An Interpretation of the English Bible
JAMES, 1 and 2
THESSALONIANS
1 and 2
CORINTHIANS
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 Historical
Introduction to James
II An
Analysis and Exposition of Chapter 1 (1:1-27)
III The
Faith of Our Lord Jesus Christ (2:1-26)
IV Teacher
and Tongues (3:1-18)
V General
Admonitions and Applications (4:1-5:20)
1 Thessalonians
VI Introduction
to 1 Thessalonians
VII Exposition
(1:1-3:13)
VIII A Lesson
on Christian Morals (4:1-18)
IX A Body of
Rules (5:1-28)
2 Thessalonians
X Introduction
and Exposition to 2 Thessalonians (1:1-12)
XI The Second
Coming of Christ and the Man of Sin (2:1-12)
XII The Plan
of Salvation – Some Lesson on Discipline (2:13-3:18)
1 Corinthians
XIII Introduction
to 1 Corinthians
XIV The
Salutation – Eloquence and Factional Divisions (1:1-31)
XV The
Preacher and Factions (2:1-4:7)
XVI The Revolt
Against Paul's Apostolic Authority (4:8-21; 9:1-27)
XVII The
Relaxation of Morals (5:1-6:20)
XVIII The
Perversion of the Lord's Supper (10:1-22; 11:17-34)
XX Love, the
Greatest Thing in the World (13:1-13)
XXI The Gift of
Tongues (14:1-33)
XXII Marriage,
Divorce, and the Position of Women
in Public Assemblies (7:1-40;
11:2-16; 14:33-40)
XXIII The
Resurrection of the Dead
XXIV Death and
the Resurrection of the Dead (15:1-58)
XXV The
Great Collection; Many Adversaries; Inferior,
but Worthy Brethren;
Household
Churches; and Anathema Maranatha (16:1-34)
2 Corinthians
XXVI Historical
Introduction and Exposition to 2 Corinthians (1:1-20)
XXVII The Two
Covenants (1:21-3:18)
XXVIII The Gospel
Ministry and the Glory That Is to Come (4:1-5:15)
XXIX The
Ministry of Reconciliation (6:17-7:16)
XXX The Great
Collection for the Poor Saints Jerusalem (8:1-9:15)
XXXI Exposition
and Paul's Reply to His Enemies (10:1-12:21)
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION TO JAMES
The first point to which attention is called is the place of this epistle in
the New Testament canon. This letter of James, and some others, were called
antilegomena. In other words, they were in dispute or in doubt. Later on the
letter of James received universal acceptance. After a careful examination into
its claim it was received by all Christian people as a part of the New
Testament, until the Reformation. Luther, in the preface to his commentary on
it, uses language which may be translated thus: "A very strawy
epistle." The thought with him was that it flatly contradicted the teaching
of Paul on justification by faith, and Luther would not accept anything from
anybody that contradicted that teaching. The trouble with Luther was that he
misconceived the teaching of James. It is quite true that the letter of James
was slow in coming into circulation, but it gradually worked its way into
general acceptance, and there is no just ground for questioning its
authenticity or canonical place.
The heading in the King James Version is, "The General Epistle of
James." The word "general" is left out of the American Standard
Revised Version. The Greek word, katholikos, meaning "general," or
"universal," is not found in the Bible, neither in the Greek of the
Old Testament nor in the Greek of the New Testament. That is one of my
objections to the position of certain Baptists on the universal, or Catholic
Church; they should not insist upon using a word which has not the recognition
of the Word of God, neither in the Old Testament nor in the New Testament. It
is certain that the word "general" was put there some centuries after
Christ, and it was meant to indicate the character of seven letters: James; 1
and 2 Peter; 1, 2, and 3 John; and Jude. The letters of Paul to the Romans, to
the Corinthians and to Timothy, are special letters. The word "catholic,"
when it first came into use, did not mean orthodox, but simply general, as
opposed to particular, or special. Later it came to mean orthodox – "the
holy Catholic Church." It does not belong in the New Testament, and hence
the revisers very wisely left it out.
Who wrote this letter, how, when, why, and to whom was it written? As to who
wrote this book, our own answer is, James, the eldest half-brother of our Lord;
that is, he was younger than Jesus, who was Mary's first-born, and the first
son of both Joseph and Mary. And yet it is a question which has been very much
controverted in some of its phases, and I must go a little into the
controversy. In Mark 6:3, the people of Nazareth say concerning Jesus, "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? And they were offended
in him." The first question to be determined is, what was the relation of
these four brothers there mentioned, and these sisters whose names are not
given, to Jesus, the Son of Mary? I refer the reader to some elaborate
discussions on the conflicting theories. The best, clearest, simplest, and most
forcible is found in Dr. Broadus' Commentary on Matthew on
chapter 13:55. In Schaff's "History of the Christian Church" (page
272, Vol. I, second edition), the author discusses the matter with great
clearness and force, and agrees with Dr. Broadus throughout. Another book is
Lightfoot on Galatians, one of the finest commentaries ever prepared. Dr. Lightfoot
elaborately discusses the question of the relationship of these four men and
these unnamed sisters of our Lord. He takes a different position from Dr.
Broadus and Dr. Schaff. These authorities are accessible, and a bright student
who wants to keep up with the discussions on important matters in the Bible
should acquaint himself with these discussions.
Here is the sum of the whole matter: There are three theories as to who these
people were. One theory is the one advanced in my answer, that they were the
younger half brothers and sisters of Jesus, Joseph and Mary being their
parents; hence it is called the brother-theory, as Dr. Broadus describes it.
This is styled in classical history, "The Helvetian Theory." About
A.D. 383 Rome, which was coming into power, attacked this position.
Second theory: They were the children of Joseph by a former marriage and were
half-brothers of our Lord. That is called the theory of Epitheanus. That is the
theory Lightfoot advocates, and the theory upon which the Greek Catholic Church
stands. (The first theory is sometimes called the Protestant theory.)
Third theory: That they were cousins of Jesus, the children of Mary who was a
sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. And this theory maintains the identity of James,
the brother of our Lord, and James the son of Alpheus, in the list of the
twelve apostles. It also maintains the identity of Jude, the author of another
letter, with Judas, not Iscariot, another one of the apostles, and that the
Simon mentioned in Mark 6:3 was another one of the apostles. So this theory
claims that three of the brothers of Jesus Christ were apostles. Then it also
identifies Alpheus and Cleopas. This is the Roman Catholic theory, and its
object is to prove the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Mother of our Lord.
Later, the Roman Catholics by an "infallible" bull declared the
perpetual virginity of Mary, and made its acceptance essential to salvation.
The Catholic theory is in every way preposterous. The idea of making three
brothers of Jesus members of the original twelve of the apostolic college, when
just a little while before Jesus was crucified, John says emphatically that his
brothers did not believe on him, and every time they are mentioned it is in
contradistinction to the apostles, has no basis in fact. They are never
mentioned in a way to make it possible to believe that they were apostles.
Evidently sentiment had much to do in influencing some Protestants to deny that
they were brothers of Jesus.
We count it settled that James, Judas, Joses, and Simon, mentioned in Mark 6:3
as brothers of Jesus, were really his brothers. This brings us to another
question: Did James, this brother of Jesus, write this letter? It could never
have been James, the son of Zebedee, because we have an account of his death in
Acts 12. All of the arguments go to show that the author of this book is James,
the half-brother of Jesus.
Having settled as to who wrote the letter, we want to get an idea of the
writer, and shall now form a connected Bible history of the man. We will take
Dr. Broadus' Harmony of the Gospels and follow it as far as it
goes.
1. John 2:12 (Harmony, p. 20), reads: "After this we went down to
Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren and his disciples; and there
they abode not many days." Here the names of the brothers are not given,
but it shows that this family of children follow that mother and go around
after Jesus. That is just after Jesus worked his first miracle. In the working
of the first miracle it speaks only of Jesus and his mother being present, but
undoubtedly his brothers were there then. That is to say, that when he left to
go to that wedding, his mother and brothers went with him, and from that
wedding they went and sojourned all together a little while in Capernaum. Jesus
gets an invitation to a wedding, and in order to get Jesus they invite his
mother and the more obscure members of the family.
2. Matthew 12:46-47, with Mark 3:31-32, with Luke 8:19 (Harmony, p. 59). Let us
see Matthew 12:46-47: "While he was yet speaking to the multitudes,
behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him. And
one said -unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking
to speak to thee." Then Mark: "And there come his mother and his brethren;
and, standing without, they gent 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." Luke says: "And there came to him his mother
and brethren, and they could not come at him for the crowd." It must be
clearly stated as to what the object was. Here Jesus was teaching, and he was
so very busy that he did not stop to eat. The report of that comes to his
mother and these half-brothers of his, and they come there to arrest him, just
exactly as we would get out a writ of lunacy for any man that will work so
continuously without stopping to eat. It is important to see the relation of
these brothers to Jesus as it 'is presented in the scripture. It is on that occasion
that he says, resenting the interference with his work by his family, "Who
is my mother and my brethren?" And waving his hand to his disciples he
says, "These are my brothers. Whosoever doeth the will of my Father, the
same is my mother, my brother, and my sister," placing discipleship and
obedience far above any fleshly relation to him. As later he was going to the
cross a woman cried out, "Blessed is the mother that bore thee," and
he said, "Yea, rather blessed is she that doeth the word of God."
3. Matthew 13:55 with Mark 6:3 (Harmony, p. 70): This is the second time that
Jesus comes to Nazareth, and coming into his own country he taught them in
their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished and said, "Whence hath
this man wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? Is
not his mother called Mary?" Notice what Jesus said about that: "A
prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and among his own kin,
and in his own house." So we see that up to this time he was without honor
with his own kin.
4. John 7:3 (Harmony, p. 3): "Depart hence, and go into Judea, that thy
disciples also may behold thy works which thou doest. For no man doeth anything
in secret, and himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou doest these things,
manifest thyself to the world. For even his brethren did not believe on him.
Jesus therefore saith unto them, My time is not yet come; but your time is
always ready. . . . I go not up yet unto this feast." That was not a very
great while before his crucifixion, and shows the attitude of his family toward
him so far.
5. 1 Corinthians 15:7 (Harmony, p. 229): After he arose from the dead he
appeared unto his brother James. So far as the Bible teaching goes, up to the
time after the resurrection when Jesus appeared to James, the very man that
wrote this letter, he had not been a Christian. Hence he could not have been
one of the twelve apostles.
6. Acts 1:14. When he ascended into heaven, the angel said to those who were
looking at his up-going, "Why stand ye looking into heaven?" Then it
is said that they went back to the upper room, Mary and his brethren. There,
doubtless with the crowd, they received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. There
were 120, including the brothers.
7. Galatians 1:19 with Acts 9:27. That is Paul's first visit to Jerusalem. He
says, "When I made that first visit to see Peter, I saw him, but did not
see any other of the apostles, but I did see James, the brother of our
Lord." He did not say that James was an apostle. Dr. Broadus and Dr.
Schaff both say that the Greek and also the margin in the revision do not imply
that James was an apostle; it says, "I saw no other apostle but Peter, but
I saw James."
8. Acts 12:17. Peter escaped from prison and told the crowd that was praying in
the house of John Mark's mother to go and tell James that he had escaped,
indicating that by this time James occupied a position of authority. In other
words he was pastor of the first church at Jerusalem. The apostles were not
pastors; they had general work to do.
9. Acts 15, with which compare Galatians 2:9. That is the time that the great
conference was held at Jerusalem concerning Paul's work as to whether the
Gentiles were to be received into the kingdom of God without becoming Jews.
James presided over that meeting, as the pastor of the Jerusalem church,
because the man who made the trouble came from his church, and the first church
at Antioch had referred this question to the church where the trouble had
originated. James makes a speech on that occasion, as well as Peter, Paul and
others, and James is unquestionably the author of the letter which was adopted
by the church.
10. Galatians 2:12. That is after the whole matter had been settled by that
conference; Paul says that, at Antioch when certain ones came from James, Peter
and Barnabas began to dissimulate; they had heretofore been eating with the
Gentiles.
11. 1 Corinthians 9:5. That shows he was a married man.
12. Acts 21:18. That is on the occasion of Paul's last visit. James is still
the pastor.
13. The last reference, except the letter itself, Jude, verse 1: "Jude, .
. . brother of James." Here then are thirteen references which put clearly
before us the author of this letter. He was an intense Jew, very much devoted
to the law and to the customs of his people. That he never did become such a
Christian as Paul and others we shall see as we study his epistle.
We have found the writer of this letter to be James, the son of Joseph and
Mary, and half-brother of our Lord. And we have studied his history in the
Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, up to the time that he writes this letter. Now for
some further questions.
1. To whom does he write this letter? The answer is: Not to the Gentiles
anywhere, not to Jews of any kind in the Holy Land, not to Christian Jews in
the Holy Land, but to Christian Jews of the dispersion. As verse I says,
"James, . . . to the twelve tribes which are of the dispersion." That
brings up the old question of the "lost ten tribes." And this context
shows that James does not consider that they were lost. The Old Testament shows
that the ten tribes who were transported to Assyria, and most of whom never
returned, were not lost. A great many of them came back, and the continuity of
the tribes was kept up, which can be proved by many scriptural references, in
both the Old and New Testaments. The Greek word, diaspora, "the
dispersion," needs to be understood. The word, "dispersion,"
occurs a number of times in the Bible, and it means that a large class of Jews,
who at different times were carried away into several captivities, or who went
away for purposes of commerce, or trade, and settled in foreign countries,
losing in the long lapse of time their mother tongue, and speaking only the
tongues of the people where they lived, losing a great many of the scriptural
customs of the people who lived in the Holy Land, yet maintained their
nationality. These people came up to the great feasts. They were there on the
day of Pentecost, when James received the baptism of the Holy Spirit; they were
there from the banks of the Euphrates and the Tigris, from Mesopotamia, which
means "between the rivers"; from all places in Asia Minor; from
Southern Greece and Rome and Northern Africa. And they remained there until
they were first dispersed by the persecution of Saul of Tarsus and the
persecution mentioned in Acts 12. As they bad gone away, James writes to-them.
They had been there together in that great meeting, very probably, on the day
of Pentecost. The first deportation of these people was when the ten tribes
were carried into captivity, then later the Jews in Judea were carried away,
still later Alexander established a great number at Alexandria, in Northern
Egypt, at the mouth of the Nile, and Pompey carried a great number of them into
captivity to Rome. In Egypt they received special privileges. A temple was
built there, and an immense part of the influence on the thought of the world
comes from the Alexandrian Jews. I am explaining now to whom this letter was
written, and what was the occasion of the writing. These people had been there
and had been through this long persecution; now they were scattered to their
several homes, and James is writing to them.
2. When did he write it? He could not have written it after A.D. 62, for he was
killed at that time, as is told by Josephus. He did not write it after A.D. 50,
because there is an absence of reference in it to later controversies. So that
my opinion of the time is somewhere about A.D. 45, corresponding in date with
the incidents mentioned in Acts 12. There was then a great persecution raging.
James, the son of Zebedee, was killed, and Peter was imprisoned. The members of
the church were scattered abroad. James was the head, or pastor of that church.
There were probably 100,000 members in it. We can see the concern he would feel
when these people were all driven abroad. The reasons for this early date are
not merely the appropriateness of the occasion, which has just been stated, but
it is evident from this letter itself that the line of demarcation between
Christians and Jews was very slight. The Christians were still meeting in the
synagogues. Later, they separated from the Jews at the synagogues, and either
rented houses of worship, built them houses, or met in private homes.
3. Why did he write this letter, or what was his object? Three reasons, from
the letter itself, evidently influenced him more than all others put together.
The first one is that these dispersed Jews were suffering severe trials and
persecution, and he wanted to show them how to receive and to bear these
trials. In the second place, a great many Jews had accepted Christ
intellectually, but were not regenerated. Just like the devil, they believed in
God, and so James says, "Thou believest there is one God; thou doest well:
the devils also believe and tremble." It was this barren faith that was
not influencing many of their lives for good. And then a characteristic of them
at home and abroad was that they were a very "fussy" people, regular
"Kilkenny cats," fighting in their synagogues at every meeting, and
eight years later destroying the nation by their fighting in the streets of
Jerusalem against one another. He is writing to these suffering people, some of
them holding on to Christ with a spirit of nominal faith, to show them that the
true faith endures suffering and is fruitful in life.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the meaning of antilegomena,
and what are the antilegomena epistles?
2. What did Luther call the
epistle of James, and why?
3. Is there any just ground for
questioning the authenticity of this letter?
4. How did catholikos
come to be used in this title, and when?
5. What did it mean
originally?
6. What did it come to mean
later?
7. Who wrote this letter?
8. What three theories
concerning the relation to our Lord sustained by the children named in Mark
6:3?
9. What is included in each
of these theories?
10. In general terms, how do
Protestants, Greek Catholics, and Roman Catholics align themselves on these
theories?
11. What is the object of
the Catholic theory?
12. What was the
"infallible" bull respecting this?
13. What caused some
Protestants to deny that those named in Mark were brothers of our Lord?
14. Where may we find the
clearest and strongest presentation of each theory?
15. Why could it not have
been James, the son of Zebedee, who wrote this letter?
16. In the Protestant
theory, meet the objections based on John 19:26-27?
17. Observing the order of
time in citing passages, trace the New Testament history of the James named in
Mark 6:3.
18. From this history show
how it was impossible for him to be one of the twelve.
19. Who, then, was the
author of this letter?
20.What was his character,
reputation, and death, according to Josephus?
21. What his acquired
position among Jerusalem Christians?
22. What his position both
as a Jew and a Christian?
23. To whom was this letter
written?
24. What old question does
verse I bring up?
25. What James's position on
that question?
26. What is the meaning of the
Greek word diaspora?
27. What is the difference
between the Jews of the dispersion and of Palestine?
28. On what occasions did
they assemble at Jerusalem?
29. What were the great
deportations of the Jews?
30. What the occasion of
this letter?
31. When did he write it?
32. What the proof?
33. Why did he write this
letter?
AN ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF CHAPTER I
James 1:1-27.
The salutation, from whom to whom, 1:1.
The body, or matter, of the letter:
I. Concerning trials from without. God himself
chastens his children in love, and often permits Satan and evil men to afflict
them in malice as a test of faith and as a discipline, therefore –
1. Count them for a joy through discipline (1:2-4). (Compare with the case of
Job, who did not know how nor from whom to count them, and with the case of
Paul, who did know.)
2. If you need wisdom in order to do this – ask God for it (1:5-8). (Compare
the case of Solomon, I Kings 3:5-13; and 4:29-34.)
3. But ask in faith (1:6). (Compare the Lord's teaching in Mark 5:36; 9:23-24;
and Paul's, Romans 4:18-21; and Hebrews 11:6.)
4. Having regard to other laws or conditions of acceptable prayer (4:3).
5. For there are two kinds of wisdom, unlike in origin, nature and result
(3:13-18). (Compare Genesis 3:6; 2 Corinthians 11:3; Galatians 3:1; 1
Corinthians 1:18-22.) (Compare the Greek legend of Minerva, the goddess of
wisdom, springing full grown from the brain of Jupiter, with Milton's
representation of Sin, in the form of a beautiful woman, coming from the brain
of Satan – Paradise Lost, Book II.)
6. How the foregoing directions may be made to apply impartially to both rich
and poor brethren (1:9-11).
II. Concerning temptations from within (1:13-17).
Note how the same word in one connection means a trial, in another connection
means an incitement to evil.
1. Incitement to evil not from God (1:13-17).
(1) Because opposed to his nature (1:13, 17-28). He is the Father of lights. He
is unchangeable. He willeth our regeneration. (Compare 1 Timothy 2:4 and
Ezekiel 33:11.)
(See the author's sermon on "God and the Sinner.")
(2) Because opposed to his practice of giving good things only (1:17).
2. Incitement to evil from the devil (4:7). (Compare Genesis 3:1-5; 2
Corinthians 11:3; Galatians 3:1; I John 3:8-12.)
3. The commission of sin man's own act (1:14). This appears from the analysis
of sin (1:14-15.) The complete order is:
(1) Incitement by Satan. (2) Desire. (3) Will to gratify it. (4) The deed. (5)
Death. (6) Hell. (Compare the genesis and development of the first human sin,
Genesis 3:1-8; and the case of Achan, Joshua 7:20-21. See the relations of
Satan, Sin, Death, and Hell) and Dogs or Remorse in Paradise Lost, Book II,
lines 648-814.)
III. Concerning the word of God.
1. Its offices:
(a) The means of regeneration (1:18).
(b) The mirror for disclosing imperfections (1:23).
(c) The perfect law of liberty (1:25).
2. How communicated in effecting regeneration (1:21).
Note the implanting of a seed, and compare the parable of the sower, the seed,
and the four kinds of soil, Matthew 13: 4-9, 18-23; with Jeremiah 4:3. See also
1 Peter 1:23.
3. How received when so communicated (1:21).
4. How treated when received:
(1) Forsake the evil it condemns (1:21).
(2) Do the good it enjoins (1:22).
(Compare Isaiah 1:16-17; 55:7; Matthew 7:24-27. See also John 14:15; 15:14;
Acts 2:37; 16:30-31; 22:10; with 26:19.)
OBSERVATIONS
The Mirror. – Let the reader explain the mirror illustration, showing how and
why the word of God is so used.
The case of Mr. Moody, his dirty boy and the mirror, showing the mirror's use,
not for washing, but to disclose dirt, or imperfection, and by thus convincing
the one looking in it of the need of cleansing. Let the reader compare the
mirror illustration of James with Paul's mirror illustration (2 Cor. 3:18) and
point out clearly the distinctions. Illustrate Paul's use by the Peruvian
Temple of the Sun in Cuzco. Read Keeble's poem on Paul's illustration.
The Law of Liberty. – Let the reader fix clearly and firmly in his mind the New
Testament idea of liberty, who is the liberator, what the bondage from which he
delivers, how the word of God operates in securing the liberty, and why it is a
perfect law of liberty. To this end see the discussion in John 8:31-36;
Galatians 4:21-31 and 5:1; Romans 6:14-20.
Compare Ingersoll's lecture on "Liberty for Man, Woman, and Child,"
delivered in Waco, with the author's reply thereto. Read Bishop Soule's sermon
on "Perfect Law of Liberty," in Methodist Pupil of the South,
and mark the points from which you dissent, if there be any.
IV. A definition of practical religion.
1. Negative, i.e., vain religion (1:26).
(1) Deception of heart
(2) Unbridled tongue
2. Positive, i.e., pure and undefiled (1:27).
(1) Keeping oneself unspotted from the world
(2) Visiting the fatherless and widows in their affliction
Note all the New Testament uses of the words here rendered
"religion," "religious."
Derivation of the English word.
Read F. W. Robertson's sermon (in Vol. Ill) showing the mission of James to
teach the moral rectitude side of the gospel rather than dogma.
V. Concerning faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
1. It must be held without respect of persons (2:1-7), i.e., the conduct of one
believer in Jesus toward another believer in Jesus must have regard only to the
claims of a common humanity and of a common salvation, disregarding
distinctions based on race, nationality, tribe, caste, sex, titles, honors,
social position, wealth, or poverty. (Compare Deuteronomy 1:7; Luke 18:42-45;
22:24-27; Acts 10:34; Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:10-11.)
2. It must fulfil the royal law (2:8).
3. It must be held without respect of commandments (2:912).
Note the unity, or solidarity, of the law. Illustrate it. Who wrote the
following couplet? Compound for sins they are inclined to, By damning those they have no
mind to?
What the legend of Jupiter and the two bags?
4. It must be evidenced by good works (2:14-20). Case of Abraham (2:21-24).
Case of Rahab (2:25). Questions:
(1) What said Luther of this letter, and why?
(2) And yet what says Luther about faith and works in his preface to the epistle
to the Romans?
(3) In what sense do works justify?
(4) Meaning of "perfect" in 2:22?
(5) What says Paul of the relations between grace and faith on the one hand,
and good works on the other hand? (See Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 2:11-15; 3:4-8.)
(6) What the theory of Dr. J. B. Link, editor Texas Baptist Herald?
(7) Why was Rahab's case selected by James, and in Hebrews 11:31?
VI. Concerning teachers (3:1-18).
1. A caution against many teachers (3:1).
2. The teacher must bridle his tongue, because:
(1) This makes the perfect man. Note the relative power of the tongue (3:2-4).
Note the illustrations – the bridle, the helm, the forest fire.
(2) Because the devil's tongues of fire are contrasted with the Spirit's
tongues of fire at Pentecost (3:6-12). These tongues are restless, untamable,
forked, full of deadly poison, worlds of iniquity, set on fire of hell, setting
on fire the whole course of nature.
(3) The teacher must seek the true wisdom, because there is another wisdom
earthly, sensual, demoniacal.
Note: – The tongue has slain more than the sword, and has burned up more homes
and cities than all the incendiaries in the annals of time.
VII. General applications and exhortations
1. Inordinate lusts originate strife and nullify prayer (4: 1-3).
2. The spirit of divine love within us is jealous against the world love
tempting us (4:4-6).
3. The great direction (4:7-10).
4. Censoriousness libels laws and usurps the divine prerogative of judgment
(4:11-12).
5. The twelve tribes are dispersed by the lust of commerce, which presumes on
the future and ignores the divine will (4: 13-17).
6. The follies and 'iniquities of the rich (5:1-6).
7. The coming of the Lord teaches patience (5:7-8).
8. The outlet for great emotions (5:9-13).
(1) Not murmuring
(2) Not swearing
(3) But prayer or praise; the case of Job
9. Directions for the sick (5:14-18).
(1) Send for the elders of the church
Query: Who are they?
(2) Anoint the patient with oil
Why? Is this direction binding now? Is this the Romanist extreme unction?
(3) The promise
(4) Confession of sin
Query: Is this the Romanist auricular confession?
(5) Elijah's case the example of prayer
Query: Is it right now to pray for rain?
10. Conversion of a sinner (5:19-20).
Query: Meaning of "shall cover a multitude of sins"?
We shall now give the main points in the analysis of chapter I, as follows:
(1) Salutation – from whom to whom (1:1).
(2) Trials from without and how to receive them (1:2-13).
(3) Trials from within – their origin, development, and termination (1:13-17).
(4) The Word of God – its nature, its offices, and how to treat it (1:18-25).
(5) Seeming and Real Religion (1:26-27).
I will now commence the exegesis according to that analysis. I would not, for
worlds, have this letter of James left out, and if when we get through, the
reader does not see that it is a great letter and of inestimable value, then I
shall question his judgment.
First the salutation, 1:1: "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus
Christ, to the twelve tribes which are of the dispersion, greeting." We
have, in an introductory chapter, specified what James this was. We see that he
counts himself God's servant, and the servant of Jesus. Considering that all during
the life of Christ he did not believe in his brother, and that he was converted
only at the resurrection of Christ, it is astonishing in this book to see how
complete is his faith in Jesus as the Messiah: "The Lord Jesus, the
Christ." Those to whom he writes, the twelve tribes of the dispersion, we
have just considered.
We now take up trials from without, and how they are to be received.
"Count it all Joy, my brethren, when you fall into manifold
temptations." Pretty hard thing to do, isn't it? Job had a hard time
counting his trials joy, and we notice in Paul's case it makes him shouting
happy because God counted him worthy to suffer for the Lord Jesus Christ. But
we have to have religion to do that. "Count it all joy." Why should
it be? "Because the trying of your faith worketh patience."
"Tribulation," says Peter, "worketh patience."
A most charming lady, a member of my church in Waco, and one of the sweetest
spirits that I ever knew, came to me one day and said:
"I just pray and pray for patience, and about the time I think I am
patient, here comes some new trouble. Tell me about it."
"Why," I said, "that is the mill that grinds patience, viz.:
tribulation, and so if you really want to be patient, then you must count these
tribulations that come on you, joy, for they will bring you the patience, if
you are rightly exercised by them. And in order to profit by it, let patience
have her perfect work, that you may be patient and endure, wanting
nothing."
The word, "perfect," does not mean sinless in the New Testament at
any time. It means mature. Perfection means maturity. Just here the trouble
comes up with any of us when subject to these trials from without – we are not
wise enough to know how to receive them. Hence, the next direction, "If any
of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God that giveth to all men liberally and
upbraideth not, and it shall be given him." He knows that a lack of wisdom
oftentimes causes us to fail.
The case of Solomon is in point. He was a young man when he was made successor
to his father, and while he was offering sacrifices in the tabernacle, God came
to him in a dream at night and said (how would you, dear reader, like to be
approached by day or night and have God pressing this question on you?),
"What do you want? Make a selection. I will give it to you." Solomon
says, "Lord, give me wisdom. I am a little child, and I do not know how to
go out or to come in, and you have put me at the head of a great people, and I
have to discharge my duty. I must have wisdom." God was so pleased that he
not only gave him wisdom, but riches and honor, and many other blessings.
How different would be the answer of most people to that question. Perhaps one
would say, "I want a spring bonnet. That is the thing that is standing
between me and happiness." Another would say, "I want to feel my
fingers in the neck of my enemy." What a tremendous thing is that wisdom!
I do not mean knowledge. There is much difference between wisdom and knowledge.
The wisest man is not the man that knows. Wisdom is the application of
knowledge. To know just what to do, to know just how to do it, and to know how
to do it at the right time – that is wisdom. It is a rare gift or
qualification.
I heard an old Baptist deacon say, "Our pastor, if we ever get him up in
the pulpit, is not only a Boanerges, a son of thunder, but he is a Barnabas, a
son of consolation, but just as soon as he steps down out of the pulpit, he has
not sense enough to lead a goose to water. He needs a guardian." And the
old deacon told the truth. He was called "the Spurgeon of Texas," and
he was called also the "inspired idiot." Out of the pulpit an idiot,
and in the pulpit a flame of fire. He was a schoolmate of mine.
Most of the trouble that comes upon churches comes from a lack of wisdom on the
part of the pastor. They do not know how to handle with the proper delicacy
cases of discipline. Without ever understanding it, a great many pastors make
themselves the occasion of a split in a church) of endless strife and
confusion. We can get wisdom in no other way than by asking for it. One says,
"I asked for it, but did not get it." Let me give the next verse.
"But let him ask in faith, nothing doubting, for he that doubteth is
like-the surge of the sea, driven by the wind and tossed. For let not that man
think that he shall receive anything of the Lord; a double-minded man, unstable
in all his ways." Ask in faith: "Whatsoever ye ask in my name,
according to the law of God, and believe, ye shall receive."
The most of us are like the old woman, who read where it says, "If you
have faith equal to a grain of mustard seed you could say to the mountain, be
moved into the sea, and it would be moved." So she concluded she would try
it, and she prayed that a certain mountain might be moved into the sea. The next
morning she says, "There it is. I knew it was going to be there. It is
Just as I expected." This is the way of our faith in praying.
These trials from without come upon rich and poor alike. The rich in the trial
finds that his wealth has taken to itself wings and flown away, and he is
brought down to a low estate. They have their trials. The poor man also has
his. They are not the same in all cases, but there is no road from here to
heaven that does not pass through tribulations. A man that properly endures
trials that come upon him from without has this glorious incentive, that when
he is tried he shall receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to
them that love him. In the letters of Peter we find out how he treats the same
subject.
We now come to the trials from within: "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." We have the responsibility of that inward sin, and we must not put
it on God. God never enticed anybody to do evil. The food. She desired; she was
enticed by her desire. Achan, not enticement must come from our own desire. Eve
looked upon the fruit of the tree of death, and it seemed to her good for
withstanding the prohibition of God about the spoils of Jericho that were
devoted, consecrated to God, saw the goodly Babylonish garment, and a wedge of
gold, and he wanted them. Now, it isn't worth while for Achan to say, "God
put me in a position to see that." The origin of our desires cannot be put
on the shoulders of some one else.
Here is the finest analysis of the inside sin, its development and its
termination, that I know of anywhere: "Then the lust, when it hath
conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is full grown, bringeth forth
death." Desire; sin, death! We will have occasion more than once to call
attention to James's power to analyze a fact, to show its development, its
culmination, and its fruit. In verse 17 he shows why that this enticement to
sin does not come from God: "Every good gift and every perfect gift is
from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no
variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning." That is what comes
from God. If it is a good gift, a perfect gift, it comes from above; it comes
from the Father of lights, it comes from that God with whom is no variableness
or even shadow of turning. Apply what James says as to how to treat trials that
come from the inside. That is the secret of life. This is an intensely
practical writer, and if one cannot apply what he says, then he will go through
life soured, unhappy, unprofitable.
Let us look at his great discussion on the word of God (w. 18-25). The analysis
says, "The word of God, its nature, its offices, and how to treat
it." It is a seed, an implanted seed: "Receive with meekness the
implanted word." The word is "planted" – "the implanted
word of God." And how often do we find that the word of God is treated as
a seed! "The sower went forth to sow," the parable of tares, the
parable of the seed that groweth by itself, and then in the Psalms, "He
that soweth in tears shall reap in joy," and "he that goeth forth
weeping bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again rejoicing, bringing
his sheaves with him." And the passage in Peter, "born again, not of
corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God that liveth and
abideth forever."
If the word of God as to its nature is an implanted seed, then what are its
offices? First, it is an instrument of regeneration. The record says, "Of
his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth." How is
regeneration to be brought about? By preaching the word. The sower goes out and
sows the word – the seed, which is implanted, and becomes the instrument of
regeneration by the Holy Spirit. What is the second office of this word? That
is expressed in verse 25: "But he that looketh into the perfect law, the
law of liberty, and so continueth, being not a hearer that forgetteth, but a
doer that worketh, this man shall be blessed in his doing." There the word
of God is called the law of liberty, that is to say, "Whoever takes the
word of God reaches real liberty."
Ingersoll came to Waco when I was pastor there, and delivered his notorious lecture
on "Liberty for Men, Women, and Children," and I replied to it from
the pulpit: "If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free
indeed," and showed what was real liberty and how this liberty is to be
found.
The word of God brings liberty; to deliver from the bondage of sin, the bondage
of Satan; it translates us into the kingdom of God. We can get these three
lessons: (1) It is the instrument of regeneration. (2) It is a mirror for
revealing sin. (3) It is the perfect law of liberty.
I heard Dr. Richard Burleson preach a great sermon on "How shall a young
man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto according to thy word." That
is 'in Psalm 119. Every verse of it has reference to the word of God. The young
man in his ways is inclined to be a slave. How shall he be free? "How
shall be cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto according to thy word."
"The entrance of thy word giveth light." Whosoever liveth in darkness
and dark places is in slavery. There must be light in order to be free.
One of the most famous Irish orators in an address pictured Ireland as a woman
in shamrock and bound, and then pleaded for the liberty of Ireland, and as he
held up his hands he said, "There shall come a day in the providence of God
when Erin, poor Erin, shall be redeemed and regenerated and disenthralled
forever." If it ever comes it shall be by the Irish people's taking
greater heed to the Word of God. This is the way to get that kind of liberty.
Let us now review a little. This letter was written by James, the half-brother
of our Lord, the son of Joseph and Mary. It was written from Jerusalem. It was
written about A.D. 45. It was written to the dispersed Jews that had become
Christians. In the analysis of this letter there was presented: First, what
James had to say concerning trials from without; that God himself chasteneth
his people for their discipline, and permits the devil and evil men to
persecute them in malice. He then tells them how to receive these trials; to
count them a joy through discipline, and if they need wisdom, to ask God for
it. But they must ask in faith, and they must have regard to the other laws of
God. For instance, a man may ask and not receive because his object is to use
what he asks for his own pleasure. The direction to go to God for this wisdom
arises from the fact that there are two kinds of wisdom, one from above, first
pure and then peaceable, and bringing forth the fruits of righteousness; the
other earthly, sensual, devilish; that does not come from God. He then shows
that these directions apply just as much to the rich man as to the poor man.
His first point is that. Still speaking in review, he then takes up the same
word, "temptation," but uses it in another sense. And concerning these
temptations from within he shows that God is not the author of them – that God
never entices any man to evil. He cannot do it on account of his nature, and he
gives only good things and never evil things; that this enticement to evil may
indeed come from the devil or from some other man, but when the sin is
committed by the man the responsibility rests upon him. It is his act, no
matter who entices – man or devil. This appears from the analysis of sin which
he gives, that every man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desire,
and that desire when it has conceived bringeth forth sin and sin when it is
full grown bringeth forth death. One of the finest points in the epistle is the
fixing of the responsibility of the commission of sin upon man.
The next subject that he discusses is the Word of God, in its nature, as a seed
implanted. In this letter James gives the offices of the Word of God. In its
first office, it is a means of regeneration – "Begotten by the word."
In its second office, it serves as a mirror. A man looking into a mirror
discovers his own imperfections. The mirror faithfully presents himself to
himself, just as he is. The Word of God is to be used as a mirror. Paul also
uses the mirror illustration in another sense. Where and what?
In the next office of the Word, it is the perfect law of liberty, that is, it
is the means through which, when properly observed, the slave to sin becomes a
freeman to Jesus Christ. That perfect law of liberty is a great pulpit theme.
There is a sermon on "The Perfect Law of Liberty" by a leading
Methodist, Joshua Soule, who was bishop in the South when the division took
place between the North and the South. It may be found in a book, The Methodist
Pulpit of the South, and it will jostle a young preacher to read it. No Baptist
will accept all of it, but it is intensely interesting.
