here is the way I would
read that: "Happy is the man who in his inner, higher nature [that is, in
his spirit I consciously feels his poverty or need of spiritual good from
God." There is poverty – yes, but it is that poverty in spirit which we
consciously feel and not that which we have but do not know that we have it.
Compare two scriptures for proof:
Isaiah 66:2 "To this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a
contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word." Revelation 3:17 "Because
thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and
knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable and poor, and blind and
naked."
Evidently the blessing is promised, not to the poverty, but to the sense of the
poverty – the consciousness of the need. It is quite important to observe this distinction.
Now in the case of these Laodiceans there was actual poverty in the sphere of
the spirit, but there was no recognition of the poverty. On the contrary, they
thought themselves to be rich and that they needed nothing.
The two states of mind are clearly represented in the parable of the Pharisee
and the publican who went up into the Temple to pray. The Pharisee had spirit
need enough, but he had no consciousness of that need. The publican had the
same need and he deeply felt it. He smote his heart and said, "God be
merciful to me the sinner." Blessed are the poor in spirit. The prodigal
son illustrates both phases of the subject. When he left his father's house,
however much he might have in external things (for he was richly endowed), in
his inner nature, in his spirit, he was actually poor, but he did not know it.
He thought he was rich and great, and was correspondingly proud, but there came
a time when he began to be in want; when the need of his soul broke in upon his
mind; when he said, "I have sinned; I will arise and go to my father and
say to him, Father, I am not worthy to be called thy son. Let me be a servant.
I have sinned." Blessed are the poor in spirit. That means, happy is the
man who in the sphere of the spirit (or inner or higher nature) feels his need
of good from God – no less, no more. "I need thee every hour, most
gracious Lord." Oh, bow sweet that hymn is! Poor in spirit. Oh, I have so
few spiritual goods. I need patience, I need strength, I need clearer views of heaven,
I need more of the spirit of my Master. Poor, yea, blessed are the poor in
spirit.
But do not forget the contrast in the now and the hereafter. What do you need,
O Dives, at the banquet? "Not a thing in the world. I have a million
dollars; have the finest table in the country; every time I walk out on the
streets people fawn upon me and say, 'There goes a millionaire. Look at him I '
Why, I do not need a thing in the world. You never did see such eating as I
have on my table; I am rich." Rich, purse proud, feeding upon external
things and starving the soul. That is the now. But let me show him in the
hereafter. We will have to look a long way down into the depths of hell. Did he
take any money with him? Not a cent. Is he thirsty? Hear him: "And he
cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may
dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my parched tongue; for I am
tormented in this flame" (Luke 16:24). See that chasm that separates him
from God. Mark his apprehension that his brethren will come where he is. Mark
the play of his memory. "But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy
lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now
he is comforted, and you are tormented" (Luke 16:25).
Oh, sublime Teacher, thou Teacher of the relation of time and eternity!
"Blessed are they that mourn." I would rather go to the house of
mourning than to the house of laughing. But it refers to the sphere of the
spirit. Do we mourn on account of sin? Do we mourn on account of our lack of
conformity to the image of Jesus Christ? Do we mourn because of the low state
of piety in the land? Like Jeremiah, is the cause of our grief the fact that
the health of the daughter of God's people is not recovered? "Blessed are they
that mourn."
Oh, you mourners in Zion, I say to you, you shall be comforted, and when your
ashes are turned to beauty and your heaviness to the garments of praise, and
your anguish to the thrilling joys of heaven, then will your consolation be
deep and high and broad, with an "immeasurable" attached to every one
of the adjectives.
How sweet the song of Tom Moore: Come, ye disconsolate, where'er ye languish; Come to
the mercy seat, fervently kneel; Here bring your wounded hearts, here tell your
anguish, Earth has no sorrow that heaven cannot heal,
“Blessed are they that mourn." Oh,
mourners, hear the blessed Saviour: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me
to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and
recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to
preach the acceptable year of the Lord" (Luke 4:18-19). We reach the
fulness of the promise in heaven, for there are no tears in heaven, nor sorrow,
nor crying, nor pain, nor death. Hear the precise words of our Lord: "And
God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more
death, neither sorrow nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the
former things are passed away" (Rev. 21:4).
Blessed are the poor in spirit. Blessed are those that mourn on account of sin.
Blessed are the meek. Blessed are those that hunger and thirst after
righteousness – personal, practical righteousness, mark you, and not imputed
righteousness. It means absolute, sinless perfection. Such will come after
awhile. Blessed are the pure in heart; that means the fulness of
sanctification, in absolute deliverance from the corruption that is in the
world through lust. It, too, will come after a while. It is not all attainable
now. But we may move toward it and we will be filled; we will ultimately see
God. All these Beatitudes have a special meaning and each one very sweet.
Let us now consider somewhat the importance and influence and responsibility of
the people who are poor in spirit and mourn, and are meek, and who hunger and
thirst after righteousness, and who are merciful, and who are peacemakers, and
who are persecuted for righteousness' sake. What is their importance? What
their influence? What their responsibility? Jesus, in just one verse, answers
all of these questions: "Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt
have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for
nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men" (Matt.
5:13). The importance or value of Messiah's subjects is determined by the
emphasis on the pronoun "ye." The verb ending would in ordinary cases
determine the pronoun nominative, so it would not have to be expressed. But if,
in the Greek, one desires to throw emphasis on the pronoun, it must be
expressed. The Greek verb este by itself means "ye are," that
is, without emphasis. But to have it "YE are," capitalizing and
emphasizing the pronoun, it must be written humeis este. How then can I
give the emphasis, the deep stress our Saviour placed on that pronoun? YE – YE
– YE are the salt of the earth and the light of the world. Thus we see that he
meant to deny such importance and influence and responsibility to anything else
or to anybody else.
First, there is a contrast when he says "ye." The emphasis is on the
"ye." Ye are the light of the world. Ye are the salt of the earth. It
is as if he had said, "If this world is preserved from moral corruption, if
this world is wrested from the realms of darkness and bathed in light, ye will
have to do it. Ye are the important ones." O think of it, you mourners,
you poor in spirit, you merciful ones, you that hunger and thirst after
righteousness, you are more important in the sight of God and ten thousand
times more valuable than all the rich, ungodly men that ever trod the face of
the earth. I say unto you that not the philosophers (lightning bugs trying to
outshine the sun), not the police, shall keep the world from corrupting and
rotting; not the public school, as the politicians would have you believe. No,
you can have good public schools right over the mouth of the pit. But ye are
the light of the world; those whose characteristics are internal, spiritual, practical;
followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. I say if the whole earth is not cracked
open today it is because of you. If the cloud does not burst and the bolt fall
to smite it with universal flame, it is solely because of that "ye."
Ye poor in spirit; ye Christians that are scattered about on the face of the
earth – ye and ye alone. Ah, me, if you were taken off the earth it would rot
and stink until heaven would be compelled to burn it. I would like to know
whenever philosophy or secular education or commerce or riches or secular
science ever kept a community from morally rotting.
I say today, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that but for the humble,
God-fearing men and women in any state, in any county, in any town, it would
rot. They are the salt of the earth and the light of the world.
As the value and importance of God's people are determined by the emphatic
"Ye," so the character of their influence is determined by the
figures "salt and light." Salt preserves – keeps pure. Light dispels
darkness. Heat expels cold.
The salt of the sea is the shore's barrier against universal disease and death.
Without the light and its accompanying heat there could be no life. No plant
would germinate. Darkness that could be felt would shroud the earth. More than
Arctic cold would ensue. All liquids would solidify and petrify. The rivers –
earth's arteries – would stiffen into blocks of ice. The veins of blood would
become like steel wire, harder than man's bones. What, therefore, salt and
light are to the natural world, even that are Christians to the spiritual
world. And as the emphatic "ye" expresses who are earth's important
ones, and as the "salt and light" express the kind and character of
their value, so their responsibility is expressed by "putting the candle
on the candlestick." "Neither do men light a candle, and put it under
a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the
house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works,
and glorify your Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 5:15-16). Mark the
emphasis on the "so." It is commonly misunderstood. As the candle
once lighted must be put on the candlestick in order to be sufficiently
visible, even so when God shines into the heart the conversion must be so positioned
as to be visible. It is to position and consequent visibility that "even
so" refers.
I say that our responsibility is all involved in putting the candle in the
right place. God himself does the lighting. Our part is not to so misplace the
light as to hide it. It therefore becomes a supreme question: How do you put it
on the candlestick?
First then let the divine oracles speak. Hear the Word of God:
"I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy
faithfulness and thy salvation; I have not concealed thy loving kindness and
thy truth from the great congregation" (Psalm 40:10). "Come and hear
all ye that fear God, and I will declare what he hath done for my soul"
(Psalm 66:16). "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will
I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." "But whosoever
shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in
heaven" (Matt. 10: 32-33). "The seven stars are the angels of the
seven churches: and the seven candlesticks that thou sawest are the seven
churches" (Rev. 1:20).
What then do these scriptures mean? That we must not hide God's righteousness
in our hearts. That we must tell it. Let God's people hear our Christian
experience. Let the whole world know just where we stand. Unite with the
church. On every issue between righteousness and unrighteousness, between light
and darkness, between Christ and Belial, take an unmistakable position on the
Lord's side. Do not try to be a secret partner of Jesus Christ, a Nicodemus who
comes to see him by night. Come out and take a stand. Let the world know your
alignment. Put the candle on the candlestick and let the marksman of hell try
to snuff it out. To put it on the candlestick is unquestionably to join the
church. Where do we get that? Why, in the book of Revelation Jesus moves among
the candlesticks, and what are the candlesticks? They are the churches. The
seven candlesticks are the seven churches. Why put the light there? Because the
Lord Jesus Christ has made the church the pillar and ground of the truth. That
is his institution. Man can organize something, but Jesus organized the church.
That is an institution which has the promise of this life and that which is to
come. Yea, she it is that looketh forth as the morning, clear as the sun, fair
as the moon, and terrible as an army with banners.
Oh, but one says that means the invisible church. How on earth, if it is
invisible, is it putting a candle on a candlestick? An invisible candlestick?
He is not referring to invisibility. A city that is set on a hill cannot be
hid. God lighted the light and it is eternal, but God says make it conspicuous,
visible. Put it on the candlestick that everybody can see it shine.
Unquestionably. Well, if it gets in the church, it shines. How? It will help
the church publish the principles of the messianic kingdom. It will be in the
church and shine, and the waves of light radiating from the church will go out
into the darkened heathen land upon wings of every sermon and prayer and song.
It will help advertise the truth of Jesus.
In every sermon preached and prayer offered and song sung, let it be as if upon
a ladder of promises, it had gone up to the ceiling of the skies and placarded
their whole scope with the promises of eternal life.
That is the way we shine. We shine in our mission work. We shine in our example
at home, in the school.
And now let me say, if our religion is worth a snap of the finger, let us take
it into politics. Do not misunderstand me; I do not mean to have a religious
political party, separate from every other, but I do mean, that whatever
religion we have, we should let it be as potent in determining a political
question as any other question. Let me give a sublime illustration: William E.
Gladstone was England's prime minister. To be prime minister of England means a
vast deal more than to be president of the United States, for under the present
British constitution the prime minister is the sovereign – the government of
England. The queen has nothing more to do with it than I have, but the prime
minister of England is the lord of England and her empire. The British cabinet
is not like the cabinet that we have over here in our country – merely
advisers. Now he was prime minister of England, and had attained his premiership
by combining the liberal element of the political party in England and Scotland
with the Irish element. The Irish element was led by Charles Stewart Parnell.
Parnell was the king and chief of the Irish contingent, and he and Gladstone
stood like two brothers, working together for the accomplishment of good for
the whole empire. Right in the midst of their great victory an awful thing
developed. A divorce suit was instituted against Mrs. 0'Shea by her husband and
making Parnell co-respondent, and the fact brought out a moral depravity of
heart in the case of Parnell – oh, such a sickening state of facts that
Gladstone said: "If it costs me the prime minister's place I will not
stand by the side of Charles Stewart Parnell. I will let the political party
go; I am a Christian; I love God. I love God more than I love a political
party. I will not give this man the hand of fellowship. Ireland must select
another leader." Parnell refused to yield leadership. It divided the Irish
vote and lost Gladstone's working majority in Parliament. He had to resign, and
he is the only man I know that actually preferred to be right than to be prime
minister.
The time sometimes comes when instead of showing we are Christians by being
willing to shake hands with everybody, we must show our Christianity by
refusing to take a bad man's hand, even though he poses as a Christian.
It may be that we cannot reach him by church discipline. It becomes necessary
that he may be made to feel the force of a righteous public opinion. I repeat
it that there are degrees to which a church member may go in slandering his
brethren, in breeding strife, in opposing or clogging the wheels of Christian
progress, when to give him Christian recognition is a sin. Such a man becomes a
curse instead of a blessing.
What, though a man be a Baptist, and what though some church retain him in
fellowship, yet he may so go astray in doctrine that this scripture applies:
"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not
into your house, neither bid him God-speed: for he that biddeth him God-speed
is partaker of his evil deeds" (2 John 10-11). "Others note and have
no company with them that they may be ashamed" (2 Thess. 3:14). Paul thus
urgently entreats and exhorts the Romans: "Now I beseech you, brethren,
mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye
have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus
Christ, but their own belly: and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts
of the simple" (Rom. 16:17-18). He also thus enjoins the Corinthians:
"I wrote to you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: yet not
altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or
extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called
a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a
drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no, not to eat" (1
Cor.5:9-11). He also urges Timothy "to turn away from" another class
(2 Tim. 3:5).
Indeed, there are men so adroit in the use of the forms and technicalities of
the law they can, so far as human courts extend, violate with impunity the
spirit of the whole moral law. Such men are to be shunned, avoided, turned
from. Let no good man receive them as friends. They are incorrigible. And
particularly is this true of a fomenter and breeder of strife among brethren,
or one who, like Satan, is a slanderer of his brethren. If he is a man that is
called a brother, if he claims to be a Christian, and does certain things, turn
from him and let the whole world know that you do not claim fellowship with
him. Says the apostle, "Avoid him." If he can make us come up and stand
beside him, so that he can say, "We two," and all the time proceed in
infamy, all the time reap immoral rottenness, that is all he wants. He will
spread the mantle of our Christianity over his vileness.
Aaron Burr, for political reasons and from very slight causes, none such as are
regarded sufficiently weighty to justify a challenge, forced a duel on
Alexander Hamilton, although he knew Hamilton would never fire 3 shot at him,
and he murdered Hamilton. Now, it was a sign that the United States was not
absolutely rotting when the public sentiment spoke out as to the crime of
dueling, when Burr, though he had been a leading spirit in one of the great
political parties of this Union, was not socially recognized. Good people by
whom he would sit down would get up and move away somewhere else.
Should we take the hand of a Benedict Arnold or Judas Iscariot? To a certain
extent the public denunciation that thundered over the head of Breckenridge of
Kentucky was very godlike; but, I confess, when he stood up, and without
extenuation, without denying the facts, but openly confessing them – confessing
his sin and asking forgivenessù1 confess then there ought to have been more
mercy shown him.
If the principles of the Christian religion are not carried into society, if
they are not carried into business, if they are not carried into politics, if
we do not let the light shine, then the salt has lost the savour and the light
is put under a bushel. We are the light of the world and the salt of the earth,
says the great Teacher.
My own conclusions are never child's play. They are always reached after
profound investigation of a subject.
I would rather stand up by the side of half a dozen who were occupying the platform
of that Sermon on the Mount than to be one of a million on the opposing side.
Oh, put the light on the candlestick!
The third division of this Sermon consists of several items, some of which need
to be elaborated somewhat, others having been sufficiently discussed in
preceding chapters. The first point under this division is the relation of the
messianic teaching to the law and the current teaching. It is a fulfilment, i.
e., a filling out, of the law and not destructive of the law. It is also a correction
of the current teaching of our Lord's time on many points respecting the law.
The second item of this division is murder in its germ, which is anger. This is
discussed by our Lord in Matthew 5:21-26. The third item is adultery in its
germ, 5:27-31. The fourth item is unlawful divorce, 5:32. The fifth item is
swearing, 5:33-37. The sixth item is the law of lex talionis, or the law
of revenge, 5:38-42. The seventh item is the relation of the children of the
kingdom to their enemies, expressed in one word – love. Then follows a
prohibition of ostentatious works: alms-giving, prayer and fasting, and the
inculcation of singlehearted devotion to God in laying up treasures in heaven
and in leaving off vain anxieties. The question under discussion by our Saviour
was this: He saw men bowed down with anxieties on the bread and meat question,
the duty of providing for their families. "0, what shall we eat, and what
shall we drink and wherewithal shall we be clothed?" He saw them trying to
settle that question – and a good question it is to settle. What was the matter
then? They were settling it at the wrong time and place. They were trying to
settle a subordinate relation in advance of the settlement of a higher and
paramount relation. What does he say? Does he say that the food is not good,
that clothing is not good, that providing for the family is not good? On the
contrary, this very passage offers these things: "All these things shall
be added unto you." God knows we are hungry and should be fed. He knows we
need clothing and shelter. The Lord knows that provision should be made against
a famine. All our wants are known unto him, and not against them does this text
speak, but for them. But this – let us settle this question, the biggest thing
first, the fundamental thing, the vital thing. What is it? "Seek ye first
the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things shall be added
unto you." That prepares one to live now, here in this world; that
prepares one for death, for both worlds. "Godliness hath the promise of
the life that now is and of the life to come." Let us look yet more
carefully at this passage. What is meant here by the kingdom of God, or the
kingdom of heaven? It means what it means in the third chapter of Matthew,
where John the Baptist said, "Repent ye for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand"; it means the reign or government of God through Jesus Christ in the
heart and life here on the earth. That is to say, in preparing to live, I must
seek first an entrance into that kingdom and a title to its privileges and its
joys, and when my relations to that kingdom are settled, which are my relations
to God, then these other things in the order of their importance require due
attention. Well, let us put it in yet other words in order to get the thought
still more clearly. What do we mean by seeking first the kingdom of heaven?
Seeking; that means any effort upon our part during the time which God has
appointed for that purpose, to obtain reconciliation with him; that means any
effort on our part toward regeneration, any effort that we may put forth to
become a child of God, a subject of Jesus Christ. That is seeking the kingdom
of heaven. What is meant by righteousness? "Seek ye first the kingdom of
God and his righteousness." Evidently from the connection the reference
here is not to the imputed righteousness of Christ; that is abundantly set
forth in other scriptures, and that, too. is obtained in entering into the
kingdom of heaven. That belongs to the initial process and is involved in regeneration.
The righteousness here referred to is the personal righteousness of the subject
of the kingdom, practical holiness, practical obedience to God's command.
Now mark the order. Suppose I try to be righteous and sanctified before I am
converted, surely I will fallù1 must seek God first. "I will cultivate
morality. I will pay my debts. I will tell the truth. I will be good." How
good without being reconciled to God, how good without regeneration, how good
without the motive of love of God in the heart? The thing can't be done. Next,
what is meant then by "shall be added to you?" It means this, that
God's care in providing for the temporal necessities of his people in this life
is just as efficient as his care for the salvation of their souls.
I say that if we will first settle our relation to God by becoming a Christian,
and then from the basis of regeneration, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit,
being now saved, we follow on into good works and into holy living, then the
Bible promise is that all these other things shall be added.
Let me now show what the Bible says about this life, and how these things shall
be added. Let us take a passage from Psalm 37; it has never been falsified; it
holds true in every age of the world: "Trust in the Lord and do good, so
shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed." What is the
anxiety here? "I was afraid I would not have a place among men in the
land. I was afraid I would not have provision." "Trust, in the Lord
and do good and verily thou shalt be fed." "Seek ye first the kingdom
of God and his righteousness and all these things shall be added unto
you." Again: "Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give
thee the desires of thine heart." Again: "Commit thy way unto the
Lord; trust also in him, and he shall bring it to pass. And he shall bring
forth thy righteousness as the light and thy judgment as the noonday," the
very righteousness of this passage. "Rest in the Lord and wait patiently
for him." Yet again: "The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord
and he delighteth in his way. Though he fall he shall not be utterly cast
down." "I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself
like a green bay tree. Yet he passed away and lo, he was not. But mark the
perfect man, consider the upright – the end of that man is peace." Peace
here, peace at the end. "0, that I might die the death of the righteous
and that my last end might be like his." That same psalm says, "I
have been young and now am old, and yet never have I seen the righteous
forsaken nor his seed begging bread." Take this one: "The Lord God is
a sun and a shield. No good thing will he withhold from them that walk
uprightly." Take this scripture: "All things work together for good
to them that love God; to them that are the called according to his
purpose."
And it means all things above, here, below, night, day, moon, stars, breezes,
storms, calms, afflictions, and bright days of prosperity, enemies –
EVERYTHING. Even hell shall work for our good if we love God.
For example and by way of illustration, consider the things that to an outsider
seem to be the hardest things on this earth to do, nor can he understand how a
Christian does them, First, giving money. I have had men to look at me as if I
were crazy and they seemed to be sorry for me that I should feel constrained to
give so liberally to the cause of Christ. They don't know anything about it.
Take giving then as an illustration and let me show that if first we have given
ourselves to God (mark that. for we do not give money to obtain salvation, but
if first we have entered the kingdom of God,) and, moved with a love of God, we
freely give, then for w God brightens earth and the grave and heaven. How is
that? Does it help in this life? Our Saviour said, "Give, and it shall be
given unto you, good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running
over." That is in this life; that is here.
I do say it, and the Lord beareth me witness that I lie not, that for the
protection of my family in the matter of support I have never had one single
anxiety since the day that my wife and I, without a dollar in the world,
covenanted with God and settled the question of our financial relation to him,
and I never more expect to have any. I say that it is the truth that not one
wave of anxiety or trouble as to how I am to be fed and clothed, has ever
rolled over my mind since that eventful day twenty-seven years ago, I
determined to settle that question, and it was settled from top to bottom.
Well, now, suppose the question was asked me: "Has God taken care of you?
Has he been good to you? Has he kept you? Has he clothed you? Has he kept you
out of debt? Has he enabled you not only to have, but to have in order to
give?" Why, I would have to say, "Lord, it has been good measure; it
has been pressed down; it has been shaken together, and it runs over all the
time in this life." And never on the earth was anything truer than that.
Now let us take the life to come on this question. Listen to the Saviour:
"Whosoever shall give a cup of cold water to a disciple in the name of a
disciple, shall receive a disciple's reward." Hear him again when he says,
"Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness that when it
shall fail they [the friends that you have made by it] shall receive you into
everlasting habitations." Listen again, and I want to show that such is
the life to come. The charge of Paul, the charge to rich men: "Charge them
that are rich in this world that they be not high minded nor trust to uncertain
riches, but in the living God who giveth us all things to enjoy. Charge them
that they do good; that they be rich in good works; that they be ready to
distribute and willing to contribute, laying up in store for themselves a good
foundation against the time to come that they may lay hold on eternal
life."
I take one other scripture only. I will take it from a scene that ought to
touch every heart. It is from the judgment day. Graves have opened, death and
hell have given up their dead and all nations are standing before God, and I see
them separate right and left, and I hear the words of the Lord: "Come ye
blessed of my Father; enter into the kingdom of heaven prepared for you from
the foundation of the world, for I was sick and ye visited me. I was hungry and
ye fed me. I was naked and ye clothed me." Lord, when? When did we do
this? "Inasmuch as you did it unto the least of my disciples you did it
unto me." Here, then, is giving – the giving of a converted, of a saved
man, brightening the hearthstone of every one who thus lives, and bringing
blessings on a dark, lonely traveler on the mountain's height; brightening the
shadows of death and the realms beyond; brightening the home that is on high.
Our Saviour follows this with several other items of interest, such as the
prohibition of censorious judgments, the privilege of a messianic subject to
come to God as a child comes to an earthly parent, the exhortation to enter the
straight gate, the unchangeable law that the tree is known by its fruits, and
last, the principle that discipleship is manifested, not by profession but by
obedience.
There are several items here that need to be emphasized, but they are brought
out in the interpretation of other passages. Therefore I will only mention
them, citing where may be found my discussion on these subjects. First, the
question of offending members, here raised in Matthew 5:29-31, is discussed in
connection with Mark 9:47 in this volume. Second, the divorce question, here
raised in Matthew 5:32, is discussed in connection with Matthew 19:1-12 in The
Four Gospels, Part II of "The Interpretation." Third, the question of
oaths here raised in Matthew 5:33-37, is discussed in Exodus-Levitictis of
"The Interpretation." Fourth, the comment of our Lord on the model
prayer relative to forgiveness, is discussed in connection with the subject of
repentance, in chapter XV of this volume. Fifth, the question of the "few
saved" of Matthew 8:13-14, is discussed in connection with Luke 13:23, in
Part II of The Four Gospels.
This Sermon on the Mount closes with a vivid description of the two builders,
showing the beauty and permanency of a life founded upon the teachings of our
Lord and the awful crash of life structure built on any other foundation than
Christ, the Rock of Ages. One is here reminded of the modern song, "On
Christ the Solid Rock," which, like this passage, shows the necessity of
building on the rock, as 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 shows the necessity of the right
sort of material to be placed in the building on the rock. "All other ground
is sinking sand"; all combustible material will be consumed. But whatever
the material, if on the sand, it must fall and "great will be the fall
thereof."
QUESTIONS
1. Who were the historians
of the Sermon on the Mount?
2. What was the scene of
this sermon?
3. What the occasion of it?
4. What was the design of
it, negatively and positively?
5. What can you say of the
matter of this sermon?
6. What of its style?
7. Explain the terms used to
describe the style.
8. What can you say of the
rank of this sermon?
9. What is the evidence of
divine authorship in this sermon?
10. What are the three great
heads of the outline of this sermon?
11. What relations are
expressed under the third great head?
12. What are the
characteristics of the principles of the Christian religion as brought out in
this sermon? Illustrate.
13. How many Beatitudes
here? Repeat them from memory.
14. What is revealed in each
of these Beatitudes? Quote Bums in point and illustrate by New Testament
examples,
15. How do these Beatitudes
correspond with the teaching of Epicureanism and Stoicism?
16. Show how these
Beatitudes are double.
17. Give the woe of each
Beatitude, either expressed or implied.
18. What, more particularly,
the interpretation of the First Beatitude? Illustrate by New Testament
parables.
19. For what do the blessed
here in. the Second Beatitude mourn?
20. How is this thought
expressed by Tom Moore?
21. How does Jesus express
the comfort of this thought elsewhere and where do we reach the fulness of the
promise here?
22. Give briefly the import
of all the other Beatitudes.
23. What is the
responsibility of the subjects of the kingdom, how is it expressed and how is
the importance of it shown? Illustrate.
24. Show the value and
importance of God's people from the figures used.
25. How is our
responsibility in the matter expressed, and what is the general application?
26. What should be the
application of this principle to politics? Illustrate.
27. What is it’s application
to Christian and church fellowship? Give scriptural proof.
28. What are the points in
the Aaron Burr and Breckenridge cases, respectively?
29. What several subjects
are treated in the third main division of this sermon?
30. What, in detail, is the
interpretation of Matthew 6:33, what are the several scriptures cited to
corroborate this interpretation, and what is the application?
31. What other subjects here
need to be emphasized and where may be found a discussion of each?
32. How does our Lord close
the Sermon on the Mount?
OUR LORD'S GREAT MINISTRY IN GALILEE
Part IV The Centurion's Servant Healed,
the Widow's Son Raised,
The Sin Against the Holy Spirit
Harmony -pages 52-59 and Matthew 8:1, 5-13; 11:2-30;
12:22-37; Mark 3:lff-30; Luke 7:1 to 8:3.
When Jesus, who spoke with authority, had finished the Sermon on the Mount, he
returned to Capernaum where he acted with authority in performing some noted
miracles. Here he was met by a deputation from a centurion, a heathen,
beseeching him to heal his servant who was at the point of death. This Jewish
deputation entered the plea for the centurion that he had favored the Jews
greatly and had built for them a synagogue. Jesus set out at once to go to the
house of the centurion, but was met by a second deputation, saying to Jesus
that he not trouble himself but just speak the word and the work would be done.
The centurion referred in this message to his own authority over his soldiers,
reasoning that Christ's authority was greater and therefore he could speak the
word and his servant should be healed. This called forth from our Lord the
highest commendation of his faith. No Jew up to this time had manifested such faith
as this Roman centurion. Then our Lord draws the picture of the Gentiles coming
from the east, west, north, and south to feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
in the kingdom of heaven while the Jews, the sons of the kingdom, were cast
out. Jesus then granted the petition of the centurion according to his faith.
The second great miracle of Jesus in this region was the raising of the widow's
son at Nain, which was a great blessing to the widow and caused very much
comment upon the work of our Lord, so that his fame spread over all Judea and
the region roundabout. His fame. as a miracle worker and "a great prophet,
“ reached John the Baptist and brought forth his message of inquiry.
This inquiry of John, which reflects the state of discouragement, and also the
testimony of Jesus concerning John, is discussed in chapter 10 of this volume
(which see), but there are some points in this incident not brought out in that
discussion which also need to be emphasized. First, what is the meaning of
"the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence" (Matt. 11:12)? The image
is not precisely that of taking a city by storm, but of an eager, invading
host, each trying to be first, pressing and jostling each other, as when gold
was discovered in California, or at the settlement of the Oklahoma strip. It
means impassioned earnestness and indomitable resolution in the entrance upon
and pursuit of a Christian life, making religion the chief concern and
salvation the foremost thing as expressed in the precepts: "Seek first the
kingdom, etc.," "Agonize to enter in at the strait gate." It
rightly expresses the absorbing interest and enthusiasm of a revival.
"Thus Christianity was born in a revival and all its mighty advances have
come from revivals which are yet the hope of the world." This thought is
illustrated in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, pp. 47-49. Following this is the
contrast between the publicans and scribes, the one justifying God and the
other rejecting for themselves the counsel of God. Then he likens them unto
children in the market, playing funeral. One side piped but the other side did
not dance; then they wailed but the others did not weep. So, John was an
ascetic and that did not suit them; Jesus ate and drank and that did not suit
them. So it has ever been with the faultfinders. But in spite of that, wisdom
is justified of her works (or children), i.e., wisdom is evidenced by her
children, whether in the conduct of John or Jesus. But this statement does not
justify the liquor business as the defendants of it claim.
There is no evidence that Jesus either made or drank intoxicating wine
Then began Jesus to upbraid the cities wherein were done these mighty works,
including Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, because they had not repented.
This shows that light brings with it the obligation to repent, and that this
will be the governing principle of the judgment. Men shall be judged according
to the light they have. Then follows the announcement of a great principle of
revelation. God makes it to babes rather than to the worldly-wise man, and that
Jesus himself is the medium of the revelation from God to man, but only the
humble in spirit and contrite in heart can receive it. Because he is the medium
of the blessing, the God-man, his compassion here finds expression in this great,
broad invitation: "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden,
and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for am I meek
and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is
easy, and my burden is light." Note the two kinds of rest here: First, the
given rest, which is accepted by grace, and second, the found rest, which is
attained in service.
The next incident is the anointing of our Saviour’s feet by a woman who was a
sinner. This incident occurred in Galilee – just where I do not know –
possibly, but not probably, in Nain. It is recorded by Luke alone, who,
following a custom of the historians of mentioning only one incident of a
special kind, omits the narrative of a later anointing.
Two preceding things seem to be implied by the story: (a) That the host had
been a beneficiary in some way of Christ's healing power over the body; (b)
That the woman had been a beneficiary" of his saving power. It is quite
probable that her weary and sin-burdened soul had heard and accepted the
gracious invitation: "Come unto me, etc.," just given by the Saviour.
At any rate her case is an incarnate illustration of the power of that text and
is a living exposition of it. It is far more beautiful and impressive in the
Greek than any translation can make it. Several customs prevalent then but
obsolete now, constitute the setting of the story, and must be understood in
order to appreciate its full meaning.