The Word of God is the means of regeneration, a mirror for convicting of sin
and the perfect law of liberty. James then tells how this Word is communicated,
and in that way he brings out its nature as of a seed implanted: "Receive
ye the implanted word of God." And then he asks how it is to be treated
when it is received. Then he answers, "Forsake the evil which it condemns
and do the good which it enjoins." Then he gives a loose, but very
practical definition of practical religion in four strokes, two of them
negatives: "If any man thinketh himself to be religious, while he bridleth
not his tongue, but deceiveth his heart, this man's religion is vain." And
then defines pure and undefiled religion with two strokes: He must keep himself
unspotted from the world; he must visit the fatherless and the widows in their
affliction. The reader will notice the ethical use of the phrase, "Pure
and undefiled religion." Look up the etymological definition of religion.
How is the word derived? It is a big word over the world. Here we recall the
song: “Tis
religion that can give sweetest pleasures while we live; "Tis religion
must supply solid comfort when we die.
QUESTIONS
1. Give the main points in the
analysis of chapter 1.
2. How does James
characterize himself in the salutation?
3. What is in this book
about James that is astonishing?
4. How are trials from
without to be received, and why? Illustrate by Job and Paul.
5. What illustration from
the author's life?
6. What the meaning of the
word "perfect" in the New Testament?
7. Why the direction just
here concerning wisdom?
8. Illustrate by the life of
Solomon.
9. What the difference
between wisdom and knowledge?
10. What the point of the
case of the "inspired idiot"?
11. How obtain wisdom, and
what the one essential in obtaining it? Compare our Lord's and Paul's teaching
on this point.
12. What the two kinds of
wisdom, and what the characteristics of each? Compare the Greek legend of
Minerva and Milton's representation of sin.
13. What incentive to endure
trials?
14. How may the foregoing
directions be applied to rich and poor?
15. Whence come trials from
within?
16. Why does not this
enticement to sin come from God? From whom does it come, and what the proof?
17. What examples in the
letter, of James's power of analysis in tracing things to their fountain head.
18. What the complete order of
his analysis of sin? Compare the cases of Eve and Achan, and also Milton's
description of the relation of Satan, Sin, and Death.
19. What is the Word of God
as to its nature?
20. What are its offices
according to James?
21. Compare James's use of the
word "mirror" with Paul's, and illustrate each.
22. What the New Testament
idea of liberty, who the liberator, what the bondage from which delivered, how
does the Word of God operate in securing liberty, and what the perfect law of
liberty? Compare Ingersoll's lecture on it.
23. What is one of the
finest points of this letter?
24. In four strokes give
James’ practical definition of religion.
25. What is the etymological
definition of religion?
THE FAITH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST
James 2:1-26.
The second chapter of James is a discussion of one theme. It is concerning the
faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. James attempts no definition, either abstract
or theological. But in an intensely practical way he shows the distinction
between the true and the false faith in so many particulars that the chapter is
a perfect mine of religious wealth. First, the true faith must be held without
respect to persons. A man wants to know whether he has faith in Jesus Christ or
not, and James gives him the practical side of it. Good and true faith in the
Lord Jesus Christ must be without respect of persons. The man who has faith in
Jesus must not, in the exercise of that faith, make a discrimination between
people of high degree and low degree, between rich and poor people.
There is one plane of humanity and one plan of salvation, just as the eagle had
to swoop down and fly into the door of the ark over whose portals the snail
crawled.
There was not any top place for the eagle to come in. All who stand upon one
plane of humanity are to be favored with absolute impartiality, and as Paul
puts it, "In Christ there is neither male nor female, Barbarian, Scythian,
Greek nor Jew." In other words, all distinctions based on race,
nationality, tribe, property, wealth – everything of that kind is lost sight of
in the exercise of true faith in Jesus.
He gives some reasons why there must be no discrimination in the exercise of
faith in favor of the rich as against the poor: "You observe that it is
from the poor that God calls those who are richest in the faith, and that it is
the rich that oppress you, and that if you make discrimination in favor of the
rich, and you do that in the church when you meet, you dishonor the poor."
This is the first test of faith. It must be without respect to persons.
Second, it must fulfil the royal law, i.e., the words of the King of law:
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Paul says that love is the
fulfilling of the law. James calls the law to love your neighbor as yourself
the royal commandment – the king of all the commandments. Who first wrote,
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"? Who originated that? The
third test of faith is that it must be held without respect of commandments.
This faith in Jesus Christ cannot go to God's commandments and pick out some of
them and say, "I like these; I will keep them," and to others and
say, "I do not like these; I will not keep them." He goes on to show
the unity and solidarity of the law, and in that way proving that one must not
have faith with respect to commandments; that the law is a unit; it is a solid
thing, and that if a man is guilty of one thing he is guilty of all. A rope is
no stronger than its weakest part, and a chain is no stronger than its weakest
link. Suppose a man has stolen $500, and when he is brought into court he says,
"I have not killed anybody." The fact that he had not killed anybody
does not save him from any other part of the law. Therefore, James says that
they must hold their faith without any respect to commandments. In a sermon on
this subject I ventured to quote Samuel Butler, an old English poet, who tells
of those who Compound
for sins they are inclin'd to, By damning those they have no mind to. Many people lay to themselves an unction of
complacency by talking about the sins of other people: "Just look at that
murderer, or that thief," while they may, though innocent of those
particular offenses, be guilty of others just as bad.
A fair illustration of this is what I call "The New England
Conscience." I call attention to some points upon which the New England
conscience acted very strangely. Nearly all the writers from New England write
about the purity of the New England conscience. It has always been a strange
conscience to me. That conscience said, "For you to persecute us is sin.
It is all right for us to persecute you." That conscience said, "The
sin of the Southern slavery will not let us sleep, but our own sectional sins
put us to sleep." That conscience said, "It was an awful thing for
South Carolina to threaten only to nullify a Federal law, but it was patriotism
for us to nullify many times, actually, a Federal law." That New England
conscience says, "It is a sin for you people in England to persecute us,
but if we whip Roger Williams and burn a few witches that is not sin."
That conscience said, "Southern secession is treason, but it is patriotism
for us to originate and teach the doctrine of secession as the best thing for
ourselves." That conscience said, "It was treason for Beauregard to
train his guns upon the Federal flag floating over Fort Sumter," and at
the same time it canonized John Brown for pulling down the Federal flag. That
conscience said, "It was a sin for the South to disrupt the Constitution,
" while they themselves said, "The Constitution was a covenant with
death and a league with hell." That conscience pilloried Gen. Early for
burning one town, but it glorified Sheridan for burning all the homes in the
Shenandoah Valley and Sherman for burning a section seventy miles wide from
Atlanta to Savannah. That conscience said that it was a great sin for Federal
soldiers to be ill treated in the Civil War, but it was not pained at all at
the ill treatment of the Southern soldiers. I doubt not that there are Southern
sins of a like nature, for which we condemn Northern people.
James says that when one exercises faith he must exercise it without respect to
commandments. He must not discriminate. One man says, "I am a believer in
the Lord Jesus Christ, but I don't see any use in being baptized and joining
the church." In other words, he says, "It is true that baptism means
immersion, but why take a damp road to heaven, seeing that a few drops of water
are just as efficacious as the ocean?" A soul that trusts in the Lord
Jesus Christ will say, like Paul, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to
do?" And then say, "Whereupon, 0 King Agrippa, I was not disobedient
to the heavenly vision." The word of Jesus Christ will be sufficient, and
that is what James has to say upon that point.
Then he goes to the next point when he says that this faith must be
fruit-bearing. A man may say, "I will show you my faith without my
works." James says, "I show you my faith by my works." It must
be evidenced to all by work. If a thing has life there must be some sign of
that life: "Faith without works is barren." "Faith apart from
works is dead." That is what James says. You may have a faith, but just as
sure as it never works it is not worth a snap of the finger. Then he gives an
illustration in which he says, "If a brother or sister be naked and in
lack of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and
filled, and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body, what doth it
profit?"
But the reader makes a great mistake if he supposes that James's teaching upon
this subject is different from the teachings of the other New Testament
writers, our Lord, for 'instance, or Paul, who is sometimes held up in opposition
to James. Our Lord says, "Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and
doeth them not, shall be like a man who built his house upon the sand. When the
storm came . . . that house fell, and great was the fall thereof," and it
was our Lord who said, "If ye love me keep my commandments," and,
"Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you," and it was
Paul who said, "It is true, by grace ye are saved through faith and that
not of yourselves. But ye are created unto good works." Then, in the
letter to Titus he says, "When the kindness and mercy of heaven to man
appeared, not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to his
mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy
Spirit." And he goes right on to say this, that it is the grace of God
that bringeth salvation; that we should live soberly and godly in this present
world.
Both Christ and Paul agree with James that faith must evidence itself in good
works. There never would have been any controversy at all if James had not used
the word "justify" there in a peculiar sense, just like the word
"temptation." "Justify" may be a legal, forensic term, a
term of the court. We are justified by faith. That is the acquittal of God. But
our Lord uses the word "justify" in quite a different sense. He says,
"By your words shall you be justified and by your words shall ye be
condemned." So that James has in mind when he discusses justification by
works, a thought that was not in the mind of Paul. Paul takes the case of a sinner
and is trying to ascertain how that lost sinner can be declared just before
God, and he says that it is through faith and apart from works. James takes a
Christian, not a sinner, and shows how that Christian's works justify the
Christian's profession. Just as our Lord said, "The publicans and harlots
justified God." That does not mean that they acquitted God, but they
vindicated God, being baptized with the baptism of John.
James uses a second illustration in the case of Abraham, who was justified by
faith and received salvation, according to Genesis 15. That is when he was
converted. It is true in a certain sense that he believed in God, but he was
never a converted man until we find him in Genesis 15, that remarkable chapter
that introduces so many words. There it is said that Abraham believed, and it
is the first time that we come to the word. He believed Jehovah, and when he
believed he was converted. Forty years after that, this believer, Abraham, did
what God would have him to do in the case of Isaac, and the works justified
him. Justified him in what sense? Not in a legal sense, but justified him in
the sense of vindicating the profession of faith which he made. They did not
make a sinner into a Christian, but justified the profession of the Christian.
I have never yet known a commentator nor a public speaker to give any evidence
that he had noticed even this point that James now makes. He says that when
forty years after Abraham's conversion he did what God told him to do, that
then was fulfilled the scripture, which said, "And he believed on Jehovah
and it was reckoned to him for righteousness." Every time afterward 'in
his life that he obeyed God as a Christian he fulfilled the scripture which
speaks of his conversion. In other words, it was the verification, "filled
full," or "fulfilled." He says, bearing upon what was said forty
years before, that it was imputed unto him for righteousness.
Many years ago Dr. J. B. Link was the editor of The Texas Baptist Herald,
and he wrote an essay for critical examination, taking this position: "The
sinner is justified by faith; the Christian is justified by works." You
see the position. I wrote a reply to the article at the time, conceding that a
part of the 'idea in his mind was correct. A Christian makes a profession. That
Christian is a servant of Jesus Christ; his fidelity to Christ must be
attested. If he is faithful, he is declared righteous in his fidelity. In that
secondary sense works justify, not in the sense of justifying a sinner in order
to that sinner's becoming a Christian.
Precisely the same thing comes up in the case of Rahab. Her faith saved her.
That saving faith was evidenced by works, corresponding to the profession, and
these works justified the avowal of her faith, as in that passage in Timothy
where Paul says Christ was justified by the Holy Spirit, i.e., the Holy Spirit
vindicated Christ, who claimed to be the Son of God. It seems somewhat curious
to me that James and Paul, the author of the letter to the Hebrews, both of
them selected Rahab, the harlot, i.e., who had been a harlot. The reason that
she was selected is that she became an ancestress of the Lord, just like Ruth,
the Gentile; just like Bathsheba, who had been the wife of Uriah, and afterward
the real wife of David. All of these were the mothers, in the ancestral sense,
of Jesus.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the theme of
chapter 2?
2. What the marks of true
faith?
3. What the reasons for not
discriminating faith in favor of the rich against the poor?
4. What is the "royal
law," and why so called?
5. Who originated it?
6. What is meant by the
unity, or solidarity, of the law, and how does James show it?
7. What English poet is
quoted here? Compound for sins they are inclined to, By damning those they have
no mind to.
8. What modern
discriminations are made in the commandments of Jesus?
9. What was Paul's attitude
on this point?
10. What is meant by a dead
faith?
11. What James's
illustration of this kind of faith?
12. What the teaching of
Jesus on this point?
13. What the teaching of
Paul on the same point?
14. What one word used by
James caused the controversy about his letter?
15. What its meaning as used
by James? by Paul?
16. Illustrate
17. Why was Rahab selected by
James and Paul as an example of faith?
TEACHERS AND TONGUES
James 3:1-18
All of James 3 is concerning teachers. It starts out this way: "Be not
many of you teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive heavier
judgment." That is, don't be in a rush to crowd into the teacher's office,
since the teacher is held to a more stringent account than the pupil. Dr.
Broadus used to say that the ministry had a great attraction for weak minds. And
it is certain that a great many weak minds do turn to the ministry. James
merely wishes that the entering into the ministry should be a very careful,
prayerful, thoughtful step. This chapter is one of the most important parts of
the book of James, and 'indeed the Bible, and its value is simply incalculable
to young preachers. By their profession they become teachers of the word of
God; hence, no other chapter ought to be more important to them in their
official character than this chapter. He then says, "If any stumbleth not
in word, the same is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also."
He is saying that the most difficult perfection to attain is perfection in
talking; that it is harder to do right in talking than in anything else in the
world. He uses three illustrations:
1. A bridle is put into a horse's mouth – a very little thing – yet with that
bridle one can guide that horse wherever he wants him to go.
2. He uses the helm of a big ship. The helmsman with that little instrument makes
that ship go in the direction that he wants it to go.
3. "Behold, how much wood is kindled by how small a fire!" As it is
expressed in the margin, "Behold, how great a forest of trees is consumed
by a little fire!" Some one scampered along and carelessly left a fire. A
spark blew out and caught the leaves and burned up a hundred million feet of
wood timber. In the northern states and Canada, every year we have the most
appalling accounts of forest fires, and very richly the saying of James
expresses the thought, "Behold, how great a forest a little fire will burn
down!" J. R. Graves, in one of his flights of eloquence, describes a man
walking down the street lighting a cigar and throwing the match down; the match
set fire to a shaving which curled over on some other shavings, and they caught
fire and burned, and set fire to a great pile of lumber; and that lumber to a
house and that house to a block and that block to a city, and a conflagration
came that painted hell on the sky and left a hundred thousand people without
homes.
James says of teachers that when they rush into the teacher's office, they must
remember the power of the tongue for good or evil, and that it must be
controlled, as the horse must have the bridle, and the great ship the helm; and
as the thoughtlessly kindled spark may destroy a world, so must they set a
watch for the fire of their lips. In one of my opening addresses before the
Seminary, I took as my theme, "Tongues of Fire and Rivers of Water."
But we come now to a part of James that is set over against Pentecost.
Pentecost shows how the Holy Spirit sets on fire the tongues of preachers to
preach the salvation of men. Here James brings out the devil's tongues of fire
– set on fire with tongues of demons. What a theme for a sermon – Pentecost
tongues and the devil's tongues! The tongue is a little member, it is a
restless member, it is an unruly member, it is full of poison. It is set on
fire of hell, and it sets on fire the whole course of nature, when it is
kindled, just as the Holy Spirit fills the hearts of good men and gives them
tongues of fire to proclaim the word of life in love and meekness, so the devil
may kindle the tongues with a fire of hell, and use them as a means of
universal ruin. Somebody, someday, will win immortal fame in contrasting the
devil's tongues of fire and the Spirit's tongues of fire, in a sermon.
I recapitulate: The first admonition to the preachers: "Be not in haste to
enter into the teacher's office." How well our Lord speaks to this point:
"Be ye not called Rabbi; for one is your teacher and ye are all brethren.
And call no man father on the earth; for one is your Father, even he who is in
heaven. Neither be ye called masters (magister, from which we get the word
"master") for one is your master, even the Christ."
It was the characteristic fault of a Jew both at home and abroad to covet the
honor of the teacher's office more than the efficiency in the service of a
teacher. Vanity and conceit would lead men to thrust themselves forward where
angels dared not tread. Whoever is inspired to enter the teacher's office from
a spirit of vanity rather than the spirit of hard work is utterly unworthy of
the position.
Paul, in Romans 2, says, "But if thou bearest the name of a Jew, and
restest upon the law, and gloriest in God, and knowest his will, and approvest
the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law, and art
confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them that are
in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having in the law
the form of knowledge and of the truth; thou therefore that teachest another,
teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost
thou steal? thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit
adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou rob temples? thou who gloriest
in the law, through thy transgression of the law, dishonorest thou God?"
The thought of Paul is that the life of the teacher must harmonize with what he
teaches. Read Cowper on this.
Again, we are told by Paul (I Cor. 14:29) that the teaching gift must be
exercised, even when possessed, with due discretion, looking always to order
and never to confusion. His picture of the Corinthian church shows that there
were many teachers in that congregation. He says, "What is it then,
brethren? When ye come together, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a
revelation, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto
edifying." He rebukes this church because of the disorderly method of
teaching. Instead of convicting sinners, they produced an impression upon the
mind of the ignorant man and of the skeptical man that they were crazy.
Again, Paul says that one who seeks the office of a bishop must be apt to teach.
He must have the capacity to attract and hold the attention, to instruct the
mind, to awaken the conscience, to lead the convicted sinner to Christ, to
expound the word of God, rightly dividing that word. Unfortunately, the
candidates for the teacher's office are not all apt to teach. The caution to
these would-be teachers is on the line that vanity should not be the cause of
one entering the work of a teacher, seeing that he should not covet the honor
more than the work itself, and that his life and his gifts must be exercised to
the upbuilding of the church, and not confusion, and that unless he be apt to
teach, he should not seek the position of a teacher. There are men with natural
aptitude for teaching that are very ignorant. There are men full of information
and a wide range of knowledge that cannot teach at all. They cannot impart what
they know. They never wake up a soul, they never stir an audience, as
Demosthenes did his audiences. When he got through, the crowd would be wild,
and would say, "Let us fight Philip!"
His second admonition enjoins that the teacher must bridle his tongue. He gives
two reasons for this governing of the tongue. He who can govern his tongue is a
perfect man. I repeat that the word "perfect" is never used in the
New Testament in the sense of sinlessness, but 'in the sense of maturity; and
James certainly does not mean sinlessness, because he preceded his statement
with the saying that we all stumble; that we all sin some. What he means by a
"perfect" man is one who is mature; he who has bridled his tongue we
call a mature man, just as a grown person is called an adult. His two reasons
for bridling the tongue arise from its relative power for either good or evil.
He uses the illustration to which attention has already been called. We put a
bridle on a horse so as to turn his body wherever we may desire; so a bridle
should be put on our own mouths. And as a helmsman steers a mighty ship in the
storm through the use of the helm, so the one who would be a teacher must be
able in every storm of life to have power of rightly directing his course,
whatever be the direction of the wind or the force of the waves. He is led to
say in illustration of the power of the tongue, "How great a forest a
little fire destroyeth!"
His illustration is familiar in the classics. A writer has well said, "A
little torch can burn the summit of Ida." Homer says, "A spark scarce
seen fires a boundless forest." Vergil tells us of a careless shepherd who
"wraps the forest in a robe of flame" by his carelessness at his
campfire. Edgar Allan Poe tells of one who in a dream was caught up and carried
away by an angel until he saw a volcanic island without soil or fountains or
vegetation, hideous with ashes, its lava and its scars. "What is
this?" he said to the angel. The angel replied, "This is an evil word
that you spoke in yonder world that went on acting and reacting until it struck
the shores of eternity, and God crystallized it into this horrible volcanic
island." The angel then carried the dreamer away to behold another island
covered with verdure; the grass carpeted it, the flowers beautified it and
filled it with perfume. Luscious fruits bung from the boughs of many trees.
Birds were singing in the groves. Fountains were playing and sending forth living
waters. It looked like a paradise of God. Said the dreamer to the angel,
"What is this?" "This," said he, "is a good word you
spoke in yonder world. It went on acting and reacting until, striking the
shores of eternity, it was crystallized into this island of the blessed."
Another reason assigned for the teacher's keeping his tongue consists in the
fact that through the devil's gift men receive tongues of fire. As James
expresses it, "Set on fire of Gehenna." We have seen the Spirit's
display of power on the day of Pentecost, and these tongues are employed in
speaking of the wonderful works of God in leading men to salvation. He declares
that this tongue, set on fire of hell, is restless, duplex, body-defiling, and
that it sets on fire the whole wheel of nature. Man's control is vividly set
forth by James. Everything that swims, that walks, that crawls, that flies,
bath been tamed. The elephant has been trapped and trained and employed in
man's service. The huge python has been brought from his home in the forest to
become a show, and women take these hideous monsters and coil them around their
bodies with impunity. The tiger's cub has been bound with a chain, and the lion
has been caged and forced to be harmless and dumb in the presence of the
trainer. It is a fearful commentary on the untamable nature of the tongue that
it is more untamable than any wild animal of the jungle, or bird of the air, or
serpent of the rock, or fish of the sea. When set on fire of hell, this tongue
is said to be full of deadly poison. Indeed, it is declared to be a world of
iniquity; that is, there is no evil ever known to man that has not in some
instance been brought about through evil speaking.
Solomon declares that in the lips of the worthless man is a scorching fire.
David, in denouncing the evil counselor who sought his overthrow, says,
"His mouth was smooth as butter, but his heart was war. His words were
softer than oil, yet they were drawn swords." Again he prays,
"Deliver me, great Jehovah, from lying lips and from a deceitful tongue.
What shall be given unto thee, and what shall be done more unto thee, thou
deceitful tongue, sharp arrows of the mighty coals of juniper?"
The tongues of the devil in malice curse men, made in the image of God. It
becomes duplex, that is, it uses words to conceal ideas. This tongue, set on
fire by the fires of hell, whispers away the good name of the innocent. It is
given to backbiting, while friendly to the face; it slanders when the man's
back is turned. As the prophet says that the wicked in their talking eat up the
sins of God's people, the tongue set on fire of the devil is always murmuring,
always scolding and is always foul.
In an early day in the history of the Waco Association, Dr. Riddle and myself
were visiting all the churches, and one night we were bound to camp, and while
looking at the stars the conversation turned upon the conversation of
preachers, and I proposed that we enter into a solemn covenant, never while we
lived would we tell a questionable anecdote. In the course of time we got about
one hundred preachers into that covenant. And when Dr. Riddle was dying he
called his wife to him and said, "Wife, we have been together a long time
and now I am leaving you. Now, when I am dead, don't you be one of those
complaining women." Tears have come into her eyes, at least a dozen times
since the dying admonition of her husband, as she has explained to me why she
is not a murmurer or a complainer.
The third admonition is that the teacher must seek true wisdom. And as the
Spirit's tongues of fire had their opposite, the devil's tongues of fire, so
the true wisdom has its opposite, the devil's wisdom. The contrast between the
two kinds of wisdom is very sharp. One is from above and the other is earthly.
One is full of mercy and good works without variance, without hypocrisy; the
other sensual, carnal, devilish. The fruits are also contrasted. Peace is the
fruit of one and strife of the other. This contrast between the two ought to be
read whenever there is friction, evil speaking, and strife.
When I was a young man I became impressed by the vast amount of trouble that
comes from talking the wrong kind of talk, and I caught myself in talking the
wrong thing, so when I read that chapter I determined to see if I could find a
way by which I could keep from evil speech, and, particularly, from anger.
Naturally, I am impulsive, quick to take offense, quick to strike, and quick to
say, and seeing that fault 'in myself I determined to learn a way by which when
I was angry I could be silent; that I wouldn't say anything. Well, it was the
hardest thing to do that I ever tried. To be angry and not say anything! But I
certainly accomplished it. I heard my daughter when she was twenty-one years
old, say, "Papa, I have never heard you speak an angry word." That is
the best way that I know to cure anger, that is, don't say anything. If a man
just won't say anything he is safe, but he cannot when his mind is on fire with
anger keep from doing wrong if he just lets his tongue be tied in the middle
and wag at both ends.
Now, dear reader, try it. It will be a big job. When you have worked hard and
are tired it is so easy to be petulant; it is easy to growl and whine, and it
is so easy to become a man with a grievance. The world gets tired very soon of
the man who has a grievance. Just carry your sorrow in your own heart.
There are great things in this for preachers. A man might steal from a man,
might burn his house, but, if he burns a house, that burns out after a while,
but if he says something, that goes on in every direction. I have known some
lives blasted by gossip and slander just as a mighty forest fire blasts the
vast trees.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the theme of
chapter 3?
2. What is the first
admonition concerning the teacher's office?
3. What Dr. Broadus' saying
on this point?
4. What the special value of
this chapter to preachers?
5. What is the most
difficult perfection to attain?
6. What three illustrations
used by James on this point?
7. What theme for a sermon
suggested?
8. What the teaching of our
Lord on the point of rushing into the teacher's office?
9. What the characteristic
fault of the Jew?
10. What does Paul say about
the teacher and his teaching?
11. What Paul's rebuke to
the Corinthians on this line?
12. What qualification does
Paul show that one must have who seeks the office of a bishop?
13. What his second
admonition, and the application to teachers?
14. What the first reason
why a teacher should guard his tongue?
15. Give classic
illustrations of James's use of fire.
16. What Poe's illustration
of the power of a spoken word?
17. What is the second
reason of James why the teacher should keep his tongue?
18. What Solomon's testimony
on this point?
19. What David's?
20. What are some of the
things the devil's tongue can do?
21. What was the
Carroll-Riddle covenant?
22. What the teacher's need
of true wisdom?
23. Contrast the two kinds
of wisdom, as to origin, elements, and fruits.
24. What is the beat way to
cure anger?
GENERAL ADMONITIONS AND APPLICATIONS
James 4:1 to 5:20.
We will not examine the seventh general head of the analysis. Chapters 4-5
consist of general admonitions and applications. In chapter 4 we have five of
these. First, he speaks concerning the swaying of the passions, and shows that
inordinate lusts originate strife and nullify prayer. The letter of James is
remarkable for its analysis of human action. In. tracing things to their
fountain head, just as he traces sin in the abstract, so here he traces strife
and faction in the concrete – that when we covet things contrary to God's law
this lust leads us to make war upon all who oppose our selfish ends. The evil
of yielding to these inordinate desires is manifested in the fact that a man's
prayers are unanswered. He comes before God with his petitions, but God does
not hear him. He is not seeking God's glory. He is not seeking God's will, but
he is seeking that he may obtain things to be consumed upon his appetites, and
on this account his prayers are unanswered.
In the next place James shows that friendship with the world is enmity to God.
With all the clearness of our Lord himself, who taught that we cannot love God and
mammon, he sets forth the fact that one who seeks the friendship of the world
is guilty of spiritual adultery. Spiritual adultery is idolatry. The soul has
been espoused to Christ. To seek our greatest pleasure and happiness in the
world is to be guilty of marital infidelity.
Just here we come upon two difficulties. In 4:5 the common version reads,
"Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in
us lusteth to envy?" The new version reads, "Or think ye that the
scripture speaketh in vain? Doth the spirit which he made to dwell in us long
unto envying?" The first difficulty is in finding the scripture which,
according to the old version, James seems to quote. Commentators are unable to
find any passage of scripture which reads, "The spirit which dwelleth in
us lusteth to envy." Indeed, there is no such scripture. Then to what
scripture does James refer? Some have supposed that he referred to a scripture
showing that the friendship of the world is enmity with God. This could be obtained
from Matthew's gospel, but that gospel was not yet written. And it is hardly
probable that James has a back reference. We must look further on to find the
scripture, and we do find it in the restatement at the close of verse 6:
"Wherefore the scripture saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace
to the humble."
Our next difficulty on that verse consists in determining what spirit is meant
when it says, "Doth the spirit which he made to dwell in us long unto
envying?" In other words, does it refer to the Holy Spirit dwelling in the
Christian, or does it refer to our own spirit? If we interpret it to mean our
own spirit, then this is the idea: Those men whom James is rebuking were
justifying their envyings and strife by charging it to God, since the envyings
arose from the spirit which he made to dwell in them; that is, they were
naturally so constituted that they could not help this envying. Hence, James
would meet this statement by asking, "Does the spirit which he made to
dwell in us long unto envying?" His form of question indicates a denial.
Supported by his next statement, "But he giveth more grace"; that is,
"suppose you say your envying comes from your corrupt soul; God did not
corrupt your soul, and even though God did corrupt it, the corruption is your
fault or Adam's fault; yet there is no justification for yielding to it, since
he has promised grace with which to overcome this envying, and the grace is
stronger than the depravity." If, however, we make the spirit that
dwelleth in us mean the Holy Spirit, then the meaning, must be this, according
to the marginal rendering: That Spirit which he made to dwell in us yearns for
us, even unto a jealous envy. This follows the idea that the Lord God is a
jealous God; he will brook no rival. And if the soul commits adultery by
seeking the friendship of the world, it provokes the jealousy of the Spirit
which he made to dwell in us. While the passage is exceedingly difficult, my
own impression is that the first meaning given is the better one.
We now come to some of the most important directions in the Word of God
(4:7-10), which reads as follows: "Be subject therefore unto God; but
resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw
nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye
double-minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned
to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourself in the sight of the
Lord, and he shall exalt you." This expression gives the means by which we
obtain control of our passions, and by which we resist the enticements of the
world. This text is twice expounded in the author's first book of sermons. It
constitutes a marvelous theme for a revival meeting. It shows that we must be
under one leader or the other – God or the devil. It not only calls upon us to
resist the devil, but assures us that we have the power to resist him and turn
him to flight. It is an exhortation to contrition, repentance, and faith. The
contrition is expressed by the words, "Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep.
Humble yourself in the sight of God." The reformation following repentance
is expressed by cleansing of the hands from sin and purifying the heart from
double-mindedness; the faith is expressed by submission to God.
It is greatly to be feared that much of the preaching of modem times has lost
its depth and power. The plow does not run deep enough. There is no deep
conviction of sin. There is no mourning for sin such as we find set forth in
Zechariah 13. We find our way to a modern profession of religion, dry-eyed.
There is no weeping in it. And hence, feeling ourselves to be but little
sinners, we need only a little Saviour.
The next admonition relates to censoriousness – that spirit that continually
judges another. Here James follows, as almost throughout the epistle, our
Lord's great Sermon on the Mount where he says, "Judge not, that ye be not
judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you." The censorious spirit,
says James, violates the law of God and usurps the divine prerogative of
judgment. There is one Judge and one Law maker.
From the evil of censoriousness he passes to consider the evil of the
commercial spirit, a sin of which the Jews of the dispersion were pre-eminently
guilty. It is true that their several captivities led to the deportation of
many thousands of their people in different ages of the world. But a mightier
power than the Assyrians, mightier than Nebuchadnezzar, mightier than Pompey,
deported the Jews from their own land, and this was the spirit of trade. Cut
off from the great honors of a free national government, all of their energies
were turned to money making. Their merchant ships were on every sea; their
peddlers in every land. As they were then, so they are now. James does not
condemn commerce. They presumed on the uncertainty of the future and ignored
God. Without counting on the brevity of human life and their ignorance of what
a day might bring forth, without considering the providence of God, the Jew,
incited by his love of trade, would say in mapping out his plans,
"To-morrow we will go into this city, and spend a year there, and trade
and get gain." James said they should have said, "If the Lord will,
we shall both live, and do this or that." His teaching harmonizes with the
old proverb, "Man proposes, but God disposes." The recklessness
evinced by the Jews of the dispersion in yielding to a commercial spirit which
took no account of time or the brevity of life or of the government of God. in
less degree characterizes the traders of the Gentile world today. Men leave God
out of their calculations. Men consider not their own frailty or the
uncertainties of life.
Chapter 5 also is devoted to five applications of these admonitions. The first
is a denunciation of the rich. Of course he means the Godless rich, and what he
says is more needed now than when he said it. He sees the miseries of the rich
coming upon them. They accumulate more wealth than they can use, and hence
become corrupt. In their strenuous desire to become wealthy, they disregarded
the rights of their employees. The men whose money made their wealth are
treated as machines or as dumb brutes. The cry of the toilers goes up to the
Lord of hosts, just as the Israelites in bondage in Egypt cried out and God
heard their cry and came down to intervene. They are warned that they are
sapping their virility by delicate living, and that in their greed to amass
fortunes, they have not hesitated to kill the righteous. The pages of modern
magazines and newspapers are ablaze with denunciations of millionaires and
syndicates and their measures. Political parties are aligning themselves upon
the issues raised between the rich and their employees, or between the rich men
and the people who have been robbed by their methods of trade.
The general theme of this letter is patient endurance of affliction. In 5:12 we
have this language: "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither
by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath: but let your yea be
yea, and your nay be nay; that you fall not under judgment." James is not
talking at all about oaths that one takes in a court room, nor oaths unto God,
but he is discussing the question of the outlet of our emotions when we are in
great trouble or great joy. He says that if we are in great trouble, we should
not swear. Notice how common it is for men who are afflicted to curse. And in
the same way some people, when they are very happy, give an outlet to their
emotions in swearing. The thought of James is this: In the deep emotions which
come to a human being in the vicissitudes of his life, never let swearing be
the outlet.
Then he goes on to tell what shall be the outlet. He says, "If any of you
are suffering, don't swear, but pray. Let prayer be the outlet." Again, if
filled with great joy; if the heart is bubbling over with happiness, how may
one keep from making a mistake in the outlet of these emotions? James says in
that case, "Sing psalms."
We will be sure to misinterpret this letter unless we understand what his
object is. The object is to show both negatively and positively what outlet
shall be given to the emotions when one is greatly stirred up, either from
afflictions or joy. Just at the point of great suffering or great joy comes a
danger. What are you going to say? Are you going to swear or pray or sing
psalms?
James now comes to a case of sickness. "Is any among you sick? Let him
call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him
with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save him that
is sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, it
shall be forgiven him."
The first thought in connection with the scripture is the word,
"elders." Carefully note these scriptures: Acts 11:30, which precedes
in time James's letter; Acts 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22; 16:4; 21:18. No one can
read these passages about the elders without noting that .there is a
distinction between a layman and an elder – that the latter has an office –
that he occupies a representative position. In the pastoral epistles there are
many references to elders, and the term elder, (Greek, presbuteros,) is
used interchangeably with episkopos, "bishop" or
"pastor," showing that an elder was a preacher. The only difference I
see between the New Testament churches and the Baptist churches of the present
time upon that subject is that at the present time Baptist churches pay no sort
of regard to any sort of elder in their church unless he is their pastor. In
the New Testament churches the preachers of the church, those who had been set
apart as God's ministers, though only one of them could be pastor of the flock,
yet every one of the others was treated as an officer of the church of Jesus Christ
and entitled to consideration. In Acts II when Paul and the bishops took that
collection to Jerusalem, they turned it over to the elders. If a man is sick
let him send for the elders of the church. Good commentators see in that
direction that when the elders respond to that invitation they come in a
representative capacity. It is as if the church had been assembled to pray for
the sick man. The preachers come together and pray in the name of the church.
The next thing is, What do they do? This scripture says, "Let them anoint
him with oil in the name of the Lord." We come to this question, Was that
oil to be used for medicinal purposes, as Dr. Eaton says in The Recorder, and
as Dr. Winkler says in his Commentary on the Book of James I (A part of the
"American Commentary," and withal about the best commentary on James
that I know.)
I cannot agree with these brethren. I don't think that oil was used as a
medicine. I think if there had been a desire to secure medical help, James
would have said, "Send for the doctor." But he says, "Send for
the elders of the church and let them anoint him with oil." Another reason
why I don't think oil was put upon the sick man for medicinal purposes is that
while oil is a splendid remedy for some sickness, it is no remedy for a good
many others. It is a good medicine when a man has a fever. The third reason is
that it was not the oil that procured the recovery from sickness. It distinctly
says that the prayer of faith and not the oil shall heal the man. It seems
clear to my mind, then, that the anointing with oil was not to make doctors out
of preachers.
Then it must have been used symbolically. A holy anointing of oil was poured
upon the heads of kings, prophets, and priests, and this oil signified the
influence of the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is the Anointed One. He is not
anointed with the symbolic oil, but with what the oil symbolizes. I think,
then, that the use of the oil was symbolic of the accompanying power of the
Holy Spirit, just as the laying on of the hands in ordination is a symbolic
act. It symbolizes the descent of the Holy Spirit on the man ordained, to
qualify him for preaching.
Here is another question: Is James giving a direction for all times? In other
words, is that direction binding upon us now? Or was it simply carrying out
what is expressed in Mark 6: 13? When Jesus sent out the twelve apostles and
told them to heal the sick, cast out demons, the record says (Mark 6:10),
"They anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them." That
is to say, it was in the apostolic days a miraculous, divine attestation of
those who employed it. And James is living and writing in the days of the
apostles. He is the earliest of the New Testament writers. At that time the
apostles were still living and had that commission of our Lord to anoint with
oil and heal the sick, and that commission through the apostles comes to the
church.
My own judgment is that James speaks of the miraculous attestation of the
church, and when the attesting was complete, the sign ended.
I have never felt that an obligation rested upon me as a preacher to go to the
sick and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord in the expectation that
they should be miraculously healed.
There are some good brethren who believe that this injunction was meant for all
time, and so all along through the ages there have been those that held that
the right thing to do with the sick was to send for the preachers and let the
preachers carry out this injunction. I have never carried out the injunction because
I did not believe the injunction rested on me. It is evident that this method
of healing, a miraculous method, even in the days of the apostles, was not a
constant thing. It was simply a sign occasionally used.