(1) The Oriental courtesies of hospitality usually extended to an honored
guest. The footwear of the times – open sandals – and the dust of travel in so
dry a country, necessitated the washing of the feet of an incoming guest the
first act of hospitality. See Abraham's example (Gen. 18:4) and Lot's (19:2)
and Laban's (24:32) and the old Benjaminite (Judges 19:20-21) and Abigail (I
Sam. 25:41). See as later instances (John 13) our Lord's washing the feet of
his disciples and the Christian customs (1 Tim. 5:10). This office was usually
performed by servants, but was a mark of great respect and honor to a guest if
performed by the host himself.
(2) The custom of saluting a guest with a kiss. See case of Moses (Ex. 18:7)
and of David (2 Sam. 19:39). To observe this mode of showing affectionate
respect is frequently enjoined in the New Testament epistles. As employed by
Absalom for purposes of demagogy (2 Sam. 15:5), and as employed toward Amasa by
Joab when murder was in his heart (2 Sam. 20:9-10), and by Judas to our Lord
when treachery was in his heart, rendered their crimes the more heinous. To
this Patrick Henry refers: "Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a
kiss."
(3) The custom of anointing the head at meals (Eccles. 9:7-8; Psalm 23:5).
Hence for the Pharisee to omit these marks of courteous hospitality was to show
his light esteem for his guest. It proves that the invitation was not very
hearty.
(4) The custom of reclining at meals (Amos 6:4-6). This explains "sat at
meat" and "behind at his feet."
With these items of background we are prepared to understand and appreciate
that wonderful story of the compassion of Jesus. His lesson on forgiveness and
proportionate love as illustrated in the case of this wicked woman has been the
sweet consolation of thousands. The announcement to the woman that her faith had
saved her throws light on the question, "What must I do to be saved?"
There are here also the usual contrasts where the work of salvation is going
on. The woman was overflowing with love and praise while others were
questioning in their hearts and abounding in hate and censure. This scene has
been re-enacted many a time since, as Christianity has held out the hand of
compassion to the outcasts and Satan has questioned and jeered at her beautiful
offers of mercy.
In Section 47 of the Harmony we have a further account of our Lord's ministry
in Galilee with the twelve, and certain women who had been the beneficiaries of
his ministry, who also ministered to him of their substance. This is the first
Ladies' Aid Society of which we have any record and they were of the right
sort.
We now take up the discussion of the sin against -the Holy Spirit found in
Section 48. Before opening the discussion of it, allow me to group certain
passages of both Testaments bearing on this question: Psalm 19:13:
"Innocent of the great transgression." Mark 3:29: "Guilty of an
eternal sin." Numbers 15:28-31: "If any soul sin through ignorance,
the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when
he sinneth by ignorance before the Lord, to make an atonement for him and it
shall be forgiven him. But the soul that doeth presumptuously, born in the land
of a stranger, the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off
from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath
broken his commandment, that soul shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall
be upon him." Hebrews 10: 26-29: "For if we sin willfully after that
we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a
sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment and a
fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries. A man that hath set at
naught Moses' law, dieth without compassion on the word of two or three
witnesses; of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who
has trodden under foot the Son of God and hath counted the blood of the
covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite
unto the Spirit of grace?" Jeremiah 15:1: "Then said the Lord unto
me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be toward
this people: cast them out of my sight, and let them go forth." 1 John
5:16: "If any man see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall
ask, and God will give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a
sin unto death: not concerning this do I say that he should make request."
Ezekiel 14:13-14: "Son of man, when a land sinneth against me, by
committing a trespass, and I stretch out mine hand upon it, and break the staff
of the bread thereof, and send famine upon it, and cut off from it man and
beast; though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should
deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God."
The scriptures just cited have excited profound interest in every age of the
world since they were recorded. In all the intervening centuries they have so
stirred the hearts of those affected by them as to strip life of enjoyment.
They have driven many to despair. In every community there are guilty and
awakened consciences as spellbound by these scriptures as was Belshazzar when
with pallid lips and shaking knees he confronted the mysterious handwriting on
the wall, Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin. In almost every community we can find
some troubled soul, tortured with the apprehension that he has committed the
unpardonable sin. Sympathetic and kindly-disposed expositors in every age have
tried in vain to break the natural force or soften in some way the prima
facie import of these divine utterances. Some have denied that there ever
was, or ever could be an unpardonable sin. Others conceded that such sin might
have been committed in the days of Christ's earthly ministry, but the hazard
passed away with the cessation of miracles. All the power of great scholarship
has been brought to bear with microscopic inspection of words and phrases to
establish one or the other of these propositions. And, indeed, if great names
could avail in such cases, this slough of despond would have been safely
bridged. But no such explanation ever satisfies a guilty conscience or removes
from the hearts of the masses of plain people, the solemn conviction that the
Bible teaches two things:
First, that in every age of the past, men were liable to commit the
unpardonable sin and that as a matter of fact, some did commit it.
Second, that there is now not only the same liability, but that some do now
actually commit it. There is something in man which tells him that these
scriptures possess for him an awful admonition whose truth is eternal.
Whether all the scriptures just cited admit of one classification matters
nothing, so far as the prevalent conviction is concerned. Where one of the
group may be successfully detached by exegesis another rises up to take its
place. The interest in the doctrine founded on them is a never-dying interest.
Because of this interest, it is purposed now to examine somewhat carefully, the
principal passages bearing on this momentous theme. Most humbly,
self-distrustingly and reverently will the awful subject be approached.
It is deemed best to approach it by considering specially the case recorded by
Matthew and Mark. The words are spoken by our Lord himself. The antecedent
facts which occasioned their utterance may be briefly stated thus:
(1) Jesus had just delivered a miserable demoniac by casting out the demon who
possessed him.
(2) It was a daylight affair, a public transaction, all the circumstances so
open and visible, and the fact so incontrovertible and stupendous that many recognized
the divine power and presence.
(3) But certain Pharisees who had been pursuing him with hostile intent, who
had been obstructing his work in every possible way, finding themselves unable
to dispute the fact of the miracle, sought to break its force by attributing
its origin to Beelzebub, the prince of demons, charging Jesus with collusion
with Satan.
(4) The issue raised was specific. This issue rested on three indisputable
facts conceded by all parties. It is important to note these facts carefully
and to impress our minds with the thought that as conceded facts, they underlie
the issue. The facts are, first, that an evil and unwilling demon had been
forcibly ejected from his much desired stronghold and dispossessed of his
ill-gotten spoils. It was no good spirit. It was no willing spirit. It was a
violent ejectment. It was a despoiling ejectment. Second, the one who so
summarily ejected the demon and despoiled him was Jesus of Nazareth. Third
fact, the ejectment was by supernatural miraculous power – by some spirit
mightier than the outcast demon. Evidently Jesus had, by some spirit, wrought a
notable miracle. He claimed that he did it by the Holy Spirit of God resting on
him and dwelling in him. The Pharisees alleged that he did it by an unclean
spirit, even Satan himself. The contrast is between "unclean-spirit"
and "Holy Spirit." An awful sin was committed by one or the other.
Somebody was guilty of blasphemy. If Jesus was in collusion with Satan – if he
attributed the devil's work by him to the Holy Spirit, he was guilty of
blasphemy. If the Pharisees, on the other hand, attributed the work of the Holy
Spirit to an unclean spirit, this was slandering God. They were guilty of
blasphemy.
(5) Jesus answers the charge against himself by three arguments: First, as the
demon cast out belonged to Satan's kingdom and was doing Satan's work,
evidently he was not cast out by Satan's power, for a kingdom divided against
itself cannot stand, and none could justly accuse Satan of the folly of
undermining his own kingdom. Second, the demon could not have been despoiled
and cast out unless first overpowered by some stronger spirit than himself,
who, if not Satan, must be the Holy Spirit, Satan's antagonist and master.
Third, as the Pharisees themselves claimed to be exorcists of demons, it became
them to consider how their argument against Jesus might be applied to their own
exorcisms.
Then he in turn became the accuser. In grief and indignation he said,
"Therefore I say unto you, every sin and blasphemy against the Spirit
shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man,
it shall be forgiven him, but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it
shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in that which is to come."
Or as Mark expresses it, "Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be
forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies wherewith soever they
shall blaspheme: but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath
never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin; because they said, He hath
an unclean spirit." Having the case now before us, let us next define or
explain certain terms expressed or implied in the record.
Unpardonable. – Pardonable means not that which is or must be pardoned, but which
may be pardoned on compliance with proper conditions – that while any sin
unrepented of, leads ultimately to death, yet as long as the sinner lives, a
way of escape is offered to him. But an unpardonable sin is one which from the
moment of its committal is forever without a possible remedy. Though such a
sinner may be permitted to live many years, yet the very door of hope is closed
against him. It is an eternal sin. It hath never forgiveness. Sermons, prayers,
songs, and exhortations avail nothing in his case. The next expression needing
explanation is, "Neither in this world, nor in the world to come."
Construed by itself this language might imply one of two things:
First, that God will pardon some sins in the next world, i.e., there may be for
many, though not all, a probation after death. So Romanists teach. On such
interpretation is purgatory founded.
Second, or it may imply that God puts away some sins 80 far as the next world
is concerned, but yet does not remit chastisement for them in this world.
Where the meaning of a given passage is doubtful, then we apply the analogy of
the faith. That is, we compare the doubtful with the certain. The application
of this rule necessitates discarding the first possible meaning assigned. It is
utterly repugnant to the tenor of the Scriptures. Men are judged and their
destiny decided by the deeds done in the body, not out of it. If they die
unjust they are raised unjust. There is no probation after death. It remains to
inquire if the second possible implication agrees with the tenor of the
Scriptures. Here we find no difficulty whatever. The general Bible teaching is
in harmony with the second meaning. The Scriptures abundantly show three
things:
First, some sins are remitted both for time and eternity. That is, when they
are pardoned for eternity, even chastisement on earth is also remitted.
Second, much graver sins are, on repentance, put away as to eternity, but very
sore chastisement is inflicted in time. As when God said to David after Nathan
visited him: "The Lord hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit,
because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord
to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die." The
Lord also announced to him that "the sword should never depart from his
house" because he had caused the death of Uriah (see 2 Sam. 12: 7-14).
Here is one unmistakable case out of many that could be cited where sin was
forgiven as to the next world, but not as to this world.
The thought is that God, in fatherly discipline, chastises all Christians in
this world. To be without chastisement in this world proves we are not God's
children. An awful token of utter alienation from God is to be deprived of
correction here, when we sin. To be sinners and yet to prosper. To die sinners
and yet have no "bands in our death." So that the expression
"hath never forgiveness, neither in this world nor in the world to
come," implies nothing about a probation after death, but refers to God's
method of withholding correction in this world, from some sinners, but never
withholding punishment of this class in the next, and to his method of
correcting Christians in this world, but never punishing them in the next
world.
Third, the expression teaches that in the case of those who sin against the
Holy Spirit, God's method of dealing is different from both the foregoing
methods. In the case of the unpardonable sin, punishment commences now and
continues forever. There is no remission of either temporal or eternal penalties.
They have the pleasures of neither world. To illustrate: Lazarus had the next
world, but not this; Dives had this world, but not the next. But the man who
commits the unpardonable sin has neither world, as Judas Iscariot, Ananias, and
others.
To further illustrate, by earthly things, we might say that Benedict Arnold
committed the unpardonable sin as to nations. He lost the United States and did
not gain England. Hated here; despised yonder. The price of his treason could
not be enjoyed. He had never forgiveness, neither on this side the ocean nor on
the other side. Another term needing explanation is the word,
Blasphemy. – This is strictly a compound Greek word Anglicized. It is
transferred bodily to our language. In Greek literature it is quite familiar
and often used. Its meaning is thoroughly established. According to strict
etymology, it is an offense of speech, i.e., of spoken words. Literally, as a
verb, it means to speak ill or injuriously of any one, to revile or defame. As
a noun, it means detraction or slander. I say it means to defame any one
whether man or God. Even in the Bible usage of both the Septuagint and the
Greek New Testament, the word is generally applied to both man and God.
When Paul says he was "slanderously reported," as saying a certain
thing, and when Peter says "speak evil of no man," they both
correctly employ the Greek word "blaspheme." Even this passage refers
to other blasphemies than those against God, "all manner of blasphemies
except the blasphemies against the Holy Spirit." In both English and
American law, blasphemy has ever been an indictable offense, whether against
man or God. Later usages, however, restrict the term "blasphemy" to
an offense against God, while the term "slander" is applied to the
same offense against men. According to strict derivation, it is an offense of
spoken words. To this our Saviour refers in the context when he says, "For
by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be
condemned." But one is quite mistaken who limits the meaning of the term
to strict etymology. In both human and divine law, the offense of
"blasphemy" may be committed by writing the words, or publishing
them, as well as by speaking them. We may blaspheme by either printing,
painting, or pantomime. Any overt, provable action which intentionally conveys
a false and injurious impression against any one comes within the scope of the
offense. Under the more spiritual, divine law, the offense may be committed in
the mind, whether ever spoken aloud. Our context says, "Jesus knowing
their thoughts." Indeed, the very essence of the offense is in the heart –
the intent – the idea. Words are matters of judgment, solely because they are
signs of ideas and expressions of the heart. This our context abundantly shows.
Our Saviour says, "Either make the tree good and its fruit good; or make
the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by its fruit. Ye
offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? For out of the
abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. The good man out of his good
treasure, bringeth forth good things: and the evil man out of his evil treasure
bringeth forth evil things."
From this exhibition of the meaning of the word "blasphemy," we can
easily see that either Jesus or the Pharisees were guilty of the offense. Both
could not be innocent. If Jesus, while claiming to act by the Holy Spirit, was
but the organ of "an unclean spirit," then he blasphemed or slandered
the Holy Spirit. If his work was wrought by the Holy Spirit, then the
Pharisees, by attributing that work to an "unclean spirit,"
blasphemed the Holy Spirit.
Having clearly before us the meaning of "blasphemy," let us advance
to another explanation. The character of any code or government is revealed by
its capital offenses; the grade of any nation's civilization is registered by
its penal code. If capital punishment, or the extreme limit of punishment is
inflicted for many and slight offenses, the government is called barbarian. If
for only a few extraordinary and very heinous crimes, the government is called
civilized. For instance, under the English law of long ago, a man might be
legally put to death for snaring a bird or rabbit. The extreme limit of
punishment was visited upon many who now would be pronounced guilty of only
misdemeanors or petit larceny. It was a bloody code. The enlightened mind
intuitively revolts against undue severity. Modern civilization has reduced
capital offense to a minimum. Even in these few cases three things at least
must always be proved:
(1) That the offender had arrived at the age of discretion, and possessed a
sound mind. A mere child, a lunatic or idiot cannot commit a capital offense.
(2) Premeditation. The crime must be deliberately committed.
(3) Malice. The evil intent must be proved.
The higher benevolence of the divine law will appear from the fact that there
is but one unpardonable offense, and that even more must be proved against one
accused of this offense than the age of discretion, a sound mind,
premeditation, and malice. Indeed, the sin against the Holy Spirit must outrank
all others in intrinsic heinousness. This will abundantly appear when we reach
the Bible definition and analysis of the sin against the Holy Spirit. We are
not ready even yet, however, to enter upon the discussion of the sin itself.
Two other preliminary explanations are needed.
Why must the one unpardonable sin be necessarily against the Holy Spirit? What
is the philosophy or rationale of this necessity? This question and the answer
to it cannot be understood unless we give due weight, both separately and
collectively, to the following correlated proposition: There is one law giver,
God. His law is the one supreme standard which defines right and wrong –
prescribing the right, proscribing the wrong. God himself is the sole,
authoritative interpreter of his law. The scope of its obligations cannot be
limited by finite knowledge, or human conscience. Any failure whatever at
conformity thereto, or any deflection therefrom, to the right or left, however
slight, and from whatever cause, is unrighteousness. All unrighteousness is
sin. The wages of sin is death. All men are sinners by nature and practice.
Therefore, by the deeds of the law can no man be justified in the sight of God.
The law condemns every man. It also follows: First, that any possible salvation
must flow from God's free grace. Second, that not even grace can provide a way
of escape for the condemned inconsistent with God's Justice and holiness. That
is, any possible scheme of salvation for sinners must both satisfy the law
penalty, thereby appeasing justice, and provide for the personal holiness of
the forgiven sinner.
To put it in yet other words, the plan of salvation, to be feasible, must
secure for every sinner to be saved, three things at least: (a) justification,
(b) regeneration, (c) sanctification, which are equivalent to deliverance from
the law penalty, a new nature, and personal holiness. I say that these three
things are absolutely requisite. I cite just now only three scriptural proofs,
one under each head:
Romans 3:23-26 declares that a propitiation must be made for sin in order that
God might be just in justifying the sinner. John 3:3-7 sets forth the absolute
necessity of the new birth the imparting of a new nature.
Hebrews 12:14 declares that "without holiness no man shall see the
Lord."
To admit into heaven even one unjustified man, one man in his carnal nature,
one unholy man, would necessarily dethrone God, while inflicting worse than the
tortures of hell on the one so admitted.
No fish out of water, no wolf or owl in the daylight, could be so unutterably
wretched as such a man. He would be utterly out of harmony with his
surroundings. I think he would prefer hell. The gates of the holy city stand
open day and night, which means that no saint would go out, and no sinner would
go in. After the judgment as well as now, the sinner loves darkness rather than
light. It therefore naturally, philosophically and necessarily follows that
salvation must have limitations. A careful study of these limitations will
disclose to us the rationale of the unpardonable sin. What, then, are these
limitations?
(1) Outside of grace, no salvation.
(2) Outside of Christ, no grace.
(3) Outside of the Spirit, no Christ.
In other words, Christ alone reveals the Father, and the Spirit alone reveals
Christ; or no man can reach the Father except through Christ – Christ is the
door – and no man can find that door except through the Spirit. It necessarily
follows that an unpardonable sin is a sin against the Spirit. This would
necessarily follow from the order of the manifestations of the Godhead: Father,
Son and Holy Spirit. From the order of the dispensations: First, the Father's
dispensation of law; second, the Son's dispensation of atonement; third, the
Spirit's dispensation of applying the atonement. The Spirit is heaven's
ultimatum – heaven's last overture. If we sin against the Father directly, the
Son remains. We may reach him through the Son. If we sin directly against the
Son, the Spirit remains. We may reach him through the Spirit. If we sin against
the Spirit, nothing remains. Therefore that sin is without remedy. So argues
our Saviour: "Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the
blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a
word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall
speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this
world, nor in that which is to come. He is guilty of an eternal sin."
Our last preliminary explanation answers this question: Are men now liable to
commit this sin? If not liable, the reasons for discussing the matter at all
are much reduced. If liable, the reasons for discussion are infinitely
enhanced. It is of infinitely greater moment to point out to the unwary of a
possible immediate danger, than to relieve the mind from the fear of an unreal
danger, however great and torturing may be that fear. It is claimed by many
intelligent expositors that this sin cannot be committed apart from an age of
miracles, nor apart from the specific miracle of casting out demons, nor apart
from attributing the supernatural, miraculous power of the Holy Spirit in said
miracle to Beelzebub, the prince of demons.
Very deep love have I for the great and good men who take this position, as, I
believe, led away by sentiment, sympathy, and amiability on the one hand, and
horrified on the other hand with the recklessness which characterizes many
sensational discussions of this grave matter by tyros, unlearned, and immature
expositors. Very deep love have I for the men, but far less respect for their
argument. I submit, just now, only a few out of many grave reasons for
rejecting this interpretation.
(1) Such restriction of meaning is too narrow and mechanical. The Bible could
not be to us a book of principles, if the exact circumstances must be
duplicated in order to obtain a law. From the study of every historical
incident in the Bible we deduce principles of action.
(2) The Scriptures clearly grade miracles wrought by the Spirit below other
works of the Spirit. This is evident from many passages and connections.
Writing the names of the saved in the book of life was greater than casting out
devils (Luke 10:20). Fourth only in the gifts of the Spirit does
miracle-working power rank (1 Cor.12:28). Far inferior are any of these gifts
to the abiding graces of the Spirit (1 Cor.13:1-13; 14:1-33). How, then, in
reason and common sense, can it be a more heinous blasphemy to attribute an
inferior work of the Spirit to the devil than a superior work? Will any man
seriously maintain that this is so, because a miracle is more demonstrable –
its proof more vivid and cognizable by the natural senses? This would be to
affirm the contrary of scriptural teaching on many points. We may know more
things about spirit than we can know about matter. This knowledge is more vivid
and impressive than the other. Spiritual demonstration to the inner man is
always a profounder demonstration than any whatever to the outer man.
(3) Such a restriction of meaning to the days of Christ in the flesh is out of
harmony with Old Testament teaching on the same subject.
(4) It fails to harmonize with many other passages in later New Testament time,
which will not admit of a different classification without contradicting the
text itself, since thereby more than one kind of unpardonable sins would be
established.
(5) The utter failure of this exposition to convince the judgment of plain
people everywhere, and its greater failure to relieve troubled consciences
everywhere, is a strong presumptive argument against its soundness.
Because, therefore, I believe that the sin against the Holy Spirit may now be
committed – because I believe that some men in nearly every Christian community
have committed it – because I believe that the liability is imminent and the
penalty, when incurred, utterly without remedy, and because I feel pressed in
spirit to warn the imperiled of so great condemnation, therefore I preach on
the subject – preach earnestly – preach in tears – preach with melted heart.
QUESTIONS
1. How did Jesus vindicate
his authority apart from his claims and teaching?
2. What are the details in
the incident of healing the centurions servant, how do you reconcile the
accounts of Matthew and Luke, and what the lessons of this incident?
3. Describe the incident of
the raising of the widow's son at Nain and its lesson.
4. What inquiry from John
the Baptist brought forth by this fame of Jesus and what was Jesus' reply?
5. What is the meaning of
"the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence?
6. What reproof of the
Pharisees by our Lord called forth by this?
7. What cities here
upbraided by our Lord and what principle enunciated in this connection?
8. What principle of
revelation announced here also?
9. What great invitation
here announced by our Lord and what is its great teaching?
10. Relate the story of the
anointing of the feet of Jesus by the wicked woman.
11. What two things seem to
be implied by the story?
12. What Oriental customs
constitute the setting of this story and what is the explanation of each?
13. What are the lessons and
contrasts of this incident?
14. Give an account of the
first Ladies' Aid Society.
15. What scriptures of both
Testaments bearing on the sin against the Holy Spirit?
16. What can you say of the
impression made by these scriptures?
17. What efforts of
sympathetic expositors to soften the import of these scriptures?
18. What two solemn
convictions yet remain?
19. What were the antecedent
facts which occasioned the statements of our Lord in Section 48 of the Harmony?
20. What is the meaning of
"unpardonable"?
21. What is the meaning of
"neither in this world, nor in the world to come"?
22. What is the meaning of
"blasphemy"?
23. Show that either Jesus
or the Pharisees were guilty of blasphemy on this occasion.
24. How is the character of
a code of laws determined? Illustrate.
25. What three things must
be proved in the case of capital offenses against our laws?
26. How does the higher
benevolence of the divine law appear?
27. What correlated
proposition must be duly considered in order to understand the sin against the
Holy Spirit?
28. What two things also
follow from this?
29. What three things must
the plan of salvation secure for every sinner who shall be saved, and what the
proof?
30. What are the limitations
which determine the rationale of the sin against the Holy Spirit? Explain.
31. What are the claims of
some expositors with respect to this sin and what the reasons for rejecting
them?
OUR LORD'S GREAT MINISTRY IN GALILEE
Part V THE SIN AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT
(Continued)
Harmony pages 59-60, same as for the preceding chapter and Matthew 12:38-50;
Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21.
We are now ready to consider the unpardonable sin
itself. Here, at the outset we meet a difficulty that needs to be removed. It
is a question concerning the true text of the latter clause of Mark 3:29. Our
common version reads: "But is in danger of eternal damnation," while
the revised version reads: "But is guilty of an eternal sin."
Evidently these two renderings cannot be differences in translating the same
Greek words. It is unnecessary to cite all the variations of the text in the
several manuscripts on this short clause. For our present purpose we need to
note only one. The revised version, on the authority of older and more reliable
manuscripts than were before the King James translators, recognized as the true
text hamartematos instead of kriseos. The former is rendered
"sin," the latter "damnation." But the difficulty is not
yet entirely explained. All the texts have the same Greek word enochos,
which the common version renders "in danger of." The question arises:
How can there be such vast difference in rendering this one word? The
difference is great and obvious since "in danger of" expresses a mere
liability which may be averted, while "guilty of" expresses a
positive, settled transaction. This difficulty is grammatical, and not textual
so far as the word enochos is concerned, but is textual when we look at
the case of the noun connected with it. If the noun in the true text is in one
case, say the dative, then "in danger of," "liable to" or
" exposed to" would fairly translate enochos. But if the noun
with which it is connected is in a different case, say the genitive, then
"guilty of" is the better translation. Well, it so happens that in
the true text – that is, the one so regarded by such scholars as Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, and others, and the one so accepted by both the
English and American companies of the revisers of the new version – in this
text the noun hamartematos, rendered "sin," is in the genitive
case, hence enochos hamartematos with its modifying words is rightly
translated "guilty of an eternal sin," while enochos kriseos
with the same modifying words might well be rendered "in danger of eternal
judgment." So that in the true text we find not only a different word
meaning "sin," instead of "damnation" or
"judgment," but we find that word in a case which will necessarily give
color to the meaning of another word connected with it, about which there is no
textual difficulty.
We accept, then, the text and rendering of the revised version. We hold it as
the word of God, that whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit is at once, not liable
to, but guilty of an eternal sin." What, then, is an eternal sin? Does it
mean an "eternal sinning"? That is, does the perpetuity refer to the
committing? Evidently not. Doubtless one who has blasphemed the Holy Spirit
will, as a matter of fact, continue to sin, but the language under consideration
refers not to such fact. An eternal sin, as here intended, is an act already
completed, whose guilt and judgment have already been incurred. It is called an
eternal sin because its penalty can never be blotted out. Any sin would be
eternal in this sense, if there were no possible way to escape its punishment.
A sin becomes eternal, then, when all gracious means of forgiveness are
withdrawn. For example: David committed a great sin. Its penalties, or
chastisements, lasted to the border of this world. But it was not an eternal
sin, because those penalties had an end. They did not continue forever. Grace
stopped them with this life and blotted them out forever. What is blotted out
has no existence. But the sin against the Holy Spirit is eternal, because
thereby the sinner at once puts himself beyond the only means of pardon.
Remember the principles already stated: Outside of grace no salvation; outside
of Christ no grace; outside of the Spirit no Christ. Or without regeneration,
justification, and sanctification, no salvation; and apart from the Spirit no
regeneration, justification, and sanctification.
We have seen that as human governments become more civilized very few offenses
are made capital, and these must be very heinous in character. Moreover, the
conditions under which such crimes are possible are very stringent, to wit:
discretionary age, sanity, premeditation, and malice. Not only so, but the
accused is additionally hedged about by a liberal construction of all
provocation and of the right of self-defense, and of the amount and character
of the evidence necessary to conviction. Now since this benevolent modification
of hitherto rigorous human law has been brought about by the influence of the
Bible, we would naturally expect to find in that good book that the only
unpardonable offense against divine law calls for a rare degree of heinousness,
and such extraordinary conditions under which the sin could be possible, as
would on their face vindicate the divine procedure from all appearances of harshness,
with all right thinking intelligences. This high degree of heinousness and
these extraordinary conditions are just what we do find.
It is not a sin to be committed by a thoughtless child – immature youth – nor
by one of feeble mind, nor by the ignorant. It must be knowingly done, wilfully
done, maliciously done, presumptuously done.
The whole matter may be made more forcible by stating clearly and considering
separately the constituent elements or conditions of the unpardonable sin:
It is a sin of character crystallized in opposition to God.
By this is meant such a confirmed state of heart, and such fixedness of evil
character, such a blunting or searing of moral perceptions as mark the
incorrigibly wicked. Indeed, this reflection embodies the essence of the sin.
It is no impulsive, no hasty act, but proceeds from such a state of heart, such
a character, such a servitude to evil habits, such a violent distortion or
utter perversion of moral vision, such an insensibility to spiritual
impressions as would indicate the hopelessness of benefit in the continuance of
remedial appliances, since there is a point beyond which we cannot go without
destroying individuality and moral agency.
The case in point is abundantly illustrative. Let us carefully examine each
step of our way just here. Let us be sure we are right before we go ahead.
Milton not inaptly represents the crystallization of Satan's character in five
words: "Evil, be thou my good." Isaiah, in rapt, prophetic vision,
forecasts the very characters fitted to commit the unpardonable sin. He
denounces six woes which may well be compared to the eight woes denounced by
our Lord (Isa. 5:8-23; Matt. 23:13-36). They all refer to character
incorrigibly evil, such as (a) inordinate covetousness and selfishness that
join house to house and field to field until there is no place for other people
to have a home; (b) inveterate and confirmed drunkards that rise early and sit
up late to inflame themselves with strong wines until they regard not the work
of the Lord, neither consider the operation of his hands; (c) incorrigible
sinners that draw iniquity with cords of vanity and defy the judgments of God;
(d) moral perverts that justify the wicked and take away the righteousness of
the righteous; (e) inveterate vanity and self-conceit; (f) but especially this
one: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness
for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for
bitter!" Now this answers to Milton's devil: "Evil, be thou my
good." And it was this very distortion and perversion of moral vision of
which the Pharisees of this passage were guilty, and which constituted the
essence of their blasphemy or slander of God. They called the Holy Spirit an
unclean spirit. Upon this point the testimony of Mark is explicit. They are
expressly declared to be guilty of an eternal sin, "Because they said, He
hath an unclean spirit." But the words were significant only because they
were symptoms of expressions of a state of heart – a heart of overflowing,
implacable hate and malice.
So, in the context, our Saviour declares: "How can ye, being evil, speak
good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." It
is therefore evidently out of harmony with the Bible concept of blasphemy
against the Holy Spirit, that thoughtless boys and girls, who sometimes in
revival meetings manifest an irreverent spirit, do thereby commit the
unpardonable sin.
I have myself conversed with a now genuinely good and converted mother, who,
when young, once conspired with nine or ten other girls to practice on the
credulity of a conceited young preacher by joining the church in a body and by
being baptized, when the whole procedure was meant for a practical Joke. Some
of these parties are now living and one of them is the exemplary wife of a
Baptist preacher. The irreverence and impiety of the act were not realized
until afterward. This was no blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. They were immature,
ill taught girls, without malicious intent against God, and some others of
them, as I have since learned, afterward most cordially repented of their great
sin and received the gracious forgiveness of the Heavenly Father whose
institutions and ordinances had been outraged by their folly. If we compare
with this incident the act of Ananias and Sapphira, we may readily perceive the
difference in degree of guilt.
It is an old proverb: "Nature has no leaps." Character is a result of
long working forces tending to permanency of type. We have thus reached a view
of the first and most important element in this awful sin – an element of
character resulting from cumulative forces and habits.
It is a sin against spiritual knowledge. Far, far from us, however, be the
thought that every sin against light or knowledge is unpardonable. Do allow me
to make this very clear and very emphatic, because a host of good people have
tortured themselves needlessly just here by misapprehension. They are conscious
of having sinned, and of having sinned when they knew beforehand that what they
were tempted to do and did was wrong. Misapplying the Scripture they have said
to themselves: "The unpardonable sin is a sin against knowledge. I have
sinned against knowledge. Have I not committed the unpardonable sin?" Here
again let us step carefully. Let us be sure we are right before we go ahead.
Look closely at a little catechism – mark the emphatic words: The unpardonable
sin is a sin against what knowledge? Against what degree of that knowledge? Is
every sin against even that particular kind of knowledge necessarily
unpardonable? Note the emphasis on the discriminating word in this second
constituent element of the unpardonable sin. It is a sin against spiritual
knowledge. How else could it be a sin against the Holy Spirit as specially
distinguished from and contrasted with a sin against the Father or the Son?