For instance, Paul says, "I left Trophimus at Miletus sick." Why did
not he anoint him with oil and raise him up, if this was the standing order? To
Timothy, who was in feeble health, he prescribes wine, not oil. Timothy was a
teetotaler and did not believe he ought to touch ardent drinks. Paul says in
this particular case, "Use a little wine for thy stomach's sake." Why
did not he tell them to anoint Timothy with oil? Paul had a thorn in his own
flesh) but he did not send for the elders of the church to come and anoint him
with oil.
My point is that these were directions of attestation, a marvelous
manifestation of the miraculous power of the Spirit of God for specific
purposes, just as tongues were for a sign. But tongues were to cease, and
miracles were to cease, and prophecies were to fail just as soon as they
accomplished their object. That is what James refers to here.
But one may ask me if at the present time I pray for sick people to get well. I
say, "Yes." Prayer is to be kept up; prayer never ceases. The anointing
with oil that was a symbol of the miraculous power may cease, but the praying
does not cease, and I pray for sick people that if it be God's will they may
get well. In some instances they do get well, but in some instances it is not
God's will that they should get well, so they die. When a man is invited to
pray for the recovery of a sick person he ought to do it, and he ought when he
prays to submit the disposition of the matter to the will of God, otherwise it
would mean that if a little band of praying people got together it would stop
death over the world, which was not the purpose of God. We cannot escape death.
The Roman Catholic Church establishes upon this passage of James what they call
the sacrament of "extreme unction," one of the seven sacraments. When
a Catholic is given up by his physicians, and he is in articulo mortis,
they anoint him, and on account of his dying state they call it extreme unction
– the last anointing. The trouble about getting that from this passage is that
James prescribes a duty for recovery. They appoint a sacrament for the dying.
The Romanist also tells us how that oil is to be made – that it is valueless
unless the bishop makes it and the priest anoints.
The Roman Catholic was at one time the state religion of England and continued
so until the time of Henry VIII, and the Episcopalians retained in their ritual
a great many things that had been handed down to them through the Romanists.
Here is what their prayer book says must be done when a man is about to die. It
is in the first prayer book of Edward VI: "If the sick person desires to
be anointed, then shall the priest anoint him upon the forehead or breast only,
making the sign of the cross, saying, 'As with this oil I anoint thee, may
Almighty God grant of his infinite goodness that thy soul inwardly may be
anointed with the Holy Ghost who is the spirit of all strength from relief and
sickness, and vouchsafe from his great mercy, if it be his perfect will to
restore unto thee bodily health and strength to serve him.' " There is no
harm in the prayer itself. From the particular case James enlarges:
"Confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray one for another,
that ye may be healed." This extends beyond elders. The confession of sins
is a doctrine of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. John the Baptist
would not baptize a man who did not confess his sins. He baptized them in the
river Jordan, confessing their sins. John says, "If we confess our sins,
he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins."
A question here arises about the confession, and on that is a great deal of
remarkable history in the annals of the so-called churches. They have gotten
themselves into a good deal of trouble on it. Some of them used to take the
position that a man was under obligation to get up and confess every sin
publicly that he had been guilty of since the church met before. Then they fell
upon the method that the confession should indeed be made, but it should be
made privately and let the preacher advise whether it should be made public.
They tried that until one preacher made a public announcement of sin confessed
without the consent of the man who confessed to him, and that created such a
fury that they stopped it.
What James means is this: If I do wrong to a brother I must confess to him my
wrong. If he wrongs me, he confesses that wrong to me. If I have sinned against
God, I must confess that sin to God. The confession, then, must be made to the
one who has been wronged. Sometimes a man wrongs the church, that is to say, he
is guilty of such open, public, outrageous sin, like drunkenness, that a
confession is due to the church and he must confess to the church in such a
case. But suppose I have only had wrong thoughts in my mind, must I confess to
the church? No, I should confess that to God. Go right along and confess that
wrong fully to him, but not to the world.
Upon what James has said about confession the Romanists have another doctrine
called "auricular confession," or a confession in the ear. Every priest
has a certain station in the church building, with a little bit of a window. He
is shut up on the inside and puts his ear to that opening, and each member of
the congregation is compelled once every year at least to come and whisper into
the ear of the priest every sin he has committed. In that way they get
possession of the secrets of the world. They know all the skeletons in every
family. It becomes a tremendous power in their hands.
They connect this doctrine with penance. When a lady leans over and tells what
sins she is guilty of, he prescribes a penance: "You must recite so many
Ave Maria's. You must fast so many days. You must pay so much money." When
the penance is performed, then they have their doctrine of absolution. The
priest absolves from sin the one who has confessed and done penance. There is
not one thing in this passage to warrant auricular confession with its
attendant usage. In the time of the Protestant Revolution the Council of Trent
passed a decree to this effect: "Let anyone be anathematized who denies
that sacramental confession was instituted of divine right, or who denies that
it is necessary to salvation, or who says that the manner of confession to the
priest alone, which the church has observed from the beginning and doth still
observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ and is a human
invention." So they make it essential to salvation.
Many a time have persons come to me and started to tell things. I say,
"Stop; hold on, I am no priest. I don't know what you are going to tell
me. It may be something you ought not to tell me. If it is absolutely essential
to right advice that I know, you may tell me, but you must carefully think over
in your mind before you make that confession." Three times in my life I
have had jarring, startling confessions made to me. It would beat a novel if I
were to tell what they were, but I will not. I say to the one who is in
trouble, if you have sinned against God, go and confess to God. If you have
sinned against your neighbor, go and confess to your neighbor; but I am sure
that because I am a preacher, I cannot be made the receptacle of every slimy
thought that ever crawled through the minds of the people where I live, and of
every evil imagination. I would rather be dead than have to listen to such
things. But sometimes I have to let them tell me to get them out of the ditch
they are in.
James then cites the case of the power of Elijah's praying, and lest anyone
might say that Elijah was a prophet, he goes on to state that Elijah was a man
of like passions with us and be prayed that it might not rain and it rained
not; and he prayed that it might rain and it did rain. That brings up the
question whether it is the proper thing now to pray for rain.
I say, "Yes, pray for anything." There is nothing in the world that
man needs either in body or soul that should be excluded from the petition.
I never shall forget a statement made by Dr. Ford when he returned from
England, having visited Mr. Muller, called "the man of faith." When
he got to the place he was very anxious to see the most remarkable man of faith
living in the world, but Mr. Muller had gone away and had not returned. They
were all assembled, and it was a time of horrible drought. Dr. Ford himself had
been choked with dust in getting to the place where they had called all the
people together to pray for rain. About that time Mr. Muller himself walked in,
covered with dust. One of the deacons got up and said, 'Mr. Muller, we are
distressed about the drought, and we thought we ought to take it to the Lord.
Is it right to pray for rain?" And he said, "Yes, let us pray."
Then he stood up and prayed just like a little child: "Oh Lord, look at
the dumb brutes, lowing for water and perishing. See the travelers choked with
the dust on the thoroughfares. See the people's crops and gardens impoverished;
Lord God, send rain to thy people." And before they were dismissed the
rain came that flooded all that section of the country. Dr. Ford in telling
about it said the most impressive thing he ever witnessed in his life was Mr.
Muller's childlike manner and the faith with which he took hold of the promises
of God.
The scientists say that to pray for rain is an attempt to change the laws of
nature. Not a bit of it. Why, then, pray for anything else? The scientists say
that the way to get wisdom is to study for it. There is not anything that we
can pray for at all if we let that argument hold.
We now reach the last thing in the book: "My brethren, if any among you
err from the truth." James does not mean if he goes astray in doctrine.
James does not discuss doctrine. To err from the truth with James was to go
astray in practical religion from God. "And one convert him, let him know
that he who converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul
from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins." What is the
signification of "cover a multitude of sins"? Then, whose sins? The
Romanist says it is the sins of the man who does the converting, as if to say,
"Now if you want to accumulate a fund of righteousness that will be to
your account by which you may be justified on the last great day, convert some
one else from the error of his way and thus cover your sins." That is the
thought and that is the doctrine involved in it, but that was not the thought
of James. It is not the converter's sin that will be covered, for nothing is
said about his sins, but it is the sins of the one to be converted that are to
be covered.
Then, what does "cover" mean? There is a proverbial expression that
charity covereth a multitude of sins. It is so used in the book of Proverbs. It
is so used in the letter of Peter. That is to say, "Love is not
censoriousness." It does not look for specks and spots and deficiencies,
and when it sees faults, it is more apt to put the mantle of charity over them
than to unveil them. Does this mean that kind of covering of sin? I will tell
you why I don't think so. "He who converteth a sinner from the error of
his way shall save a soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins."
It is his salvation that is accomplished. Here is a sinner who has erred in his
life and has gone away from the law of God. He is one whose steps take hold of
death and hell, and we are exhorted to try to save him by prayer, by faithful
admonitions, by preaching to him the means of salvation, and then encouragement
is given us that if we do become the means of his salvation, we have saved a
soul from death and covered a multitude of sins. What does that
"cover" mean? In Psalm 32 David says, "Blessed is the man whose
sin is covered. Unto him the Lord imputeth not iniquity." There the
covering gets its idea from the mercy seat, that the sin is counted covered
which by faith has been placed in Jesus Christ and forgiveness comes. Paul
quotes David: "Blessed is the man whose sin is covered," and shows
that it means justification, forgiveness of sins.
QUESTIONS
1. Of what do chapters 4-5
consist?
2. How many in chapter 4?
3. What is the first one,
and its relation to prayer?
4. How does James characterize
the friendship of the world?
5. What the two difficulties
of 4:5, and what their solution?
6. What is taught. in
4:7-10?
7. What apprehension about
modern preaching?
8. What admonitions on
censoriousness, where is found the same teaching of our Lord, and in what does
the sin consist?
9. What was the sin of which
the Jews of the dispersion were preeminently guilty?
10. now did this sin cause
their dispersion, and in what did it consist?
11. What prescription was
given by James for those possessed with this spirit?
12. What is James's attitude
toward the problems of "capital and labor"?
13. What the general theme
of this letter?
14. What does James mean,
both negatively and positively, by "swear not at all"?
15. What prescription does
he give for the outlet of sorrow or joy?
16. What the distinction
between elder and pastor, and what capacity of the elder here referred to?
17. Was the anointing oil
here to be used as medicine? Give three reasons for your answer.
18. What then the use made
of the oil?
19. Does James give a
direction for all times? If not, then explain and give proof.
20. Is it right to pray for
the sick? If so, how?
21. What
"sacrament" of the Catholic Church based upon this passage?
22. What the fallacy of this
Romanist position?
23. What does James say
about confession, what remarkable history connected with it, and what the real
meaning of the passage?
24. What institution of the
Catholic's based upon this passage, and what its evils?
25. Is it right to pray for
rain? Illustrate.
26. In 5:19 what is meant by
"err from the truth"?
27. In 5:20 whose sins are
referred to?
28. What is meant by
"cover a multitude of sins"?
INTRODUCTION TO 1 THESSALONIANS
We shall now consider "the apostolic letters which made glad the young and
foe-girt churches of the Lord." These letters of Paul constitute the
richest legacy of inspiration and inestimable treasure – a sacred deposit of
truth. The apostle Paul 'is connected directly with fourteen of the New
Testament books and indirectly with four others, making eighteen in all. So
that one may get a connected New Testament spirit of Paul by reading in the
following order these eighteen books of the New Testament:
1. Luke, which is called the Pauline Gospel.
2. Acts.
3. 1 and 2 Thessalonians.
4. 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans.
5. Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians, and Hebrews.
6. 1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy.
7. James.
8. 2 Peter
The letters of Paul are divided into four groups. The
first group was written on his second great missionary tour, and consists of I
and 2 Thessalonians. The second group was written on his third great missionary
tour, consisting of 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans. The third group
consists of letters written when he was first a prisoner at Rome, viz.:
Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians, and Hebrews. The fourth group
consists of letters written after his release from the first captivity at Rome,
viz.; 1 Timothy, Titus, and 2 Timothy. These were written in the interval
between his first and second imprisonments, and at Rome during his second
captivity just before his martyrdom.
These groups differ from one another very much in the doctrinal matters
discussed, and in style. The first group, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, discusses
mainly what in theology is called Eschatology – the doctrine of the last
things. The whole of these two letters is grouped around the doctrine of the
second coming of Christ. The clearest teachings on the second coming of Christ
are in 1 and 2 Thessalonians. There are other places where the doctrine is
taught, particularly in our Lord's great prophecy, 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Peter
3, but these letters were written specifically upon that subject.
The next group of letters, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans, was
called forth mainly by the controversy between the Judaizing spirit in the
churches, which would make Christianity a mere sect of the Jews, and the
Pauline spirit in the churches, which would lead the churches away from the
narrow Jewish limitations into a worldwide religion. In the third group, his
doctrine goes to higher things, the controversy not being -on making Gentiles
become Jews in order to be Christians, but shall Christians reject Christ and
his gospel and relapse into Judaism?
Before commencing the study of Paul's letters it is well to fix the following
things in our minds about him:
1. His history from his birth to his conversion, that is, up to the time that
he is thirty-three or thirty-four years old.
2. That nine years of his life from his conversion until he entered on his
great missionary work. Three years of this period were devoted to the
preparation in receiving the gospel and six years in preaching at Damascus, at
Jerusalem, in Cilicia, and in Syria. There is very little history about that
nine years in the Bible.
3. The period of active missionary labor, about fifteen years, covering the
three great missionary tours described in Acts 13-21, and in which he wrote the
letters to the Theasalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans.
4. The period of his imprisonment at Jerusalem, at Caesarea, on his voyage to
Rome, and in Rome. In that time he wrote five great letters – Philippians,
Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians, and Hebrews. We have very little account of
this part of his life.
5. The period of his release from captivity, in which he wrote 1 Timothy and
Titus. We gather the history of this period from his pastoral letters.
6. The period of his second captivity at Rome and his martyrdom. In this period
he wrote 2 Timothy.
In the Acts we see Paul as he appears to the historian, Luke. In his letters we
see him as he appeared to himself. These letters constitute a literature in
themselves, of great variety in matter and style. Some of them, like Galatians,
are a rushing, impetuous torrent; others, like Romans, Ephesians, and Hebrews,
are calm, deliberate, logical, approaching the form of an elaborate treatise;
some are personal and exquisitely tender, as Philemon; some are developments of
the main thought 'in previous and more local letters, as Romans from Galatians,
Ephesians from Colossians and Philippians, and all of them matchless, each of
its kind.
In commencing this great series with 1 Thessalonians, we should fix in our
minds the geographical place of the city, Thessalonica, and somewhat of its
history. On the second great missionary journey Paul came to Troas, starting
from Antioch. There he received a call to go into Macedonia and help the people
there. At Philippi a church was established. That is the first place where he
preached the gospel in Europe. There he strikes the Roman road which extends
from Constantinople, or Byzantium, to Rome. That was one of the best worked
roads in the world. It connected Rome, the Western Empire, with Constantinople,
the Eastern Empire. When Paul left Philippi, he came to Thessalonica, passing
two places on the way without stopping. The geographical position of that place
in every age of history has been reckoned as very important, not only because
it was on that great road, but because it was at the head of the commerce of
the Aegean Sea, connecting with the Mediterranean Sea, and also because it
commands the passes between the high mountains.
Every Bible student ought to know something about Thessalonica before Paul came
there. Away back in Grecian history the name was Therma, or Hot Springs, just
like Hot Springs, Arkansas. Three hundred and fifteen years before Christ, just
after Alexander the Great died, Cassander, one of his generals, married
Thessalonica, and made that Hot Springs a great city and named it after his
wife, Thessalonica. She was the daughter of King Philip of Macedon, and the daughter
of Alexander the Great. It became a very populous and very important city.
About 168 B.C. Macedonia was conquered by Rome and divided into four districts,
and the capital of one of these districts was Thessalonica. Afterward the
districts were abolished, and they had just one province, and Thessalonica was
the capital of that province. About A.D. 42, just after the great battle at
Philippi between Octavius Caesar and Mark Anthony on the one side, and Brutus
and Cassius on the other side, Thessalonica was made a free city. Strabo, the
great geographer of the age about 24 B.C., said that Thessalonica was the most
populous town in Macedonia, and the same thing was said in the second century
after Christ, and in the fifth century after Christ it had 200,000 inhabitants.
There are about 100,000 people there now. It is today the second city in
importance in what is called Turkey in Europe, and the third in population.
About a third of these people are Jews. Up to a short time ago three great
cathedrals were there, built by Christians, but they have passed into the hands
of Mohammedans and become mosques. Something over twenty years ago the chief
one of these cathedrals, the Mosque of St. Sofia, was destroyed by fire, to the
regret of the whole world on account of its magnificence and of marvelous
relics of ancient times kept there.
This city was captured by the Saracens, or Mohammedans, in A.D. 934, after a
long and desperate siege. These Saracens held it until A.D. 1185, when the Crusaders
recaptured it. There are some marvelous things in the history of these two
sieges. The Crusaders held it until 1430, not far from the time that Columbus
discovered America, when the Turks captured it, and have held it ever since.
It was a favorite stopping place of Cicero. Some of his most famous letters
were written from Thessalonica. He was there with Pompey's army just before
that army was defeated at the battle of Pharsolus. It is interesting to compare
those letters of Cicero, written from Thessalonica, with those two letters that
Paul wrote to the people of Thessalonica not more than 100 years later. (See
introduction to Thessalonians in Cambridge Bible.)
The church established by Paul at Thessalonica, with all of its subsequent
development down to the present time, has been a very famous theme in church
history. It got the reputation of being called the orthodox city, and it became
the center of the wonderful missionary activity when the Goths and the Slavs
invaded that country. These Christian people determined to convert them, and
Thessalonica headed the great missionary movement. It now affiliates with the
Greek Catholic Church and has done so for many hundred years. A Greek Catholic
Archbishop lives there,, and most of them haven't much religion. This is a
brief account of that place before and after the apostle Paul touched it.
But let us see how Christianity reached Thessalonica. Turn to Acts 17 and read
carefully verses 1-9 which give the histopical account of the establishment of
the church at Thessalonica by Paul, Silas, and Timothy: "Now when they had
passed through Amphiboles and Apologia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a
synagogue of the Jews." They always liked to commence their preaching at a
synagogue because, first, they felt they ought to lead the Jews to Christ, and
second, because grouped around the synagogue was always a large class of
Gentiles who had been proselyted with different degrees of proselytism to the
Jews. There were quite a number of them in Thessalonica who had become
disgusted with the idolatry of the heathen and were attracted by the pure
monotheism of the Jews. The gospel was received more readily by Jewish
proselytes than by any other class. Then the synagogue gave them a house in
which to preach, as well as a congregation, until the line had to be sharply
drawn. "And Paul, as his custom was, went in unto them, and for three
sabbath days [He met them on their own sabbath days.] reasoned with them from
the scriptures." In their synagogue, on their sabbath day, out of their
Holy Book he reasoned with them.
Let us see what he talked about: "Opening and alleging that it behooved
the Christ to suffer." He showed that the Old Testament books taught that
the Messiah must die, plainly as prophesied by Isaiah (Isa. 5S), or typically,
as in the sacrifices which foreshadowed his vicarious expiation. It was a hard
thing to convince a Jew that when his Messiah came he must die. Then Paul had
to prove his second position: "This Jesus whom I proclaim unto you is your
Messiah." You see what a logician Paul was, and how tactful: "I will
come to your house. I will come to your day of worship. I will take your own
books and let them be my text-books, and prove from these Old Testament
scriptures that the Messiah set forth in them was to die and rise again the
third day. That is my first proposition. Then I will prove to you that Jesus of
Nazareth, whom I preached unto you, is that Messiah."
That lasted three sabbath days. Let us see with what result: "And some of
them were persuaded, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout
Greeks a great multitude [They always came in more readily.], and of the chief
women. not a few." Notice how the gospel reaches women. See how it reached
Lydia back yonder at the place for a prayer meeting in Philippi, where they did
not have a synagogue. Notice how it reached them under the preaching of Christ.
Imagine those chief Greek ladies in that city, those that thought and had
hearts, and consciences, seeing the shameful degradation of woman under the
heathen idolatries, how intently they listened to a religion that exalts woman,
lifts her from slavery, makes her the companion and equal of man and the
subject of divine grace.
"But the Jews [here we come to the struggle], being moved with jealousy,
took unto them certain vile fellows of the rabble." We have them in every
city, called the "riff-raff – toughs." What a mean thing it was to
conspire with that kind of a crowd to raise a mob against those preachers! Yet,
I have known similar things to be done. "And gathering a crowd, set all
the city in an uproar; and assaulting the house of Jason, they sought to bring
them forth to the people. And when they found them not, they dragged Jason and
certain brethren before the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned
the world upside down have come hither also."
This is the accusation – that they were revolutionary; that they were guilty of
treason against Caesar, since they set up another king, one Jesus. Precisely
the same charges were brought against Christ – treason and sedition. "And
they troubled the multitude and the rulers of the city, when they heard these
things." Those Roman judges, however, were not very easily led aside to do
a wrong thing. In jurisprudence, the Romans were the most just of all the
governments of the ancient world. So they took security. Far back goes the
custom of putting a man under bond: "And when they had taken security from
Jason and the rest, they let them go." That is the history in the Acts.
The first and second letters to the Thessalonians bring out many details of
that work that Luke in his account in the Acts does not give. Let us see what
Paul preached while he was there. First, as I have shown, he preached to the
Jews, showing that the Old Testament Messiah must suffer and die and rise again
from the dead, and that Jesus was that Messiah. Then he set forth the purpose
of that death. That was to the Jews. When they spoke to the Gentiles they told
forth the falsity and the wickedness of idolatry. We learn that many of them
turned from their idols and served the true and living God. They preached the
glorious kingdom of God, and Jesus Christ the King. Here was one world empire,
Rome. They preached another world empire and Jesus Christ as the King. And particularly
did he emphasize that Jesus, who died, rose again, and ascended to heaven, will
come a second time to judge the world in righteousness. I will show how this
matter is brought out. In 1 Thessalonians 1:10 it says, "And to wait for
his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, who delivereth
us from the wrath to come."
Take 2:19: "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of glorying? Are not
even ye, before our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?" Take 3:13: "To
the end he may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before our God and
Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints." Take 4:1418;
it is all about the second coming of Christ. Take 5:23: your spirit and soul
and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ." I have given you a passage in each chapter of that letter bearing
upon the second coming of Christ. We will discuss these things more
particularly when we go to discuss the letter itself. I am showing you what he
preached at Thessalonica.
The doctrines that he preached were closely followed by moral applications. The
morals of the poor people among the heathen were awful, and the upper classes
were worse than they. Paul preached to them that they must be pure in life. The
worship of their idols was accompanied with debasing forms of adultery and
fornication. These people of Thessalonica were not half as moral in their lives
as the lowest and most ignorant of the Negroes here in this country, with their
crude ideas of the sanctity of marriage and the purity of life. Paul emphasized
the doctrine of purity. Then he emphasized the doctrine of loving the brethren
and, particularly, he struck them a hard blow on honest self-support. The
streets of those old cities then were filled with idlers and loafers, hanging
around and begging. If we were to walk through the streets of Thessalonica
today, we would need a guard to keep off the professional beggars. Paul laid
down the unwelcome proposition that professors of faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ who would not work, should not eat. What a wonderful doctrine for the
time and place! What a reforming power it must have been with that kind of a
population! It is a pity that the great cities of the Latin race and of the
Orient do not now have the doctrine that a grown man who hangs around in rags
and begs, without visible means of support, is not entitled to respect and
ought not to be allowed to eat. It was on this account that he himself worked
night and day to support himself. He wanted to give them an example. He writes
to them and tells them that he had a right to demand a support from them, but
he did not exact his right. He wanted to uphold the dignity and majesty and
honor of good, honest, hard work. We ought not to have any respect for a
religion that makes idlers now.
That is what he preached, and the results we have already seen: a few Jews, a
great many proselytes, including the most honorable women in the city, were
converted, and as soon as the line was drawn the Jews began to persecute, and
he told them when he came back with his sores from stripes received at Philippi
that there was nothing ahead of him but death, bonds, and imprisonment. He told
these poor people, and reminded them of the fact that he had told them before, that
they who follow Christ must suffer persecution. It was no easy path that he
pointed out to them.
Now, compelled to leave there under the circumstances of that persecution, we
want to know how long it was before he wrote this letter. Luke tells us that he
went from there to Berea. He left that big road and went off to the quiet
country. He stayed there until the Jews at Thessalonica followed him and raised
a persecution against him. Then he left Berea and they took him to Athens.
There he preached, and from Athens he went to Corinth. From Athens he sent
Timothy back to Thessalonica to find out how these people were getting along,
and so we learn in Acts 18:5 that Timothy rejoined him at Corinth, and we learn
from 1 Thessalonians 3:6, his first letter, the same thing: "But when
Timothy came even now unto us from you, and brought us glad tidings of your
faith and love, and that ye have good remembrance of us always, longing to see
us, even as we also to see you." There is the occasion of the letter. Who
wrote it? Paul. Where? At Corinth. When? About five or six months after be left
Thessalonica.
What is the character, or style, of this letter as a piece of composition?
Everybody is glad that it is not a logical treatise; that it is not a sermon.
Everybody is glad that it is a letter from the heart, Just as if he were
speaking face to face with these people, pouring out his heart to them. The
letter of a missionary to a church where he has labored with much pain and
affliction, and yet with great success; full of love, full of consolation, full
of exhortation, every line of it blazes with his own fiery impulse and
passionate devotion to Christ, and love for them.
Introduction (1:1).
1. Reminding them of the past (1:2 to 3:13).
(a) When he was with them (1:2 to 2:20).
(b) Since his departure (3:1-13).
2. Exhortations for the future (4:1 to 5:25).
Farewell Salutation (5:26-28).
QUESTIONS
1. What the comparative
value of Paul's letters?
2. What eighteen books must one
read to understand fully the spirit of Paul?
3. How many and what groups
of Paul's letters, what the books of each group, and when and where was each
book written?
4. Of what does each group
treat?
5. What are the periods of
Paul's life?
6. What the different views
of Paul in the Acts and his letters?
7. What the variety of style
in his letters?
8. What the geographical
situation of Thessalonica, and what the land and sea advantages?
9. What the history of
Thessalonica before Paul went there??
10. What its history since
Paul's day, and what its present condition?
11. What distinguished Roman
citizen wrote letters from Thessalonica, and how do they compare with Paul's
letters to the church there?
12. What the place of the church
at Thessalonica in history, what its missionary activity, and with what church
do the people there now affiliate?
13. Give briefly how
Christianity reached Thessalonica, Paul's method there, and the results?
14. What did Paul preach
while he was there?
15. What of the moral
condition of these people, and how did Paul deal with it?
16. What the occasion of
this letter?
17. Who wrote it?
18. Where did he write it?
19. When did he write it?
20. What is the character,
or style, of this letter as a piece of composition?
21. Give the short analysis
by Broadus.
EXPOSITION 1 Thessalonians 1:1 to 3: 13.
We shall follow a full and extended analysis that takes cognizance of everything
in this letter. In that analysis the first thing that we consider is the
salutation: "Paul, and Silvanus, and Timothy, unto the church of the
Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and
peace." It was customary in ancient times for a salutation to introduce
two matters. The Romans particularly had that habit.
In this salutation the first question is, Who saluted? The answer is, Paul,
Silvanus, and Timothy, who co-labored in the establishment of this church. The
next question is, Whom saluted? "The church of the Thessalonians in God
the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Note (speaking of the Greek word ekklesia,
which is rendered "church") that there were three ecclesias in
Thessalonica at one time: First, the Jewish synagogue; second, the Greek
ecclesia – that civil body which managed the affairs of the city. To these two
that are already there a new ecclesia comes, a new congregation having a new
business, giving a new atmosphere, and that is the church or ecclesia of God
the Father. But when it adds "and the Lord Jesus Christ," that
separates it from the Jewish church. That also separated it from that civil
business body, the Greek ecclesia.
Is this the first letter ever written to a Christian church of which we have
any knowledge? Before answering, read Acts 15. James's letter precedes it in
order of time, but it was not addressed to a church.
The next item in the letter is the salutation proper, "Grace and
peace." If one will pass rapidly over the letters of Paul, he will find
that he followed the Oriental custom of salutations. Nearly all the time he
brought in "grace and peace" and sometimes added "mercy."
It is interesting to take the beginning of all his letters and see how in
writing them he salutes them in that way. It was the grace of God that secured
their salvation, and through their justification they found peace with God.
The next division is the thanksgiving. That commences at verse 2 and includes
verse 10ùa most marvelous thanksgiving: "We give thanks to God always for
you all, making mention of you in our prayers; remembering without ceasing your
work of faith and labor of love and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ,
before our God and Father." Here it would be interesting to take up the
letters of Paul and notice his custom, right after the salutation, of putting
in a thanksgiving if he had anything to be thankful for. Trace that through his
letters and see if he does not, as here, in wishing grace and peace to the
people to whom he writes, first seek out the ground of thankfulness that he has
toward God concerning them. There was one letter that he wrote in which he
omitted the thanksgiving – the letter to the churches of the Galatians. They
had taken the back track to such a fearful degree that Paul, when he wrote to
them, left out the thanksgiving.
Notice in the second place the extent and broadness of his thanksgiving here.
It exceeds any that we find anywhere else: "We give thanks unto God always
for you ail," all the way and all the time. When he wrote a letter to the
Corinthians and put in his thanksgiving he could not give thanks for everyone
of them, for one of them had been guilty of an awful sin, and of others of them
he said that, even weeping, he must say that they were enemies of Christ.
Paul says to these Thessalonians, "Every time I pray for you I thank God
for you; and second, every time I remember three things about you, your work of
faith, your labor of love, your patience of hope, I also thank God for
you." Notice Paul's trinity of Christian graces – faith, hope, and love.
He brings that out in his letter to the Colossians and again in 1 Corinthians
13: "But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of
these is love." Here compare the three heathen graces, which may be found
in Anthon's "Classical Dictionary," with the three Christian graces,
and tell wherein the Christian graces are superior to the heathen graces.
Notice the work of faith, Greek ergon, the labor of love, kopos,
and the endurance of hope, hupomone. I am inclined to think that these
Thessalonians through their faith had done some miraculous work that we do not
know anything about. When we read Hebrews II we see the great work that faith
did, and each one has a particular work: "By faith Enoch was translated .
. . by faith Abraham . . . by faith Noah . . . by faith Rahab . . . ,"
etc. Each one performed some mighty exploit, an ergon, or work –
"the work of faith." This being singular, ergon, I am inclined
to think that there was some explicit exploit rendered by these Thessalonians
to which Paul refers when he says, "Every time I remember your work of
faith I am thankful." Just what the particular work was I do not know. It
was a work of faith in the Roman amphitheater when the brave Christian woman
preferred to be cast to the wild beasts rather than abjure her faith. These
Thessalonians were very much persecuted after they had professed the Christian
religion, and there may have been some signal incident of persecution. Anyhow,
faith that does not work is not worth a cent. These are the three things that
every time Paul thought of the Thessalonians he was thankful about.
Now we come to a new topic, beginning with verse 4: "Knowing, brethren
beloved of God, your election, how that our gospel came not unto you in word
only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit, and in much assurance; even as
you know what manner of men we showed ourselves toward you for your sake. And
ye became imitators of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much
affliction, with joy of the Holy Spirit; so that ye became an ensample to all
that believe in Macedonia and in Achaia. For from you hath sounded forth the
word of the Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place your
faith to Godward is gone forth; so that we need not to speak anything. For they
themselves report concerning us what manner of entering in we had unto you; and
how ye turned unto God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait
for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, who
delivereth us from the wrath to come."
"I am thankful," says Paul (mentioning three reasons why he is
thankful), "every time I pray; every time I remember the three things;
every time I know that you are elected, I am thankful."
Let us consider somewhat the matter of election. It is something that may be
known. He says he knew it. Once I helped to ordain a man for whom I conducted
the examination. I asked the questions just as fast as I could fire the shots
at him: "What does election mean?" "To choose." "Who
chooses?" "God." "When?" "Before the foundation
of the world." "Unto what?" "Salvation." "In
whom?" "In Christ."
"Was this election based on foreseen repentance and faith, or did repentance
and faith result from the election?"
This was the thing that Paul was discussing: "I am thankful, brethren,
because I know you are elected. You are chosen of God unto salvation through
sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth in Jesus Christ."
That being the doctrine of election, -that God chose those people in eternity,
yet Paul here in time could find out. So what are the tokens or signs that one
is elected? These tokens are of two kinds: signs to Paul, the preacher, and
signs in them, or the evidence that they are the elect. When he saw these signs
he knew they were elect. How important that thing is for us. Our articles of
faith say it is our privilege and duty to ascertain whether we are elected. We
ought to find out whether we have been chosen of God. There is a way to find
out: "How that our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in
power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance."
I heard a man once quote that to show that these Thessalonians had assurance
because they had faith. He is not talking about their assurance but his
assurance – that he (Paul) preached not in word only, but in power and in the
Holy Spirit and in much assurance. From this he argued: "I come to a place
to preach. Do I find that I can preach there? Do I feel drawn to preach there?
Am I impressed in my heart that the Lord has a people to call out? Does it
impress me so that when I go to preach I feel that the power of the Holy Spirit
is with me? If I can feel these things, that is a token that somebody there
belongs to the elect."
But that does not locate .the elect. It shows that they are there, but not
which ones. But these are the signs in them: "Ye received this word which
I preached, not as from men, but as God's word, or the manner in which you
listened to me; second, your conversion: 'Ye turned unto God from idols to
serve the living and true God.' "
Notice next: "And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the
dead, even Jesus, who delivereth us from the wrath to come." In other
words, "When I see how you heard me, from what you turned, to what you
turned, that patient waiting for the risen Lord, that you had faith in him, the
patience of hope – hope which takes cognizance of the second coming of Christ,
your waiting under great afflictions, I know that you are elect."
Another token is, "You became imitators of the church of Judea in
suffering affliction and persecution. If when you were persecuted you had
fallen away and said, If being a Christian is to walk this hot road I will turn
back and seek the shade,' " then, he would have known that they were not
the elect, but since they heard his preaching as the word of God, turned from
idols and patiently waited for the coming of the Lord, who was to deliver from
the wrath to come, and since while waiting they followed the footsteps of
Christians elsewhere, imitating these Christians in bearing up patiently under
the. persecutions to which they were subjected, he had that assurance. For
instance, Jason whom they arrested and took before the magistrate and put under
bond to keep the peace, they would have put to death if they had had the power.
"Jason, does this prejudice you against the religion you profess?"
John Bunyan tells how Christian and Pliable came to the Slough of Despond, and
they both fell in the mire, and Pliable began to say, "Is this the great
road you are talking about to the great country you are going to? I am going
back to the country I came from." As we look at him we know that he was
not elect. But if this other man, though sinking in the Slough of Despond,
finally pulls out, covered with dirt, yet with his face toward the heavenly
city, that is a token that he is elect.
Still another token: "So that ye became an ensample to all that believe in
Macedonia and in Achaia." That is, they became an example in all Greece
and Peloponnesus. "For from you hath sounded forth the word of the Lord,
not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place your faith to Godward is
gone forth." When we want to consider the question of election, here we
have it.
God does not permit us to climb a ladder and go into his secret archives and
turn the pages and see if a man's name is written in the Lamb's Book of Life.
But he does permit us to know whether we are elect or whether anybody else is
elect.
When this knowledge comes to the missionary that the men to whom he preaches
are elect, then he is thankful, as Paul says, "knowing your
election."
We come now to the next 'item in the full analysis. The fifth general head is,
"The Reminder of the Past." What is it he reminds them of? See 2:1-2:
"For yourselves, brethren, know our entering in unto you, that it hath not
been found vain; but having suffered before and been shamefully treated, as ye
know, at Philippi, we waxed bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God
in much conflict." In other words, "Now, you know when I got there
from Philippi, so bruised from those stripes received from the lictor's rod,
and weak from imprisonment, brethren, ye remember how boldly I came to you and
preached the gospel of Jesus Christ. I was not scared. I was not discouraged on
account of receiving punishment at the hands of the lictors in Philippi. I had
no idea of turning back."
Here are some negative things to which he wants to call our attention, and what
a pity that every preacher could not say this: "For our exhortation is not
of error [he brought them no heresy], nor of uncleanness, nor in guile; . . .
not as pleasing men, . . . for neither at any time were we found using words of
flattery, as ye know, nor a cloak of covetousness, God is witness; nor seeking
glory of men." Let us get these "nots." He is reminding them of
things when he was with them before, calling their attention to his manner of
entering in and preaching to them; that wherever he went and preached, he
didn't preach a heresy; that he didn't go in uncleanness as the teachers of the
heathen did, using their influence over their disciples to bring them to shame;
not in guile; not to make money; not, indeed to please. "I am not seeking
your pleasure, nor flattering you." How hard it is to keep a preacher,
when he sits down by some member of his church, from saying a few flattering
words. Paul calls their attention to the fact that when he preached among them
he did not use flattery.
Let us see what he did: "But we were gentle in the midst of you, as when a
nurse cherisheth her own children; how gentle .she is!" Paul says, "I
was not rough, affectionately desirous of you." "I was with you in
affection." "Willing not only to impart the gospel to you, but my own
soul. For ye remember, brethren, our labor and travail, that we might not be a
burden to you, working every day and night." They were heathen; it was
missionary ground, and they knew nothing about the principles of missionary
support. If he had demanded a salary of these heathen, he never would have
gotten them. That is why we have to pay a missionary a salary. They are going
where there are no churches and where the very mention of compensation turns
the people away that we want to convert.
Notice again: "Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and righteously
and unblamably we behaved ourselves toward you that believe; as ye know how we
dealt with each one of you, as a father with his own children."