Let us illustrate by the case of Paul. (a) According to his own testimony he
was, before his conversion, "a blasphemer, and a persecutor and
injurious" (1 Tim. 1:13). (b) By persecution and torture he
"compelled others to blaspheme" (Acts 26:11). (c) Yet he says,
"I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief" (1 Tim.
1:13). What are the salient points of this case? We find here first an
indisputable case of blasphemy, but it is blasphemy against the Son, which this
passage declares to be pardonable. Next we find a case of ignorance which again
makes the sin pardonable. This second finding is most pertinent to the matter
in hand. It furnishes the clue, which properly followed leads us safely out of
the maze of discussion on the unpardonable sin. What was Paul's ignorance? We
cannot deny that he had the Old Testament with all its shadows, symbols and
prophecies pointing to the Messiah. We cannot deny that he had knowledge of the
historical and argumentative proofs, certifying Jesus to be that Messiah.
Wherein then was he ignorant? In this material point: Light from the Holy
Spirit had not convinced him that Jesus was the Messiah. He had not spiritual
knowledge and hence had not sinned against the Holy Spirit. In his soul he
thought Jesus was an imposter. He "verily thought within himself he was
doing God's service" in warring against Jesus. His conscience was void of offense.
Compare this with the demons: "We know thee, who thou art, thou Holy One
of God." Paul hated Jesus from an utter misconception of him, and loved
him when the misconception was removed. The demons hated him the more, that
they did not misconceive his mission and character. Because they knew he was
the Messiah and because they painfully felt the presence of his holiness as a
wolf is shamed or an owl is pained by the light; therefore they hated him.
Just here we approach a borderland whose precise boundary line has never been
fixed by theological controversy. And yet in this narrow strip lies the
unpardonable sin. Where the great have stumbled let guides of less degree walk
humbly, circumspectedly, and prayerfully. I trust, at least, to make myself intelligible
here. Some hyper-Calvinists hold that all subjects of influence from the Holy
Spirit are necessarily saved, basing their arguments on such scriptures as,
"Being confident of this very thing, that he who hath begun a good work in
you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). From which
they argue that the Holy Spirit never really touches any man except those
pre-ordained to salvation. I hold unswervingly to the doctrine that in every
case of genuine conversion the good work thus commenced will be graciously
completed. But, in my judgment, the Bible is very far from teaching that the
lost never had any spiritual light – never were subject to any impressions made
by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, it would seem impossible otherwise to commit the
unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit.
With all light comes responsibility to accept it and walk in it. With all light
comes liability. As said the Saviour, "If I had not come and spoken unto
them, they had not the sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin"
(John 15:22). Unquestionable the degree of both guilt and penalty is measured
by the degree of light against which one sins. This sentiment readily finds
universal acceptance. It accords with our instinctive and intuitive ideas of justice.
Certainly the Bible, at least, is very clear on this point. On what other
principle could our Lord declare the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah, Tyre and
Sidon, more tolerable in the day of judgment than the punishment of the cities
which rejected him and his servants (Matt. 10:15; 11:20-24; Mark 6:11; Luke
10:12-14) ? How else account for the difference in penalty between "a few
stripes" and "many stripes" when the act of offense is precisely
the same in both cases (Luke 12:47-48) ? How otherwise account for David's
distinction between "secret sins and presumptuous sins"? How
otherwise could Paul represent God as "winking at" [i. e. a
mercifully overlooking] "times of ignorance" (Acts 17:30) ? How else
could the men of Nineveh and the Queen of Sheba condemn at the judgment the
generation that rejected Jesus (Matt. 12:41-42)? Now mark the application of
this argument to the matter under consideration. Chorazin, Bethsaida,
Capernaum, and Jerusalem were guiltier than Sodom and Tyre, because a greater
light, in a greater person than Lot, Solomon or Jonah, was in their midst.
But our Saviour himself teaches that the light is brighter still when the Holy
Spirit works. And hence a sin against the Son of man may be pardonable while a
sin against the Holy Spirit is unpardonable. But as Lot, Jonah, Solomon, and
Jesus, the light-bearers, were all personally present in a way to be known and
felt, so it must follow that the Holy Spirit, as bearer of a brighter light,
must be personally present in a way to be known and impressively felt.
Therefore none can commit this unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit unless
he has known and felt his presence as a light-bearer. I say the presence of the
Holy Spirit must be known and felt. The mind must be convinced of his presence,
and the heart must feel it, and the inmost judgment of conscience must
acknowledge it. This is precisely why the unpardonable sin is oftenest
committed in great revivals. It is a sin against light – spiritual light –
light known and felt, light so painfully, gloriously bright that a man must run
from it, blaspheme or be converted. What miracle affecting only the physical
man can equal the Spirit's display of power over mind and soul in a great
revival? When he fills a house or a whole city; when he is demonstrably
convicting and converting on the right and left; when strong men are broken
down; when hard hearts are melted; when long-sealed fountains of tears are
opened; when hardened sinners fall as oak trees before a sweeping tempest; when
all around the guilty confess their sins; when the saved rise up with
love-lighted eyes and glorified faces to joyfully declare that God for Christ's
sake has forgiven their sins – ah I the power – the felt Presence! Then some
sinner, seeing and knowing and feeling the truth of it all, pierced through and
through with the arrows of conviction, riven to the marrow with the bolt of
demonstration, trembling like Belshazzar before the mysterious, awful, but
certain Presence, overwhelmed by memory of a thousand sins, yet so knowing, so
feeling, clings with death-grip to some besetting sin and to justify rejection
of Jesus, so witnessed by the Holy Spirit, lies unto God as to his real motives
of rejection, reviles the Holy One, turns away and dies forever. Yes, a soul
dies! As I have been impressed with the presence of physical death, so, only
far more vividly, have I felt the presence of spiritual death. Once during a
great meeting I felt it; I felt a soul had died – that I was in the presence of
the hopelessly lost.
It must be a sin of malice. In the special case before us the presence of
malice is most evident. One expression of our Lord sufficiently tells the whole
story: "Ye offspring of vipers I" See the snake in his coil! Mark his
cold, steely eye of hate! Behold the lightning play of his forked tongue! See
the needle fang and the venom of secreted poison! That snake means death to his
innocent victim. So Satan's devotee, about to commit the unpardonable sin. Hear
him: "I hate this light. It exposes my secret sins. It strips me of my
mask of self-respect. It humiliates me. This light shows how sensual, how
groveling, how beastly, how devilish I really am. It exposes my chains. It
advertises my bondage to pride, lust, and money. It makes me loathesome to
myself. I hate this painful light, this awful purity. 0, prince of darkness,
restore my self-esteem, re-establish my respectability!"
Hear Satan's rejoinder: "You must away from that light. You cannot put it
out. It is the unquenchable shining of immaculate holiness. Here is your only
expedient: Lock all the doors of your soul. Close the blinds of every window.
Pull down every curtain. Now call that light '& superstition.' Call your
rejection of it 'superior intelligence,' or 'science,' or 'higher criticism,'
or 'progress,' or 'broadmindedness,' or whatever you will. Put evil for good
and good for evil. Blaspheme. And that light will never disturb you any
more."
Ah, no! Never more. "The die is cast. The Rubicon is crossed – that soul
is free no more." In his case is fulfilled the scripture: "My Spirit
shall not always strive with man." He has joined that outlawed host to
whom this scripture applies: "Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart
and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit." Here is genuine striving
and genuine resisting. The Spirit strives – the man resists. The gnashing upon
Stephen with their teeth expresses desperate malice. It was malice proceeding
from deep conviction that Stephen was right and they were wrong. It followed
"being cut to the heart."
The sin must be wilful. This involves the double idea of premeditation and
decision. The mind has not only deliberated – it has chosen. The love of
pleasure, or of money, or of power, is deliberately preferred to the love of
God. The "will" settles the matter. However long the time, complex
the forces, or inscrutable the processes which determine the resultant
character which makes the decision, that decision itself is one definite act of
the will. The preparation of mind and heart which fitted the man to make such awful
choice may indeed have extended over a period of years, the man meanwhile
waxing worse and worse, the heart indurating, the soul petrifying. Yet, in one
moment, at last, the border of possible salvation is crossed over forever. The
"will" steps across the line. "I will not to do the will of
God." "I will not go to Jesus. I will not have this Man to reign over
me."
It is a sin of presumption. It is not difficult to get a clear idea of the
meaning of this word. An irreverent, overweening, daring confidence for which
there are no just grounds. Presumption draws false conclusions from God's
forbearance. Because sentence against an evil deed is not speedily executed the
presumptuous heart is fully set to do evil. God suspended judgment that the man
might repent. The sinner concludes that God does not mark iniquity. So many
times has he trifled with the overtures of mercy) he presumes that he may
continue to trifle with impunity. God's patience, erroneously construed, has
made him irreverent and daring. He can recall, and despise as he recalls, the
number of times he has been touched somewhat in other meetings. He presumes
that what has been will be again, in case it becomes necessary to revise his
decision. Time enough for that if one chooses to turn back later on. Nothing
tells him that this is the last time. He presumes as if he had a lease on life
and as if the sovereign and eternal Spirit of God must come to his call.
Just here I desire to quote a scripture which some high human authorities
affirm to be applicable to the subject under consideration. I very greatly
respect them and very readily concede my own fallibility of judgment. But where
my convictions are strong I speak. Here is the scripture: "For if we sin
wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there
remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. But a certain fearful looking for of
judgment and fiery indignation. which shall devour the adversaries. He that
despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses. Of how much
sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden
under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith
he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of
grace" (Heb. 10:26-29). My present brief comment on the passage is:
There appears to be a manifest reference, in some sort, to apostasy. I mean by
apostasy the final loss of all that is accomplished by regeneration and
justification.
It clearly teaches, and for obvious reasons, that in case of such a loss,
renewal would be impossible. The remedial resources of grace in such case being
completely exhausted, there would be nothing more to draw upon for recovery.
But the reference is not to such calamity as objectively possible. The context
and all the letter to the Hebrews as unequivocally teach the final perseverance
of all the saints as does the letter to the Romans, or any other scripture. And
to my mind the Bible teaches no doctrine more clearly than the ultimate salvation
of all the elect. The reference then is to apostasy as hypothetically and even,
perhaps, subjectively possible.
If then the reference is to apostasy, though not hypothetically and not really
possible, how can it be applicable to the sin under discussion? This pertinent
question I will now answer. While only a hypothesis concerning one thing, it
yet contains an argument fairly applicable to another thing. It discusses
wilful sin after enlightenment. The greater the enlightenment, the greater the
sin. In the hypothetical, but actually impossible case of apostasy, there would
be no more sacrifice for sin. The blood of Christ, and the Spirit power, beyond
which grace has nothing to offer, would have been found inefficacious after
fair trial. Now apply this same principle of argument to an unregenerate man.
To him the Father's love is offered and rejected. To him Christ as the highest
expression of that love is offered and rejected. To him, the Spirit's testimony
to Christ is offered in such a way that he knows and feels that Spirit's
presence and power, and in such a way that his conscience recognizes and
confesses the truth of the testimony. But from love of sin and hatred of known
truth he blasphemes that Holy Spirit. Then in his case it would be true that
"there remaineth. no more sacrifice for sin," not because he had
experimentally tried its efficacy and used up all its power to save, but that
from his rejection of such sacrifice in the blaze of spiritual light
demonstrating its efficacy, such efficacy is no longer available to him. On
this passage Dr. Kendrick says: "If others fall away who have reached a
very high grade of spiritual enlightenment, who have experienced all of the
divine influence but regeneration, their recovery is morally impossible. God will
not bless the efforts for their renewal but, like the field that has answered
the rains and sunshine only with thorns and thistles, will give them over to
the burning." (See American Commentary – Hebrews.)
Now our theory of the unpardonable sin necessarily supposes spiritual light to
make it a sin against the Spirit, and a very high degree of spiritual light to
make it so heinous as to constitute it the only unpardonable sin. That there is
shed forth such spiritual light, that there is put forth such spiritual
influence – light which may be seen and influence which may be felt, and yet
light and influence which, through the sinner's fault, do not eventuate in
salvation – is the clear and abundant teaching of the Bible. I know of no great
theologian in the Baptist ranks who denies it. I refer to such acknowledged
teachers of systematic theology as Gill, Boyce, Strong, Dagg, Hovey, Pendleton,
and Robinson, and among the Presbyterians such authors as Calvin, Hodge, and
Shedd – all of whose books I have studied on this specific point.
We may here, I think, conclude the analysis of this sin. Its conditions are
clearly before us: The age of discretion, a sound mind, a high degree of
spiritual light, a character fixed in opposition to God, a life under the dominion
of confirmed evil habits. Its constituent elements are: Premeditation, or
deliberation, a decisive choice, presumption and malice. We come now to
consider the state of one guilty of this eternal sin. This is an important
phase of the subject. Such a state surely evidences itself in some way. The
marks which distinguish it from other states ought, one would naturally
suppose, to be sufficiently visible for recognition. As an introduction to my
discussion of these marks it is thought appropriate to give the most remarkable
poem on the subject in all literature. It is Alexander's hymn:
There is a
time, we know not when, A point, we know not where, That marks the destiny of
men, To glory or despair.
There is a line by un unseen, That crosses every path, The hidden boundary
between God's patience and His wrath.
To pass that limit is to die – To die as if by stealth; It does not quench the
beaming eye, Nor pale the glow of health.
The conscience may be still at ease, The spirit light and gay; That which is
pleasing still may please, And care be thrust away.
But on that forehead God hath set Indelibly a mark, Unseen by man, for man as
yet Is blind and in the dark.
And yet the doomed man's path below, Like Eden may have bloomed; He did not,
does not, will not know Or feel that he is doomed.
He knows, be feels that all is well, And every fear is calmed; He lives, he
dies, he wakes in. hell, Not only doomed, but damned.
Oh I where is this mysterious bourne, By which our path is crossed? Beyond
which God himself hath sworn, That he who goes is lost?
How far may we go on in sin? How long will God forbear? Where does hope end,
and where begin The confines of despair?
An answer from the skies is sent; Ye that from God depart, While it is called
to-day, repent, And harden not your heart.
Confining my own diagnosis strictly to the Scriptures I would say that the
state of one who has committed the unpardonable sin is one of awful
deprivation. We say "Darkness is deprivation of light; death deprivation
of life." The deprivation in this case is:
Of the Holy Spirit whom he has reviled and despised. To that Spirit God has
said, "Let him alone; he is wedded to his idols." This insures his
death. This makes his sin eternal. He cannot now ever find Christ, the door.
Without the Spirit he can never repent, believe, be regenerated, be justified,
or sanctified. "There remaineth no more sacrifice for sin," that is,
to him there is no Christ. I think that there are such men today, from whom the
Holy Spirit has taken his everlasting flight.
It is a deprivation of the prayers of God's people. God who said to his Spirit,
"Let him alone," now says to his people who would pray for such a
man, "Let me alone." Awful words: Let him alone – let me alone!
The friends of Job had sinned, but not beyond the reach of prayer (Job
42:7-10). Paul had sinned by persecution and blasphemy of Jesus, but not beyond
the reach of Stephen's dying prayer: "Lord Jesus, lay not this sin to
their charge" (Acts 7:60). The crucifiers of Jesus had sinned, but not all
of them beyond the reach of his dying prayer: "Father forgive them; for
they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). But God's people cannot pray
acceptably without the Spirit's prompting (Rom. 8:26-27). The Spirit never
prompts one to pray against the will of God. Hear the word of God (1 John
5:16): "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he
shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is
a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it." (Jer. 15:1):
"Then said the Lord unto me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet
my mind could not be toward this people; cast them out of my sight, and let
them go forth."
It is a deprivation of the protection usually afforded to the wicked by the
presence of the righteous. The presence of ten righteous men would have
protected Sodom and Gomorrah from overthrow (Gen. 18:23-32). The righteous are
the salt of the earth. Their presence preserves it from immediate destruction.
Paul and Christ taught that when the righteous are garnered off the earth then
comes the deluge of fire. But one who has committed the unpardonable sin, at
once is deprived of all protection arising from the contiguity of the
righteous. To repeat a scripture: "Though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in
the city, as I live saith the Lord they shall deliver neither son nor daughter;
they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness" (Ezek.
14:20). No Spirit, no prayers) no protection.
It is a deprivation of spiritual sensations. What is meant here? Speaking
naturally, our sensations are from our five senses. One who is blind loses the
sensations that come from sight; one who is deaf, those from hearing. So with
taste, and smell, and touch or feeling. A body that cannot see, hear, feel,
taste or smell is dead to the world around it. So with the senses of the inner
man. When the spiritual or moral perceptive faculties are so paralyzed that
they cannot take hold of God, that soul is dead to God, however much it may be
alive to the devil. Having eyes it sees not. Having ears it hears not. Having a
heart it feels not. The conscience is seared as with a hot iron. They are past
feeling (Eph. 4:18-19) : "Having the understanding darkened, being
alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that is in them, because
of the blindness of their heart: who being past feeling having given themselves
over to lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness." Old soldiers
recall that when mortification took place in a wounded limb there was no longer
any pain. The wounded man felt unusually well. It was the prelude of death.
In his book, Over the Teacups, Oliver Wendell Holmes says: "Our old
doctors used to give an opiate which they called 'the black drop.' It was
stronger than laudanum, and, in fact, a dangerously powerful narcotic.
Something like this is that potent drug in Nature's pharmacopeia which she
reserves for the time of need, the later stages of life. She commonly begins
administering it at about the time of the 'grand climacteric,' the ninth
septennial period, the sixty-third year. More and more freely she gives it, as
the years go on, to her gray-haired children, until, if they last long enough,
every faculty is benumbed, and they drop off quietly into sleep under its
benign influence. Time, the inexorable, does not threaten them with the scythe
so often as with the sandbag. He does not cut, but he stuns and
stupefies."
But the "black drop" administered by Satan, when, at any age, the
unpardonable sin is committed, has no such kindly intent. It puts one past
feeling as to heaven, but full of sensation as to hell. There are no kindlings
to repentance, however keen may be the biting and sting of remorse. It is quite
possible that one who is past feeling to spiritual impressions may dream as
Shakespeare's Macbeth and Richard III, or Scott's
"Glossin" in Guy Mannering. And so to such a one there may remain
nothing "but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery
indignation which shall devour the adversaries." What time these
apprehensions last they are the foretaste of hell.
It is not only a state of deprivation, but of positive infliction. When
"the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, an evil spirit from the Lord
troubled him" (I Sam. 16:14). To the man who closes his eyes to the
Spirit's testimony, God sends judicial blindness and hardness of heart. Not
only so, when the Lord refused to answer Saul, "neither by dreams, nor by
Urim, nor by prophets," he allowed him to return to spiritualism and
"inquire of one who had a familiar spirit" (1 Sam. 2:5-7). God
chooses the delusions of the hopelessly lost. He sends them a strong delusion
that they may believe a lie and be damned (Isa. 66:4; 2 Thess. 2:11). This
delusion may be spiritualism, or science, or philosophy, or anything else.
Whatever it is, for the time being it fills the vision and the heart. It points
out a path "whose steps take hold on death and hell," and though the
end thereof is death, it seems right to him.
Such, I think, is the Bible teaching concerning the unpardonable sin. It is a
sin of today as well as yesterday. The liability of its commission is greatly
increased during revivals of religion.
That hazard is unspeakably awful when men know and feel God's presence and
power, and though convicted and trembling, turn away with a lie on their lips
and hatred of holiness in their hearts.
To younger people would I urgently say:
Beware of those insidious beginnings which tend to the formation of an evil
character. Cultivate most assiduously such tenderness of heart, such
susceptibility to religious impressions as you now have. Follow every prompting
toward heaven. Transmute every spiritual emotion to action. Beware of becoming
hardened. Beware of dominant passions, such as the love of pleasure, the pride
of opinion, the pride of life, the love of money. Distrust as an enemy,
anything or anybody, whose influence keeps you apart from the use of the means
of salvation. Shun, as you would a tiger's Jungle, all associations that
corrupt good manners. Beware of all people who make a mock at sin and speak
irreverently of holy things.
Oh, the beginnings! The beginnings I These are the battlegrounds of hope. Hear
today, turn today, escape for thy life today. For when once under the dominion
of pleasure, or lust, or wine, or pride, or especially the love of money, that
root of all kinds of evil, then – O then – how easily, how unconsciously you
may commit the unpardonable sin.
And then, though the world were full of Bibles to the stars, and Christians
more numerous than the sands and forest leaves, and every church ablaze with
revivals – for you there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin. You are now and
forever lost.
In response to this discussion of our Lord upon the sin against the Holy Spirit
the Pharisees demanded of him a sign, to which he replied that no sign should
be given them except the sign of Jonah, i. e., his burial and resurrection.
This test of his messiahship he submitted time and again both to his enemies
and to his disciples. Here he again announces a principle of the judgment, viz:
that men will be judged according to the light they have here. The Ninevites
and the queen of the south will stand up in the judgment and condemn the Jews
of his day because with less light than these Jews had they responded to God's
call while that generation rejected their light. Then he closes that discussion
with a comparison of the Jewish nation to a man whom the evil spirit
volunteered to leave and re-enter at pleasure with the assurance that every
time he returned, after a leave of absence, the last state was worse than the
first.
It is necessary to add a word of comment on Section 50 of the Harmony. Here on
the same day and on this same occasion the mother of Jesus and his brothers
come to him for an interview, ostensibly to arrest him from so great a zeal.
Perhaps they thought he ought to stop and eat, but he, knowing their purpose
toward him, announced the principle of spiritual relation above the earthly
relation – that whosoever would do the will of God was nearer to him than
earthly relations. What a lesson for us!
QUESTIONS
1. What is the difficulty of
Mark 3:29 and what is its solution?
2. What is the meaning of
"eternal sin"?
3. By whom and how must this
sin be committed?
4. What is the first
constituent element, or condition, of the unpardonable sin? Give biblical
illustrations and proof.
5. What is the second
constituent element? Explain and illustrate by the case of Paul.
6. What theological
controversy here and what is the author's position?
7. What principle of
judgment here involved and what is the biblical proof?
8. Describe the spiritual conditions
under which a soul may commit the unpardonable sin.
9. What is the third element
and what is the proof? Recite the struggle of a soul on the verge of this awful
sin and Satan's rejoinder.
10. What is the fourth
element and what is involved in it?
11. What is the fifth
element and what its meaning? Illustrate.
12. What passage of
Scripture here introduced, what is the author's points of interpretation, and
how does this passage apply to the subject under discussion?
13. What is the state of one
who is guilty of the unpardonable sin and what poem quoted on this point? Quote
it.
14. What are the items of
deprivation which constitute the state of such a soul? Explain each.
15. In response to our
Lord's discussion of this sin against the Holy Spirit what demand did the
Pharisees make, what was our Lord s reply and what does he mean?
16. How does our Lord here
characterize these Jewish people?
17. What was the incident of
Section 50 of the Harmony and what is its lesson for us?
OUR LORD'S GREAT MINISTRY IN GALILEE
Part VI THE FIRST GREAT GROUP OF PARABLES
Harmony pages 60-66 and Matthew 13:1-53; Mark 4:1-34;
Luke 8:4-18.
We come now to our Lord's first great group of parables and it will be
necessary for us to dwell here somewhat at length in order to get certain
definitions and principles fixed in our minds before we try to expound this
great section.
First, what is a parable? There are two words used in the Greek for parable –
one by John and the other by the Synoptics. The word used by John is paroimia,
which means, literally, "something by the way " Secondarily, it.
means a figura- tive discourse, or dark saying, suggesting more than meets the
ear. The word used by the Synoptics is parebole, which, Anglicized,
gives us our word "parable." The verb of this word means to throw, or
to place, side by side, for purposes of comparison. The noun means an utterance
involving a comparison, as "the kingdom of heaven is like, etc."
which is a similitude. In the wider sense it means (a) an adage or
proverb.(Luke 4:23), (b) a dark saving Matt.. 15:15), (c.) pithy instruction in
the form of an aphorism (Luke 14:7). In the more restricted sense it is a story
of a scene in human life, or a process in nature, true in its character, though
it may be fictitious in fact, suggesting a spiritual lesson. As the child gave
it when asked to define a parable, “It is an earthly story with a heavenly
meaning." The ideas in the word are these: (1) To place two things side by
side for comparison; (2) veil ing the truth in a story, but with the veil so
thin that the spiritually minded may easily apprehend it.
Second, there are several other words of similar, or kindred meaning, which
should claim our attention here for purposes of distinction, such as proverb,
simile, similitude, metaphor, allegory, fable, and myth, the definitions of
which will follow in their order. A parable, as we have already defined, is a
narrative true to nature or life, used for the purpose of conveying spiritual
truth. A proverb is a short pithy saving and may contain a condensed parable. A
simile is a simple comparison in which one thing is likened to another in. some
of its aspects. A similitude is more comprehensive than a simile and borders on
the realm of the parable, as in Drummond's Natural Law in the Spiritual
World. A metaphor ig a simile without the comparative word, as
"that man is a fox." instead of "that man is like a fox,"
which is a simile. An allegory is an expanded metaphor, or the description of
one thing under the imagery of another, as Pilgrims Progress. A
fable is a story in which inanimate objects or lower animals are represented as
acting in the capacity of human beings, the purpose of which is to instruct or
to impress some moral lesson. It differs from a parable in that it is not true
to nature or to life. A myth is a tale of some extraordinary personage or
country, formed purely by the imagination.. It is fictitious and usually has an
element of the supernatural in it.
In the Bible we find an example of the proverb, the simile, the similitude, the
metaphor, the allegory, the fable, and the parable (let the reader search out
examples of each), but there is no myth in the Bible. But why did our Lord use
parables in his teachings? (1) To get the attention of the people. There is
nothing more interesting than a good story well told. (2) To reveal conduct and
character without being too direct. Thus our Lord often revealed the very heart
and life of the enemy without becoming too offensive and by so doing
precipitating a clash with his foes. (3) To enforce truth by way of
illustration. This principle of teaching is too evident to need comment. (4) To
stimulate inquiry. This we find to be the effect so often in his ministry:
"What is the meaning of the parable of the tares?" (5) To fasten
truth in the mind and aid the memory. This, too, is self-evident and needs no
comment.
Here I append a list of the parables of Jesus, showing the pages of the Harmony
where found, the references to the scriptures containing them and the leading
thought of each. This will enable a Bible student, at a glance, to locate each
parable in the Harmony, to find its setting in the Scripture and to give its
interpretation in a nutshell. They are arranged in chronological order and
therefore a careful study of them will reveal to the student of the Bible the
occasion and frequency of Christ's use of parables as well as to furnish a
convenience of interpretation.
It will be observed that quite a number of these parables are very short and
might be called similes or proverbs. The first great group commences with
number 31, the parable of the sower, the second great group with number 68, the
parable of the lost sheep, and the third great group with number 83, the
parable of the two sons. All the parables of the first group are "kingdom
parables," and relate to some phase of the kingdom, and that leads me to
say that there are two general classes of parables, viz: "kingdom
parables" and "homiletical parables." In interpreting a parable
one should first deter mine its class, then its central truth, or point of
illustration and then let all the details conform to this central point
deducing no doctrine from the parable that cannot be found elsewhere in the
Bible in unparabolic language. Also we must be careful not to try to
spiritualize all the points. Much o the parable is often mere drapery, designed
only to round out an Oriental story.
Here let the reader study closely and compare the points of the two parables
which Christ interpreted himself, viz: the parable of the sower and the parable
of the tares. These suggestions are brief, but they will serve as timely
cautions in interpreting the many parables of our Lord. The three great groups
of parables in the Gospels are as follows: First, there is the group here,
Matthew 13:3-23; second, the five great parables in Luke 15-16; third, the
three parables of his last day in the Temple. (Let the reader search out each
of these groups and name the parables in each group.)
We will now look at the first great group of parables and take a general view
of them in their relation to each other. Our Lord had made many disciples since
his baptism, who followed him from place to place, growing in knowledge and
grace as they heard his words, witnessed his deeds and imbibed his Spirit.
After long companionship of this kind he purposed to select from the many a few
as authorized teachers of his doctrine. Accordingly, after spending a whole
night in prayer, he chose from the multitude of the disciples twelve men whom
he ordained as apostles, to be with him and that he might send them forth to
preach and to have authority over demons; but that they might know and understand
what to preach before they went out alone, he, in their hearing on one
occasion, expounded the principles and relations of his kingdom in the
matchless Sermon on the Mount; and soon after that, on another occasion, he
delivered a great group of very striking parables, illustrating the same
principles. All of these many parables, as Mark tells us, he expounded
privately to the twelve apostles; not just two of them, but all of them. Of the
great number of parables delivered on this one occasion, only eight are
recorded by the gospel historians, and the exposition of only two is recorded.
The scene is Galilee, the Sea of Galilee. The pulpit is a boat. The preacher is
sitting in a boat. The congregation are all gathered on the shore, and from
that boat he delivers the parables. When the parables are spoken and he enters
the house, he privately expounds them to his immediate disciples. The eight
parables recorded are, the sower, the seed growing of itself, the tares, the
mustard seed, the leaven, the hid treasure, the pearl of great price and the
net. The two whose expositions are recorded are the sower and the tares. But in
connection with the eight are also given two subsidiary parables, making ten in
all. These two parables, the lighted lamp and the householder's treasure, are
called subsidiary, because they were given to show the disciples what to do
with the knowledge contained in the eight.
As the reader will readily infer, the object of one discussion covering so much
ground, cannot be to expound in detail all of the eight parables. Therefore,
let us generalize, if we can find a single thread of thought on which to
string, like beads of pearl, the eight parables, making one necklace to be worn
around memory's neck as an ornament of beauty and value. It may not be done
quite as fast as stringing beads, but it need not take much time, as only
prominent and general meanings from one standpoint will be given. The thread of
thought that unites all the eight parables into one is this: The
discouragements and encouragements to religious teachers suggested by the eight
parables. And just here, instead of quoting these parables, I would like to
cause to pass before the reader a panorama of eight pictures.
Look at the first: It is a plowed field. The plowed surface looks all alike. If
there be underlying rock or buried seeds thorns they do not appear. It has been
sowed down wit seed. There is the sower. We see him. He is the religion
teacher. The only thing in sight, birds flying away. That all. We look at that
picture until that plowed field turn green, carpeted with the upspringing
grain; but we see in certain parts of the field the stalks turn yellow and die
– a rock under them. We see in the beaten path no grain coming up. Those birds
explain. We see in another part thorns and briers choking the grain that we
plant. Discouragements. It seems that three parts of what I sow is lost. Three
parts gone. It discourages me. The devil took some of the seed. A superficial
nature in the hearers prevented others from bringing forth fruit to maturity.
The cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches and the exactions of
society choke to death other seeds that I planted. It is discouraging. But
brother, look where some did fall in good ground and yielded thirty-fold and
sixty-fold and one hundredfold of fruit. Think of that. Slide that picture out
of sight.
I see another, and there is a field again, plowed, and sowed with good seed.
There is a sower. He is asleep, but in the night anxiety awakes him. Watch him
get up and go out in the field and dig down in the dirt and take the seed up to
see if it has sprouted; see him in the day anxiously look for clouds that
promise rain. See his fear of cold, blighting seasons and his desire for a warm,
sunshiny day. See him trying to mark even a day's development. See him trying
to comprehend the inscrutable. He rises up night and day. What is the
difficulty? He is anxious for seed-sprouting and seed growing and seed-maturing
and rain falling and sunshine, and with all of it he has nothing under heaven
to do. As far as that discouragement is concerned it is all pure gratuity. We
borrow every bit of that. Why will not a man let God's part alone? We cannot
make the seed. Here in this Book is the seed ready made. We do not have to make
them. Nor can we make them sprout. The Spirit of God does that. That is
regeneration. We cannot make them grow and mature. That is sanctification. We
cannot bring the gentle dews and the rains and sunshine. Those are the showers
or manifestations of grace. We do not have to puzzle our minds over the
inscrutable mystery of the Spirit's work in regeneration and sanctification.
Let our anxieties stop with our responsibilities. What is the encouragement?