When I get to reading Paul, it digs me up by the roots, so that I feel like I
have never done the right kind of preaching and did not have the right kind of
spirit.
The next thing is his impeachment of the Jews, 2:14: "For ye also suffered
the same things of your own countrymen, even -as they did of the Jews; who both
killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove out us, and please not God,
and are 'contrary to all men; forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they
may be saved; to fill up their sins always; but the wrath is come upon them to
the uttermost." That is a fearful indictment against his people, and every
word of it is true.
From 2:17 on to the end of chapter 3, he reminds them of the things since he
left them. He goes on to show that since he left them he had continually
desired to come back, and twice tried to come back, but Satan hindered him, and
in order that something might be added to their faith, he was willing to be
left alone at Athens in order that Timothy might go back and supply what was lacking
in their faith. So on through chapter 3.
QUESTIONS
1. What the salutation of
this letter, verbatim, who saluted, and whom saluted?
2. What the three ecclesias
at Thessalonica, and what the distinguishing characteristics of each?
3. Was this the first New
Testament letter written to a church?
4. What two things does
Paul, according to Oriental custom, introduce in this salutation, and why?
5. What was Paul's habit as
to what followed the salutation of his letters, and what notable exception?
6. Show the extent and
broadness of this thanksgiving, and how Paul was limited in some other
thanksgivings in his letters.
7. What Paul's trinity of
Christian graces, and wherein are they superior to the heathen graces?
8. What did Paul remember in
the Thessalonians which furnished a ground of thanksgiving, and what the
meaning and application of these things?
9. What is election, who
elects, when, unto what, in whom, and what the relation of election to
repentance and faith?
10. Show how Paul knew of
their election of God, (1) from signs in him, and (2) from signs in them.
11. What the literal meaning
of conversion, and what illustration of it in this letter?
12. What the characteristics
of Paul's preaching while at Thessalonica, and what the characteristics of
their reception of his preaching?
13. What claim does Paul
make for his life among them?
14. Describe the terrible
indictment Paul brings against his own people in 2:14-16.
15. Give an. analysis of 2:17
to 3:13, pointing out its principal teachings.
A LESSON ON CHRISTIAN MORALS
1 Thessalonians 4:1-18.
This exposition commences at 1 Thessalonians 4, which brings us to the sixth item
of the extended analysis, the title of which is, "A Lesson on Christian
Morals," that is, it consists of an exhortation to purity/of life, to
brotherly love, and to honest work.
Let us observe here, as in all of Paul's letters, how the practical is deduced
from the doctrinal. He had no conception of the practical apart from the
doctrinal, otherwise this letter might have closed with the end of chapter 3,
making good doctrinal sense, but it was ever Paul's custom, after he had
written the body of the discourse and of the theory, to transmute this further
into the fruits of godliness.
Let us look at the first lesson on Christian morals: "Finally then,
brethren, we beseech and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that, as ye received of
us how ye ought to walk and to please God, even as ye do walk, – that ye abound
more and more. For ye know what charge we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For
this is the will of God, even your sanctification; that ye abstain from
fornication; that each one of you know how to possess himself of his own vessel
in sanctification and honor, not in the passion of lust, even as the Gentiles
who know not God; that no man transgress, and wrong his brother in the matter;
because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as also we forewarned you
and testified. For God called us not for uncleanness, but in sanctification.
Therefore, he that rejecteth, rejecteth not man, but God, who giveth his Holy
Spirit unto you."
That is a remarkable lesson, and particularly let us observe the necessity, in
the case of these Gentile converts, for this exhortation, owing to the past
habits of their lives. I mean that their religious habits were associated with
the most debasing crimes and uncleanness, and it was a difficulty in the way of
gospel preachers then, as our missionaries in heathen lands find it today,
after men are converted to keep them from relapsing into those vile, beastly
sins of the body.
I witnessed our missionaries dealing with that problem in Mexico, where the
peons, or low class of Mexicans, know not what decency of life means. They were
converted or professed to be, but what a difficult thing it was for the
missionary to impress upon their consciences the sanctity of the family, or the
chastity of the marriage relation.
Note this reference: "God called us not for uncleanness, but in
sanctification." It is as noticeable in the conversion of a sinner as it
is in the call to the ministry. The call, made through the gospel and by the
power of the Holy Spirit, singles out a man and brings him in touch with God,
and wherever it is a true and effectual calling it always ends in
justification, sanctification, and the glorification of the body. Paul says,
"Whom he called them he also justified; and whom he justified them he also
glorified." The glorification of the body is its complete sanctification
and freedom from all dishonor, weakness, and immorality. Whoever then sins,
sins against the call that he received that made him a Christian. On that
account, notice the nature of the offense: "Therefore, he that rejecteth
[that command], rejecteth not man, but God, [because it was God who called
him], who giveth his Holy Spirit unto you." If he be a Christian, the Holy
Spirit is dwelling in him. In many places in Paul's letters the exhortation to purity
of life is based on the doctrine that our bodies are the temples of the Holy
Spirit, and that whosoever defileth or destroyeth the temple of God, him will
God destroy.
The second exhortation is brotherly love: "But concerning the love of the
brethren ye have no need that one write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught
of God to love one another; for indeed ye do it toward all the brethren that
are in all Macedonia. But we exhort you, brethren, that ye abound [in this
love] more and more." There is a beautiful thought there, that the love
which a Christian has for a fellow Christian is the result of going to school
to God – that God himself teaches the lesson. Hence our old-time Baptist
preachers, in preaching upon the evidence of conversion, dealt particularly on
love: "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love
the brethren."
I remember once in a great meeting a little girl timidly came forward and
offered to join the church. She was very small, and one of the brethren moved
that the case be deferred – that she seemed too young to understand. I said,
"Let us be sure we are right before we defer this case. This child is old
enough to trust and old enough to love, and we will hear what she says for
herself." So I put this question: "Little daughter, how do you know
that you love God's people?" She said, "I have thought about that,
and I have asked myself this question, 'If I should come to a place where the
road of life forks, one way very pleasant and the other very unpleasant, and
God's people went the unpleasant way, which crowd would I prefer to follow?'
and I thought that I should prefer to go with God's people over a bad road than
with ungodly people over a good road, because I love God's people more than the
other people." Whereupon, the objectors began to distrust their wisdom,
and when I examined her on faith she seemed to possess the sweetest trust in
Jesus that I ever heard related. Where did she get it? She was God taught.
Young as she was, she had been a pupil of the Almighty, and she had learned to
love and trust Jehovah, and she had just as clear ideas about what is meant by
loving the people of God by which we may know that we have passed from death
unto life, as any grown person. There was not an objection in the house when we
took the vote on receiving her for baptism. Young people are more apt to prove
faithful than those who are converted when they are advanced in life.
He continues his exhortation: "And that ye study to be quiet, and to do
your own business, and to work with your hands, even as we charged you; that ye
may walk becomingly toward them that are without, and may have need of
nothing." What a sturdy Christianity Paul had! A loafer and a deadbeat got
no respect from him at all. If able, anybody ought to work, not only that he
may not lack anything, but in order that he may walk honestly before them that
are without. Idleness leads to theft and dishonesty, and Paul elevates labor
very high in dignity.
I read two things in the papers recently that pleased me very much. One was
that the Ladies' Aid Society of the Baptist Church at Mart, wanting to make a
contribution, got in a wagon and went two miles in the country to a farm and
picked a lot of cotton for which they received $12. That was no degradation to
those women. The other thing was, that Deacon M. H. Standifer, of the First
Church at Waco, took a wagon load of Baylor University boys out one Saturday
and picked cotton, although it rained. Surely the Christian religion is in
favor of good honest work. There is not a bit of shame in it.
Paul told these Thessalonians squarely that if anybody would not work, he must
not ea – that he was not entitled even to his one meal a day, much less three
meals, if he was an idler. If a man had a hundred million dollars, he would be
both sinful and unhappy if he did not work. One of the kings of France had a
carpenter's shop fixed up for him, and he went out there and worked at that
business. His wife had a dairy, and there she would take her maids of honor and
teach them how to keep their milk vessels clean, and have sweeter cream and
make better butter than anyone else in the whole kingdom.
We come now to the richest and sweetest things in all the Word of God, which
brings us to the seventh item of the analysis. This extends from 4:13 to 5:11,
and bears upon the great doctrine of the second advent, using certain facts to
enable him to comfort all the people who were needlessly distressed concerning
their dead.
I want to make perfectly clear the significance of this great passage of
scripture. I will venture the assertion that almost every preacher who has
conducted many funeral services has used this scripture. Let us see how rich it
is in thought and meaning, and see if we can't get some new light: "But we
would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning them that fall asleep; that
ye sorrow not, even as the rest who have no hope." Ignorance concerning
the state of the dead necessarily brings great anxiety and sorrow. We may be
ignorant about human history, or the sciences, about the commonest facts of the
world, but it is awful for us to be ignorant concerning the state of the dead.
Upon that subject God has flashed the light of the brightest knowledge, and
because of that bright light the keenness of sorrow is taken out of our hearts
when our Christian loved ones die.
The special point of their ignorance that caused them sorrow was their belief
that to die before Christ came would be a calamity. If one could just live
until Christ came it would be all right, but he would suffer loss to die before
Christ came. Paul wants to show them that it does not make the snap of a
finger's difference about whether we die before Christ comes or not, and it is
foolish to set our hearts upon being alive when Christ comes. That desire
arises from ignorance of the state of the righteous dead. If we notice the
state of the righteous dead, we would see no difference in dying before Christ
comes or being alive when he comes.
The next thought is that when a good man dies his spirit goes to Jesus. In that
respect he is ahead of us who are alive. Hence, Paul says, "Brethren, for
me to die is gain, for when I am absent from the body I am present with the
Lord." No loss there. As Jesus said, "Father, into thy hands I
commend my Spirit." As the book of Ecclesiastes says, "Then shall the
body return to the dust as it was, but the spirit unto God who gave it."
Get that fixed, that when the earthly house of this tabernacle is dissolved we
have a building with God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
The advantage, then, is with the one that dies. Paul says, "On my part it
will be a gain to die; personally, I would be much better off, for when I am
dead I shall be with the Lord."
Here are some doctrines: If the soul of a Christian lodges in some halfway
house, and is under some disability while there, and has to stay there until
the resurrection day, well may we weep over our dead; well may we desire to be
alive till Jesus comes. If the soul is imprisoned somewhere and does not go
directly to heaven, I can understand those Thessalonians weeping over their
dead. If the Roman Catholic theory that when a soul dies it goes into some
intermediate place and is in suffering and flames, be true, well may we weep
and make gifts to the priests to pray our people out of that awful place. But
if the soul, just as soon as the body dies, goes right to heaven, and right to
the presence of God himself, we ought not to be ignorant of that. What a corrective
of unnecessary sorrow I
Therefore, I have always combated the theory of any middle place where the soul
lodges and stays till the judgment day. I am sure it is not a teaching of the
New Testament. I am sure if it had been the teaching of the New Testament the
Thessalonians would have had something to sorrow about, and Paul could not have
comforted them. They are gone to God, the Judge. They are where God is, where
the angels are, the new Jerusalem, the heavenly Zion, to the spirits of the
just made perfect, to Jesus, the Mediator.
Jesus said to the thief on the cross, "Today shalt thou be with me in
paradise." The poor, ignorant thief prayed, "Lord, remember me when
thou comest into thy kingdom." Not "then," but "today,
shalt thou be with me in paradise," says Jesus.
In the book of Revelation, we see that the tree of life is on the river of life
that rises under the throne of God. Let us get that point deep in our hearts,
and let us not preach any halfway house for the dead. "It came to pass
that the rich man also died and in hell he lifted up his eyes." He did not
lodge anywhere.
That idea of a middle life was derived in medieval Christianity, in the dark
ages, coming from heathen origin. The heathen (and these were the heathen that
had Just been converted, these very Greeks), believed that if one died and was
unburied, for example if drowned and the body not recovered, then the soul or
shade would wander around unblessed until the body was buried. In the book of
Vergil, a shade meets the poet as he is descending into the lower world, a
flitting, restless spirit, and says, "Oh bury me, bury me! And if you
cannot put me under the ground, then it may serve to sprinkle a little sand on
me, and count it for a burial." It was precisely that thought that led to
the institution of sprinkling instead of immersion. Those poor Thessalonian
people had all the terrors about those who died.
Notice, in the next place, that when Jesus comes he will bring with him those
spirits of the Christians whose bodies died here upon the earth. They are up
there, and when he starts back here, the spirits will be with him. It is only
the body that sleeps. So the truth of the hymn, "Asleep in Jesus, blessed
sleep!" Charles Wesley, in his dying hymn, presented the change, or transfiguring,
of the bodies of the living, so there is no advantage in living on the earth
until the second coming of Christ, and the souls of the living people do not
get to Christ first, because Christ brings those Christian souls who are dead
with him.
There is an equal participation between those who live until he does come and
those who died before he comes. The dead are raised, and the living are
changed, so together they are caught up. Where is any advantage? We may ask
where Paul gets all this. He says, "I received this gospel, and with it I
received knowledge of the word of God, and I am taking away all this trouble
concerning the dead. The Lord himself shall descend."
It will be a real coming. The coming of the Lord is a personal thing. He comes
in death, he comes in the judgment, but I have always contended that the
personal coming of the Lord is the hope of the world.
"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the
voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God."
In studying the Gospels we find what the shout is: "Behold the bridegroom
cometh! Go ye out to meet him!" And we have found out who sounds the
trumpet.
It was not Gabriel. That is Negro theology. The object of the blowing of that
trumpet is not to wake the dead, but to summon the holy angels. All the angels
will come down when he comes, and there will be that great trumpet sound that
waxes louder and louder and louder until their hearts within them shall be
stirred. Job says, "Hide me in the grave until thy wrath has passed; thou
wilt call and I will answer thee."
Just as Jesus stood before the tomb of Lazarus and said, "Lazarus, come
forth!" so he will speak and call our names, and our bodies will arise,
and when he comes that second time there will be a mighty shout, "Behold
the bridegroom!" All of the earth and heaven will ring with sonorous peals
of that shout, the sealed doors of death will be opened, and the Spirit's power
will then throw off the cerements of the grave in response to the voice of
Jesus Christ.
Notice the double voice: To the living: "Behold the bridegroom!" To
the dead: "Come forth!" You see how the voice is adapted to each
case. It also says the voice of the archangel.
There is a passage in the book of Revelation that has sometimes been interpreted
to mean what the archangel says. That says, "I saw another mighty angel
come down from heaven . . . and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his
left foot on the earth . . . and lifted up his hand to heaven and swear . . .
that there should be time no longer," i.e., the end of time. That 'is
beautiful, but I question the interpretation. I think that it means when that
angel plants one foot upon the sea and the other foot upon the shore, it is an
answer to the prayers of those Christians, "How long, 0 Lord, how
long?" Then the angel says, "Time was, time is, but there shall be
time no longer. You will get your answer now." I think that is the
meaning. There are hierarchies in the angelic body, principalities and powers.
Michael is called the prince, Gabriel is a prince, and in connection with him
we have all the traditions about the trumpet.
It is that trumpet sound that brings the angels. They have double work to do.
In the parable of the tares it is said that the tares and the wheat grow together
until the harvest. The harvest is the end of the world. The good seed are the
Christians; the bad seed are the devil's children. They grow together until the
harvest. At the end of the world the angels shall gather up the tares ready for
burning, and that is one reason why another parable tells us that at the coming
of the Lord the angels shall gather up the wicked out of every place on the
earth, and that is the office of the angels. That is why in that great prophecy
he tells about two women, one of whom is taken and the other left. The angel
swoops down and that woman is taken – one gathered to the harvest for heaven,
and the other gathered for the pit of hell.
Imagine the joy! It comforts me a great deal. As it is, my body is not a very
satisfactory body. The head gets sick; the heart sore; the hand gets a finger
nail mashed off; the muscles take the rheumatism; it looks like everything in
it is a disappointment. But at that time the body is at rest. It is sown in the
image of the first Adam, and raised in the image of the Second Adam. When that
time comes and the disembodied spirit now being able to get back into the old
house which has been regenerated, will rejoice, and it will be a time of great
joy.
I noticed a bird last year, which seemed to come from afar. I knew the bird,
for it had a broken wing. We had allowed it to build its nest in a certain
place. When she saw the nest still there she commenced to rejoice and sing her
glad song of home-coming. In like manner the soul, like a bird which flies into
its old nest, leaps into the body glorified, and then, as Paul says, it is
sanctified, body, soul, and spirit. What a happy time when the long separated
parts are brought together!
QUESTIONS
1. What three moral virtues
are inculcated in 1 Thessalonians 4:1-12?
2. What Paul's conception of
the relation between doctrine and morals? Illustrate from this letter.
3. What the special
application of 4:1-8 to the Thessalonians, and what illustration from modern
missionary work?
4. What the relation of the
Gospel to a sinner and the life? What the nature of the offense when a
Christian sins, and why?
5. What the great lesson on
Love in 4:9-10?
6. What the great lesson on
honest work in 4:11-12?
7. What illustration of this
in modern history?
8. What great consolation is
given in 4:13-18?
9. What the relation of the
ignorance of the future state to human sorrow?
10. What the special point of
their ignorance which caused their sorrow, and how does Paul relieve their
fears?
11. With whom is the
advantage, those who live till Christ's second advent, or those who die before,
and why?
12. What great heresy
suggested by this passage, and what the proof to the contrary?
13. What the origin of this
heresy, and what examples cited?
14. When the poet wrote,
"Asleep in Jesus! blessed sleep!" what was his meaning?
15. How does Paul show that
there is an equal participation between those who live till Christ comes and
those who die before he comes?
16. What the shout of 4:16?
17. Who will sound the
trumpet, and what its purpose?
18. What the double voice?
Illustrate.
19. What questionable
interpretation here cited, and what the true interpretation?
20. Are there hierarchies
among the angels, and what the proof?
21. What the double work of
the angels at Christ's second advent?
22. illustrate the joy of
the soul returning to its glorified body.
A BODY OF RULES
1 Thessalonians 5:1-28.
This fifth chapter is mainly a body of rules. The first part of it needs
explanation. The chapter commences thus:
"But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that
aught be written unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the
Lord so cometh as a thief in the night." He has just been comforting the
Thessalonians with the account of the second coming of our Lord, with the
resurrection of the bodies of the righteous before the change in the living
righteous, saying that the two classes are caught up together in the air to
join the Lord and are ever to be with the Lord. So far he has not discussed the
effect of the coming of our Lord upon the wicked. We will have the case of the
wicked in the second letter.
He says here, "But concerning the times and the seasons," and there
is a distinction in the meaning of "times" and "seasons."
"Times" means stretches of time, or periods. They had doubtless
written a question to him to this effect: "Tell us precisely how long it
will be before Jesus comes, on what day he will come, and what hour." He
is here replying to that question, saying that it is not necessary for him to
write on that, because he has already explained to them that neither the times
nor the seasons has God put in any man's power. That is what our Saviour
taught. No angel in heaven and no apostle knew, and the Son of man, in the
limitations of his humanity, did not know.
But while our Lord as to his human nature did not know, while no angel knew,
and while no apostle knew, we are not at all surprised to find a great many who
do know exactly this very thing of all others that God has hidden from any
human or angelic sight. I call attention now, particularly, to this subject, as
it is fascinating, and as some people are attracted so much by the curious and
sensational things of religion. They prefer to preach sermons on these subjects
rather than upon faith, hope, and love. They seek an answer to questions that
God has not answered to any angel of heaven, or apostle on the earth, and that
was hidden even from the humanity of Jesus Christ.
There seems to be a little irony in Paul's reply. They want to know precisely.
He says, "For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh
as a thief in the night." Our Lord himself discussed that very question.
He taught that if the householder knew exactly what month a burglar would come
around, and on what night of the month, and at what hour of the night, it would
be a very easy thing to forestall him. But God hid those things, and now just
as a burglar does not write to a man that on November 9 at II P.M. he will call
at his house and come in through the back window in order to steal his jewelry
and whatever money is lying around, so we need not expect such information with
reference to the second coming of Christ.
Christ's second coming will be like a flash of lightning from one end of the
heavens to the other. There will be no external premonition of it.
He then assures them that this fact need not disturb them, however terrible it
may be to the wicked. He says, "God has not appointed you unto wrath but
to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ who died for you that whether you
wake or sleep you shall live together with him. Inasmuch as you are guaranteed
against the thief by the protecting care of God, it makes no difference what
night the thief comes. Whether you live till Christ comes, whether he comes
heralded or unheralded, it is utterly immaterial with you, because from the
beginning he has chosen you for salvation and you will get the benefit of that
salvation when he comes."
Now come some rules, a few of which need comment. The others are all so obvious
in their meaning that an attempt at explanation will only mystify. The first
one is in verses 12-13: "But we beseech you, brethren, to know them that
labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem
them exceeding highly in love for their work's sake." That shows that even
this early there were those set apart by the Lord as preachers, and having the
oversight of churches, and he is writing that they should approve their
preachers and should be subordinated to the rule of the pastor in the things in
which it is lawful for him to rule, and there are things in which God has made
him the overseer. That is what the word, "bishop," or episkopos,
means.
I have heard some people say that the work of the church should be determined
by the deacons. That is expressly not so.
The deacons have committed unto them the finances of the church, but the great
work of the church is dependent upon the spiritual leader. It is his voice that
must give the signal, it is his sermon that must give the instruction, it is
his exposition of God's word that must lay down the law, and in this high sense
he is the legitimate ruler.
There is a spirit of lawlessness in the world that objects to all rule. There
are some people so constituted that they won't work "in the harness"
at all. There are some horses that won't work except in the lead, and some that
are not good except as wheel-horses, and others that will not work at all with
a bridle or harness; they kick and squeal and prance, and finally tear off at a
tangent. There are some people of that kind in the churches.
Here are some rules that need no comment: "Be at peace among yourselves,
admonish the disorderly, encourage the faint-hearted, support the weak, be
long-suffering toward all. See that none render unto anyone evil for evil; but
always follow after that which is good, one toward another, and toward all.
Rejoice always; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks: for this is
the will of God in Christ Jesus to youward." These are rules which
everybody ought to memorize, and be able to call up each one. They ought to be
on the walls of every church as the standing orders of the Lord Jesus Christ
concerning Christian communities.
Here are others that need some explanation: "Quench not the Spirit;
despise not prophesyings; prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
Every one of these directions relates to the spiritual gifts conferred on the
day of Pentecost and later in the apostolic days. I have heard preachers preach
from the text, "Quench not the Spirit," and speak on it as if it
referred to the witness of the Spirit within a man, or to the indwelling Spirit
in a man or to the Spirit of regeneration. But none of these can be quenched.
What he says, "Quench you not," in this special miraculous endowment
that God bestowed so richly upon the apostolic churches for the purpose of
attesting them. He gives rules both ways on these spiritual gifts: "Don't
quench them. They were given for a useful purpose." He taught in the
letter to the Corinthians that a man had control over them, and he could so act
that they would depart from him altogether. "Despise not
prophesyings," i.e., don't hold in contempt these utterances that come
from the lips of men that have these gifts. A man would leap up in the church
and say, "Brethren, the Spirit is moving me, and under the Spirit I want
to make a declaration," and he would make it. In other words, "No
matter what you may think about what he will say, don't quench the spiritual
gifts, and don't despise prophesyings, but test what he is saying." In another
letter John says, "Try the spirits to see whether they be from God."
There are some spirits that are not from God. There is an inspiration that
comes not from God. There is devil inspiration.
We had in Waco, when I was a young pastor, a great stir upon the subject of
spirit rapping, mediums and alleged communications from the dead. I preached on
the subject about a week and put these things to the test, just as God commands
that they should be tested. The question I put to one of these mediums was this:
"Did Jesus Christ as God become manifest in the flesh?" The answer
was; "No, that is a misapprehension." That answer settled his case,
and I said, "You are condemned, because the scripture says that whosoever
denieth that Christ is come in the flesh is a liar and the truth is not in
him." That is what Paul means here. He is not referring to their
conversion, nor to the Spirit that bore witness with their spirits that they
were children of God, nor to regeneration) but this temporary miraculous gift
that resteth with such signal power upon the apostolic church.
He says, "Prove all," not all things, but all these prophesyings,
that claim to come from the Spirit. "Hold fast to that which is
good." In other words, "If it corresponds to the revealed will of God
set forth in the Bible, you may take it. If it is contrary to that, reject
it."
The next rule calls also for some explanation. In the King James Version, it
reads: "Abstain from all appearance of evil." In my younger days how
many times have I heard the old brethren quote that! It was not enough for them
that a thing was bad; if it appeared to be evil, one had to shun it. That is
not the meaning of it at all. The rendering is bound to be one of these two:
"Abstain from every form of evil," not something that simply appears
to be evil; or else it means, "Abstain from every evil show." There
are some shows we ought not to attend. I went once in my life to a theatrical
representation and I was glad I had no young lady with me. When I got out I
apologized to myself and told the Lord if he would forgive me I would never go
to see an evil show of that kind any more. There are some shows so suggestive
of indecency, in word, or posture, or dress, they advertise their vileness.
What he teaches is, "Let evil come in any shape it may – abstain from
it."
Another passage, just here, needs a little explanation. It is his prayer,
"The God of peace himself sanctify you wholly." That means
"entire." If we say concerning a thing composed of fourteen parts,
"Let it be sanctified wholly," that would mean in every one of its
parts. And he continues, "And may your spirit and soul and body be
preserved entire, without blame, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Here a question has been asked as to whether there be a threefold distinction
in the nature of man. Are there three distinct parts in man – body, soul, and
spirit, or a tripartite nature? Or is man of a dual nature – soul and body? In
systematic theology, those that hold to the dual nature of man are called
dichotomists, and those who hold to the threefold nature of man are called
trichotomists. My view of the subject is that from the beginning God represents
man as consisting of two distinct elements, the inward man, and the outward
man. The outward man is the body; the inward man is the soul. When we consider
the inward man from another viewpoint we call it spirit. Here it is important
to note the time when sanctification is consummated – "At the coming of
our Lord Jesus Christ," that is, when the body is raised from the dead and
glorified. Then only is a man completely sanctified. His soul, or spirit, is
sanctified at death, but his body is not sanctified until the resurrection, and
that is when Christ comes.
The last thing I need to say about anything in this chapter is this: "I
adjure you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the brethren."
He wrote this letter to the church. Every member of the church is entitled to
hear it. What a lesson that is to us that the Word of God is for everybody! It
is not for the preacher to take the letter and deal out as much of it as he
pleases to the congregation; not for him to say, "I have here a letter
from your Heavenly Father, and I will read you such parts of 'it as I think
will do you good."
Let the man himself have his Father's letter – all of it. It was written to
him. It was not written to the priest. There is no justification in withholding
any part of it from a child of God.
I heard Dr. McDonald, one of the mightiest preachers and one of the sweetest
spirits of the Southern Baptist Convention, who recently passed away, give an
account of his conversion from Roman Catholicism. He had been reared in that
faith in Ireland, and on his visit to the United States he saw for the first
time in his life a gathering in an old log house, and he went in to find a
Baptist meeting in progress. He was wonderfully impressed with the way they did
things, and he was surprised to hear the preacher ask the people to take their
Bibles and see that everything he said was so. He did not know that he had a
right of that kind, and when the old preacher very solemnly said,
"Brethren, this book is God's letter to each one of you. If my mother were
to write me a letter, what man would have a right to capture my mail, and come
to me and tell me that he would read such passages of my mother's letter to me
as he thought was best for me?" There the thought first entered his mind
that became the entering wedge which separated him from the Romanist faith, and
which led to his conversion. Paul wanted this letter read to every one of the
members of that church.
I will comment a little on one other expression: "Salute all the brethren
with a holy kiss." The reader will excuse a humorous allusion: When the
great controversy between the Baptist and the Campbellite brethren came up, the
latter claimed that they stood by what the book said, and one day down in South
Texas one of their preachers said to the congregation, as the book says,
"Salute each other with a holy kiss," that they must kiss each other,
and he had been troubled about it in view of the fact that some of the brothers
in the church were colored. But he says, "I insist that we do just what it
says." Whereupon, another brother got up and said, "Brother
moderator, we had better go slow on this; I don't believe I could kiss a
colored member of this church nor some of the white ones." His wife spoke
up and said, "That's right, John, if you kiss a Negro you shall never kiss
me again."
And yet this scripture has a meaning. In the directions of our Lord to the
apostles when he sent them out he said, "Sa-' lute no man by the
way." He did not mean that one of his preachers should be discourteous,
nor refuse to say, "How do you do?" or, "Good-by." But in
that country the forms of salutation took up a vast amount of time – they had
so many "bowings and scrapings" and waving of hands. But because
these apostles were on urgent business he told them to salute no man by the
way. As it was an Oriental custom to salute even men with a kiss, this is put
in here, not prescribing that we shall kiss, but when we salute, let it be a
holy salutation. Let it be the salutation of a Christian, and not insincere and
simply form.
QUESTIONS
1. What the distinction in
meaning between "times" and "seasons" in 1 Thessalonians
5:1, and what the application?
2. What fascinating theme
for many preachers suggested here, and what the Bible teaching on it?
3. What is Paul's
illustration of this thought, and what our Lord's illustration of the same
point?
4. What assuring fact does
Paul here give them relative to this point?
5. State the rules of holy
living in 5:12-18.
6. What does 5:12-13 show
relative to "bishops," or pastors?
7. What are Paul's four
rules concerning miraculous spiritual gifts?
8. What the meaning of
"Quench not the Spirit"?
9. What the meaning of
"Despise not prophesying"? Illustrate.
10. What the meaning of
"Prove all things?"
11. What the meaning of
"Hold fast that which is good"?
12. In 5:22, the common
version reads, "Abstain from all appearance of evil;" does the
original mean, "Abstain from everything seeming to be evil," or
"from every form of actual evil," or "from every kind of an evil
show"?
13. What does "sanctify
you wholly" mean, when does sanctification begin, and when will it be
consummated?
14. Is man dichotomous or
trichotomous, and what is the distinction between "soul" and
"spirit" in 5:23?
15. What great privilege
maybe fairly deduced from the charge “that this epistle e read unto all the brethren,:
what religious denomination violates this principle most, and what illustration
cited by the author?
16. How may be interpreted
the "holy kiss" so as to make the perfect binding now?
INTRODUCTION AND EXPOSITION TO 2
THESSALONIANS
2 Thessalonians 1:1-12.
We commence this discussion with an outline of 2 Thessalonians and then we will
give an exposition of chapter I of the book.
1. The occasion of this second letter to the Thessalonians. – After writing the
first letter, tidings had been received concerning the reception of the first
letter and concerning the state of affairs in that church. These things
particularly he had learned:
(1) That the persecution was more violent than when he was there; that their
love and their faith increased with the persecution.
(2) That a report was circulated as coming from one with miraculous gifts that
Paul himself, either by word or letter, had taught that the day of Christ's
second coming was close at hand.
(3) That in consequence of believing this report, some of these Thessalonians
quit every other business. The merchant dropped his yardstick; the blacksmith
threw down his hammer; the farmer left his plow in the field, and all stood
around with nothing else to do except talk about the ascension to heaven. You
see why it was that Paul told them to prove those prophesyings.
2. The time and the place. – The place was Corinth. It was from Corinth that he
wrote the first letter. The time is somewhat uncertain. Paul remained at
Corinth, as we know from Acts, for eighteen months, and it may have been as
much as a year between the two letters. The outline itself consists of all the
points:
(1) Salutation like the first letter.
(2) New ground for thanksgiving.
(3) Another view of our Lord's second advent.
(4) Paul's prayer for them.
(5) His correction of the misapprehension of the time of the advent, showing in
his correction that two things must precede that advent: (a) the great
apostasy, and (b) the revelation of the man of sin.
(6) The plan of salvation: how that plan conduces to steadfastness, and in view
of that plan, what things to hold fast.
(7) Another prayer for them.
(8) He asks their prayers for him.
(9) Directions for corrective discipline in the church.
(10) In view of reported letters from him which he did not write, he adopts for
the future a method of authenticating his letters. Paul was nearly blind, and
usually dictated his letters, but from now on he signs his letters with his own
hand, all except one, Hebrews, and I will explain why he did not sign that when
we get to it.
(11) An orderly arrangement of every passage that bears upon the second coming
of Christ, with the analysis of those several statements showing the sum of the
teachings of them.
The first item of the analysis of this letter is the salutation, but I have no
remarks to make on the salutation contained in this second letter to the
Thessalonians because everything necessary has been said on the similar one in
the first letter. But in the thanksgiving that follows the salutation there is
this new element: Their faith, hope, and love increased in proportion to their
afflictions. That is a fine testimony. Many Christian people, depressed by
afflictions, say if they had an easier time they could exercise more faith and
love. But these Thessalonians increased in faith and love as their tribulations
increased.
We now come to the important part of the second letter. Here is a new viewpoint
on the day of our Lord – the second coming of Christ. The closing paragraph of
1 Thessalonians 4 and the first paragraph of 1 Thessalonians 5, present the
second coming of our Lord with reference to the Christian people, giving up some
incidents, to wit: That Jesus will bring with him the spirits of all Christians
who have died, and that their bodies will be raised before the living
Christians are changed. In chapter 5 he adds that on the wicked, that day will
come like a thief in the night, and their destruction will be wholly
unanticipated. But he has very little to say about the wicked there. Here he
deals with the result of the second coming just as much on the wicked as on the
righteous. He does not re-open the discussion of the resurrection, which has
already been clearly set forth in the first letter, but presents the doctrine
of the judgment that follows the coming of our Lord. We are always to
understand that there will be first a resurrection, and then a judgment. We are
now to look at the judgment part of this letter.
The first thought concerns the earth. This is the language, referring to the
increase of their patience and faith in all their persecutions and afflictions:
"Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God," that
is, here in this world when good people, pious and God-fearing, are crushed
under persecutions, the mind begins to inquire, why does not God punish the
wicked? Is there divine justice? Paul says the fact that these Christians bear
with love and patience the wrongs put upon them is a token of the righteous
judgment of God. It proves that if exact justice is not meted out in this world
it will be in the world to come. When we see the good down, and evil on top,
and that state continues for a great length of time, it is a token that there
must be a judgment hereafter to right that wrong, or else one must doubt the
justice of God.
The next thought is, that when Jesus comes he will recompense rest to the
afflicted people, and afflictions to those that afflict them. Both take place
when Jesus comes. There will be no difference in time, no gap between these
two. It is a mistaken interpretation of the word of God that judgment on the
righteous will be separated by any great lapse of time from judgment on the
wicked. The double judgment takes place at the same time. Let us see if that
point is not clear: "If so be that it is a righteous thing with God to
recompense affliction to them that afflict you, and to you that are afflicted
rest with us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels
of his power in flaming fire, rendering vengeance to them that know not God,
and to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus: who shall suffer
punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the
glory of his might, when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be
marvelled at in all them that believed."
As this is the letter that discusses the second coming of Christ as no other
part of God's Word, giving such a comprehensive view of it, great weight should
be attached to every statement in it.
No public teacher is excusable who fails to see in many perfectly plain,
literal, unfigurative teachings of God's Word that the resurrection is a
general resurrection, and the judgment is a general judgment, and that the two
classes come before the Lord at the same time.
Particularly, note the remarkable prophecy of our Lord in Matthew 25, where he
says, "When the Son of man shall come in his glory [in his first advent he
came in humiliation], and all his holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon
the throne of his glory and before him shall be gathered all nations and he
shall separate them as a man separates the goats from the sheep. And he shall
say to those on the left hand, 'Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,' and
to those on the right hand, 'Come, ye blessed of my Father.' "
That is not allegory, parable, symbol, nor vision, but plain, literal teaching.
That is in perfect accord with his other teaching where he says that the
Ninevites that were converted in the time of Jonah should rise up in the
judgment with this generation. Here were converted and unconverted people
rising up in the judgment together. That is exactly as he states it in the next
paragraph, when he says, "The queen of the south shall rise up in the
judgment with this generation and shall condemn it." It is in exact accord
with the literal part of Revelation, commencing at 20:11, where the white
throne appears, and him that sat thereon, and where all the dead, great and
small, are brought before him for judgment, and the books are opened. Those
that are found written in the Lamb's Book of Life are saved, and those not
found written in that book are cast into the lake of fire.
I emphasize the teaching of many plain, literal passages – that when Jesus
comes the whole world will stand before him, all the angels good and bad, and
judgment will be rendered to all angels and all men at the same time.
The evil angels have already received their punishment for leaving their first
estate, but there is new matter for judgment in the treatment which they gave
to the cause of Christ and his people. If the good angels have been ministering
spirits to them that are the heirs of salvation, they will be so confirmed that
it will never be possible for another angel to fall, and if the evil angels
have hindered the cause of Christ they will be cast into the eternal hell
prepared for them.
The judgment rendered upon good and bad is an eternal judgment. Listen at this
language "Who shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the
face of the Lord and from the glory of his might."
When the saints are glorified, when their souls and bodies are reunited, there
will never be any possibility for one of them to incur a future judgment,
because it will be impossible for them in their new condition to sin.
Not only is the destiny eternal, but it is expressly called
"punishment," and not "consequence" in the case of the
wicked. There are some people whose sensibilities shrink from the thought of
anyone's suffering eternal punishment. They certainly have not studied the
Bible. Even here on this earth if a man become incorrigible in wickedness, we
stop him by eternal laws so far as our power can go, from doing further harm.