Well, while I cannot make seed, God can, and there is plenty of it. While I
cannot give an increase, God can, and he does it. While I cannot regenerate
men, he can. I cannot sanctify, he can. I cannot tell how it sprouts nor how it
grows. There is a mystery, an inscrutable mystery, in the work of the Spirit of
God. I have nothing to do with that.
We see another picture. It is a field – a plowed field, a field that has been
sowed down with good grain, and there is the sower. He is asleep. He has done
his work and night has come and he has gone to bed; but lo! while he sleeps
there creeps up a shadowy figure from the pit and sows other seeds all over
that field. The seeds of the day sower and of the night sower come up together
and look much alike until the fruit discriminates – the one nutritious food,
the other a deadly poison. What is the lesson? Well, we understand that the
darnell, the tare, is so nearly like wheat that the wheat planter can hardly
tell the difference until it heads for fruit. Here then is a difficulty not in the
mind of the hearer as in the first parable. There is here no beaten path, no
underlying rock, no difference in the soil; this soil is all good; no thorns in
it; it is not poisoned with briers; the field is all good. What is the
difficulty? The difficulty here is that an enemy has sowed something so like
wheat that one cannot tell it from wheat until it begins to fruit. It is the
difficulty of the hypocrite – the counterfeit Christian. We see the devil come
in again. He took away the good seed in the first parable lest it might lead a
man to conversion. He does not take away any of these seeds; he cannot get at
them; they have gone down into the good and honest heart and he cannot take
them away. But what can he do? Why, he will bring that religion into disrepute
by passing counterfeits on it. That bank's reputation is high. He will flood
the country with counterfeit bills. Surely that is a great discouragement. Men
will point to the counterfeit as an example of religion, and will tell us that
it is a fruit of our preaching. No, sir, I did not sow those seeds – never.
Those seeds did not come from God; the devil sowed them, and the hypocrite is
the son of the devil and not a son of God. But where is the encouragement? The
encouragement is twofold: Every time we look at a hypocrite we see a compliment
to religion. As the counterfeit proves the value of the genuine, so his masking
in the garb of piety shows that piety passes current among men. What other
encouragement? We see the time coming when God's angels shall gather the
hypocrites out of the world – for the field is the world, not the church; there
is no church in this – the field is the world, and the good seed are the
children of the kingdom of God and the tares are the children of the evil one.
In the world there are hypocrites that bring discredit upon religion and that
discourages the religious teacher, but God says, "Wait! You cannot
persecute him, you cannot hang him because he is a hypocrite. You cannot put
him in jail because he is a hypocrite. You may not tear up and destroy that
darnell lest you destroy wheat. You may not persecute him for religion's sake.
Wait. The angels will get him. They will take him and bind him and his fellows
in bundles and burn them." Now, that is an encouragement. And now let that
picture pass by.
We see that sower again and he has a seed in his hand, and we have to look
close or we cannot see it. It is a very tiny, seed. It is not bigger than a
mustard seed. How distrustfully he looks at it. What is the matter with it? He
is discouraged; discouraged about what? Oh, it is such a little thing. Ah, me,
if I could only plant a seed as big as a house! If I could do some great thing!
Brother, let not the smallness of the seed discourage thee, but be encouraged
by this thought, that while the seed is small there is no limit to its
expansiveness. As that mustard seed grew into a plant and spread out its
branches and attracted the birds of heaven, so is the kingdom of God. Do not
despise the day of small things. God calls upon us to attempt great things and
to expect great things, but he does not tell us to expect them at the beginning
– never.
Replace that picture by another. This time we see a woman with a bread tray in
her hand! What a great batch of dough in it, and such dough! Now, if she makes
this up into biscuit, they will be flat and hard. Ah, me, the inbred corruption
of the human heart; that discourages the religious teacher. Why, if I lead this
man to Christ, even after conversion, he will find a law in his members warring
against the law of his mind and bringing his soul into captivity. He will cry
out: “O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this
death?" If, when I lead a soul to God, that soul could stand in the
maturity of Christian manhood, and never make a mistake and never stumble and
never fall, I would like to be a teacher. But brother, stop. Look back at the
woman putting a little leaven in the dough. So for us there is a little leaven.
It is spiritual leaven. Consider the woman, putting a little leaven in her
dough – just a pinch of it. Does she say, "Why cannot I wave my hand over
that batch of dough and say, 'Rise at once?' " And why should we kneel
down and pray, "O, Lord God, in answer to my prayer, sanctify me, body,
soul and spirit, in a minute." That is not God's way. He put in the leaven
and it will work. It works little by little, but it works. It works out and
enlarges, and, blessed be God, ultimately it leavens the whole lump, and then
sanctification is complete. But I would be silly if I were to kneel down and
pray for it to all come at once.
Behold next, a double picture. See a field with a mine in it, a recently
discovered gold mine – a hidden treasure; and then in another part of the
picture a pearl, a valuable pearl. What about the difficulty here, the
discouragement? Well, here it is: One cannot get that mine unless he sell
everything he has. Nor that pearl at the same price. What are you discouraged
about, brother? I am discouraged about the cost. Just look at those doleful
scriptures: "No man can be my disciple unless he will deny himself, and
take up his cross daily and follow me." "Except a man hate father and
mother and brother and sister, he cannot be my disciple." "Go and
sell all that you have and come and follow me." Well, that is
discouraging, from one standpoint. But there is a standpoint that reveals
encouragement. Frankly admit all the costs. Never deny or abate that. Never
dilute it.
Tell the people plainly that it means absolute and total surrender. It means that
in the whole realm of the soul there shall not be a reserved spot as big as the
point of a cambric needle that denies the sovereignty of God. The surrender
must be complete. Don't disguise that. But while it costs all we have, yet what
we get for it is infinitely better and more valuable. The hidden treasure is
worth more than what we surrender. The pearl is worth more than what we give
for it.
If we would put matters on a business footing, let me ask, "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?" Religion is no child's play. It
reduces itself to this great alternative: Everything for Christ, or everything
for the devil and hell. And mark this: Whoever sees the value of the kingdom of
heaven will not whine about the cost. He asks for no pity because of his
sacrifices. But one must be born from above to see the kingdom. Then, like
Moses (Heb.11), and like Paul (Phil.), he will gladly pay the price.
So we come to the last picture. What do we see now? We see an ocean and a great
net let down into its waters that sweeps it from end to end. Is the net the
church? Why, the church does not enter even the parable of the tares, where
there is at least a nominal profession and outward form of religion in the
hypocrite – even there the field was the world, not the church. But those bad
fish in the net are not even called hypocrites. It is simply good fish and bad
fish. That net is the providence of God, that drags over all the ocean of time
and lands all its people on the shore of eternity. What is there here then for
discouragement? Just this: Here in time, there are so many bad people mixed
with the good. We go down the street, thinking about good things, and lo I
there is a saloon. We cannot help it; there it is. We hear the ribald jest, we
see the bloated face and the blotched eye and the pimpled skin and the haggard
visage of the drunkard. We hear the rattle of the dice. We know that behind
that screen the gambler, a beast of prey, is. lurking for an unsuspecting
victim. In this world, too, our world, are liars, thieves, murderers,
adulterers, blasphemers. "Oh," says one, "it discourages me.
Lord God, I would like to preach if thou wouldst put me in a world where there
were only good people." What need to preach in such a world? Be not
foolish, thou scribe of God. The contiguity of bad men belongs to the present
condition. There is no escape from them yet. They vexed Lot's righteous soul
and mocked at the preaching of Noah. They tried Abraham sorely and worried
Paul. Our Lord himself – our great exemplar – patiently endured their
contradiction and gainsaying. Tares will appear in the wheat field till Satan
is bound, and bad fish in the sea of time with the good till the net of Providence
shall strand all alike on eternity's shore and the angels shall sort them.
Let us now inquire somewhat into the import of the two parables which tell what
to do with the eight. They read: "No man when he hath lighted a lamp
covereth it with a vessel or putteth it under a bed, but putteth it on a stand
that they which enter in may see the light. For nothing is veiled that shall
not be unveiled, nor anything secret that shall not be known and come to light.
If any man hath ears to hear, let him hear. Give heed, therefore, to what you
hear and take heed how you hear it. With what measure ye mete it shall be
measured unto you, and more shall be given unto you. For whosoever hath, to him
shall be given, and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away that which
he thinketh he hath," or, as the margin expresses it, "He seemeth to
have." "Have ye understood all these things? They said unto him, yea.
And he said unto them: Therefore every scribe who hath been made a disciple to the
kingdom of heaven [or every teacher who has been instructed in the principles
of the kingdom of heaven], is like a householder who bringeth forth out of his
treasure things new and old."
Let us briefly expound the more important words of this passage. First, the
word "scribe." Originally a scribe was merely a copyist of the law;
that is, one skilled in making careful manuscript copies of the books of the
Old Testament. And then, from his familiarity with the text, coming from
frequent transcription of it, he naturally became an expounder of that text,
and the latter meaning, "an expounder," gradually became the greater
meaning, so that in our text today the word "scribe" means
"teacher." "Every teacher instructed in the principles of the kingdom
of heaven." The next word of the passage that needs explanation is
"hid" or "veiled." "For whatsoever is hid shall be
made manifest." This reference is to the nature of parabolic teaching. A
parable is a dark or veiled saying, and yet the veil is designedly thin and
semitransparent, instead of opaque. It was not intended by it to hide the truth
from the devout and thoughtful searcher after truth, but only from the idle and
careless and hardhearted. So it is declared. "For nothing is hid that
shall not be made manifest." "I speak to these people in parables. A
parable veils my teaching, but there is nothing veiled in these parables that
shall not be made manifest to you. I lift the veil. I let you see what it
means." The next word that needs explanation is, "The lighted lamp."
The lighted lamp represents the disciple who heard the exposition of the
parable. Mark you, when he used the parable of the lighted lamp, he did not use
it in connection with the delivery of a parable; he used it in connection with
the exposition of a parable. The exposition is the light. The understanding
hearer is the lighted lamp. Merely to hear the parables does not make one a
lighted lamp, but to know the meaning of the parables makes one a lighted lamp.
The sense of it, the spiritual import of it, as expounded by the Spirit of God
– that is the light. The next word is this: "Putteth it not under a
vessel, but on a stand." This means that one who hears and understands the
exposition must not keep it to himself. It was given him for others, that they
who enter in may see the light. "Let your light so shine before men."
Hence the caution. "Give close attention to this exposition. Take heed to
what you hear. Take heed how you hear." This is the light. The parable was
veiled. The exposition lifts the veil; therefore notice closely, give
attention. The light comes with the exposition. Thus it was in the days of
Ezra, for the Scripture says, "So they read in the books, in the law of
God, and read distinctly and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the
reading." Truly that was a wonderful scene. All the people were gathered
together, the men, the women and the children, every child, as the text says,
"that had sense enough to understand" – the whole of them. Thousands
of them were gathered together, and Ezra stood on a pulpit of wood, and he
first read the text of the law distinctly so that they got the words. Then they
gave the sense, so as to cause the people to understand the meaning of the
words, and the light came with the meaning; and no light comes from memorizing
words of a scripture which we do not understand. It is about the same as
speaking in an unknown tongue, which profits nobody unless it is interpreted.
"Understandest thou what thou readest?" said Philip to the eunuch,
and hence our Saviour's question following his exposition of the parables:
"Have ye understood all these things?" The emphasis is not on the
"all"; it is on "these things," as indicated by the order
in which they come in the Greek, "Have ye understood these things
all?" Not, "Have you heard the words?" Have you understood? Do
you know what they mean?
The Bible is not a precious book to those who do not understand it, but the
entrance of God's Word into the understanding giveth light. A teacher must
himself understand before he can give the sense to others. A preacher who does
not know the meaning of Gods Word is an unlighted lamp. How can he shine? He is
a blind guide leading the blind. He may know everything else in the world, but
if he be ignorant of the meaning of God's Word he has no ministerial education,
and he cannot preach. He is worse than an ignoramus, though he have diplomas
from every college in the world. He teaches falsehoods instead of truths, and
wrecks the souls of men. We would not allow a man ignorant of medicine to doctor
our bodies, nor entrust a case of property or of honor or of life to a
pettifogger ignorant of law, but we count it a little thing to trust our
immortal spirits and our eternal interests to preachers who cannot call off the
names of the books of the Bible, who perhaps never read all of the Bible, or
have not diligently and prayerfully studied even one of its books, and could
not stand a creditable examination upon the text, much less the spirit of one
chapter.
Oh, we are guilty along this line, preachers and people! I repeat, I make no
reference whatever to ministerial education in other things, but surely a
preacher ought to have profoundly and prayerfully studied the One Book. Our
Saviour prescribed no educational test in mathematics, or the sciences, in
rhetoric or elocution for his preachers, but he sent out no man to preach until
he had carefully instructed him in what to preach. When then I say ministerial
education, I mean Bible education – education in the Bible. How long a time he
kept these men right with him, hearing his words, witnessing his deeds,
imbibing his spirit, expounding the principles of his kingdom to them, precept
by precept and line upon line, and now illustrating by striking and vivid
images, in parables those same principles, and all before he sends them out to
preach God's Word! An educated preacher is a scribe who hath been made a
disciple to the kingdom of God; that is, he is a teacher who hath been
instructed in the principles of the kingdom of heaven. That alone is an educated
preacher.
That leads to the next thing that needs explanation, "the householder's
treasure." Here the figure changes. Before the exposition was
"light"; now it is "treasure." "Have you understood
all of these things? Yes. Then I say unto you that every scribe instructed in
the principles of the kingdom of heaven, is like a householder who bringeth
forth out of his treasures things new and old." Not the treasure of a
traveler, but of a householder who has stored away the accretions and
accumulations of years. A rolling stone gathers no moss. A boarder, or a man
always moving, accumulates no property. "Three moves are equal to a
fire." A householder has old things that are precious, which have been
proved as to their value in many times of trial. They are sacred with memories.
He has new things also, but recently acquired, and he brings out on fitting
occasions both new and old. What does this mean? What is the spiritual import
of this parable? I see its meaning. It stands embodied before me. The householder
is a religious teacher, rich in the knowledge of the meaning of God's Word. He
has devoutly studied it for years. It is the one living oracle whose utterances
settle all of bis perplexities. In the time of spiritual drought and scorching
heat, that book has been to him what the well with the old oaken bucket was to
Woodworth. And now, when we call him out of life's problems and experiences, he
brings forth from his treasure things new and old. Yes, some of them are old.
Some of them came to him when his heart was first given to Jesus, when God for
Christ's sake forgave his sins. He opens the book, the sacred volume, and
points out the very passage in God's Word whose sense or meaning brought to him
peace and rest, long, long ago. And he never forgets it. He opens it again and
brings forth another treasure. It came to him perhaps when his first baby died.
How well I recollect when my first child died, and out in the old cemetery,
when the preacher who kindly conducted the funeral services of that child, Brother
Richard Burleson, with that reverence so peculiar to him, opened the Book of
God, and his voice rings in my ears today, "My son, despise not thou the
chastening of the Lord." I never see him in my memory but I hear him
saying that, and that day that scripture, in the spirit of it and in the sense
of it, so entered my soul that I can never forget.
He turns to yet another passage. It came to him in connection with his
anxieties concerning a revival of religion, and one day when feeling lonely
beyond expression, his eye fell upon this passage, "I am with you,"
and the actual presence and power of the eternal Spirit of God came upon him as
never before. Mark you, that the light comes with the exposition and
experimental realization of the Scriptures, and a scribe who has been
instructed in the principles of the kingdom of God, bringeth forth from his
treasures things new and old. He turns to some that came last year. (Last year
I got into the heart of this passage.) He turns to one that came last month, one
that came yesterday, one that came today, and these are the new, and all of
them are treasures – priceless treasures – the spiritual interpretation of the
Word of God.
He does not keep his face to the past and dwell on memories of treasures found
long ago, for where we do not acquire new treasures we lose the old.
But we retain the old if we can say, "This manna fell last night; it is
fresh from God; it has the dew on it. It came straight from a present, not a
historic God; it came not to one who was, but who is, his disciple and his
child. It is not the cold, stale food left over from last year's banquet, but
fresh and hot from the kitchen of heaven it is served to him hungry now."
I say that this Book is an ocean without shores; that to its interpretation
there is no ultima thule. We never do get to its outer boundary and say,
"I have compassed it all." We might look at it and apostrophize it:
“O thou precious Bible, thou exhaustless mine of gold and silver and diamonds,
who has found thy last treasure? Thou shoreless ocean, who has brought up from
thy depth the last tinted shell or beautiful coral or pearl of ray serene? Thou
range of mountains, whose tops touch the stars and kiss the skies and come in
touch with God; the climber who reaches thy summit looks out upon
ever-increasing landscapes of beauty, and there burst upon his vision prospects
of future glory never yet dreamed of, until at last he gets so high that he
looks out and finds no horizon."
That is heaven I New and old I Old as creation and new as God!
Now the last word to explain in this passage: "What measure ye mete it
shall be measured unto you, and more shall be given unto you. For whosoever
hath, to him shall be given, and whosoever hath not from him shall be taken
away even that which he thinketh he hath." What does it mean? What does it
mean in this connection? Will you please recall a point made just now, that the
lamp was lighted for the benefit of others? The Saviour expounded to one that
he might tell that exposition to another. Said he, "It is given to you to
understand the mysteries of the kingdom of God. I whisper in your ear the
meaning of the parables. You publish it on the housetops. If you dispense what
I give you, if you measure out what I give you, I give you more. As you measure
so I mete." Oh, what a significance! Hear a secret, ye misers, who would
hoard the gold of truth:
Knowledge not imparted to others dies to the man who has it.
So long as one teaches mathematics he remembers mathematics. So long as one
teaches Latin or Greek these things are easy to him, but let him cease the
imparting and his treasure at once begins to shrink in bulk, to get lighter in
weight, to diminish in value. "There is that withholdeth and it tendeth to
poverty. There is that scattereth abroad and it maketh rich." Oh, young
convert, when God has given the sense of just one precious scripture to you –
it may be this: "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy-laden and I
will give you rest;" it may be this: "God so loved the world that he
gave his only begotten Son" – but whatever it is, young convert, when God
lights that lamp let it shine, and be eager to say in the language of David,
"Come all ye that fear God and I will tell you what great things he hath
done for my soul;" hide not the righteousness of God in your heart. Oh,
preacher, if you have found the exposition of a passage of God's Word, if Jesus
has whispered an interpretation into your ear, give it out, let the world have it,
let others use it. Raise no whining cry of plagiarism on God-given
interpretations.
Do not jealously guard your little stock of cast iron sermons. Preach them, and
get new ones fresh with the dew of heaven and alive with the breath of the
Spirit of God.
Give out and God will give to you. Look at Spurgeon. What cared he for his old
sermons? Not a thing in the world. For thirty years he published a sermon every
week, and the more he published the more he had to publish.
Why, I can well recollect with what shrinking and horrible dread I heard
Brother Cranfill's proposition calling upon me to let him publish a sermon of
mine every week. I supposed it would bankrupt all the material I had in six
months, and how foolish I was I
I never did in my life, freely, lovingly, and tenderly, give out one exposition
that Jesus had given to me but he gave me another. I never did empty my bucket
of water upon the thirsty lips of the famished but I could the more readily let
it down into the well of salvation and draw it up filled again to the brim,
fresh-dripping and glowing from the cool and living fountain, inexhaustible.
Impart! Give out! Scatter abroad! It will come back to you good measure,
pressed down, shaken together, running over into your bosom and into your soul.
A scribe, then, is a religious teacher. Ministerial education, then, is having
the meaning of the Bible. The lamp is the preacher. Exposition from God lights
the lamp. The lamp being lighted should shine. As it radiates the light given,
more light comes. The householder is a preacher. His treasure is the
accumulation of scriptural meanings, passages which he has understood, passages
upon which he has experimentally fed and nourished his soul. Unless he acquire
new treasure he loses the old. If he faces the past only, that past becomes
ever dimmer to him, until it will at last seem to be only a dream of a
flickering, vague and uncertain fancy, without reality.
Now, these are two subsidiary parables, the parable of the lighted lamp and the
parable of the householder's treasure, and they tell what to do with the eight.
QUESTIONS
1. Where do we find our
Lord's first great group of parables?
2. What two words are used
in the Gospels for "parable" and what the meaning of each in both the
narrower and the wider senses?
3. Give a good definition of
"parable."
4. Distinguish between
parable, proverb, simile, similitude, metaphor, allegory, fable, and myth.
5. Give a biblical example
of each of these except myth, and give an example also of a myth.
6. Why did our Lord use
parables in his teaching?
7. From the table of
"the parables of our Lord" give the interpretation of each parable as
there indicated.
8. What can you say in a
general way of this list of parables and what the two great classes of parables?
9. What brief rules here
given for interpreting parables?
10. Compare the two parables
which Christ interpreted himself with their interpretation, and note the points
in each not interpreted,
11. What three great groups
of our Lord's parables and what parables in each group?
12. Give a general survey of
our Lord's ministry up to this point.
13. What is the scene, the
pulpit, and the congregation of this first group of parables?
14. What two subsidiary
parables in connection with this group and why so called?
15. What is the thread of
thought that unites all these eight parables into one necklace?
16. What is the first
parable here, what is its details and what is its lesson?
17. Give the details of the parable
of the good seed growing of it self, and its lesson.
18. Relate the story of the
parable of the tares, and show its lesson.
19. Give the parable of the
mustard seed and its lesson.
20. Give the parable of the
leaven and its lesson.
21. Give the double picture
in the parable of the hid treasure and the pearl of great price, and their
lessons.
22. Recite the parable of
the dragnet and its lesson.
23. What is the import of
the parable of the lighted lamp and what is the meaning and application of the
terms used therein?
24. What is the import of
the parable of the householder's treasure and what is the meaning and
application of the terms used in it?
OUR LORD'S GREAT MINISTRY IN GALILEE Part
VII STILLING THE TEMPEST, THE TWO GADARENE DEMONIACS, SECOND REJECTION AT
NAZARETH, SENDING FORTH THE TWELVE, AND HEROD'S SUSPICION
Harmony -pages 66-75 and Matthew 8:18-23; 11:1;
13:54-58; 14:1-12; Mark 4:34 to 5:20; 6:1-29; Luke 8:22-40; 9:1-9.
When Jesus had finished his discourse on the kingdom, as illustrated in the
first great group of parables, he crossed over the Sea of Galilee to avoid the
multitudes. While on the bosom of the sea a storm swept down upon them, as
indicated by Luke, but our Lord had fallen asleep. So the disciples awoke him
with their cry of distress and he, like a God, spoke to the winds and the sea,
and they obeyed him. Such is the simple story of this incident, the lesson of
which is the strengthening of their faith in his divinity.
Upon their approach to the shore – the country of the Gadarenes – occurred the
thrilling incident of the two Gadarene demoniacs. The story is graphically told
here by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and does not need to be repeated in this
interpretation, but there are certain points in the story which need to be
explained. First, there are some difficulties: (1) The apparent discrepancy of
long standing, relating to the place, is cleared up by Dr. Broadus in his note
at the bottom of page 67 (see his explanation of this difficulty); (2) Matthew
mentions two demoniacs, while Mark and Luke mention but one. This is easily
explained by saying that the one mentioned by Mark and Luke was probably the
prominent and leading one, and that they do not say there was only one. Second)
there are some important lessons in this incident for us: (1) We see from this
incident that evil spirits, or demons, not only might possess human beings by
impact of spirit upon spirit, but they also could and did possess lower
animals. (2) We see here also that these evil spirits could not do what they
would without permission, and thus we find an illustration of the limitations
placed upon the Devil and his agencies. (3) There is here a recognition of the
divinity of Jesus by these demoniacs and that he is the dispenser of their
torment. (4) There is here also an illustration of the divine power of Jesus
Christ over the multitude of demons, and from this incident we may infer that
they are never too numerous for him. (5) The man when healed is said to have
been in his right mind, indicating the insanity of sin. (6) The new convert was
not allowed to go with Jesus, but was made a missionary to his own people) to
tell them of the great things the Lord had done for him. (7) The Gadarenes
besought him to leave their borders. Matthew Henry says that these people
thought more of their hogs than they did of the Lord Jesus Christ. Alas I this
tribe is by far too numerous now.
Following the Harmony, we find that after crossing back to the other shore
Jesus revisits Nazareth and teaches in their synagogue. Here he was rejected as
at first. He did some works there, but was limited by their unbelief. Their
questions as to his origin indicate their great stupidity and throw light on
the question of "the perpetual virginity" of Mary, showing that the
Romanist contention here is utterly groundless. Before leaving them Jesus
announced a fact which has been experienced by many a man since that time, viz:
that a man is often least appreciated by his own people.
In Section 55 we have the first commission of the twelve apostles. The
immediate occasion is expressed in Matthew 9: 36. (See the author's sermon on
"Christ's Compassion Excited by a Sight of the Multitude.") These
apostles had received the train-ing of the mighty hand of the Master ever since
their conversion and call to the ministry, and now he thrusts them out to put
into action what they had received from him. The place they were to go, or the
limit of their commission, is found in Matthew 10:5-6. This limitation to go to
the Jews and not to the Gentiles seems to have been in line with the teaching
elsewhere that salvation came first to the Jews and that the time of the
Gentiles had not yet come in, but this commission was not absolute, because we
find our Lord later commissioning them to go to all the world. What they were
to preach is found in Matthew 10:7 and what they were to do in Matthew 10:8.
The price they were to ask is found in the last clause of v. 8. How they were
to be supported, negatively and positively, together with the principle of
their support, is found in w. 9-11. The principle of ministerial support is
found also, very much elaborated, in 1 Corinthians 9:4-13, and is referred to
in 1 Corinthians 9:14 as an ordinance of our Lord. The manner of making this
operative on entering a city is found in w. 11-12. The rewards of receiving and
rejecting them are found in v. 13, while the method of testimony against the
rejectors is expressed in w. 14-15.
The characteristics of these disciples are given in v. 16: "Wise as
serpents, and harmless as doves." If they should have had the
characteristic of the dove alone they would have been silly; if the serpent
alone, they would have been tricky. But with both they had prudence and
simplicity. In this commission we find also that they were to be subject to
certain hazards, recorded in v. 18. Their defense is also promised in w. 19-20.
The extent of their persecutions is expressed in w. 21-22. Their perseverance
is indicated in the last clause of v. 22. In v. 23 we have the promise that the
Son of man would come to them before they had gone through all the cities of
Israel. What does that mean? There are five theories about it, all of which are
amply discussed by Broadus (see his Commentary in loco).
The consolations offered these disciples, in view of their prospective
persecutions, are as follows (24-31): (1) So they treated the Lord, (2) all
things hidden shall be made known, (3) the work of their persecutors is limited
to the body, but God's wrath is greater than man's and touches both soul and
body, and (4) the Father's providential care. The condition of such blessings
in persecution, and vice versa, are expressed in w. 32-33. From this we see
that they were to go forth without fear or anxiety and in faith. The great
issue which the disciples were to force is found in 10:34-39. This does not
mean that Christ's work has in it the purpose of stirring up strife, but that
the disturbance will arise from the side of the enemy in their opposition to
the gospel and its principles, whose purpose means peace. So there will arise
family troubles, as some yield to the call of the gospel while others of the
same family reject it. Some will always be lacking in the spirit of religious
tolerance, which is not the spirit of Christ. In this connection our Lord
announces the principle of loyalty to him as essential to discipleship, with an
added encouragement, viz., that of finding and losing the life. In w. 40-42 we
have the identity of Christ with the Father which shows his divinity and also
his identity with his people in his work. Then follows the blessed
encouragement of the promise of rewards. When Jesus had thus finished his
charge to his disciples, he made a circuit of the villages of Galilee preaching
the gospel of the kingdom.
From this incident come three important lessons for us: First, we have here the
origin and development of a call to the ministry as follows: (1) Christ's
compassion for the perishing and leaderless, (2) prayer to God that he would
send forth laborers, and (3) a positive conviction that we should go. Second,
there is also suggested here the dangers of the care for fine preaching: (1) If
it has its source in anxiety and selfishness it restrains spirituality; (2) it
manifests itself in excitement and excess which adulterates spirituality; (3)
it leads to weariness or self-seeking and thus destroys spirituality. Third, we
have here several encouragements to the preacher: (1) The cause is honorable;
(2) the example is illustrious; (3) the success is certain; (4) care is
guaranteed; (5) the reward is glorious; (6) the trials become triumphs; (7) the
identification with Christ.
The account of the miracles wrought by the disciples of Jesus on this preaching
tour impressed Herod Antipas, as well as those wrought by Jesus himself, the
impression of which was so great that he thought that John the Baptist was
risen from the dead. The account in the Harmony throws light on the impression
that was made by the ministry of John. Some were saying that Jesus was Elijah
or one of the other prophets, but Herod's conscience and superstition caused
him to think it was John the Baptist, for he remembered his former relation to
John. Then follows here the story of how John had rebuked Herod which angered
his wife, Herodias, and eventually led to John's death at the band of the
executioner. Josephus gives testimony relative to this incident. (See chapter X
of this "Interpretation.")
There are some lessons to be learned from this incident. First, we are
impressed with the courage and daring of the first Christian martyr, a man who
was not afraid to speak his convictions in the face of the demons of the pit.
Second, the life must leave its impress, but that impress will be variously
interpreted according to the antecedents and temperaments of the interpreters.
Third, the influence of a wicked woman, often making the weak and drunken
husband a mere tool to an awful wicked end. Fourth, the occasion of sin and
crime is often the time of feasting and frivolity. Just such a crime as this
has often been approached by means of the dance and strong drink. Fifth, we
have here an example of a man who was too weak to follow his conviction of the
right because he had promised and had taken an oath. He had more respect for
his oath than he had for right. Sixth, there is here also an example of the
wickedness of vengeance. It is a tradition that when the daughter brought in
the head of John and gave it to Herodias, her mother, she took a bodkin and
stuck it through the tongue of John, saying, "You will never say again, It
is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife."
QUESTIONS
1. Give the time, place,
circumstances, and lesson of Jesus stilling the tempest.
2. Tell the story of the two
Gadarene demoniacs.
3. What two difficulties
here, and how is each explained?
4. What seven important
lessons for us in this incident?
5. Give the story of the
second rejection of Jesus at Nazareth and its several lessons.
6. What was the immediate
occasion of sending forth the twelve apostles on their first mission?
7. What preparation had they
received?
8. Where were they to go, or
what was the limit of this commission?
9. Why was it limited, and
was it absolute?
10. What were they to
preach, and what were they to do?
11. What price were they to
ask?
12. How were they to be
supported, negatively and positively, and how do you harmonize the Synoptics
here?
13. What was the principle
of their support and where do we find this principle very much elaborated?
14. How is this principle
referred to in 1 Corinthians 9:14?
15. What was the manner of
making it operative on entering a city?
16. What rewards attached to
receiving and rejecting them?
17. What was the method of
testimony against those who rejected?
18. What was to be the
characteristics of these disciples?
19. To what hazards were
they subject?
20. What was to be their
defense?
21. What was to be the
extent of their persecution?
22. What was text on the
perseverance of the saints, and what was its immediate application to these
apostles?
23. Explain "till the
Son of man be come."
24. What were the
consolations offered these disciples?
25. What was the condition
of such blessings?
26. In what spirit were they
to go forth?
27. What great issue must
they force? Explain.
28. What principle of
discipleship here announced?
29. What proof here of the
divinity of Jesus Christ?
30. What promise here of
rewards?
31. What did Jesus do
immediately after finishing his charge here
32. What lessons here on the
origin and development of a call to the ministry?
33. What dangers of the care
for fine preaching?
34. What seven
encouragements from this incident to the preacher of today?
35. How was Herod and others
impressed by the miracles of Jesus and his disciples?
36. What several conjectures
of Herod and others?
37. What part was played in this
drama by John? by Herod? by Herodias and by Salome, the daughter of Herodias?
38. What testimony of
Josephus on this incident?
39. What lessons of this
incident?