If he be not executed on the gallows, he is at least imprisoned for life. It is
the love of God that inflicts that punishment and makes it eternal. See a
parent awaking in the night and beholding a wolf about to seize the baby lying
on the floor asleep. Do the mother and father fold their hands and say,
"Oh, it is cruel to hurt anything! Go away, Mr. Wolf, I won't hurt
you"? Or does the love of that parent prompt to strike fast, hit hard, and
hit to kill?
When for thousands of years the wicked have been opposing God's people,
ridiculing them, inflicting wrong after wrong, and when age after age God's
people have prayed, "Come, Lord Jesus," and the souls of God's saints
under the altar have cried out, "How long 0 Lord, holy and true, wilt thou
not avenge us upon our adversaries?" there must come a time when God hears
that prayer and puts it forever out of the power of the wicked to oppress his
people.
There is always a tendency to fixedness of type. Man after a while becomes so
wicked, waxing worse and worse, that his character crystallizes. That man hates
light, and he would be in hell if he were in heaven. I am not right sure but
heaven would be more painful to him than hell, because he would have no
sympathy with anything there. He would have only hatred and antagonism toward
it. Science unites with revelation in that fixity of type. Science tells us
that the tendency toward fixedness of type will bring crystallization of
character that cannot change and is without remedy.
Then take this thought: What is 'it that keeps men here on earth from becoming
totally bad? It is the restraining presence of human law, the light of
religion, the illustrious examples of the saints, the preaching of the word of
God, and the Holy Spirit. Hundreds of thousands of loving fathers and mothers
of Christian people are working for their salvation, but when Jesus comes,
preaching stops, praying for the lost stops, and in the place to which they go,
they may indeed pray, but not be heard; their tears may fall, but not in
mercy's sight. There is no gospel preached to them. The Spirit dispensation is
ended, and without the power of the Spirit they could not be converted, and
thus the means of salvation are withdrawn. That alone would make their status
eternal.
The eye of every Christian should be fixed on the second coming of the Lord in
view of the judgment that will follow that coming, and his heart should turn to
the fact that with that day everything that goes wrong in time will be righted.
I do not suppose that there was ever a man on earth, good or bad, but who some
time or other in his life has asked for a general judgment in the world to
come. Every wicked man will tell about certain wrongs he has suffered, and these
wrongs here have never been righted, and the consciousness of his wrongs has
made him appeal to the final arbitrament of their cases and to a decision that
will be both righteous and inexorable.
There is here a thought of marvelous beauty -to which I wish to call attention:
"When he shall come to be glorified in his saints and to be marvelled at
in all them that believed." The thought is that the power of any man and
the benevolence of his intelligence are estimated by the greatest product of
his mind and hand.
Sir Christopher Wren is glorified in Westminster Abbey, which was the greatest
work of his genius, and as one steps into the abbey he passed under a sentence
which reads, "Whoever wishes to see the monument of the architect, let him
look around."
The illustration helps us to see what will be the character of the glory of
Jesus Christ in his people. When he saw them they were utterly lost, their
nature depraved, under condemnation, without a friend, sinking down beneath the
righteous frown of God. He came to save them, some of them drunkards, some of
them whore-mongers, some robbers, some murderers, and commencing the good work
in them by regeneration, and continuing it by sanctification, until their
spirits were perfected, and consummating it by the resurrection and
glorification of their bodies so that these that had been drunkards, liars,
thieves, murderers, adulterers, stand there on that day in his own glorious
image. Who did this? What mighty architect? It was Jesus. Jesus will be
glorified in his people just as the sculptor will be glorified in the statue
that comes from the skill of his hands and the thought of his mind. The
sculptor looks on a piece of rough, unhewn marble, that a thousand people can
see nothing in but marble, but with his eye of genius he sees in it the angel
that can be carved from it. He begins to chip and chisel until, at last, form
and outline appear. The rough outline assumes symmetry; the face takes on
'expression, the eyes seem to glow with fire, and as the finishing touch is put
upon the statue, we marvel at the artist in his work. In that way Christ will
be glorified in his people. This is the last thought in chapter 1.
QUESTIONS
1. What the occasion of the second
letter to the Thessalonians, when and where written?
2. What the analysis of the
letter, seriatim?
3. What new ground for
thanksgiving?
4. What advance in the
discussion of the second advent here?
5. How does the patient
endurance of the Thessalonians under persecution become a token of future and
final judgment of God?
6. What does Paul teach in
this letter as to the effect of Christ's coming on the wicked and the
righteous?
7. What the teaching of our
Lord on the same point?
8. What the teaching of
Revelation on this same point?
9. What new matter for
judgment relative to the angels?
10. What the nature of the
judgment discussed here, and the proof?
11. What is the nature of
the destiny of the wicked as revealed in this letter?
12. What the relation
between God's love and the punishment of the wicked? Illustrate.
13. What tendency of human
nature here pointed out? Illustrate.
14. What keeps men here on
earth from becoming totally bad?
15. Why should the Christian
have his eye fixed on the second coming of our Lord?
16. How will Christ at his
second coming be glorified in his saints? Illustrate.
THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST AND THE MAN OF
SIN
2 Thessalonians 2:1-12.
In the beginning of chapter 2 Paul says that the second coming of Christ is not
only not at hand, but it is not even imminent: "Now we beseech you,
brethren, touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering
together unto him; to the end that ye be not quickly shaken from your mind, not
yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by epistle as from us, as
that the day of the Lord is just at hand; let no man beguile you in any wise;
for it will not be," and then he goes on to tell what must precede it.
Upon that point I wish to speak very plainly. The second advent of our Lord
Jesus Christ is the doctrine of the Christian's future, and a wrong belief
about a doctrine cannot escape damage. There were good people when the promise
was made about the first coming of Christ that expected it in their day. Eve
thought that the Seed of the woman had come in the birth of Cain. Poor woman,
how badly she was deceived! How far off it was till the coming of the Lord!
Prophets and kings longed to see the day, and men lived and generations passed
away, and governments underwent revolutions, and ages and ages rolled on, and
not till the fulness of time, the time appointed, the very day set aside by
Almighty God, did Jesus Christ come the first time. Every predicted antecedent
event had to precede it. So everything unrolled before the eye of the prophet
touching any nation, any person, any church, any apostasy, any great religious
movement, must come before Jesus can come the second time. Jesus said just before
he went away that he would send the Holy Spirit, and they must wait until the
Holy Spirit came. Was it possible for him to come before that descent of the
Spirit on the day of Pentecost? Jesus said to Peter, "You shall die on the
cross." Could Peter then expect to see the coming of the Lord in his time?
In the very letter where he is discussing the second coming of Christ, Peter
says, "The Lord has shown me how I must put off this mortal body, and I
think it is right as long as I am in it to stir your minds up to a remembrance
of the teachings concerning the second coming of Jesus Christ." Then he
goes on to tell the long series. of events that must come first. Precisely in
that way did Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 24, when the disciples crowded around
and said, "Lord, what is the sign of thy coming and of the end of the
world?" And Paul does just like Christ. Jesus says, "Let no man
deceive you. There will come a great many false christs. There will be wars and
rumors of wars. There will be earthquakes and fearful signs in the heavens. But
this is only the beginning of things. The end is not yet." How careful he
was to show them that they must not every morning, when they got up, look out
of the window to see if Jesus had come. John fills the whole book of Revelation
with a series of mighty events covering hundreds and even thousands of years
that must take place before the coming of Jesus, and it does not make a
particle of difference to us about our dying before he comes. One dying is
better for it. His soul gets to heaven quicker and his body gets to rest
quicker.
Paul points out two stupendous events that must precede: "Except the
falling away," or apostasy, comes first. Here was a marvelous turning away
from sound principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ by professed Christians.
That must take place first, and he says that the mystery of that thing was
already at work; that is, there were men in his time that were beginning to
deny certain fundamental doctrines of the gospel.
My own opinion is that this apostasy began to take definite form in the second
and third centuries, and later ripened into the papacy and culminated in the
Pope in 1870. So we ourselves have a view of the apostasy, already prolonged
more than 1,000 years, and we are not to the end of it yet. We see the
simplicity of the gospel changed, the engrafting of that simple gospel all of
the types and shadows of the Old Testament, and mixing them with many heathen
legends and customs, the union of church and state, the power organization
called the scarlet woman seated upon the beast of seven heads, making herself
drunk with the blood of the saints that she had slain. Nor has that apostasy
yet reached its full fruition. How can it be possible for Jesus to come before
that time? He has just said of that time, "the season and the hour are
hidden from you."
But another marvelous event must precede our Lord's final advent – the
revelation of the man of sin: "Let no man beguile you in any wise: for it
will not be, except the falling away comes first, and the man of sin will be
revealed, the son of perdition, he that opposeth and exalteth himself against
all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple
of God, setting himself forth as God. Remember ye not, that when I was yet with
you, I told you these things? And now ye know that which restraineth, to the
end that he may be revealed in his own season. For the mystery of lawlessness
doth already work: only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken
out of the way. And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus
shall slay with the breath of his mouth, and bring to nought by the
manifestation of his coming." If I had proof that the man of sin was
living I would know that Christ would come in the lifetime of that man, because
it is expressly declared that Jesus shall, at his coming, slay the man of sin.
This is one of the most mysterious passages in the Word of God, and on its
interpretation, much as I have studied it, I will not assume to be dogmatic. I
concede to anybody the privilege of differing with me about its meaning.
Indeed, only the fulfilment itself when it comes can make plain and verify the
true interpretation. The apostle is explaining why they should not expect the
coming of the Lord Jesus Christ any time soon, and he assigns as the first
reason that there must first come a great apostasy. That apostasy I have
already discussed, but let us have the passage before us: "Now we beseech
you, brethren, touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering
together unto him; to the end that ye be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor
yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by epistle as from us, as
that the day of the Lord 'is just at hand; let no man beguile you in any wise:
for it will not be, except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be
revealed, the son of perdition, he that opposeth and exalteth himself against
all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple
of God, setting himself forth as God. Remember ye not, that when I was yet with
you, I told you these things? And now ye know that which restraineth, to the
end that he may be revealed in his own season. For the mystery of lawlessness
doth already work: Only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken
out of the way. And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus
shall slay with the breath of his mouth, and bring to nought by the
manifestation of his coming; even he, whose coming is according to the working
of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceit of
unrighteousness for them that perish; because they receive not the love of the
truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God sendeth them a working
of error, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be judged who
believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
That is utterly unlike any other paragraph in the Bible. In the Old Testament
there are some prophecies that are questionably construed to refer to the same
thing, particularly Daniel 11:45, but in Revelation one passage at least
connects in meaning with it, though it is symbolical language. But this passage
here is literal, plain, straight-out prophecy. From the time these words were
written by Paul until this hour this paragraph has perhaps excited more
attention, called forth more discussion and developed a more voluminous
literature than any other part of the Word of God. Indeed, every century has
developed a special literature upon the subject, and many commentators devote a
special excursus to it.
In the whole period of the Reformation it excited much attention, and by
Protestants generally was construed to refer to the Romanish Church and the
papacy, but it is not possible, considering the context, to refer both 2
Thessalonians 2:4 and Revelation 13:1-8 to the same person or institution. The
importance of the subject is indicated by the persistent interest it has
awakened and the controversies it has excited. One crucial fact differentiates
this man of sin from all other antichrists: He will be alive when Jesus comes,
and will be destroyed by the brightness of the Lord at his final advent.
Another thing is certain – Jesus cannot come before that man of sin. In order
to approach this subject properly, we need to consider other parts of the
scripture leading up to it, which must be studied in connection with it,
particularly Daniel, Matthew 24, and Revelation 13-20.
It is characteristic of prophecy to make a primary reference to an event
forecast a more distant and important future event, and that event forecast a
greater one beyond, just as the foothills between a spectator and a mountain
peak are merged into one view with the peak, and a still higher peak beyond
blends with the same view as if all three constituted one peak. But as the
spectator draws nearer, the widely separated parts differentiate, and each
elevation is isolated from the one beyond. So is the perspective of prophecy. A
prophecy may commence with Solomon and then pass on to David's greater Son, our
Lord himself.
In the prophetic scriptures appear four great antichrists with characteristics
so similar that they have been hopelessly confused by most interpreters. The person
so forecast is never the same in any two instances, but each foreshadows his
successor. Certain characteristics belong to all, which blend the view as if
all were one. But as the first becomes historical, we see there is a greater
one beyond, and so on through the series. Two of these persons have already
become historical, and two are yet to come, the climax being the last, which is
Paul's man of sin. Anticipating the argument, I name the four in order:
1. Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan. 8:9-12), the little horn of the Greek Empire.
2. The papacy (Dan. 7:8, 23-25), the little horn of the divided and changed
Roman Empire. In Revelation he is the beast that looked like a lamb, but had a
voice like a dragon (Rev. 13:11), who was developed out of the heathen Roman
Empire after it, and who, by union of church and state, became "The Holy
Roman Empire" (Rev. 13:1-10).
3. The secular ruler who seeks to destroy the Jews after their restoration to
the Holy Land (Dan. 11:34-45; Zech. 14: 1-11; Rev. 19:11-21; Isa. 63:1-6). This
conversion puts the Jews in the lead as an evangelizing force, and ushers in
the millennium (Isa. 66:7-24; Zech. 14:16-21; Rev. 20:1-6).
4. Paul's man of sin, the last device of Satan after the millennium (2 Thess.
2:3-12; Rev. 20:7-10). His destruction is brought about by our Lord's final
advent, to wind up the affairs of time (2 Thess. 2:8; Matt. 24:29-31; 25:31-46;
Rev. 20:11-15).
Something of the details of the argument is this:
1. All the subsequent visions of Daniel are based on Nebuchadnezzar's dream of
the great, luminous image whose head was gold, whose chest and arms were
silver, whose body and thighs were brass, and whose lower limbs were iron,
which was destroyed by the little stone cut out of the mountain without hands
(Dan. 2:31-35), and which was interpreted to mean five great world empires in
succession, namely: the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Greek, the Roman, and
the kingdom of God.
2. The vision of the great tree in Daniel 4 gives a development of the head of
gold under a new imagery.
3. The vision of the four beasts in Daniel 7 present under a different imagery
the same four secular world empires with elaborations concerning the fourth not
before given, and passes on to present the ascension and exaltation of one like
a Son of man, who is the King of the fifth world empire, and receives an
everlasting dominion. This elaborates the little stone kingdom of Daniel 2.
4. The vision of chapter 8 presents under different images the details of the
Medo-Persian Empire, and the Greek Empire after its division into four
kingdoms.
5. The revelation in Daniel 9:24-27 dates the first advent of the King of the
fifth world empire, his life and vicarious death, as Daniel 7 shows his
exaltation and enthronement after his resurrection.
6. The vision in Daniel 10 is the same King in the glory of his royal
priesthood as John saw him on Patmos (Rev. 1:13-18).
7. Daniel 11:1-33 describes the conflict between the Syrian and Egyptian
divisions of the Greek Empire, with a distinct climax and pause at verse 33,
while from verse 34 to the end of the chapter is a transition to the third
antichrist – a vile person who worshiped only the god of forces. It is this
person who embodies the atheism of modern evolution, a spirit already gaining
strength in the world, and which is utterly godless. His reign is characterized
by an absence of all reverence, and is dominated by a radical spirit of
commercialism, materialism, and of mechanical and natural forces. He it is that
seeks to blot out the Jewish people, and is destroyed by mighty displays of
that supernatural power the very idea of whose existence he had scorned. It may
not be a long time before he materializes. The trend of modern events forecasts
his speedy coming. The coming of the Lord which destroys him is not a personal
coming, but a coming in marvelous judgments, as at the destruction of
Jerusalem. With him atheism, materialism, and godless commercialism forever
die.
8. In Daniel 12:1-3 there is either a transition to the final and personal advent
of the Lord, with a literal resurrection, or as is more probable, the paragraph
is the climax of the preceding event with its figurative resurrections, as in
Ezekiel 37 and in Revelation 20:1-6. In the latter and more probable sense,
Daniel sees only the ultimate glory of the Jewish people in millennial days,
and has no vision of Paul's man of sin.
The similar characteristics of the four antichrists appear by comparing what is
said of each. Of Antiochus Epiphanes, the little horn of the third, or Grecian
Empire, it is said: "And out of one of them came forth a little horn,
which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward
the glorious land. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and some of
the host and of the stars it cast down to the ground, and trampled upon them.
Yea) it magnified itself, even to the prince of the host; and it took away from
him the continual burnt offering, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
And the host was given over to it together with the continual burnt offering
through transgression; and it cast down truth to the ground, and it did its
pleasure and prospered" (Dan. 8:9-12). Of the papacy, or little horn of
the fourth, or Roman Empire, it is said, "And he shall speak words against
the most high, and shall wear out the saints of the most high; and he shall
think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given unto his hand
until a time and times and half a time" (Dan. 7:25). "And there was
given to him authority to continue forty and two months. And he opened his
mouth for blasphemies against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle,
even them that dwell in heaven. And it was given him to make war with the
saints, and to overcome them; and there was given to him authority over every
tribe and people and tongue and nation. And all that dwell on the earth shall
worship him, every one whose name hath not been written from the foundation of
the world in the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain" (Rev. 13:5-8).
Of the atheistic, secular ruler who seeks to destroy the Jews, it is said,
"And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself,
and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against
the God of gods; and he shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished; for
that which is determined shall be done. Neither shall he regard the gods of his
fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall magnify
himself above all. But in his place shall he honor the god of fortresses; and a
god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, and with
precious stones and pleasant things. And he shall deal with strongest
fortresses with the help of a foreign god; whosoever acknowledgeth him he will
increase with glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall
divide the land for a price" (Dan. 11:36-39). Of Paul's man of sin it is
said, "He that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called
God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting
himself forth as God" (2 Thess. 2:4). We see thus how in the perspective
of prophecy, before any one of them became historical, all may so blend into
one view as to appear to be one, each so strikingly forecasting his more
towering successor. The similarity of characteristics arises from a common
origin. They have one father, the devil, who, while possessing a few original
'ideas, is a past master in variety of labels and costumes.
Passing now from the consideration of all preceding antichrists, let us analyze
what is taught concerning Paul's man of sin:
1. He is a person, and not a principle, nor an institution.
2. He will be alive at the final coming of the Lord. This one crucial fact
differentiates him from all other antichrists, and makes it impossible to find
him in history.
3. And since he is Satan's last agent, making the last play of evil for the
destruction of God's kingdom, as is evident from his being alive and at work
when the Lord comes, he cannot be located in any period before the millennium.
4. This is further evident from the restraint put upon Satan, in trying to
bring him to the front, until God's appointed season. It is idle to talk of the
heathen Rome resurrection, since that power passed away more than a thousand
years ago, and the man of sin has not yet appeared. God himself, directly or
indirectly, is restrainer. And we recognize the restraint as we see Satan bound
for a thousand years in order to introduce the millennium. He has successfully deceived
the nations in bringing out and giving power to the first and second
antichrists, and will again deceive them, and that soon, in bringing out and
empowering the third and atheistic antichrist. But the prophecy says, "And
I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key of the abyss and a
great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, the old serpent, which
is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and cast him into
the abyss, and shut it, and sealed it over him, that he should deceive the
nations no more, until the thousand years should be finished; after this he
must be loosed a little time" (Rev. 20:1-3).
In that long period the saints are on top, and the kingdoms of the world have
become the kingdom of our Lord. The knowledge of the Lord will overspread the
world as the waters cover the deep. Satan bound cannot deceive the nation nor
palm off his impostures. And even when he is loosed from that restraint, it is
only for a little season. Here, and here only, in this little season after the
millennium, can appear the man of sin, who will be alive when the Lord comes,
and be destroyed by the brightness of his appearing.
5. Paul says, "the coming of this son of perdition, this lawless one, is according
to the workings of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with
all deceit of unrighteousness for them that perish; because they received not
the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God sendeth
them a working of error, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be
judged who believe not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
Evidently this is Satan's masterpiece of imposture, and by far the most highly
accredited. Here we behold the depths of Satan.
6. But what most strikingly impresses the mind is not Satan's originality of
device, but his imitative power. This is more evident in the original Greek
text than in any translation. But it is evident even in the translation:
(1) As Christ's kingdom has a mystery of godliness, so Satan's kingdom has a
mystery of lawlessness.
(2) As Christ's kingdom has an energy of the Holy Spirit, so Satan's has an
energy of his malignant spirit.
(3) As Christ's kingdom was accredited by signs, wonders, powers and works, so
Satan's' is accredited by all these.
(4) As Christ's kingdom is received by faith, so Satan's requires belief: the
first, however, is the belief of the truth, while the second is the belief of a
lie.
(5) As Christ's kingdom has a pleasure in holiness (Greek – eudokia), so
Satan's subjects find a pleasure 'in unrighteousness.
(6) As the King of the divine kingdom is a human person, so here in the
prophecy Satan's kingdom enthrones a human viceregent.
7) As the Messiah of God's kingdom had a first coming (elthe) and will
have a manifestation (parousia) or second coming, so both terms are
applied to the person of Satan's man of sin. These terms lead up to the most
startling characteristic of Paul's man of sin.
(8) As Christ's first coming (elthe) was an incarnation in human nature
by the Holy Spirit, so this man of sin will be an incarnation by Satan. He will
be the devil incarnate.
(9) And as Christ will appear in glory at his final advent {parousia),
so this devil incarnate will seek to anticipate Christ's parousia by a
counterfeit manifestation. In other words, he will claim to be the
long-expected Messiah. No other wile or depth of Satan equals this. The
millennium world will have reached the final advent, and will have prayed, "Come,
Lord Jesus," and will be expecting the advent of the Judge.
Recognizing this expectation as good ground for the sowing of evil seed, and
himself dreading that final advent, Satan introduces his man of sin as the
long-expected Messiah, and accredits him with all manner of signs, wonders, and
works. It will be as if he said, "Hear, you expectant world! Your Messiah
has come! 0 Church or temple of God, receive your Lord! 0 bride, long waiting,
behold the bridegroom!" Through his miracles he will deceive all but the
elect, and he will lead his dupes to a final assault on the true churches which
refuse to accept him. It is then that the sign of the real Christ appears in
the heavens, namely, the great white throne of judgment. It is then that our
Lord himself appears in glory, and all the holy angels with him. Then is
fulfilled: "And when the thousand years are finished, Satan shall be
loosed out of his prison, and shall come forth to deceive the nations which are
in the four corners of the earth, God and Magog, to gather them together to the
war: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up over the
breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the
beloved city: and fire came down out of heaven, and devoured them. And the
devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where
are also the beast and the false prophet; and they shall be tormented day and
night for ever and ever" (Rev. 20:7-10).
There are just two more thoughts in connection with the man of sin which I will
discuss briefly. In the account of the man of sin we have these two expressions
in chapter 2: "And now ye know that which restraineth, to the end that he
may be revealed in his own season," and, "Only there is one that
restraineth now, until he [the restrainer] be taken out of the way." In
other words, the man of sin cannot come until the one who has been restraining
him is taken away. Now, what or who 'is it that restrains him?
I frankly confess that I do not know satisfactorily to myself. But I can tell
you what commentators, wiser than myself, have said from the days of Paul to
the present time. They say that the restraining power which kept down the
mystery of lawlessness, and the consequent development of the man of
lawlessness, or sin was the Roman power. The imperial government of Rome stood
for order, and it ruled the world with an iron hand, and anywhere in the word
that anything like disintegration or sedition or tumult or lawlessness in any
form appeared, there is where the Roman thunderbolt struck. That is the general
opinion of commentators. We do know that after this Roman power was removed,
the Roman Empire collapsed. You will find a history of it in Gibbon's Decline
and Fall of the Roman Empire, and as that great central power went down,
everywhere in the world men sprang up, prompted by a spirit of lawlessness, and
there was no such reign of disorder in the history of the world aa came after
the downfall of the Roman Empire.
That is what the most intelligent commentators say, but it is not satisfactory
to me, because that restraint has been taken away for many hundred years and
the man of sin has not yet appeared. It seems more reasonable that God himself,
either directly or through intermediary agents, is the restraining power, and
will keep on restraining until the appointed time. While that does not
thoroughly satisfy me, it does satisfy me so much better than the one that the
commentators give that I cannot accept theirs. The impression is that the one
inspired of lawlessness would appear in a moment but for a pressure – a
restraining power – and when that is taken away, then the man of sin will
appear.
While I am on my opinion (and I give it as an opinion, but as a reasonable
one), it is evident that in the millennial period the restraining power will be
put on the devil. He will be bound for a thousand years, and there will be a
great tide of revivalism, such as the world never heard of, for a thousand
years. So long as that chain is on Satan he cannot develop his man of sin; but
the account in Revelation says that after the thousand years is ended, Satan
will be loosed, so there the restraining power is taken off) and then appears
the last master stroke of the devil. I am standing on that interpretation.
The other thought is this: "For this cause God sendeth them a working of
error, that they should believe a lie." The men who turn away from God are
sure to believe something worse than that from which they turn away, and they
have not the liberty of choosing the delusion of error into which they fall,
and the devil cannot choose it for them. God chooses it. He permits the devil
to work it off on them, but the devil himself cannot arbitrarily select the
kind of foolishness with which to fool the people that are to be lost.
1. According to this letter,
is the second coming of Christ imminent?
2. Prove this from the
analogy of his first coming.
3. What did Jesus Bay would
come before his second coming?
4. What two great events, according
to 2 Thessalonians, must precede the second advent of our Lord?
5. What the great apostasy?
6.What crucial fact
differentiates the man of sin from all other antichrists?
7. What is characteristic of
prophecy relative to a great future event? Illus.
8. Following this line of
thought, who the four antichrists, and what the time of the appearance of each?
9. What in outline are the
details of the argument?
10. Cite the Daniel passage
referring to the first antichrist, and show in order of time how he is
distinguished from the other antichrists.
11. Quote the passage from
Daniel which gives him the typical characteristics of Paul's man of sin.
12. Cite the passage from
Daniel that foreshadows the second anti-christ.
13. How, in order of time,
is he distinguished from the first?
14. Quote the passage from
Daniel giving him also the typical characteristics of Paul's man of sin.
15. Identify in Revelation
Daniel's second antichrist.
16. What the passage from
Daniel for the third antichrist, and what other scriptures touching him?
17. What his characteristic
in the reference in Daniel?
18. What spirit of modern
times does he embody, and what forever dies with him?
19. On what mission is he
engaged when destruction over-takes him?
20. What glorious events
follow, and what scriptures refer to each them?
21. What the nature of the
coming of the Lord which defeats him, and just where is this great battle to be
fought?
22. What six facts of
revelation concerning Paul's man of sin, or the fourth antichrist?
23. Just where in the book
of Revelation must Paul's man of sin come in?
24. In what is the wonderful
imitative power of Paul's man of sin evident, even in the translation?
25. What furnishes a good ground
for Satan's deception in this, his last effort to defeat our Lord Jesus Christ?
26. What stupendous events
immediately follow, and what scripture will then be fulfilled?
27. How do commentators
interpret the "restraining power" (2 Thess. 2:6-7) that keeps back
the revelation of the man of sin?
28. Why is this explanation
inadequate?
29. Supply a better
interpretation, and give scriptural proof.
30. What the interpretation
of "God sendeth them a working of error," etc.?
THE PLAN OF SALVATION – SOME LESSONS ON
DISCIPLINE
2 Thessalonians 2:13 to 3:18.
We shall close this second letter to the Thessalonians by presenting four thoughts
that follow a consideration of the man of sin.
1. Paul's plan of salvation. It is expressed in these words (2:13-14):
"But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved
of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in
sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: whereunto he called you
through our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus
Christ."
Once I was talking to a distinguished theologian who has had much to do with
the teaching of the Word of God to collegiates, and I asked him how he
developed the analytical power in his students, and then I read this
well-ordered plan of salvation. Let us reduce it to its constituent elements.
Confining ourselves to what is here, let us see-what God's plan is:
(1) "God chose you." What then is the first element of the plan?
Election.
(2) "From the beginning." When did he choose you? In eternity.
(3) Unto what did he choose you? Salvation.
(4) What the means? "Through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of
the truth," i.e., that through which we get to salvation is faith in the
gospel and the renovating power of the Holy Spirit.
(5) "Whereunto," that is, unto these things that have just been said,
"He calls you." There is the calling of God.
(6) How did he call you? "Through the gospel." Away back yonder in
eternity, God chose a man, and we do not know anything about it. Down here in
time God calls the man that he chose. How does he do it? Someday that man hears
a gospel sermon preached, and the Holy Spirit reaches his heart just as if a
voice said to him, "Come to me! Come to me now!" That is his call.
(7) What is the object of the calling? "To the obtaining of the glory of
our Lord Jesus Christ." Christ was glorified when he was raised from the
dead and exalted to his place at the right hand of God in heaven. When he calls
us, he calls us unto that glory; that where Jesus is, we may be; that what
Jesus is we shall be; that the power that Jesus exercises we shall exercise;
that what Jesus inherits, we shall inherit. That is the plan of salvation in
these two verses – election from eternity, unto salvation, in sanctification of
the Spirit and belief of the truth, called in him through the gospel and the
work of the Spirit unto the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2. The prayer that Paul asked those people to offer for him. We get so
accustomed to saying, "pray for me," that we do not mean it, and the
people who say, "yes, I will," do not mean it. Paul never asked that
unmeaningly, and he always knew exactly what he wanted them to pray for in his
behalf. He put great stress upon the prayers of God's people for the preachers.
Now, we in our greatness may not need such things, but the little apostle was
bound to have it. He felt that he could not get along unless God's people
lovingly and earnestly prayed for him.
The preacher goes out in his self-sufficiency, thinking that he has the world
in a sling, and that he can do like Brother J. B. Jeter and Jesse Witt, who
were employed by Virginia as missionaries. Riding along two and two, they came
to an old log church and saw a great many horses hitched. Concluding that there
was a religious service, they went in and heard the sermon. The first thing
people say on leaving a church is, "What do you think of that
sermon?" So as these two preachers stepped out, Jeter says to Witt,
"What do you think of that sermon?" Witt modestly said, "Well,
Brother Jeter, I am not much, but I do believe, that by the help of the Lord, I
could beat that sermon myself." Jeter responded, "I could beat it,
Lord or no Lord." When the young preacher or Christian goes out into his
work with perfect confidence that he can do a thing, "Lord or no
Lord," whether the brethren sympathize with him and pray for him or not,
he makes a mistake.
In the days of my pastorate there were two or three people, particularly two
old ladies, that when I felt very much depressed and my mind was dark, and I
could not determine just what to preach about nor how to say it, and Saturday
night had come, I would step over to see one or the other of these old ladies
and state my case, and I would say, "Now, you pray for me." The
solemnity with which either one of them would listen to what I said, the
tenderness with which they would talk to me, and the suggestions they would
make would be such that when I would leave that house I would have a sermon,
and I would know how to preach.
Here is what Paul asked for, "Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the
word of the Lord may run and be glorified, even as also it is with you."
That preaching at Thessalonica was the most successful preaching Paul ever did,
and he always wanted to do as well somewhere else; that the word might have
free course. Compare that prayer with one like this: "Lord, I have to preach
next Sunday before a crowd of critical people; I need a new spotted cravat; I
would like to have a mince pie for dinner, and I would like to know where I am
to get my winter suit." Notice what he asked for. This is the thing on
Paul's mind – not eating, clothing, worldly honor, or money, but that the word
of the Lord that he preached might have free course and be glorified. In other
words, "Just let me do as well as I did at Thessalonica." Sometimes a
failure does more good than a success.
I knew an old Baptist preacher – one of our early missionaries here in Texas.
Sometimes he would get upon a mountaintop, and at other times he would be
"snowed." I have sympathized with him in the midst of a great revival
meeting when he realized what a miserable failure he had made. Once he said,
"Brethren, my mind is dark tonight; I am not using this great occasion for
the Lord; pray for me." There was a wave of sympathy produced by the
modesty and humility of the man that would so tenderly and so pathetically
confess his failure. There were more conversions that night than any other
night in the meeting.
The next thing that Paul prayed is that he might be delivered from unreasonable
men. The greatest thorn that a preacher can confront is an unreasonable man, or
woman. Just one obstinate, fussy man in a community can block the way of
angels. He 'is the toughest proposition that ever the aspiring mind of man
attempted to dispose of. Paul knew all about it, and he wanted to be delivered
from that class of men. Then from unreasonableness there was wickedness. One
sinner can do much evil. One man can go around the outskirts of a meeting and
whisper and slander and sneer and suggest, and almost break up the meeting. He
says, "For all have not faith."
J. M. Pendleton made that his favorite text, and what a sermon he could preach
from it! When he got to be an old man he visited his daughter, Mrs. Waggoner,
wife of the president of the State University. I had read different sermons of
his on that text. But I paid his expenses and gave him $20 to come to Waco and
preach a new sermon on the same text. It was a great sermon – one that I shall
never forget.
I have seen brethren get down in a meeting and pray that the meeting would not
close until every man, woman, and child in the community had been converted.
That does not happen, "for all people have not faith," and if we
stopped at a place until we led everybody in that place to Christ before we go
anywhere else, we would never move.
3. A case of discipline: 2 Thessalonians 3:6: "Now we command you,
brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves
from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which
they received of us." That is just as positive and binding as if Jesus
Christ in person had commanded it. "If a member of any church will not
walk in the gospel which has been preached by the Holy Spirit sent down from
heaven, and has a fixed standard of his own, and won't make the gospel the rule
of his life, and stubbornly goes against it, then we command you brethren in
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw from that man."
One of the greatest evils in the world today is the lack of scriptural
discipline in the churches.
A great many country churches have a great deal of discipline; much of it is
very injudicious and unscriptural. A great many city churches have no
discipline at all; they just let things wag along. They would not take up a
case of drunkenness, of audacious murder, of awful fraud, though the whole
cause of Jesus Christ be suffering from the lack of scriptural discipline, and
if I had to mention today wherein the ministry is most deficient, I would
instantly put my finger upon discipline. First, they do not know what it is.
Second, they do not know how to manage it. Third, when they find out they are
afraid of it.
Let us look into this case of discipline: Paul appeals first to his teaching,
next to his example: "You know my example; I never walked disorderly. I
was guilty of no deceit, covetousness, or uncleanness. Boldly, justly,
unblamably I lived among you when I was preaching to you. There you have my
teaching and my example. Now, you have my commands."
Let us see at what particular point this disorder came in. We want to know exactly
the nature of the offense. First, some of them would not work; they were lazy
deadbeats, hanging around, living off the brethren. That is an awful sin. Paul
saw that unless he could impress upon these people, the dignity of honest labor
– no matter what kind of labor, whether honest work with a wheelbarrow, cutting
wood, plowing, spinning, weaving, cooking, washing, it is honorable, and that
there is a dignity and majesty about labor – then religion would lose the
respect of the honest and industrious. Second, they were busybodies. Of course,
an idle man is bound to have some business; a man that has no work to do is
bound to be working at something, and if he is idle, then he will move around
and do a great deal of talking. He will be busy about somebody else's business.
Paul knew some women of that kind, as we find in a subsequent letter. He tells
Timothy that they were tattlers and gadabouts. When once the tongues get to
wagging and buzzing and humming in a community, then the archangel and a legion
of his angels could not pick up the evil impressions as fast as they can sow
them. They had idle people at Thessalonica. Most of these people were poor,
hardworking people, and here was a lot of fellows that would put their hands in
their vest pockets (if they had any vest) and talk about the glories of the
coming of Christ, and they were filling their souls with the anticipation of
Christ coming down, and they did not want such a thing as working for a day's
victuals to come between them and their joyful reflections.
John Wesley was once asked: "Mr. Wesley, if you knew that Jesus Christ was
coming tomorrow night, what would you do?" He said, "I would go right
along filling my appointments for tomorrow up to the time. When he comes I
would like for him to find me working just that way." These men thought it
a mark of superior Christianity that they should so retire from all occupation
as to contemplate in pious, sweet meditation the second coming of Christ. It is
a glorious theme to meditate about, but never quit doing a duty to meditate
about anything.
Let us look further into this case. He says, "Brethren, you remember when
we were with you, this we commanded you, if any will not work, neither let him
eat. For we hear of some that walk among you disorderly, that work not at all,
but are busy bodies." Here is his command to the disorderly: "We
command and exhort in Jesus Christ that with quietness they work, and eat their
own bread." But if they wouldn't, here is the injunction to the church:
"If any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle, note that man, that ye
have no company with him, to the end that he may be ashamed."
I have never yet seen that kind of corrective discipline. He says if there is a
man who is walking disorderly (and he mentions what he calls disorderly
walking), don't let him partake of the Lord's Supper. As he says elsewhere,
"with such a one, no, not to eat." That is not turning him out of the
church. Let a man of that kind see good men not wishing for his company; not rudely,
but quietly turning away from him; it makes an impression on him. He sees that
he is shunned by those who discountenance his disorderly methods.
Look again at the discipline: Why should they not keep company with them? It is
to bring him to be ashamed of himself. But we are not through with it yet:
"Count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." The idea
in most of the country churches is, "I move that we turn him out."
That leaves out a wide scope of corrective discipline, of laboring discipline,
of faithful dealing with brethren.
4. Paul's authorship. In the last verse it is written: "The salutation of
me, Paul, with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle, so I
write." That proves, first, what is elsewhere so frequently asserted, that
Paul was not accustomed to writing his letters. He dictated them. He suffered
from acute ophthalmia, or to put it in plainer English, sore eyes. And when he
wrote he made great sprawling letters. He wrote only one of his letters with
his own hand, and that was the letter to the Galatians, and he called their
attention to it: "You see with what sprawling letters I have written to
you." Inasmuch as his custom was to dictate his letters, when. he heard
that the Thessalonians were reporting that they had seen a letter from Paul
that said that Christ was coming right away, Paul says, "I wrote no such
letter." And to guard against imposition upon the minds of his churches,
coming from forged letters, as soon as he found out that a letter had been
forged in his name, he adopted the expedient here of attesting his letters.
"Now, hereafter you will know whether a letter is from me thus: 'The
salutation of me, Paul, with mine own hand; so I write.' " In other words,
"When a man says he has a letter from me, you look to see if it has my
signature. If I dictate a letter my signature will be there to show that it is
really a letter from me." That is the token of the Pauline epistles. And
it is only in the letter to the Hebrews that he did not do it, and I will tell you
why he did not follow his custom and append his name to that letter when we
come to it.
1. On 2 Thessalonians
2:13-14, answer: (1) What the first constituent element of salvation? (2) When
did God choose them? (3) Unto what did he choose them? (4) Through what? (5)
How made effectual? (6) Through what did he call? (7) What the object of his
calling?
2. What the meaning of
"the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ"?
3. In 3:1-2 what two things
does Paul ask the brethren in his behalf?
4. What may we infer as to
our need of the prayers of our brethren, and the suitable objects of prayer?
5. What illustration of
self-sufficiency given?
6. What the meaning of
"all have not faith"?
7. What the case of discipline
in 3:6, and what the greatest deficiency of the ministry today?
8. What three reasons
assigned for this deficiency?
9. To what two things does
Paul appeal in this case of discipline?
10. What the nature of the
offense?
11. What was the general
topic of discussion among -these people, and how does Wesley's program
illustrate the contrary idea?
12. What remedy did Paul
propose for the case?
13. What should be the
attitude of the church toward one who if subject to corrective discipline?
14. What bearing has 3:14 on
the extent of apostolic authority and the inspiration of the letter?
15. What the proof from this
letter that Paul found it necessary to attest his letters with his own
signature; why did he usually dictate his letters to an amanuensis, and which
one of his letters was written altogether in his own handwriting?
INTRODUCTION TO 1 CORINTHIANS
The first group of Paul's letters is I and 2 Thessalonians, and the great theme
of those letters is eschatology, or the doctrine of the last things,
particularly the second coming of Christ. The next group is 1 and 2
Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans – these great letters that brought
immortality for their author from any standpoint, whether in literature, logic,
or pathos. In argument and in power of persuasion they have no equal 'in the
world's literature. This discussion will be a general introduction to the
Corinthian literature.
Let us locate Corinth on the map of the Roman Empire, and state the advantages
of its position. The reader will notice the little neck of land connecting the
Peloponnesus, or lower Greece, with Macedonia and Thrace, or upper Greece, an
isthmus between the two seas. The port on the east side was Cenchrea, where
Phoebe was converted, and where a church was established. The city is on a rock
over 200 feet above the sea level, and on a hill over 1,600 feet higher is the
citadel, or Akro-Korinthos. In the study of history we find that straits and
isthmuses are the world's strategic points. More exploring of them is done,
more fighting for them, and attempts to hold mastery of them than for any other
parts of the world. As the Isthmus of Suez, or Panama in modern times, so in
the ancient world was the famous isthmus commanded by the city of Corinth.
The advantages of the position are evident. First, it commands the passage-way
from Macedonia, Achaia, and Thrace into the Peloponneus, or lower Greece. It
was dangerous navigation around the lower points of the Peloponnesus, hence,
merchants would take their shins to this isthmus, where there was a way to drag
the ships across to the other sea – a crude ship railroad. On a very crude scale
great conquerors have imitated this transportation of ships by land. Cortes,
when he conquered the City of Mexico, had his ships taken to pieces and
transported over the high mountain ranges and launched in Lake Tezcuco, which
was on the east side of the city. So, the position of Corinth made it a place
of international importance.
Old classic Greek tells about Sparta and Athens – Athens the intellectual and
political head, and Sparta the military head of the Greek world. Corinth
contended neither in intellect with Athens nor in martial spirit with Sparta.
It devoted 'itself to commerce, so that the Lacedaemonians rebuked them for
worshiping the almighty dollar. When the Spartan power fell before Philip of
Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great, these great cities – Athens and
Sparta – decayed. Corinth came to the front, and was the chief city of Greece
under Philip and Alexander, his son. It was a city of great importance until
the Roman general captured and destroyed it. It lay desolate for over a hundred
years. Julius Caesar, the first Roman emperor, then rebuilt it.
Rome conferred great privileges on it, by making it a free city. At the time of
Christ it was one of the most important cities in the world. Here the Isthmian
games constituted the glory of all the world, so that Corinth was "Vanity
Fair." Corinth was Paris; Corinth was London. There was the temple of
Aphrodite, or Venus, who was the chief goddess worshiped, and one thousand
maidens were selected to be the debauched servants of that infamous temple. As
a great writer has said, "With all of its intellectual culture, wealth,
and luxury, Corinth rotted morally." No place on earth was more debauched.
They worshiped their gods with the most shameful orgies of obscenity and vice.
It was while Paul was there, knowing the degradation of the heathen countries,
and particularly of their worship, that he wrote that terrible indictment
contained in Romans I, where he describes the corruption of the heathen nations
who had no knowledge of God.
The Jews, of course, came on account of its commercial advantages. About the
time that Paul got there, there was an unusual number of Jews in Corinth,
because the Roman emperor had just banished them from Rome. Aquila and
Priscilla, that noted Christian man and wife, had just come from Rome under
that decree, and were living in Corinth. The Greeks, of course, were there, and
there were vast multitudes of Romans. There were more slaves than in any other
place in proportion to the population. Many slaves were among Paul's converts.
The city was seemingly covered with gold. They had an artificial finish that
they gave their buildings which in the light of the sun would make the whole
building seem to be of gold. The Corinthian brass was of great commercial
value. The style of architecture, called the Corinthian, is the most ornate of
all the styles of architecture now in the world. So, for intellectual
development, architectural skill, athletic skill, athletic culture, skill of
navigation, great wealth and great luxury, this city was renowned. It is not
very much of a place now.
The greatest celebrity of this city was the Akro-Korinthos – the citadel. One
could stand on that citadel and see Athens across the sea. Another was the
Isthmian games, then the worship of Aphrodite and her temple. Cicero called
Corinth "the eye of Greece." Another Roman author called it the
capital and the grace of Greece. A Roman proverb was, "It becomes every
man to go to Corinth," just aa we say in modern times, "See Naples
and die."
We gather the history of the establishment of the church in this city from Acts
18:1-18, the letters to the Corinthians, and then the letter to the
Philippians. There are some expressions of value also in the letter to the
Romans.
Let us now give a summary of the history of the establishment of that church.
With the Acts before us, and Goodwin's Harmony of the Life of Paul,
we will have no trouble. Briefly, Paul had visited Athens after he left Berea.
That is the only time he tried to preach an eloquent sermon, and quote from
heathen poets, and scatter a little star-dust over the crowd. It is the only
place where he ever failed, and he never tried that any more. He was very sore
over the result of his work in Athens, and so in about six hours' sail he
passed from Athens to Corinth. He took a boat to Cenchrea, and walked the other
ten miles. When he got there he moved among the Jews until he found Aquila and
Priscilla, that remarkable Christian family that had a great deal to do with
his subsequent history. He had no money. He was by himself, sick all the time,
nearly blind, and worked day and night with them to make a living while he did
his preaching.
He preached first in the synagogue there. His object, as in all other
synagogues, was to show that the Jewish Messiah was to be a suffering Messiah,
and that Jesus of Nazareth was that Messiah. As usual there were some converts
among them, and particularly among the Jewish proselytes. Crispus, the leader
of the synagogue, with all his house, was converted. The rest of the Jews
blasphemed horribly, and opposed him, so that he drew a line of demarcation, as
he did at Ephesus a little later. Hard by the synagogue was a man named Justus,
a proselyte, who had been converted. Paul held his meetings at his house. Then
he began to preach to the Gentiles. On. every side of him were slaves with
human masters and slaves of long-continued drunkenness. A vast number of Paul's
converts were drunkards) thieves, liars, and murderers. He tells them that when
he writes to them. He determines not to try the Athenian method of preaching.
He determined to go before them in fear and trembling, to rely only on and to
glory in nothing but the cross of Christ, and to pray as he preached that their
faith should stand in the power of God, and God most wonderfully accompanied
with power the preaching of this man.
There were not only vast numbers converted, but great multitudes were baptized
in the Spirit, receiving that Pentecostal baptism, the power to speak with
tongues, to heal the sick, to raise the dead, to discern spirits. That house of
Justus became very famous. There were marvelous displays of divine power there.
Here was a man who had been an abject slave, speaking in unknown tongues. Here
a cripple made whole in a moment, and himself having the power to heal others.
Here was every display of spiritual Charismata. As he says in 1
Corinthians: "What is it then, brethren? When ye come together, each one
hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an
interpretation." There never was any church that received the miraculous
gift of the Spirit more than this first church at Corinth.
The difficulties were very great. Timothy and Silas joined him, and even then
one night Paul – the great Paul – got scared. He seemed to be so lonely, and
there was that awful unconsecrated wealth, the fearful debauchery of their
religious worship, the "Vanity Fair" of their Isthmian games – and
Paul got scared. But that night his Lord came to him in a vision and said, "Be
not afraid, but speak and hold not thy peace, for I am with thee and no man
shall set on thee to harm thee, for I have much people in this city." All
the fear left his heart and under the realization of the sense of the presence
of the Lord Jesus Christ, he forgot everything human and earthly. His faith
took hold of every divine promise. His hope soared up to heaven. His love
radiated its light and heat like the sun. There seemed to him nothing
impossible, and great multitudes were converted.
Oh, when we go out to preach in a corrupt city, a worldly minded city, given
over to the acquisition of the almighty dollar, where the boys and girls are
living lives of debauchery and shame, and we are there by ourselves, and begin
to get scared, then we need only to have a meeting with the Lord Jesus Christ.
That is the secret of power.
And whatever we do, when we go to a place like that, let us not try the
oratorical method. But let us get low before God and hold up the cross. Then we
ourselves won't be able to take in the fulness of the blessing God will send
upon us. If we take hold of a great enterprise, if we have a spark of reason
left in us, let us remember that if the work is of God, and it is right to do
it – if it ought to be done, and we feel impressed that we are the ones to do
it, and we want to win, we can win only by the realization that the Lord Jesus
Christ is with us.
About this time the new Roman proconsul arrived. All provinces under the Roman
senate were governed by a proconsul. This new man is known among the preachers
as Gallic.
One of the first things I ever heard in a public service was a Baptist man
praying, and he said, "Lord let us not be like Gallic, caring for none of
these things." I heard that until I got the idea that Gallic was indifferent
to religion. But he was one of the sweetest characters in Roman history, a
brother of Seneca, and devoted to justice. When the Jews arrested Paul and
preferred charges against him, and Paul got up to speak, Gallic stopped him:
"You need not make a speech, Paul; I will quash this indictment. This does
not come before a Roman court." He told his lictors to scatter the Jews
out of the house. I wonder if Gallic ever thought that he missed hearing a
message of eternal life when he dismissed the case without hearing Paul's
defense. I wonder if he ever supposed that he and his brother, Seneca, and all
men like him, great and mighty in the Roman world, would live in history simply
because at one point their lives touched Paul's. After the Jews were driven away,
the street rabble decided that they would lynch a few Jews, since the governor
held them in such contempt. They beat Sosthenes, and it was this treatment of
the Jews about which Gallic cared nothing.
Paul stayed there a year and a half, preaching in all the regions round about.
He established churches, not only at Corinth but in other places. When he made
a visit, on his third tour, to Ephesus, he came back to Corinth for a little
while, but we have no history of it except a vague allusion in one of his
letters. Then, he wrote a letter to the Corinthians that is lost, for he
himself says, "I wrote unto you not to keep company with
fornicators." Not everything that Moses, Paul or any other Bible writer
wrote did the Holy Spirit think necessary to preserve.
Paul began to hear some strange reports about Corinth. He had been at Ephesus
for a year or two. At last a delegation of the people that he had baptized came
to bring him a letter from the church at Corinth, inviting him to come over,
paying a good deal of adulation to themselves, and asking certain questions
which he answers in his first letter. There had come some Jews from Palestine
and raised the old issue against Paul that he was not an apostle, that he had
never seen the Lord, that he did not even claim the support of an apostle, but
worked for a living, but that Peter was the man to follow. After Paul left
Corinth, Apollos, a great Alexandrian rhetorician, a greater orator than Paul,
came there, and they were much taken with him. They began to say, "I am
for Peter, or for Apollos, or for Christ, or for Paul." They began to
misuse those gifts in a way to bring confusion. Their meetings were disorderly;
their women became unseemly. When they celebrated the Lord's Supper they made a
regular meal of it, and became drunk. A certain man in the Corinthian church
had taken his father's wife, and the church stood up for him. Paul's heart was
almost broken. He sent Titus with this letter.
Here is a bibliography of Paul for this period:
1. Conybeare and Howson's Life and Epistles of Paul.
2. Farrar's Life of Paul.
3. Stalker's Life of Paul, particularly his chapter on the New
Testament church.
4. McGregor's Divine Authority of Paul's Writings.
5. Monod's Five Lectures on Paul.
6. Wilkinson's Epic of Paul.
Here follows a complete analysis of the letter:
I. The Historical Introduction, which gives the place, its history, the
establishment of the church, succeeding events, the occasion of the letter,
when, where, and by whom written.
II. Salutation and Thanksgiving (1:1-9).
III. The third, and perhaps the most important division of the analysis, is the
Ecclesiastical Disorders; there are seven of these, as follows:
1. Factions (1:10 to 4:7), and this is a matter of very great importance,
especially to preachers.
2. Revolt against the apostolic authority (4:8-21; 9:1-27).
3. Consequent relaxation of morals and discipline (5).
4. Going to law against brethren (6:1-10).
5. Perversion of the Lord's Supper (10:1-22; 11:18-34).
6. Abuse and misuse of spiritual gifts (12-14).
7. The perversion of woman's position, conduct, and dress (11:1-7; 14:34-37).
IV. The fourth general division is Social Questions, including the following
items:
1. Meat offered to idols.
2. Marriage and divorce.
3. Circumcision and slavery.
V. The fifth general division is False Doctrine concerning the resurrection
(15). The subdivisions of the false doctrine are:
1. Resurrection is a spiritual affair, and is past already.
2. Philosophical objections to bodily resurrection and the reply to these
objections. In the reply he shows, (1) that the resurrection is a fundamental
doctrine: (2) the fact of Christ's resurrection establishes our resurrection.
Our resurrection depends on him.
VI. The sixth division of the analysis: General Directions and explanation
about collections, Timothy and Apollos, Stephanas and Achaicus (16:1-12;
15-18).
VII. The seventh division of the analysis: Exhortation (16: 13-14).
VIII. Closing salutations (16:19-21).
IX. The Anathema (16:22).
X. Benediction (16:23-24).
Paul left there and went to Ephesus in a roundabout w.. T, and while he was at
Ephesus holding a great meeting, he received notification from certain persons
from the church at Corinth bringing him the most doleful intelligence. The
household of Chloe brought him the word; they were urging him to come back. He
wouldn't quit the meeting to come back, but he writes: "I will tarry at
Ephesus until Pentecost; for a great door and effectual is opened unto me, and
there are many adversaries." He felt that two duties could not conflict,
and instead of returning to Corinth he wrote this letter. He had previously
written a letter that was not preserved. He now writes this letter through
Sosthenes, an amanuensis, and sends Timothy as his delegate over to Corinth. He
is intensely anxious to hear before he visits Corinth. That was the occasion of
the letter. The letter was written at Ephesus, and written on account of the
reports that came to him concerning the demoralization in that great new church
that he had established at Corinth.
QUESTIONS
1. What the first and second
groups of Paul's letters, and what the theme of each group?
2. How do the letters of the
second group compare with other literature?
3. What the location of
Corinth on a map of the Roman Empire, and what the advantages of its position?
4. Give briefly the ancient
Greek history of Corinth.
5. Give briefly its history
under Roman domination.
6. What of its moral status
during this time, what of their religion, and where may we find a description
of the moral degradation of these people?
7. What constituted the
population of Corinth at this time, why so many Jews there, and what noted
couple among them did Paul find there?
8. What of the architecture
and renown of the city?
9. What were some of the
celebrities of this city?
10. From what New Testament
books do we gather the history of the establishment of the church in this city?
11. Give a summary of the
history of the establishment of this church, answering the following questions:
(1) Whence came Paul to
Corinth, and what was his method of preaching in his last effort before coming
to Corinth?
(2) How was he conveyed to
Corinth?
(3) What his physical
condition when he arrived at Corinth?
(4) With whom did he do his
first missionary work here, what his method, and what the results?
(5) From what class of
people were most of Paul's converts at Corinth, and what marvelous displays of
divine power among them?
(6) What the difficulties,
how was Paul nerved to meet them, and what the lesson for us?
(7) Give an account of
Gallic in his relation to this work at Corinth.
(8) How long did Paul stay
at Corinth?
(9) Where did he go when he
left Corinth, and what of the work at Corinth after he left there?
12. Give a bibliography of
Paul for this period.
13. What the main points of
the analysis?
14. When and where was this
letter written, and what the occasion of it?
THE SALUTATION – ELOQUENCE AND FACTIONAL
DIVISIONS
1 Corinthians 1:1-31.
In this discussion we commence with the salutation and thanksgiving as the
second item of the analysis. The salutation is verses 1-3. The thanksgiving,
verses 4-9. Let us look at that salutation: "Paul, called to be an apostle
of Jesus Christ through the will of God." If we turn back to the
salutation of 1 Thessalonians, we find that it says: "Paul, and Silvanus,
and Timothy, unto the church of the Thessalonians." But this one says,
"Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of
God." The change arises from the objection that had been raised against
him in the city of Corinth. Therefore from now on, he never commences a letter
without affirming his call to the apostleship and his qualification for it.
One of the occasions for the letter was that a man from Judea, bearing letters
of recommendation, had sought to undermine Paul's influence by denouncing his
apostleship, and now Paul puts into his letters a statement of his full
apostolic claim: "Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through
the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, unto the church of God which is at
Corinth, even them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints,
with all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, their
Lord and ours."
The salutation, then, is from Paul and Sosthenes, who is the amanuensis. When
we come to the end of the letter we will see that Paul grabs the pen and writes
that anathema with his own hand. The only letter that he did write with his own
hand throughout, was the letter to the Galatians. His eyes were very bad, and
he wrote in great sprawling letters, about which he says, "See with how
large letters I write unto you with mine own hand." Because of this defect
in his eyesight he employed a clerk.
Great fundamental principles are discussed in this letter, and it is addressed
to them directly, but it was not intended to be merely a local letter. The
expression, "With all that call, . . . ," lifts it above local
restrictions. We notice in the salutation his use of the words,
"sanctified," and "saints," one indicating past time, and
the other present time: "Them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called
to be saints." The two words come from a common root. Sanctification has
three Bible significations: Primarily it means to set apart. God sanctified the
seventh day and set it apart. Jesus said, "I sanctify myself," that
is, "I set myself apart to do the work I am to do." In one instance
at least, the word "sanctification" is used as an equivalent of
regeneration, because sanctification commences in regeneration, and the passage
is this: "The elect . . . according to the foreknowledge of God the
Father, in sanctification of the Spirit." There, sanctification includes
both sanctification and regeneration. The third sense is where it is limited to
what is called the doctrine of sanctification as distinguished from
justification and regeneration. Regeneration is an instantaneous act of the
Spirit of God, giving a holy disposition to the mind, renewing the man,
applying to him the cleansing blood of Christ. But sanctification, in its
doctrinal aspect, is the progressive work of making completely holy that new
life which is commenced in regeneration. And then it goes on until the man's
soul is made completely holy – as holy as God is holy. In justification
Christ's righteousness is imputed to us through faith; in sanctification,
before the work is completed, or when it is completed, we personally are made
righteous altogether. Sanctification of the spirit culminates in death. When
the soul is separated from the body it is sanctified – made perfect. Paul says)
"The spirits of just men made perfect." Death is the last lesson in
sanctification. He continues the salutation: "Grace to you and peace from
God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Paul's salutations always
consist, first, of "grace," and then "peace," because peace
depends on grace.
In every letter that he writes, just after the salutation is a thanksgiving
statement. He had hard work in finding ground for thanksgiving here, but he
always finds it if it is there. He always gives his thanks to God for the good
that there is, before he begins to point out evil. I take great blame to myself
that I do not follow Paul with regard to thankfulness concerning the brethren.
I am afraid many of us are addicted to censoriousness; because of the spirit of
criticism we see but little reason for thankfulness in many of our brethren.
An old deacon of the church to which I first preached told me of one man who
never condemned, who in every case found some good in whomsoever was mentioned.
Finally they made a bet that even the deacon could not find a good thing to say
about a certain man that was a notoriously bad character and who had just died.
They told the old deacon about it and he stood a while and then said,
"Brethren, we ought to be thankful that he was a good whistler." He
just wouldn't say a condemnatory thing about anybody.
This letter of Paul to the church at Corinth was a sharp letter, and
particularly when he criticizes the abuse and misuse of the miraculous
spiritual gifts. I once heard a preacher say, "Don't burn the ship in
order to get rid of the rats." So Paul does not discount the great
spiritual gifts because by some people they were so abused and misused. These
gifts were more widely diffused among the Corinthians than at any other place
of which we have any account in the Bible. It was a great necessity at that
place for these spiritual gifts in order to get a hearing. Referring to these
gifts Paul says, "In everything ye were enriched in him, in all utterance
and all knowledge; even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: so
that ye come behind in no gift." That is a new ground of thanksgiving that
we have not found before.
With this brief prelude Paul launches at once into the discussion of the great
questions that occasioned the letter. First of all were the eight
ecclesiastical disorders. This 'is what he says: "Now I beseech you,
brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same
thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be perfected
together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been signified
unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them that are of the household of
Chloe, that there are contentions among you." Let us see what kind of
contentions, and how factions started in that church, and let us see if, so far
as our knowledge of factions goes, that they arise from the same cause. I don't
suppose that there ever was a preacher who didn't at some time or other see a
divided church. There are men today with a great burden on their hearts because
of divisions in the church where they preach. We want to know how these
factions started. He said, "Each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I am
of Apollos; and I am of Cephas; and I am of Christ." What then is the
contention about? The members of the church are partial toward spiritual leaders.
After Paul left there, Apollos, of Alexandria, an eloquent rhetorician, came
there, and he was a mighty orator, and the people were led away by his
eloquence, and later there came these brethren from Judea who thought that
Peter was a great man. Apollos himself was not to blame; he had nothing to do
with it. But a faction rallied around Apollos, another around Peter, another
rallied around Christ. Some held to Peter and some held to themselves, and
said, "I am a 'Christ-i-an,' " others, "I am Apollosite,"
"I am a Peterite," or "I am a Christite." While Paul was
away Apollos came there and preached, and being a very eloquent man and a
rhetorician, with all of the arts of polished speech, with well-rounded
periods) his speech so very fine that admiration for the rhetoric of it led
some to disregard the matter of it, so that to them the speech was lost in its
oratory.
At various conventions I have heard men remarking on certain speakers. One said
concerning a certain address, "That was the most logical, best rounded,
and of the most homiletic art," showing that they were studying the manner
and casting of the speech more than the preaching itself, just like discussing
a woman's dress instead of the woman.
The gravest factions that ever agitated the churches of Jesus Christ have come
up around persons more than doctrines, politics, or measures. In ninety-nine
cases out of one hundred, rows in the church come up around preachers. Laymen
as a rule don't like a fuss in a church, but the preacher oftentimes makes a
great deal of harm, intending really to do good instead of evil, and yet
because he doesn't know how to do certain things, and particularly how to
handle delicate cases of discipline, there will be a scene, and directly the
cause of a splitting of the church wide open. Generally we can get men to
compromise, and by reasoning and prayer, we may bring them into doctrinal
agreement, but the hardest men to harmonize in the world are those who are
contentious about men. That is why we should never seek after a
"stack-pole" unification, i. e., stack around a man. He may die, and
then what becomes of our unit?
It was a grief to Paul because people had made his name a cause of faction. Let
us carefully and prayerfully make the application to our own hearts, and note
the great arguments Paul gives against these factions. He says, "Is Christ
divided?" i. e., is our Lord Jesus Christ to be cut up and parceled and
measured out, one piece to one man, another to another man? So long as Christ
is the center of our unification, kingship, priesthood, there should be no
division about men.
When I was a schoolboy I was an enthusiastic supporter of the Union, though
when my state seceded, I entered the Southern army and remained in it four
years. In my last days at school I stood on a goods box in the streets of
Independence under the last Star-Spangled Banner ever lifted to the sun of
Texas before the war, and with a great mob gathered round to pull down the
flag, I commenced my oration by repeating the poem: Think ye that I could brook
to see That banner I have loved so long, Borne piecemeal o'er the distant sea,
Divided, measured, parceled out, Tamely surrendered up forever, To satisfy the
soulless rabble? Never, never!
I have to confess that I changed my conviction about the right policy of
secession, after I saw that they had to secede. There was not anything else to
be done, but I am just showing how here in measuring, parceling out, the
thought is just the same.
Notice Paul's next argument: "Was Paul crucified for you? You say you are
for Paul, Cephas, or for Apollos: is any one of these your Saviour? Was Peter
judged before Pilate? Was it Peter that entered the three hours of darkness and
cried out, 'My God, why hast thou forsaken me?' Was it by the shed blood of
Paul that your sins were forgiven? If none of these men was crucified for you,
then in the name of consistency, why name them as rallying points? When you
came up and testified for Christ's sake that God had forgiven yours sins, and
when you were led into the water, and the preacher lifted up his hand over your
head, did he say, "Upon your public profession, I baptize you in the name
of Peter"? He makes his argument still stronger, saying, "I thank God
that I baptized none of you save Crispus and Gaius – and the household of
Stephanus."
Never shall I forget one of my earliest controversies. A man came to my town
and was affirming that baptism was essential to salvation, like repentance and
faith. I stood up before him and said,
"Will you tell me then, why Paul said, 1 thank God I baptized none of you
save Crispus and Gains'? You say baptism is essential to salvation; Paul said,
'God sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel.' " Notice how he
puts baptism in opposition to the gospel.
Then further, if there were no other words in the Bible than the words we have
here, they are forever fatal to the doctrine of baptismal salvation.
Those who were converted were usually baptized by other ministers. Perhaps he
baptized these when he first reached Corinth and was by himself. But soon after
Timothy, Titus, and Silas joined him and performed the rest of the baptizing.
Christ never baptized at all, but Christ saved men, therefore his baptism was
not essential to salvation.
It was Peter who opened the door to the Gentiles, and they through faith
received remission of sins. He commanded them to be baptized; he did not do it
himself. Baptism is a commandment of great importance, but it is not a
condition of salvation. Paul says, "I thank God I baptized none of you
lest somebody, in saying, 1 am of Paul,' should give as a reason 1 am better
than you are because Paul baptized me.' " I can understand that one who is
to be baptized would prefer that a dear friend should perform that ordinance,
just as people marry and want some dear friend to perform that rite; but it is
not necessary that a particular person should do it. If it is a fact that a
certain person should not do the baptizing, then that should be made no ground
for division, or from the fact that there are three denominations at least who
recognize us as proper subjects of baptism, but who refuse to recognize it
because we were not baptized by the bishop or some person high in church
position.
Notice the continuation of Paul's argument: "For the word of the cross is
to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of
God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise. And the
discernment of the discerning will I bring to nought. Where is the wise? where
is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish
the wisdom of the world? For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through
its wisdom knew not God, it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of
the preaching to save them that believe."
The application is this: One of the factions of that Corinthian church arose
out of the great dialectic skill of Apollos in his preaching and in his
argument. That, says Paul, can be no ground for a faction in the church of
Jesus Christ, because true preaching holds up the cross only as a means of
salvation, and not the oratorical manner in which one talks about the cross. He
goes on to show why it was in his preaching that he refused that oratorical method.
He says, "I came, not relying upon the wisdom of the world and
argumentation. I came in weakness, fear and trembling, praying that your faith
should not stand in man, but in the demonstration of the Spirit, and I held up
nothing before you but the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. If a church is to be
divided on a question of rhetoric or philosophic training, then I propound
Paul's questions, "Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the
disputer of this world?" God had poured his contempt upon the whole of it.
The world by wisdom knew not God. All the wise men of the world were never able
to find him nor to devise a single plank of the bridge of salvation that spans
the chasm between hell and heaven.
He continues to argue: "Not only is this true, but I appeal to your
experience, For behold your calling, brethren, that not many wise after the
flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God chose the foolish
things of the world, that he might put to shame them that are wise; and God chose
the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the things that were
strong; and the base things of the world, and the things that are despised, did
God choose, yea, and the things that are not, that he might bring to nought the
things that are; that no flesh should glory before God." If salvation is
dependent upon the eloquence of preachers, the logic of Aristotle and wisdom of
Socrates; if the number of converts are to be measured by the preacher's
acquaintance with flights of fancy, and with great epic poems that he has
either written or read, then, indeed, might one make that a ground of
contention, but the very highest estimate that one can put upon any of that is
that it is merely a scaffolding.
I have oftentimes seen a great sermon fail to convict because it was too
ornate, too delicate, too polished. It did not deal directly with the naked
souls of men.
That was a shrewd thing in Paul to appeal to their experience: "Look at
yourselves! You were a ragamuffin crowd – thieves, murderers, adulterers. Did
rhetoric come to you in the mud, and wash you clean? Was it the power of the
orator that could charm you from the degradation of sin, and could lift you up
and put your feet upon the rock? 0 brethren, it was the gospel of the Lord
Jesus Christ! The cross of Christ is the only true thing in preaching that
saves men, and here you are splitting up the church because one preacher is
more eloquent than another."
I feel pressed in spirit to enforce upon the minds of preachers the subject of
contention. Let them beware that there should come death unto the church of
Jesus Christ on their account. Though a Christian cannot be lost, the church
can be destroyed. Because that church organization is the temple of the Holy
Spirit, God says, and Paul brings out the statement of God in this letter,
"Him that destroyeth the temple of God will God destroy, and his temple
are ye." That does not mean that the preacher loses his soul, but that on
account of his church he may be stricken and temporarily destroyed so that he
will never get over it; his usefulness gone and his name on record as the man
who divided the church, and the light was put out, and all because "him
that destroyeth the temple of God will God destroy."
What graver lesson does Texas need than she has had? Some years ago all our
work was paralyzed on account of hypercriticism, until at last the brethren saw
that there could never be a forward move, the people of God could never advance
with banner unfurled, and from the very day that they drew the line of
demarcation until now, there has been one colossal stride after another toward
greater things. Let us go back in our mind over the list of ministers who have
lost their hold on congregations, not as Christians, but as preachers, and have
made shipwreck of their lives. There was a man that destroyed a certain church
of Jesus; he came in as a ground of faction; he worked up a party of division
around himself, and the power of the church was lost. When he did that he
signed his death warrant as a useful preacher.
QUESTIONS
1. What constitutes the
second item of the analysis, and what the scripture for each division?
2. What particularly
distinguishes the salutation of this letter from the preceding salutations in 1
and 2 Thessalonians, and why?
3. What expression lifts the
letter above local restrictions, and why should this letter not be so
restricted?
4. On the phrase,
"sanctified, called to be saints," what the several New Testament
meanings of the word "sanctify," who could the sanctification of the
Corinthians be past, present, and future, what the particular meaning of the
word expressing what Baptists call the doctrine of sanctification, and how
distinguish it from regeneration and justification?
5. What the relation of
"grace" and "peace," and how is this relation indicated?
6. What was Paul's habit in
writing his letters, and what the lesson on censoriousness? Illustrate.
7. What the new ground of
hi? thanksgiving here?
8. Were the gifts mentioned
in this thanksgiving the ordinary graces of the Spirit or those miraculous
endowments of the Spirit constituting the "baptism in the Holy
Spirit"?
9. What passages in the
letter show the extent and variety of the miraculous endowments bestowed upon
the Corinthians?
10. In view of their misuse
and abuse of these gifts, what the explanation of Paul's thankfulness for their
reception of them? Illustrate.
11. What the first
ecclesiastical disorder, and what part of the letter discusses it?
12. What the occasion of
this disorder – persons, doctrines, or discipline, etc.?
13. If persons, were they
laymen or preachers, and who were they?
14. What proportion of
church divisions now are caused or occasioned by preachers, and when thus
occasioned are the preachers always to blame?
15. What is Paul's first
argument against factions, and what the present-day application?
16. What his second argument
and its application?
17. What his third argument,
how does he reinforce this argument, and what is its bearing on baptismal
salvation?
18. What the fourth
argument, and what the application to the Corinthians?
19. What the fifth argument,
and what the special application to the Corinthians?
20. What the sixth argument,
appealing to their personal experience, and what illustration from modern
Baptist history?
21. What the meaning of
"if any man destroyeth the temple of God, him shall God destroy"?
THE PREACHER AND FACTIONS
1 Corinthians 2:1 to 4:7.
We shall proceed to repeat part of the ground of the last chapter. We were
discussing the third division of the outline, ecclesiastical disorders. The first
is factions. There were divisions. Paul, in replying to the evil of divisions
in churches about persons, made an argument that the world has never equaled,
and which will be important for all time upon the subject of factions.
His first argument against factions is that Christ Is not divided. Second, the
preacher was not crucified for them. They were making divisions about
preachers, yet nobody was crucified but Christ. Third, nobody was baptized in
the name of a preacher. Fourth, one of the grounds of division was that some
preachers were more oratorical than others in their speaking, and used
eloquence and philosophies of the schools. In replying to that he stated the
wise or oratorical preacher does not save men. They are saved by the cross.
Therefore, it is perfectly foolish to have a division about persons on the
ground that one is more oratorical than another. Fifth, that worldly wisdom
never did discover God, and never could have devised a plan of salvation. God
gave the wisdom of the world all the opportunity that it wanted from the
beginning of time to the coming of Christ. There had been many wise men,
particularly among the Greeks and Romans, but what did their wisdom amount to?
It had never discovered the nature of God, devised a system of morals or a plan
of salvation. History presents the awful anomaly that the wisest cities in the
world, such as Athens, Ephesus, and Corinth, were morally rotten, spiritually
putrid. Their wisdom did not save them from obscenity or debauchery. The sixth
argument is that as a matter of fact few of the wise and the great men were
saved. Somehow their wisdom and their greatness prevented their stooping down
and becoming little children in receiving the gospel of Jesus Christ. He proves
this by appealing to their own case. "You know, brethren, from your own
experience that not many wise, great, or noble are called." The seventh
argument against division, where it was predicated on superior worldly wisdom
on the part of any of the persona about whom the division was centered, is that
Christ himself is the wisdom of the Christian, the righteousness,
sanctification, and redemption of the Christian. How beautifully he works in
the thought of the Trinity, "Who was made unto us wisdom from God, and
righteousness and sanctification and redemption." While Christ is the
wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption of his people, the
application is different. He is not our sanctification in the sense that he is
our righteousness. Our righteousness is imputed to us, and we receive it by a
single act of faith. Our sanctification is applied to us differently by the
Holy Spirit, and becomes at last a personal righteousness.
His eighth argument is that the gospel which saves men is not discerned
according to carnal wisdom, but is spiritually discerned. Whether a man be wise
or ignorant does not enter into the question. We might take a Negro that could
not read a letter in a book, and put seven wise men of Greece against him, and
the Negro might spiritually discern the gospel of eternal life preached to him
as a poor, ignorant, lost soul quicker than the seven wise men of Greece.
I have often used as an illustration of that, the case of Gen. Speight, whose
children live in Waco now. He was a great man in many respects. He was the best
organizer and trainer of a regiment I ever knew, and his intellect was quick as
lightning, and yet he could not see how to be converted until his old Negro
servant took him off in the gin house and showed him how to come to Christ.
That applies in Paul's argument. One of the grounds of division, was that they
were instituting comparisons between Paul and Apollos. Apollos was a wise man,
expert in Alexandrian philosophy. Paul wants to know what that counts in a case
of this kind. The natural man receives not the things of God. They are
foolishness to him.
His ninth argument is that factions hinder spiritual progress. They were yet
babes in Christ when they ought to have been teachers. I don't know anything
that can more quickly destroy the spiritual progress of the church than
divisions. Let a church be divided into two parties, one following Deacon A and
the other Deacon B; one clamoring for this preacher and the other for that; let
the line be drawn sharply, then all spirituality dies. There cannot be power
'in the church while that continues.
The tenth argument consists of some questions: "What then is Apollos? and
what is Paul?" At a last analysis they are only the instruments or
ministers by whom they believed; God himself gave the increase.
He advances in the eleventh argument: "You are divided about preachers.
You are not the preacher's field or his building. You are God's field; you are
God's building. Then if you are God's building you don't belong to this
preacher or to that preacher."
The twelfth argument is that the only foundation in this building is Jesus
Christ: "Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is
Jesus Christ." The thirteenth argument is that all the incongruous
material the preacher puts on that foundation will be destroyed in the great
judgment day – tried by fire. He refers to the material received for church
membership. Paul laid a divine foundation for the church at Corinth. Other men
proposed to build on that foundation. Suppose a man puts into the temple of God
"wood, hay, stubble." Some people thatch the roof of the house with
hay or stubble. Every addition to that church, when the Master comes to examine
his building, that has not been made of living stone, lasting spiritual material,
will be cut out and will go up in fire and smoke. So we will say that one
reason for the division was that a preacher held a meeting and received a
thousand members and 975 came in without conviction or repentance – a dry-eyed,
easy, little faith, little sinner, little savior – and it did not amount to
anything. The preacher, if a Christian, will be saved, but every bit of the
unworthy material he put in the church will be lost, and because the work is
lost he will suffer loss of reward for his labors.
His fourteenth argument is that factions destroy the church, which is the
temple of God, which temple they were: "Him that destroyeth the temple of
God will God destroy." I never knew it to fail where a man through his
fault destroyed a church of Christ that that man was destroyed world without
end. Even if he was a Christian he was destroyed. Not as to eternal life, but
certainly as to his usefulness in this world. His fifteenth argument is – what
a text! I heard Dr. Hatcher, of Richmond, preach a sermon on it. The church
does not belong to the preachers; the preachers belong to the church: "All
things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life,
or death, or things present, or things to come, all are yours; and ye are
Christ's; and Christ is God's."
The sixteenth argument is that these preachers about which they were dividing
this church must be counted simply as stewards of the grace of God, the deposit
of the gospel which has been given to them. They were not to be looked on as
the builders, the authors, and the savior of the church. What they were to do
in their case was to ask the one question, "Has this steward been
faithful?" The seventeenth argument is that they were dividing this church
on their human judgment of men, and their human judgment didn't count at all.
The King James version of 4:3 is, "But with me it is a very small thing
that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment; yea, I judge not mine own
self. For I know nothing by myself." How many sermons I have heard on that
when the thought is not that at all! This is the meaning of the true text of
the Greek: “For though I know nothing against myself, yet I am not hereby
justified," i.e., human judgment doesn't count. In other words, I may seem
to myself perfect, but I may have a thousand faults. The judge is God, and when
God lets the light shine, he brings out some spot I don't see in the dim light
of my wisdom. You remember David's prayer, "Cleanse thou me from secret
faults," i.e., not faults that I am keeping hid from my wife and my
friends, but faults secret to me. "The heart is deceitful above all things
and desperately wicked; who can know it?"
The eighteenth and last argument is this: Preachers deserve no credit for
difference in gifts, and yet they were making their different gifts the ground
of their division: "For who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that
thou didst not receive?" One of the greatest blessings in this world today
is the difference of gifts that God gives to the church and his preachers. Two
of the most important chapters in the Bible are devoted to a discussion of that
question (Rom. 12; I Cor. 12). God has never yet called a man to preach who
cannot do some things better than anybody else in the world. He never gives two
men exactly the same gifts. I am conscious that I can do some things better
than other people. I am sure that God has given me the gift of interpretation
of his Word. But others can do some things better than I can. I would hate it
very much if I were the best sample in the kingdom all along the line. It would
be a very sad thing for the world if some of God's preachers could not beat me
in some things. They had made this difference in gifts the ground of their
factions. Now, call each man up and say, "Paul, where did you get your
gifts?" He answers, "God gave them to me." "Did you earn
them?" "No, they are free grace." "Apollos, where did you
get your gifts?" "God gave them to me." "You did not
purchase them from God?" "No, they came through free grace."
One of the greatest preachers I ever heard stood up in the pulpit and pointed
to a homely old Baptist preacher in the crowd and said, "Brethren, I would
give all I am worth in the world to be able to preach like that man." The
most of the crowd would have said, "You beat him." He could beat him,
but not in all things. That man could preach a sermon by the way he got up in
the pulpit and opened the Bible. The humility and tenderness of soul with which
he looked into the faces of the sinners was marvelous. That fact alone ought to
keep down the jealousy of one preacher against another preacher. There is such
s, thing as improving one's gifts, and for that a man does deserve credit. A
man may have a gift, and by disuse of that gift it will go into bankruptcy; one
may be lazy and won't study, and for that he is to be blamed. I care not how
dull a man is naturally, if God has called that man, he had a reason for
calling him. He has some work for him to do that Michael and Gabriel could not
do. That man is responsible for just what gifts he has, and he ought to try to
improve those gifts, and not try to imitate somebody whose gifts are different
from his.
I am glad our Lord did not, in this matter, imitate a candiemaker who brings a
great tub full of tallow and pours it into one mould. All candles come out of
candle-moulds exactly alike. I am glad the Lord's preacher-material is not like
a tub of tallow, and that it is not all run into one mould. We want diversity
of gifts and division of labor. Some have the gift of exhortation; others,
exposition, pastoral power, tactfulness in visiting the sick and the strangers.
Some have the evangelistic gift, and some one thing and some another. Thus we
have the eighteen arguments which Paul gives against the first of these
ecclesiastical disorders – factions.
The second ecclesiastical disorder was a revolt against apostolic authority
(1:8-21; 9:1-27). In order to unify this discussion, I have taken everything in
the letter that bears upon the revolt against apostolic authority. But who
questioned Paul's apostolic authority? Visiting Jewish professors of religion,
coming from Jerusalem and having that Judaizing spirit, which would make the
Christian religion nothing but a sect of Judaism, came up to Corinth. In the
second letter we have this same topic for discussion. These visiting brethren
brought letters of recommendation from people in Judea, as we learn in the
second letter, and they questioned Paul's apostolic authority. On what grounds
did they question his apostolic authority?
1. Because he was not one of the original twelve apostles, and had not seen the
Lord in his lifetime.
2. He did not exercise the apostolic powers when his authority was questioned.
Ananias and Sapphira tried to fool Peter and they were struck dead by exertion
of apostolic power. But Paul did not use the power of an apostle to strike men
dead in Corinth that differed with him.
3. He had not claimed apostolic support for himself, therefore it was evident
that he did not count himself as deserving it. The twelve apostles,
particularly Cephas and the brothers of our Lord, being married men, as
apostles, for devoting themselves to the apostolic office, demanded support for
themselves and their families.
4. His suffering proclaimed that he was not an apostle. If he were God's
apostle, he would not get into so much trouble, for the Lord would take care of
him.
5. His was not the true gospel. The true gospel was given to those who
accompanied the Lord Jesus Christ, beginning with the baptism of John down to
the time he was taken to heaven. Paul was not even a Christian when that took
place.
6. His folly. He did a great many foolish things in the way of expediency.
7. His bodily infirmities and weaknesses. He was a little sore-eyed Jew,
bald-headed, with no grace of oratory and no rhetorical form of speech.
8. He was against Moses and the Mosaic law.
9. He was a preacher to the Gentiles. These are the nine distinct grounds upon
which these living, visiting brethren, who had done nothing for that church, came
over there to work up a case. Whenever I read about it I always feel indignant
against that scaly crowd. This is a part of Paul's great controversy to which
Stalker devotes a chapter in his Life of Paul. The letters which
are alive with the items of this controversy are 1 and 2 Corinthians,
Galatians, and Romans. Later it comes up in another form in Philippians,
Colossians, and Ephesians, and the same matter in yet a different form later in
Hebrews. We will see how Paul replies to this question of his apostleship in
the next chapter.
QUESTIONS
1. Restate the first six
arguments against factions.
2. What the seventh argument
against division predicated on superior worldly wisdom, and how does Paul here
bring in the thought of the Trinity?
3. How is Christ our
righteousness, sanctification, and redemption?
4. What the eighth argument,
relating to the gospel, and what illustrations given?
5. What the ninth argument,
relating to spiritual progress?
6. What the tenth argument,
relating to the instruments of their faith?
7. What the eleventh
argument, relating to God's field, or building?
8. What the twelfth
argument, relating to the foundation?
9. What the thirteenth
argument, relating to incongruous material?
10. What the fourteenth
argument, relating to the temple of God?
11. What the fifteenth
argument, relating to church ownership, and what sermon noted on this as a
text?
12. What the sixteenth
argument, referring to the deposit of the gospel?
13. What the seventeenth
argument, referring to human, judgment, and how is this text often misapplied?
14. What the eighteenth
argument, referring to gifts, and what special blessing in the diversity of
gifts?
15. What the second
ecclesiastical disorder at Corinth, and who caused it?
16. On what grounds did they
question Paul's apostolic authority?
17. In what letters of Paul
do we have this great controversy?
THE REVOLT AGAINST PAUL'S APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY
1 Corinthians 4:8-21; 9:1-27.
In the last chapter this question was asked, "Who questioned Paul's
authority?" And our answer was, "Visiting brethren from
Jerusalem," and we discussed the various grounds upon which they based their
questionings. Paul's reply is found in 4:8-21; 9:1-27; and three or four verses
in chapter 15. We take two sections somewhat distant apart and put them
together in order to put everything together that bears upon the discussion.
The first charge was that he was not one of the original twelve. He admits the
allegation, but denies the deduction. Jesus Christ had as much right to appoint
an apostle after his resurrection as he had while in the flesh. It will be
remembered that in Acts I, through the Spirit, Matthias, not one of the
original twelve, was numbered with the twelve, received the baptism of the Holy
Spirit, and became in every way a qualified apostle of Jesus Christ. Paul was
as truly appointed an apostle by the will of God as Peter was. There never was
any more definite or important a transaction than his meeting the Lord on the
way to Damascus at which time he was not only converted, but was specially
called into the apostolic office. Over and over again in his letters and in his
life are evidences that the Lord not only originally called him, but appeared
to him many times in confirmation of that call. So he well says in commencing
this letter, "Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, through the
will of God."
Then they charged that he had not seen Jesus in the flesh. He admits the fact,
but he says it is altogether unimportant whether he had seen Jesus in the flesh
or not. He had seen him after he rose from. the dead, and that was the point
upon which the apostleship rested. That he had seen the risen Lord constituted
his qualification to be a witness as an apostle. They charged that he had not
exercised his apostolic authority in vindicating himself by punitive judgments
on those that questioned him. Peter had Ananias and Sapphira struck dead for
telling a lie. It is said that Paul talked big enough, but did not act. To that
Paul replies that on account of mercy he had refrained from vindicating, by
punitive right, his power, but that he had a right and could exercise it, and
when he got among them he would do it unless they repented of the wrongs that
they had done.
They charged that he had not exacted apostolic support for himself and wife.
They argued that he, in his own conscience, did not feel entitled to it. His
reply to that is superb, and is completely unanswerable. He commences with
chapter 9, which is the chapter of the Bible on the scriptural grounds for
ministerial support, by saying, "Am I not free?" This matter of
support is a right, not a duty. "May I not waive the right 'if I
choose?" There are some things we can waive if we choose to do so.
A certain man whom I knew, an exceedingly eccentric man, was, as a widower,
paying his addresses to a widow. The lady said when he asked her to marry him,
"I have some objections to marrying you." He said, "I have a
great many objections to marrying you, but I waive them."
Next, Paul gives the reasons why he waived the right. They were missionary
reasons. If he had come there and made his first speech on their paying him a
salary, nobody would have listened to him. It was not after the plan of God's
gospel that a missionary, reaching territory that had never been occupied,
should lay great stress on the people's paying him to preach to them. The next
is, that his desires were for them, not for their money: "I coveted you
for Christ, and not anything that you had." Third, as a matter of fact it
was not true, since in part he bad been supported while among them, through a
contribution of the church. Next, that he labored with his own hands, not
because an apostle had to do that, but because it was a necessity for an
important lesson to them in that community. Tens of thousands of Corinthians
were loafers. Paul wanted to be able to say, "You remember – you people
who won't work – that when I was among you I worked by night and preached to
you by day. These hands ministered unto my support in order that you might
understand that he who won't work should not eat." There is no
sentimentality about Paul on the beggar question. They charged that he had
exacted no pay for his preaching. He replied that that did not make him
inferior, but made them inferior: "For what is there wherein ye were made
inferior to the rest of the churches, except it be that ye were brought to
Christ and established and built up by my ministry, and ye did not pay me a
cent?" Then he said, "Forgive me this wrong. It was wrong for me to
waive my right to a support that you should not be instructed to minister to
those who minister to you." Then he goes on to prove his right.
To the end of time, 1 Corinthians 9, will be the chapter in the New Testament
on the subject of ministerial support. I once took as a text this scripture:
"My defense to them that examine me is this." They put him upon
examination. He bases his answer, first, upon analogy from human conduct in
other things, and cites three things: First, the soldier: "Who goeth forth
to warfare at his own charges?" They objected to a preacher being
supported for his ministry. On all sides these people could see soldiers.
"Do they pay for their rations, their uniforms, their weapons, their
hospital in which they stay, and the medicine which they take?" It would
be impossible to have an army permanently without setting aside from some
source adequate support for them. So applying that analogy to the preacher, why
may he not have a right to a support? Paul might have gone further: Officers in
the army are not merely provided for the field, but are educated at national
expense, like Army cadets at West Point, or Naval cadets at Annapolis.
My wife's brother, Willie Harrison, is in the Navy. I remember well when he was
just a boy he entered Annapolis as a cadet. He knew no more about a ship than
he did about a balloon. He is now lieutenant on one of the great battleships,
and has charge of a most responsible position in its navigation. I went to see
him a few years ago and went all over the yards at Annapolis, Washington, and
Baltimore. It became perfectly evident to me that no untrained man could be a
naval officer. His training must commence very early. As protected those
enormous guns, I realized that one slight mis1 looked at every process of
making defensive armor that take and the whole ship would blow up, and that the
keenest, highest education was necessary in order to know how to handle those
ships in time of war.
Then he cites the case of the vine-dresser: "Who planteth a vineyard and
eateth not the fruit thereof?" One cannot drag a man to a piece of ground,
make him clear it, cultivate and gather the grapes, and not pay him anything.
He asks: "Who feedeth the flock and eateth not of the milk of the
flock." Will a Texas cowboy take charge of a herd of cattle, watch by day
and night, nearly kill himself avoiding a stampede, be burned in the sun, and
do all for nothing? Hasn't he a right to a piece of beef, to milk and butter?
Or if it be sheep, to a piece of mutton, or to woolen clothes? That argument is
perfectly unanswerable.
Second, he appeals to the law of Moses. The Jews were questioning his right. He
refers to their law, "Say I these things as a man? It is written in the
law of Moses. Does the Mosaic law forbid a man to muzzle his ox that is
threshing the grain?" In those days they threshed the grain by oxen
treading on it continuously. That was their primitive way of threshing.
"Now would you begrudge an ox his food if he stooped to get a bite of
grain? The Mosaic law forbids you to muzzle the ox that treads out the grain.
If it be a sin to muzzle an ox, is it not a greater sin to muzzle a man that
brings the message of eternal life to the people? He brings not the bread of
earth, but the bread of heaven. Certainly it applies more to men than to
oxen." He says, "If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a
great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? The preacher finds you in
darkness under the power of Satan, lost; and in tears and love he pleads with
you and you are led to Christ and find eternal life. The spiritual things to
which he leads you are worth more than all the world. Is it then unreasonable
that he should reap your carnal things?" In other words, a man who by the
grace of God and through the ministry of a faithful preacher has been led to
eternal life and made a partaker of the inheritance of the saints, who would
grudge help in a carnal way to the one who had been the means of his salvation,
would certainly throw a question over his salvation.
Notice his next argument, viz.: their own conduct: "If there be those who
are partakers of this power over you, are not we rather?" In other words,
"The preachers you have had, you have paid for their services. You concede
the right to Peter and others, and if this support is for them, why not Paul?
Ask yourselves which one of these led you to salvation. Paul is the one that
found you and led you out of darkness into light." Then he passes to his
next argument, still on the law of Moses, the Levites, and the priests:
"Do you know that they who minister about the holy things of life, of the
things in the Temple, and they which wait at the altar are partakers of the
altar? The tribe of Levi, which had no territory given to them, had become the
Lord's servants to do the Lord's work and minister to the Lord's sanctuary, and
the Lord provides for their support."
He thus makes the application of these five distinct arguments: "Even so
did the Lord ordain that they that preach the gospel should live of the
gospel." It certainly is an important declaration. As a government
maintains its soldiers, and when they get old and feeble, it provides hospitals
and infirmaries, and when officers are retired they receive half pay, so
"God hath ordained that they that preach the gospel should live of the
gospel."
When Christ sent out his apostles he commanded them to take no means of
support, saying, "The laborer is worthy of his meat and his hire." In
other words, "I would be a very poor employer if I sent you out to confine
your attention strictly to my work, and make you hustle to get your living from
other things." Wherever there is no adequate provision for ministerial
support, and the preacher must do things for his living, run a farm or practice
medicine, we may rest assured that he cannot give his undivided attention to
the ministry, and that churches that receive that kind of ministry do not
receive the. full work of the ministry. The calamity in that case is on the
church. Oftentimes it is downright covetousness that is the cause of it.
Churches think we can get Brother So-and-so for fifty dollars a year, and we
can just have preaching once a month. Can a church prosper on once a month's
preaching?
I have always taken this position: If any preacher, truly called of God to
preach, will implicitly trust, not the churches, but the Lord Jesus Christ to
take care of him, and will consecrate his entire time to the work of the ministry,
verily he shall be clothed and fed, or else the heavens will fall, and God's
word will not be so.
I made that statement once and some of the brethren questioned it. I still
stand on it.
If I were a young man again, I would do just as I did then, burn all the
bridges behind and push out on the promises of God, that perhaps not in my way,
not in the church's way, but in some way the Lord Jesus Christ would take care
of my wife and children.
I would say in my heart, "I am God's man; I am to go out as his minister,
to do his work, to do no other business; and sink or swim, live or die, survive
or perish, I will trust the Lord and stick to my work." I have tried
trusting Jesus and he has never failed; I have had men to lie to me
straight-out; I have had 1,000 promises to fail, coming from men, but never has
any promise of God failed that he has ever made.
An illustration on this point occurred at an early day in Waco. We had a very
skeptical man there, Mr. Berry, whom Dr. Burleson invited to attend an association.
He had no buggy, and so Dr. Burleson said, "You may ride with me."
When he saw Dr. Burleson's shabby old buggy and rattletrap harness and lean,
raw-boned horse, he said, "Dr. Burleson, you have faith that you will get
there in that buggy, but I have not; I am going to get a buggy from the livery
stable." But Dr. Burleson beat him there just the same. I have known
preachers to get there in ramshackle buggies and pieced-out harness, tied with
shoe-strings. Once I saw a collar on a horse tied with a necktie, and the
preacher had to preach without one, but "he got there just the same."
When Jesus gave the commission he said, "These things shall follow: If a
serpent bite you, or you drink deadly poison, it will not hurt you." They
applied that to Paul and said, "We infer from your extraordinary
afflictions – the Roman lictors, the stripes and scourges of the Jews, and the
thorn in your flesh, and that bad eyesight, that if you were an apostle of the
Lord he would take care of you." His reply to that is certainly great. It
is in chapter 4: "I think God hath set us, the apostles, last of all, as
men doomed to death; for we are made a spectacle unto the world (kosmos),
both to angels and men. . . . Even unto this present hour we both hunger and
thirst and are naked." In other words, "You bring up that charge
against me and I accent the facts, but it is worse than you know. You are rich
from our labors; you are kings through our labors. We are weak and poor and
suffering." Just as Jesus, the Captain of our salvation, was made perfect
through suffering, these apostolic leaders were to share his suffering and fill
up what remained, and to bear all things.
A demonstration was needed upon this subject, and therefore he says, "I
glory in it." The word "spectacle" was taken from the custom of
the amphitheater where from 50,000 to 200,000 people were gathered – as many as
could be gathered in the great Roman amphitheater – and down below a gladiator
was to fight a Numidian lion or a Bengal tiger. High upon the platform was the
emperor and his suite, and all around in this semicircle thousands of the
people were gathered, and that man was the spectacle. He fights the wild beast,
and as his blood gushes out of his wounds he salutes the emperor and says,
"Caesar, I salute thee," and so Paul, about to make his exodus, ready
to have his blood poured out as a libation, salutes the Emperor and says,
"I have fought the good fight – I have kept the faith; henceforth there
'is laid up for me the crown of righteousness."
Again he says, not to some Roman, Corinthian, or Athenian amphitheater, but to
the kosmos – to the universe of angels and men, that all the galleries
of heaven are filled with the onlooking angels, and all the population of the
earth have their eyes fixed upon these apostles, and they are in the arena
appointed unto death. This is proof of their apostleship, as Jesus told him
when he called him.
If a man is going to turn his back on the ministry on account of the suffering,
the sooner the ministry is rid of him the better. If he is only going to be a
sunshine, fair-weather, daylight man, who, because the darkness comes, the
march is long, or the battle is terrible, or the cold severe, or the watching
is trying, or the wounds are painful – if he is going to turn away from the
ministry of Jesus Christ on that account – let him go.
His reply to their charges that he could not be an apostle because he was not
exempt from suffering is one of the finest arguments in literature. Jesus
Christ could not be Saviour according to that argument, for it was by his
suffering he became Saviour.
NOTE. – The other charges given in chapter 3 are answered in chapter 31 of this
volume.
QUESTIONS
1. What the second
ecclesiastical disorder, who raised the question, and what the scriptures
containing his masterful reply?
2. What Paul's reply to the
charge that he was not one of the original twelve, and had not seen Jesus in
the flesh?
3. What his reply to the
charge that he bad not exercised his apostolic authority in punitive judgments?
4. What his reply to the
charge that he did not exact support for himself and wife?
5. What the condition at
Corinth that made it necessary for him to waive this right?
6. What reflection on them
does Paul show in his second letter that they had allowed him to waive his
right in the matter of support?
7. What good text on
ministerial support cited?
8. What three instances of
human conduct does he cite in defense of ministerial support?
9. What his argument from the
law of Moses relating to the ox?
10, What his argument from
the benefit they received?
11. What his argument from
their own conduct?
12. What his argument based
on the support of the priests and Levites?
13. What the general application
of the five preceding distinctive arguments?
14. What the teaching of
Christ on this same line?
15. What the result
generally of a poorly paid ministry?
16. What the author's
position with regard to the preacher and his support?
17. What Paul's reply to the
charge that he had extraordinary afflictions?
18. What the origin and
application of the word "spectacle" as used here?
19 What Paul's reply to the
charge that his was not the true gospel?
20. What Paul's reply to the
charge that he did a great many foolish things?
21. What Paul's reply to the
charge that he had bodily infirmities and weaknesses?
22. What his reply to the
charge that he was against the law of Moses?
23. What his reply to the charge
that he was a preacher to the Gentiles?
NOTE: For answer to
questions 1&-23, study carefully the scriptures cited, and for continuation
of the discussion of this subject see last chapter in this book.
THE RELAXATION OF MORALS
1 Corinthians 5:1 to 6:20.
In the last chapter we considered the revolt against apostolic authority, and
now we are to take up another disorder that is a con-sequence of that one – the
relaxation of morals. It is a settled principle that one sin begets another. In
hunting I have sometimes thought that I saw just one quail, but when I flushed
him there were two, and sometimes a covey. Longfellow in Hiawatha uses this
language: Never
stoops the soaring vulture On his quarry in the desert, On the sick or wounded
bison, But another vulture, watching From his high aerial lockout, Sees the
downward plunge and follows; And a third pursues a second, Coming from
invisible ether, First a speck and then a vulture, Till the air is dark with
pinions.
That illustrates how sins are gregarious – going in troops. I do not believe it
is possible for any man or any church to commit a single sin. There are sure to
be more than one, if we ever commence at all. It seemed a little thing that
they should sin in the way of factions, or that they should sin in the way of
revolt against apostolic authority, but these two sins begat this third sin
that we are discussing – the relaxation of morals.
The case in point is thus referred to in chapter 5:
It is actually reported that there is fornication among you, and such
fornication as is not even among the Gentiles, that one of you hath his
father's wife. And ye are puffed up, and did not rather mourn, that he that had
done this deed might be taken away from 'among you. For I verily, being absent
in the 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. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that
a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out the old leaven, that ye may
be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our Passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ: wherefore let us keep the
feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness,
but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators; not at all
meaning with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and
extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world;
but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a
brother be a fomicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a
drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat. For what have I to
do with judging them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within?
But them that are without God judgeth. Put away the wicked man from among
yourselves.
That is the whole of chapter 5. It is a fine thing for preachers of this day
when they have a case of discipline that they have express apostolic authority
as to how to treat the case. This man's father had doubtless married the second
time, and the son by the first wife took his wife away from the father, i.e.,
took his stepmother. Paul says, "Ye are puffed up . . . your glorifying is
not good." They had written to him saying very complimentary things about
themselves – that they were doing fine. He didn't agree with them, not with
such disorder as this on hand, and the other disorders that have been
discussed.
He tells what to do. He says, "This man must be taken away from among
yourselves." The church must do that as a proof that it is a church
action. He says, "When you are gathered together," and in the second
letter we find that what was done in obedience to this letter was done by a
majority vote. So that here is a case that unmistakably calls for church
action. Offenses of this kind must not be committed in the church of Jesus
Christ, and the injunction is peremptory that the church must withdraw
fellowship in such cases.
The next thing besides this church action was apostolic action. Paul could do
what the church could not do – what no other preacher except an apostle could
do – that is, he could deliver such a one over to Satan. They had accused him
of not exercising his apostolic power, and he proposes if they do not heed
that, he will use his power. He had the power from Jesus Christ to deliver such
a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, but the spirit would be saved
in the day of Jesus Christ.
We want to understand what that means. It shows that this sin in the church may
be by a Christian, and that delivering him to Satan is not his ultimate
destruction, but the destruction of his flesh, that his soul may be saved in
the day of Jesus Christ. It is necessary that we understand what this means. We
find in the book of Job that God turns Job over to Satan for the destruction of
his flesh, and grievous sores came on him, but it was not that Job might be
destroyed by the devil. God says to the devil, "Touch not his life."
We see the case of the apostles when Jesus says, "Simon, Satan hath
obtained you apostles by asking that he may sift you as wheat. But I have
prayed for thee that thy faith fail not." Satan came up to Christ and
asked that he might deal with them as wheat, and if they were wheat the sifting
would help them, and so even this remarkable case of sifting was not done to
destroy the offending brother, but to gain him; and there are some cases that
cannot be gained except by stern, prompt discipline.
All over the country we have churches that are suffering for the lack of just
that thing, and they are injuring these church sinners. I will illustrate:
Suppose in the jungles of Africa a company of people and animals were camped
for the night, and they built a stockade to keep off wild beasts, and some of
the animals, a cow perhaps, gets unmanageable and bellows and butts around and
tries to get out. They turn her out, and let her hear the lion roar, and she
wants to get back. The thought is that the one that won't be quiet in good
company should be showed that there is worse company on the outside. I heard an
old Baptist preacher say, "If you put a wild hog in a pen and he goes to
squealing, let him out, and he will strike for the woods and never come back,
because he is a hog. But if a sheep is turned out it will bleat around the gate
until you open the pen and let the sheep come back on good behavior." If a
man is not a converted man he ought not to be in there; let the hog out and let
him strike for the woods; if he is a sheep and hears the lion roar he will
bleat around to get back, and he will behave himself next time.
The primary object, if a converted man, is to save him; and the second is to
purify the church, and this Paul proceeds to argue. He says, "Know ye not
that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old
leaven that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ, our
Passover, is sacrificed for us." Here he uses an Old Testament
illustration – the preparation for the Passover. Before the Passover was
observed there was the preparation for the Passover. The houses were inspected,
the walls were scraped lest there was something left, and leprosy would leave
particles sticking to the wall. They were going to keep the feast, and Paul
says, "Christ, our Passover Lamb, is sacrificed for us." In other
words, "We have a feast to keep – the Lord's Supper – and in order that we
may keep that feast let us examine ourselves and see if we be in the faith. Let
us inspect our hearts and our lives, because the law is, with the man that is
living disorderly, ye must not eat." It does not refer to a common meal.
It refers to the Lord's Supper, and the one in disorder may not rightfully
partake of the Lord's Supper. Henry Ward Beecher boasted that in his church
there never had been a case of discipline since it was organized. Not that it
was a pure church, for it was very impure; never having discipline in it, they
had no standard of doctrine and no standard of life. And the first case that
ever came up was Beecher himself, and they will bring us up if we, as pastors
of churches, are forever silent on the subject of discipline.
Paul now explains. He says, "I wrote you a letter." It was not
preserved. It was not necessary to preserve every one of his letters. John says
if everything that Jesus said and did had been preserved the world would not
hold the books. But enough is preserved to form a guide for God's people. He
continues: "And in that letter I wrote you not to keep company with
fornicators, and ye misunderstood me." He says, "I did not mean that
with respect to the world, for that would mean for you to go out of the world;
when I said to keep no company and not eat, I meant with a man who is called a
brother; if such a one be a fornicator or an adulterer you are to judge those
that are within. What have ye to do with those that are within? What have ye to
do with those that are without?" He is showing over whom the church has
authority to exercise discipline – not outsiders, but insiders.
The next disorder is in chapter 6: "Dare any of you, having a matter
against his neighbor, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the
saints? Or know ye not that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world
is judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not
that ye shall judge angels? how much more, things that pertain to this life? If
then ye have to judge things pertaining to this life, do ye set them to judge
who are of no account in the church? I say this to move you to shame. What?
Cannot there be found among you a wise man who shall be able to decide between
his brethren, but brother goeth to law with brother, and that before
unbelievers? Nay, already it is altogether a defect in you, that ye have
lawsuits one with another. Why not rather take wrong? Why not rather be
defrauded? Nay, but ye yourselves do wrong, and defraud, and that your
brethren."
This is a remarkable declaration. I will discuss it a little in order to make
an impression on the minds of young preachers, for we have almost gone astray
on it in our religious life. There isn't a country or a community in the state
that some members in the church do not violate that law, and they say they are
not heathen. That is not Paul's point at all. His point is that the saints have
the highest Judicatory power vested in them – that they will judge the world
and the angels. It is simply a question of two courts – the church-court or the
world-court. Which will we take? To which court are we going to appeal the
case? That is what he is discussing. This is illustrated in my book, Baptists
and Their Doctrines, which gives a view of the world-court and the
church-court.
He brings up the following points on this discussion: First, that God had placed
the judicatory power in the church, as our Lord says, "If any man sin, go
right along and convict him of his sin. You have gained the brother." He
does not say, "If any member of the church sin against you, whether it is
a personal or a public offense, and you know it, you go right along and convict
him. of that sin. If you fail, take two of the brethren with you; if he will
not hear them, tell it to the human court." No, tell it to the church.
There is the judicatory court that Christ established. Here comes up a
difference between two brethren on a matter of business. A says that B owes him
$100. B denies it. Shall A go to law with B? A starts to go to law and a third
man, G, comes to him and says, "A, you are committing an offense; you are
doing wrong," and A refuses to hear C, and C goes off and gets D and E,
and A won't yield. Then. if C, D and E come before the church and say, "We
are not judging as to the merits in the case; we do not say A is doing wrong in
going to law, but we do say A is doing wrong in the kind of court he goes
to." Who shall be the arbitrator? A says that he won't listen to the
church; B may owe A that $100, we don't deny that. Here A denies the
jurisdiction of Jesus Christ. Suppose A says, "I will hear the church,"
and the case is put on its merits. Paul says (and the revised version puts an
entirely new sense on it), "If then ye have to judge things pertaining to
this life, do you set them to judge who are of no account in the church?"
In other words, "Is that the way you are going to do? When the case comes
up between A and B) are you going to select people that are no account? Haven't
you got some disinterested party? Are you going to select a committee of
B-partisans, or of A-partisans?" The common version does not give that
sense at all. It says, "Is it so, that there is not a wise man among
you?"
We come now to the case that will prevent final church action: Suppose you say
to A, "Are you willing to leave this matter to a disinterested committee
of brethren as to what are the merits of your question? They do not want to say
B robbed you, and they do not want to say you harmed B; are you willing for a
third disinterested party to take it up and bring it up on the merits of the
case before you get to final church action?"
There is a passage upon which I preached one sermon, "Jesus the Arbiter of
the Nations." I preached it on the occasion of the meeting of The Hague
Conference. It shows even in matters of diplomacy that it is better to settle
the matter by arbitration than to go to war. In the millennium there will be no
war because Jesus is the arbiter between the nations. If that is to take place
on a scale in which nations are involved, why cannot we find in the church a
small committee of wise and disinterested brethren that will look into the case
and settle it without ever going to final church action? But suppose this
committee does not settle the case. They say, "Brethren, we have tried to
settle it, and here it is before the church. The question is, does B owe A this
$100? If he does he ought to pay it; if he does not, A ought not to worry about
it." If a man won't let his brethren settle these matters for him. what is
he going to do at the judgment? He presents a case; he says that rather than go
to an outsider why not say, "I will just bear this wrong." Well, but
suppose they defrauded him?
I have been defrauded many a time, more than once since I moved to Fort Worth.
Why should I parade before outsiders my case?
The saddest case in the Texas affairs of our denomination illustrates that.
Here we had a brother, very prominent, who kept bringing cases before the
General Convention of Texas, and every time he would bring it they decided
against him. He would not let it stay undecided. Finally, he took the case into
court, and if any man was ever present one day when that case was on trial and
heard the infidel lawyers and the lawyers of other denominations gloat over the
Baptist trouble, he would never forget it. Suppose that man had had the sounds
preserved in a graphophone, and had that in his family, and when any one would
come to see him he would have that instrument to reproduce those vile sentences
against our very best men? Oh, it was infamous! Of course it ruined that man.
It didn't ultimately hurt the other men, but it surely killed the man that
resorted to it.
Paul then announces a fundamental principle. He is discussing the point whether
a fornicator or adulterer should be retained in the church, and he says,
"Know ye not that a fornicator, an adulterer, a covetous man shall not
inherit the kingdom of heaven?" He will be excluded there certainly; he
will never get in; the gates will be barred. In other words, Christianity is
designed to be a maker of character. If it does not make a man better than he
was before, it is not worth anything; 'if it does not make a father a better
father, a mother a better mother, a sister a better sister, a brother a better
brother, a child a better child – if there is no improvement in the character
of the man, then we may be sure that he has never been born again, because the
Spirit does not produce that kind of fruit. And Paul says that the fruits of
the flesh are manifest. Then he tells what they are and says that the fruits of
the Spirit are manifest. "By their fruits ye shall know them," says
Jesus.
And then again they were liable to misunderstand. He says, "I don't mean
that the murderer never gets to heaven; I don't mean that men who were
fornicators never get to heaven, for such were some of you. You belonged to
that very crowd, but ye were washed; the Holy Spirit took you in charge; you
desired to obey God, not to disobey him."
In other words, the Holy Spirit is greater than total depravity. It can
overcome total depravity, because total depravity is of the first birth; but this
being born again by the power of the Holy Spirit makes one of another seed, of
the word of God, that liveth and abideth forever.
And the murderer can be saved, as thousands of them have been saved. It was the
greatest triumph of Christianity to look upon that Corinthian crowd. All the
depths of infamy through which some of them had passed could not be named in a
mixed audience, but by the power of God they were washed, and they lived, and
one of the most remarkable cases as bearing upon it, is the case of the
celebrated Augustine. His mother was a saint, and she loved her wild, wayward
boy. It seemed that the bridle had been taken off, and the devil was riding him
"bareback" down to hell. He, after his conversion, often referred to
the shameless infamies he committed. This is a case worthy of consideration.
Everyone ought to read Augustine's confessions. He did not keep on living that
life after he was converted; he was one of the greatest preachers that ever
lived. What we call Calvinism is the doctrine of Augustine. He saved the church
for 300 years from going astray. So Paul says, "Such were some of you; but
ye were washed, but ye were sanctified."
He comes now to something more difficult. He is discussing this debasing sin of
fornication, and says, "Every sin that a man doeth is without the body
(except this one)." Now instead of sin's residing in the body and
corrupting the spirit, it is the spirit that sins and corrupts the body. Envy,
that is not a bodily sin; hate, that is not a bodily sin; malice, that is not a
bodily sin; pride, presumption, every sin that a man commits is apart from his
body except fornication. There the body is made the instrument of the sin. And
Paul brings up this argument, "Know ye not that your body is the temple of
the Holy Spirit which is in you?" Generally when he refers to the temple,
he refers to a church, as he says to this church, "Ye are God's building,
ye are the temple of God," and where he says, "Every separate
congregation groweth up into the holy temple of God, a habitation of the
Spirit," but in this particular case he makes the body of the Christian a
temple of the Spirit, because the Holy Spirit enters into him and dwells in
him, and if he dwells in him, then the body is the temple in which he dwells.
QUESTIONS
1. What the relation between
the revolt against apostolic authority and the relaxation of morals?
2. Illustrate how sins are
gregarious.
3. What the case of
discipline discussed in chapter 5?
4. What relation did this man
sustain to the woman whom he took?
5. What church action did
Paul prescribe?
6. What apostolic action in
this case, what illustration from the Old Testament, and what one also from the
New Testament?
7. What the object of
correction discipline in the church member, and what illustration given?
8. What is the object
relative to the church, what Paul's argument, what Old Testament illustration,
and what the New Testament application?
9. What the meaning and
application of 1 Corinthians 5:11?
10. What the meaning and
application of 1 Corinthians 5:12-13?
11. What the fourth
ecclesiastical disorder, and where discussed?
12. What of the prevalence
of this sin?
13. What Paul's argument
against this disorder?
14. What Christ's direction in
such cases?
15. Describe a typical case
of "going to law" scripturally.
16. In case a proper
adjustment cannot be made, what does Paul recommend?
18. What fundamental
principle does Paul enunciate in this connection?
19. What the design of Christianity?
20. What Paul's teaching
elsewhere on this point, and what does Christ say also?
21. What the character of
the Corinthians before hearing the gospel, and what their character afterwards?
22. What remarkable case of
this transformation cited, and what is Calvinism.?
23. What is the meaning of
"Every sin that a man. doeth is without the body . . .” and what the
application?
THE PERVERSION OF THE LORD'S SUPPER
1 Corinthians 10:1-22; 11:17-34.
The next great ecclesiastical disorder, resulting from these other two, is the
Perversion of the Lord's Supper, and all that there is about it is in 10:1-22;
11:17-34. The first perversion was open communion. They had been living among
the heathen, and had been keeping the heathen festivals as a religious act.
When one member of the family was converted and joined the church, perchance
his wife, who was a heathen, says, "Let us be liberal. You come and
commune with me at my festival, and I will commune with you at your
festival." But Paul says, "You cannot eat at the table of the Lord
and the table of the devil; you cannot drink from the cup of the Lord and from
the cup of the devil."
I had a woman once to say, "Yes, but that is a different sort of
communion." I will admit that it is the greater extreme, but the principle
is precisely the same, that is, that it perverts the foundation principle of
the Christian religion; that the form of religious act should be the result of
individual conviction; that one should not do a thing on account of his wife.
It is his own case; it isn't her case.
I was sitting in the Old Methodist Church in Waco one time and a very handsome,
cultured lady at the very top of the social world, leaned over and whispered to
me,
"I am going to join your church next Sunday."
I said, "What for?" and she said,
"Well, my husband is a Baptist, and will never be anything else."
I said, "What are you?"
"I am a Presbyterian."
"Well," I said, "if you come to my church Sunday to join I will
vote against you. You should not take a step of that kind for that reason.
Suppose your husband were a Presbyterian, would you come to the Baptist
Church?"
"Never!"
"Then stay where you are forever," I said.
Notice the fact that it is the Lord's table, the Lord's cup. A man comes and
says,
"May I come to your table? I am perfectly willing for you to come to
mine."
I say, "Yes, come on in."
He says, "Not that table; I am referring to the Lord's table."
"It was not to the Lord's table that I invited you."
We cannot put the Lord's table out in the woods. He tells who shall come.
"Well, won't you take a sup with me?"
"Certainly! Come over to my well and I will let you have cool, delicious,
clear water."
"I mean drink with me out of the same communion cup."
"Ah, that is Christ's cup; I have no jurisdiction over that."
There is not a more convincing argument against open communion of any kind. No
open communion argument can stand before the declaration, "It is the
Lord's table." That was the first perversion.
No matter what anybody says, we should stick to the doctrine that Christ placed
that table in his church, not for them to say who shall come, but for God to say
who shall come. One has to be inside the church before he 'is entitled to sit
at the Lord's table.
This first perversion was open communion, not with another Christian
denomination, but with the heathen. The paragraph. of that matter is 1
Corinthians 10:1-23: "For I would not, Brethren, have you ignorant that
our father were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were
all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same
spiritual food; and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of a
spiritual Rock that followed them: and the Rock was Christ. Howbeit, with most
of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil
things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as
it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play [the
word "play" means to participate in the licentious orgies of their
feasts].... Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth [especially in that
way] take heed lest he fall. . . . All things are lawful; but not all things
are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify."
Upon that paragraph I make several important comments. First of all, as that
particular paragraph has been made much use of in the baptismal controversy, I
wish to expound its signification as bearing upon that subject, and then show
its relevancy to the Lord's Supper.
When I was a young preacher there came to Waco an old gray-bearded brother
Methodist, Dr. Fisher, who took the position that immersion was not only not
baptism, but that it was a sin. He said so many things about it that our church
courteously challenged him to debate with their pastor, and two debates
followed – one in Waco and one in Davalla, in Milan County. He, in both Waco
and Davalla, took the Position that "our fathers," men, women and
children, were baptized, and inasmuch as they were baptized in the cloud it was
not immersion, and quoted the passage in Psalm referring to this event, where
it is said that the clouds poured out water. He said this baptism was a baptism
of pouring.
When I came to reply I stated that these people were baptized in the cloud, not
clouds; and that it meant that pillar of cloud was a pillar of fire, and
symbolic of the presence of the Lord, and not a rankled at all; second, that
the record stated that they passed through dry shod – neither men, women nor
children had a drop of water on them – but the record did state that after they
passed through, the clouds did burst into a terrific storm upon Pharaoh and his
hosts, and he was welcome to that pouring for any use he could make of it. In
the next place the baptism was strictly a burial in light. The water, according
to the song of Miriam, not only opened, but stood up as walls and congealed.
That means they froze. They stood there like walls of ice. When they went down
into that ice gorge, the pillar of cloud that always led in front, came back
and got in the rear, and toward Pharaoh it was as black as the night of Egypt,
and toward the children of Israel it was light. Now, they were down there in
that ice coffin. All that the coffin needed was a lid, and since it was under
the cloud, the cloud formed the lid of light, and as that light shone on those
walls they acted as mirrors and flashed it back so that it was a glorious
burial in light, with the sea on two sides and the cloud on top. They were thus
"baptized under the cloud and in the sea." The book of Revelation
refers to it when it talks about the redeemed after their redemption: "I
saw them stand by the sea of glass mingled with fire," referring back to
this incident where the pillar of cloud – the cloud of light – shining on the
congealed walls of water made it look like a sea of glass mingled with fire. I
said that it was one of the strongest arguments for immersion, and there was
nothing in it that could in any way substantiate his position. With that
explanation we will see how Paul brings this in.
He takes the Old Testament analogy, and says that the children of Israel were
baptized unto Moses, as we are baptized unto Christ; that they were baptized in
the cloud and in the sea; they were baptized under the cloud of light in the
sea congealed, and not only did they have that symbolic baptism, but they had
the spiritual meat and drink. They did all eat of the spiritual meat – the
manna, the bread from heaven which typified Christ. "I am the true bread,
which came down from heaven," said Christ, commenting on the giving of the
manna and they had a spiritual drink, that is, it came by no natural means, but
by the power of God when Moses smote the rock near Sinai, and it sent out that
water that saved them from perishing with thirst. The rock at Kadesh-Barnea
presented a different thought. It was not to be smitten, but invoked. It is sin
for Christ to be crucified twice. They had that drink, obtained by supernatural
means, so that in a sense they had ordinances. But his point is that ordinances
do not save men. Though they had that spiritual manna, and that spiritual drink
– the water from the rock – yet their idolatrous, licentious lives showed that
at heart they were not right in the sight of God, and that God overthrew them
and they perished, and the record of that transaction was made for our
admonition, as well as everything else in the Old Testament. All those records
were made for us in our time. Abraham's faith was reckoned unto him for
righteousness, which was not written for his sake alone, but ours also.
When we look back at these examples we are to be admonished. Though I have been
baptized, though I have partaken of the Lord's Supper, to me, if life does not
bear the fruits of regeneration, these ordinances are empty, and
"therefore let him that thinketh he standeth [and on such a basis as that]
take heed lest he fall."
Whoever relies on the bread and wine or water, is sure to lose in the great
day.
He says that these people, though they had the divine ordinances, exercising
open communion with the idolatrous nations around them, would sit down and eat
and then rise up and play. Following that comes the immoral debaucheries. That
is Paul's use of it.
There is one other word that calls for explanation. He says, "They drank
of a spiritual Rock that followed them: and the Rock was Christ." My old
family physician took the position that when Moses smote the rock at Sinai, the
stream of water issuing from that rock followed them always, whether they went
up hill or down hill. I told him that he was zealous for a good cause, but
incorrect in the position that he took. Paul means to say that what followed
them – what was behind them – was symbolical only, and that what took place,
took place entirely by the power of the symbol, so if any man had looked through
the symbol at the thing signified he would have taken hold of the thing as
Abraham did, and many others of the old saints, particularly Moses. That symbol
of his presence was with them all the time, sometimes leading, sometimes
following, depending upon where the danger was.
His first point is that symbolical ordinances do not save people. His second
point is set forth in chapter II. The subject is resumed in 11:19. From this we
get at the next perversion of the Lord's Supper. I have grouped them so that we
might get one topic together. In that chapter he discusses the true relation of
the Lord's Supper, and its true lesson, so that the next perversion of the
Lord's Supper is that they partook of it individually, or in groups. One little
selfish crowd would come in, and they would partake, and another group would
come in, and here some poor people would come in, and no provision had been
made for them, and they could not partake. What does this mean?
It means that there cannot be a real celebration of this ordinance unless the
church be gathered together. It is a church act.
He closed his discussion by saying this: "Wherefore, my brethren, when ye
come together to eat, wait one for another." In other words, assembling is
essential to the partaking of the Lord's Supper. They would come in groups;
would not wait and let the whole church partake together to indicate its unity.
"You being many are one loaf, one body."
The next perversion was that they would partake of what they called the Lord's
Supper in order to satisfy their hunger and thirst, and would even drink until
they were drunk. He says, "What? Have you not houses to eat and to drink
In; or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not?"
This fact was intended to symbolize spiritual truth, and was not intended that
this unleavened bread and this small quantity of wine should satisfy hunger and
thirst. I saw some Negroes celebrate the Lord's Supper. They had pies for bread
and cheap whiskey for wine, and they all caroused and got drunk. Such a thing
as this took place in this Corinthian church. He says, "That isn't
proper." This is the third idea. He said, "Here is a crowd full, and
yonder is a group of poor people who haven't anything. That violates
fellowship."
Then touching again on the subject of open communion, he gives us a clear
meaning of the word "communion." Rev. Tiberias Grachus Jones, pastor
of First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennessee, says the word is a great
misnomer. He calls it the Lord's Supper. Some think it means communion of A, B,
C, D, and E, but the word indicates a communion of each one of us with Christ.
"The cup, is it not the communion, or participation of Christ?" And
"is not the eating of the bread a communion of the body of Christ?"
It is not a communion with your wife, neighbor, brother, or sister, but the
communion is with Christ, and on that account Dr. Jones rightfully took the
position that it was a great misnomer. On that subject of the communion with
Christ we may bring out the thought that whoever communes not with Christ, but
with his wife, whoever partakes of the Lord's Supper in order to show his
fellowship with his wife, or his mother, or his sister, or his aunt, or with
any denomination, or any human being, perverts the Lord's Supper. The
participation should be a vision, but the vision should be of Jesus Christ.
Before I pass that point I will recite two incidents of Texas Baptist history.
Both of them attracted a great deal of attention. Many years ago the Baptist
pastor of the church of Houston was not very sound in doctrine, but was zealous
about works, and would be over persuaded to do things that he ought not to do.
A woman came to him crying and told him that her husband was dying and wanted
to partake of the Lord's Supper. He took the emblems, the bread and the wine,
and administered the Supper to that dying brother. The Baptists of the state
criticized him severely, and harassed him until he made a public apology. The
other case is this: When I was pastor of my first church, we had in our
membership a very brilliant lawyer who before my day had joined the church at
old Baylor University at Independence. He afterwards went to a dance, and some
of the brethren thought that it was improper, and he got mad and stayed away
and finally the church withdrew fellowship from him. This man was dying, and he
sent for me and said, "Brother Carroll, I want you to tell all young
people that no spiritual good can come to them by participating in worldly
amusements that are far from grace, and that they alienate them from God. My
life has been unfruitful, yet I am a true child of God, and now I am conscious
that I am dying. I know Jesus said do one thing that I never did, that is, he
commanded that all partake of the Lord's Supper. I never did, and before I pass
away I would like to obey him one time if it can be done scripturally. Now can
you tell me how it can be done scripturally?" I said, "What
importance do you attach to this? Do you think that this will save you."
He said, "O no, I am not so foolish as that. I just want to obey him this
one time." I said, "I can manage that for you, and do it
scripturally." And on Sunday as the church met in conference I said,
"Brethren, I suggest that we adjourn to the house of this dying lawyer."
The church can adjourn to meet at any place it may desire and as a church can
there set forth the Lord's table; and so we went there horseback and in
buggies, and the minutes of the conference were read showing that we were there
by adjournment, and we heard this man's confession of his sins and he asked the
church to take him back, Then they set the Lord's Supper, and his face was
illumined when he was able to obey the Lord's command.
Those two incidents attracted a great deal of attention in Texas. I knew that
in my case I had managed it just right, and had conformed to the scripture and
made the lesson 100 times more important. Those two cases illustrate the point
I am on now.
The apostle Paul, in order to correct the perversion, sets forth the doctrine
of the Supper, and this is what he says: "I received of the Lord that
which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he
was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said,
This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner
also the cup, after supper [that is, the Passover supper], saying, This cup is
the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance
of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye proclaim the
Lord's death till he come." Paul shows that he did not get this revelation
of Christ's institution from the original apostles. It was a special revelation
made to him. Christ himself told Paul what he had done, why he had done it, and
what it suggested.
I am now going to give a five-minute sermon on the Lord's Supper: First, let
all the church assemble together for the observance of this Supper. Then
exercise three faculties – memory, faith, hope. This do in remembrance. What
does memory do? Memory looks back. Whom remember? Not father, not mother, not
sister, not wife, not any human being. Simply Jesus. "This do in
remembrance of me." Remember Jesus, not in the manger, not raising the
dead, no; remember Jesus on the cross, dying. Remember his dying for what?
Dying for the remission of our sins. This is memory. "This do in
remembrance of me," on the cross dying for remission of sins. Next we take
up faith. What does faith do? It discerns the Lord's body, and the Lord's blood
represented by the eating or the drinking. They are external symbols that
represent the acts of faith. Faith sees through that ordinance as a symbol –
Christ dying for the remission of our sins. That is faith's part. Now there is
hope. Hope does not look backward, like memory; it looks forward. "As oft
as ye drink this ye do show forth the Lord's death till he come." There is
a stretch into the future in the Lord's Supper. Faith present discerns Christ
dying for the remission of sins; memory looks back to Christ dying on the cross
for the remission of sins; hope looks forward to the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ, his final advent. That isn't a hard sermon to remember.
Now another five-minute sermon, for it is exceedingly important to remember
these things. Suppose then, as in the Lord's Supper, we "show forth his
death till he come." That makes a drama. What do the actors do on the
stage? They, in their costumes and in their position, show forth something.
Look at the Lord's Supper as a drama, and you will see it is a twofold drama.
What is the first thing presented? Unleavened bread. What does that unleavened
bread represent? The sinless Christ. No leaven in him. That shows forth Christ
alive. What the second act in that drama? The eulogy. He blessed it.
"Eulogy" means he blessed the bread, or gave thanks, and the
signification of that is that the sinless Christ is set apart for a certain
object. That is the second scene. What is the third scene? The bread broken.
There Christ dies. What the fourth? The participation with Christ, the eating
of the bread by every one of them. Faith is always present in the eating of the
bread. Let us take the other side of it, and we will see from another viewpoint
another drama. Take a vessel of wine. There the vessel, and wine 'in it as Christ's
blood, show that he is alive; then comes the eulogy, or setting apart; then
comes the pouring out, that is, Christ dying; then comes the drinking or
participating. Now the drama is doubled – both sides presented, just as Pharaoh
had a dream and saw seven full ears and seven poor ears, and seven fat cows and
seven lean cows, and the poor cars ate up the seven full ears and the lean cows
ate up' the fat cows. In interpreting it the dream is doubled to show that it
was from God. Then he goes on to show the significance of the dream. Seven full
ears and seven fat kine are (there the verb "to be" is used as
"represent," i.e., they represented) seven years of plenty. It is
double, and the seven wilted ears of corn and the seven lean cows are (in a
sense of representation) seven years of famine. Now precisely in the same way
he says, "this represents my body; this cup represents the new covenant in
my blood." That use of the verb "to be" is a common one in all
languages. In that sense the verb "to be" is used, and it annihilates
the Roman Catholic idea of transubstantiation, i.e., that it actually becomes
Christ's body and actually becomes his blood.
Having presented the true doctrine of the Lord's Supper, there remains to be
considered these other statements: "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily
[mark that "unworthily" is an adverb], eateth and drinketh
condemnation to himself." That passage has scared a great many people. I
have heard them say, "I am not worthy! I am not worthy!" I would say,
"No, nor am 1." "Well," they say, "what about that
scripture 'Whoever eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation
to himself "? The sense is not unworthy, but unworthily, referring to the
manner, being an adverb of manner. An illustration has just been given. These
Corinthians did not assemble; they did not eat as spiritual food or drink, but
to satisfy their hunger and thirst; they violated fellowship; they wouldn't
wait for one another.
The next scriptural sentence is, "Let a man examine himself and so let him
eat." That has been quoted to me as meaning that the individual should be
the judge. I said, "Now why don't you get the connection where Paul says,
'If any of you that is named a brother be an adulterer, or an idolater, or
covetous, with such a one, no, not to eat.' " That part of it, i.e., this
examination, does not apply to the whole world, as if to say, "Let every
man in the world examine himself," but when church members come to church
to celebrate the Lord's Supper, then let them put the examination to
themselves. Not, "Am I good enough?" but "Can I, a sinner saved
by grace, discern Christ – not my wife? can I see him dying for me? do I
discern his body?"
I never participated in this ordinance in my life that I did not have that self-examination:
"O Lord, am I thinking of anyone else but thee? Am I thinking of thee in
any other place than on the cross? Am I thinking of any other purpose than that
thou hast died for the remission of my sins?"
Here he shows its importance when he says, "On this account some are sick,
and many of you are asleep." That does not mean that there is any magical
power attached to the elements of the Lord's Supper, so that if a man take it
unworthily it will make him sick, or that it will kill him. They used to think
that. They used to play on the superstitious fears of the people and say,
"If while making a covenant you are true to the covenant, this poison will
not hurt you, but if you are planning to be treacherous, then you have
swallowed something that will give you the smallpox." What then does it
mean? It refers to those marvelous displays of power that the apostles had a
right to exercise. A man would be at the Lord's Supper; maybe he was a
blasphemer, and judgment would come upon him, as in the case of Ananias and
Sapphira; he would go to sleep right there.
QUESTIONS
1. What the fifth
ecclesiastical disorder, what its relation to the two preceding ones, and where
do we find an account of it?
2. What the first perversion,
and what does Paul say about it?
3. What the principle
underlying this discussion of Paul, and what the author's illustration, of it?
4. What important fact
relative to the Lord's Supper bearing on the so-called communion question, and
how?
5. What special use has been
made of 1 Corinthians 10:1-22, what the author's controversy over it, and what
his interpretation of the baptismal idea in it?
6. What reference to this in
Revelation?
7. What else did the
children of Israel have besides that symbolic baptism and what is the meaning
of "spiritual food" and "spiritual drink" in 1 Corinthians
10:3-4?
8. What the difference in
the thought of the rock at Rephidim, and the rock at Kadesh-Barnea?
9. What Paul's point here,
and what its relation to the Corinthians and us?
10. What is the meaning of,
"The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play," and what
its bearing on the question under consideration?
11. What is the meaning of,
"They drank of a spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was
Christ?"
12. What the second
perversion of the Lord's Supper, and what its bearing as an essential to the
partaking of the Lord's Supper?
13. What the third
perversion, and how does it violate the principles of fellowship?
14. What is the meaning of
"communion" as it is used in 1 Corinthians 10:16, is it really
communion at all, and, if 80, in what sense, and with whom?
15. What two incidents in
Texas Baptist history, one illustrative of the perversion of the Lord's Supper,
and the other, of its correct observance?
16. How did Paul correct the
perversion of the Supper, and how did Paul get his information as to the
institution of the Supper?
17. What three faculties are
exercised in a proper observance of the Lord's Supper, and what function does
each perform?
18. Show forth in a double
drama the death of Christ as it is portrayed in the Supper.
19. Why was the drama
doubled, and what illustration from the Old Testament?
20. What the meaning of the
verb "to be" in such expressions as, "This is my body, . .
.?"
21. What meaning expression,
"He that eateth and drinketh unworthily?"
22. What the meaning and
application of the expression, "Let a man examine himself and so let him
eat?"
23. What the meaning of 1
Corinthians 11:30?
THE MISUSE AND ABUSE OF MIRACULOUS GIFTS
1 Corinthians 12:1-31.
The scope of this chapter, with two others, is 1 Corinthians 12-14, being the
sixth Ecclesiastical Disorder at Corinth, to wit: The Misuse and Abuse of
Miraculous Gifts, bestowed upon the members of the church, in the baptism of
the Holy Spirit. In other words, it is partly a discussion of the baptism in
the Holy Spirit, and I take for the text 1 Corinthians 12:13, following the
revised version: "For in one Spirit [that Is the element of the baptism,
showing it was not a water baptism] were we all baptized into one body. I
prefer to say "unto"; it makes better sense. Almost entirely
throughout the New Testament the preposition eis, with the verb baptizo,
is read "unto," not altogether, but in almost all cases.
Let us read the text again: "For in one Spirit were we all [past tense,
referring to Paul's baptism in the Spirit and the Corinthians' baptism in the
Spirit] baptized unto one body," that is, baptism in the Spirit did not
refer to any man individually, though the baptism in his case was individual
and in power. The baptism had reference to the church, the one body. That is
the text.
There are certain preliminary scriptures that should be studied before we can
fully comprehend 1 Corinthians 12-14. Indeed, I do not know a subject about
which there Is so much incorrect thinking and confusion of mind as about the
baptism in the Spirit. Not one preacher in a thousand, whether he be ignorant
or learned, has any clear conception of the signification of the Baptism in the
Spirit. There are two typical, or symbolical, Old Testament references that
need first to be considered. One is Exodus 40. There, all of the material of
the tabernacle was brought together into one place; brought together ready
finished and put up; each piece, no matter whether stone, gold, silver, brass,
wood, or cloth, each piece was so fully prepared that when they went to put it
up they didn't have to use tools; it just fitted exactly. As soon as this
symbolical or typical house of God was set up and completed, then the cloud
came down and filled that house.
The other Old Testament symbol is in I Kings. Just as soon as all the material
for the Temple was prepared according to the divine pattern, and was put up
without the sound of hammer, the cloud that had filled the tabernacle, a house
now useless, came and filled the Temple, which succeeded the portable tent of
the wilderness.
On the day of Pentecost, the church, which is the antitype of both tabernacle
and Temple, and which is the new house of God that had been built by our Lord
Jesus Christ in his lifetime, but up to that hour tenantless, was filled by the
Holy Spirit, and every man and woman of the 120 who that day were baptized in
the Holy Spirit, were baptized eis ten ecclesian – "unto the
church." They were all baptized in one Spirit, but the purpose of that
baptism was unto the church. Whatever may be said about that baptism in the way
of power, it was for the purpose of attesting, or accrediting the church of the
Lord Jesus Christ.
Let us carefully study, whether I discuss them or not, the following passages
of scripture: Matthew 3:11-12; Mark 1:78; Luke 3:16-17; all of which refer to
the prophecy of John the Baptist. He says, "I indeed baptize you in water
unto repentance, but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, . . he shall
baptize you in the Holy Spirit." That is the baptism of the Spirit in
promise. John is contrasted with Jesus: John is the administrator in the water
baptism, and is contrasted with Jesus, the administrator of the baptism in the
Holy Spirit. The water is the element in one, the Spirit is the element of the
other. John's was a baptism which any man with ordinary power could carry out,
but the baptism in the Spirit needed One mightier than John, because this
baptism in the Spirit was a baptism in power.
The next case that we need to study by way of promise is John 7:37-39:
"Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried,
saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on
me, as the scripture hath said, from within him shall flow rivers of living
water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to
receive: for the Spirit was not yet given. In this passage there is a sharp
contrast between the previous statement of Jesus to the woman of Samaria when
he said that whoever would drink of the water he should give him would never
thirst, but it should be a well of water springing up unto everlasting life.
That referred to conversion, and was for the benefit of him that received it.
It was to be something in him that would forever supply his spiritual thirst.
But in this case, in chapter 7, he refers to the gift of the Spirit that had
not yet been bestowed. The result was not to put a well in the man, but from
him should outflow streams of water. In other words, the object of the giving
of the Spirit, as stated in this chapter of John, was not to make the recipient
a better man, but to give the power to bestow benefits upon others. In this
passage it is distinctly stated that in the sense meant by Jesus the Spirit was
not yet. When John spoke, it was of something in the future: "He shall
baptize you," and when John the apostle wrote, "The Spirit was not
yet," he referred to the time when the Spirit had not been given, and
before which there had been no baptism in the Spirit. There was no incident of
it having occurred in the history of the world to this time. It was something
that, up to the day of Pentecost, was merely prophecy or promise. So,
therefore, it is not to be confounded in any way with any display that took
place in the history of the world up to that time. therefore we cannot call it
conversion. In conversion the Spirit is the agent, the sinner is the subject,
and the object of regeneration is to make the man better; in the baptism of the
Holy Spirit, Jesus is the administrator, the Spirit is the element, and the
object is to confer power for the good of others, and to accredit.
I say there never had been a baptism in the Holy Spirit in the world up to that
time; it had been foreshadowed in the cloud filling the tabernacle when the
tabernacle was ready; foreshadowed in the cloud filling the Temple when the
Temple was ready. That cloud over the tabernacle gave it the authority, the
prestige of God. And so the cloud gave prestige to the Temple. The Temple was
the dwelling place of the cloud, and so the baptism of the Holy Spirit filled
the house that Jesus built in his lifetime, crying out on the cross, "It
is finished." The veil of the Temple, or the old house, was rent in twain
from top to bottom, and according to the prophecy in Daniel, after the Messiah
came, and was cut off, there was to be an anointing of the holy place, for the
holy place was the new Temple, or church.
Let us look next at John 14-17. Those four chapters constitute the New
Testament book of comfort, as Isaiah from chapter 40 to the end of the book
constitutes the Old Testament book of comfort. The Old Testament book of
comfort speaks exclusively of the coming Lord; the New Testament book of
comfort speaks exclusively of the coming Holy Spirit. Not everything in those
four chapters of John is limited in meaning to the baptism in the Spirit, but
very many of the references are strictly so limited.
The next antecedent scripture is Luke 24:49, in which Jesus, after rebuking
them for not understanding what the law, the prophets, and the psalm said
concerning himself, said, "Tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with
power from on high," and "Ye shall receive power when the Holy Spirit
is come upon you," as Luke gives it in Acts 1:8. Thus he says, "You
are a church; you are organized; you have a commission to go out to preach to
the whole world, but tarry until you are endued with power; wait ye at Jerusalem
until ye receive power from on high." In Mark 16:17-18 those signs there
give the meaning of the baptism in the Holy Spirit: "These signs shall
accompany them that believe: if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no
wise hurt them." These are the passages that need to be studied.
We now take up the fulfilment of those prophecies. The first is in Acts 2. On
that day of Pentecost they were waiting and praying. The Spirit had been
promised, but had not come. They had their commission. There was the house, but
it was empty. On the day of Pentecost this baptism in the Spirit was manifested
by the following phenomena: First, the sound; there comes the sound, the ear
caught that; that sound was as a rushing, mighty wind. I stood once about 100
yards from the path of a cyclone, and watched it, and for the first time in my
life I realized the awful sound of a rushing, mighty wind. The next phenomenon
appealed, not to the ear, but to the sight. A luminous sheet like as of fire,
but not fire, appeared, and that sheet of flame distributed itself as fire
distributes itself, into tongues. When a fire is kindled it isn't even around
the edges, but it parts, or divides itself, into tongues of flame; and now this
luminous appearance, as a vibrating, moving fire tongue, rested on the head of
every one of the 120. That appealed to the sight. Now they all began to speak
with tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. The whole city heard that
cyclonic roar; it filled all the city, and they came rushing forward to the
place where it seemed to be. And the people were gathered together, and they
saw the whole 120 in ecstasy, speaking in foreign tongues, speaking to the
gathered crowds that were there from every nation under heaven, and each man
heard the praise of God spoken in the tongue in which that man was born. That
was the first manifestation. A particular form of power is represented by
tongues, that is. the capacity to speak in a language in which one has never
been educated. There can be no mistake about that from Acts 2.
They do not receive this baptism in the Holy Spirit as individuals, but each
man baptized in the Spirit that day was baptized eis ten ecclesian,
"unto the church," that is, he received that power, not for his
gratification, but in order to attest and accredit that church; it was to be a
sign. Accrediting comes through the marvelous power given.
We take up the next example of fulfilment in Acts 8:14-24. Philip had preached
to the Samaritans, not the Jews, but a mixed population. They had believed
Philip and were baptized, both men and women, but no miraculous power of the
Holy Spirit had come on them. The apostles in Jerusalem heard of it; they sent
John and Peter down, and when they laid their hands on them they received the
baptism of the Holy Spirit.
The next case is presented in Acts 10:44-47, with a reference to it in
11:15-17. Here is the one step for which Peter, preaching to the Gentiles, was
called to account by the Jews. "And as Peter spake to Cornelius and his
house, the Holy Spirit fell on them, and they spake with tongues and glorified
God." Peter says, "I remember the prophecy of John the Baptist; that
he baptized people in water, but One should come after him mightier than he,
who would baptize in the Holy Spirit. Who was I that I should withstand God,
when these Gentiles had received the gospel just the same as we Jews had."
The next case is given in Acts 19:6. Paul found at Ephesus twelve men who had
known nothing but the baptism of John. They had been baptized, but they knew
nothing of the Holy Spirit. The one that baptized them was certainly not John,
for he had been dead twenty years. Somebody, without being sent to baptize, was
trying to perpetuate John's baptism – to administer it unauthorized. Paul says,
"Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed?" They said,
"No; we never so much as even heard that the Holy Spirit was given."
Paul then expounded to them what John had preached and laid his hands on them,
and they received the baptism of the Spirit and began to speak with tongues and
prophesied.
The last particular case is in 1 Corinthians 12-14. It discusses the baptism
that the members of the church at Corinth had received – a case 'in its typical
foreshadowing, in its promise and prophecy, and in its effect, or its fulfilment.
With these things before us we are prepared to take up these three chapters,
and the baptism in the Holy Spirit we will consider more particularly. These
Corinthians had misunderstood, misused, and abused it, and had so misused it
and abused it that it was not eis ten ecclesian, "unto the
church," but it was bringing confusion and discord in the church and
causing factions. In order to understand the phrase, eis ten ecclesian,
let us consider two paragraphs of chapter 12: "Now concerning spiritual gifts,
brethren, I would not have you ignorant," i.e., "you ought not to
misunderstand such a matter as the baptism in the Holy Spirit." Then comes
the text: "In one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews
or Greeks, whether bond or free." Jews and Gentiles, bond and free, could
not be together on the Jewish ecclesia, nor could they be together in the Greek
ecclesia. In the ecclesia of Jesus Christ there were Gentiles, Jews, bond,
free, Parthian, Scythian, male, or female, without any distinction of race, or
previous condition of servitude. They all received this baptism of the Spirit,
but received it with reference to its purpose, viz.: to accredit the church.
Speaking of the church as a body, he continues the discussion this way:
"For the body is not one member, but many. All the members being one body,
so also is Christ, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or
free." "If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of
the body; it is not therefore not of the body. And the ear shall say, because I
am not the eye, I am not of the body; it is not therefore not of the
body." But now in this baptism of the Holy Spirit, they were baptized eis,
"unto," one body. "But now hath God set the members each one of
them in the body, even as it pleased him. . . . But now they are many members,
but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee: or
again the head to the feet, I have no need of you."
He goes on to say that when one member suffers, all suffer; if one is honored,
all rejoice. "Now we are the body of Christ, and severally members
thereof." Notice their offices in the church, and the order in which he
puts them: "First, apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers; then
miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diverse kinds of tongues.
Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of
miracles? have all the gifts of healings? do all speak with tongues? do all
interpret?" That shows the need of a church; that the baptism of the Holy
Spirit was to accredit the church; that not the individual members received the
baptism.
If that baptism in the Holy Spirit was conversion, it was not the same in all
of them. One received the gift to heal; one the gift to speak in foreign
tongues; one received the gift to interpret tongues; another received faith,
not faith in Jesus, but mountain-moving faith, so that if he should say to the
mountain, "Be thou cast into the sea," it would be done. And another
would receive some other form of gifts. There was diversity of gifts, but they
all came from one Spirit, and every one of them had reference to one body, the
church.
Very abundantly did this Corinthian church receive miraculous power. In chapter
14 it is brought out much more clearly. Every one of these miraculous gifts
being to accredit the church, were circumstantially, temporarily in the church,
as in the next chapter Paul says, "Whether there be prophecies, they shall
fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease." Whenever the church was
sufficiently accredited, then these miracles passed away, i.e., as soon as they
had fulfilled their mission.
A man once asked me if I had received the baptism in the Holy Spirit. I told
him, "No; that I didn't need it, for it was never given except to accredit
the church, and that I would be ashamed to say that 1,900 years had elapsed and
Christ's church was not attested."
If any man of the present day says that he has the gift of the Holy Spirit, let
him allow me to pick out the rattlesnake, let it bite him and see if it will
hurt him; let me buy the poison and see if it hurts him; and let me go with him
to the grave and see him raise a dead body. These are the signs: "These
signs will follow them that believe." The commission was just given and
they were not attested, but "whether there be prophecies they shall
fail," or as David puts it in the Psalms, when he says, "the vision
and the oblation shall cease." As soon as there is a sufficient
revelation, as soon as the church and its faith are sufficiently accredited,
then the vision ceases, and there is no more need of this sign now than there
is for wings to fly now while we are earthly bodies. On the contrary, to ask
for the sign now is to say, "Lord, the old attestation is played out; we want
the thing attested again." Just like another argument where Paul says that
if one who has once been enlightened and has tasted the power of the world to
come, should fall away, it is impossible to renew him again unto repentance,
etc. If he does fall away shall we preach Christ to him? He had Christ. Shall
we preach regeneration to him? He had regeneration. Precisely, this is the
character of the argument, about this baptism in the Holy Spirit. There is now
no necessity for it.
Paul now makes his last point, that in their misuse and abuse of this
miraculous power, they magnified miraculous power over grace; they put their
miraculous displays higher than they put faith, hope, love. Love is the
greatest thing in the world. Faith is the greatest power in the world. Hope is
the most exalted beacon from the walls of the eternal city that ever waved its
hand and said, "Come forward!" These three – faith, hope, and love,
are going to stay with us. I will have utterly failed in this chapter if I have
not sufficiently impressed upon the reader's mind the baptism of the Holy
Spirit in its Old Testament symbolism, the baptism of the Holy Spirit in its
prophecies and promises, the baptism in fact, the baptism in its purpose, and
then the temporary nature of the baptism because it was intended to be a sign.
QUESTIONS
1. What the sixth
ecclesiastical disorder, and where do we find Paul's great discussion of it?
2. What text does the author
use to express the central truth of this discussion, what is his preferred translation
of it, and why?
3. What Old Testament
symbols foreshadow the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and what the correspondence
between these symbols and the coming of the Spirit on Pentecost?
4. What the purpose of the baptism
in the Spirit of Pentecost?
5. Where in the Old
Testament do we find the baptism of the Holy Spirit in. prophecy?
6. What passages in the New
Testament show the baptism in the Holy Spirit in promise?
7. What the contrasts of
Matthew 3:11-12, and what the distinction between baptism in water and baptism
in Spirit (1) as to administrator, (2) as to element, and (3) as to purpose?
8. What the contrast between
the statement of Jesus in John 7:37-39, and his previous statement to the
Samaritan woman at the well, and what the object of the giving of the Spirit as
referred to in this chapter?
9. What the distinction
between baptism in the Holy Spirit and conversion (regeneration), (1) as to the
agent, (2) as to the subject, (3) as to the object?
10. What the New Testament
book of comfort, what the Old Testament book of comfort, and why was each so
called, respectively?
11. What the import of Luke
24:49; Acts 1:8; Mark 16:17-18?
12. What passages in the New
Testament show the baptism of the Holy Spirit in fulfilment?
13. By what phenomena was
the baptism of the Holy Spirit manifested on the day of Pentecost, and to what
human sense did each appeal severally?
14. Show how they were
baptized on the day of Pentecost eis ten ecclesian.
15. What the reason,
especially for the baptism of the Holy Spirit ill the case of the Samaritans?
16. Why the baptism of the
Spirit at the house of Cornelius?
17. Why were the twelve
baptized in the Holy Spirit at Ephesus?
18. Where do we find the moat
extended and elaborate discussion of the baptism in the Holy Spirit?
19. What called forth this
discussion by Paul?
20. What the object of the
baptism in the Holy Spirit as shown clearly in this discussion?
21. How did the baptism in
the Holy Spirit accredit the church!
22. Were these displays of
power the same in every person?
23. What were the
diversities of gifts resulting from the baptism in the Holy Spirit?
24. Prove the temporary
nature of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and what do we really pray for if we
pray for the baptism in the Holy Spirit?
25. What were the
Corinthians really doing in their misuse and abuse of those gifts?
LOVE, THE GREATEST THING IN THE WORLD
1 Corinthians 13:1-13.
In the judgment of the critical world 1 Corinthians 13 is the most exquisite
gem in all literature. Upon it the great scientist, Henry Drummond, has written
his masterpiece, The Greatest Thing in the World Let us note very particularly
that verse 31 of the preceding chapter is both introductory to chapter 13 and
explanatory: "But desire earnestly the greater gifts. And moreover, a most
excellent way show I unto you." There is a distinction in the gifts
conferred in the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Some were greater than others, and
one of the smallest of them in merit was the power to speak in other tongues,
and that is the one they are making themselves fools over. He goes on to show,
before he gets through with the discussion, that tongues do not edify, but
prophecy does. So he says, "While these gifts are various, desire
earnestly the greater gifts." Having shown that distinction between the
gifts of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, some greater than others, and that
they should desire the greater ones rather than the inferior ones, he then
adds, "A most excellent way show I unto you," that is, something
ahead of all the gifts received in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, something
far superior to any conference of mere power upon man; so what he discusses now
in chapter 13 is a more excellent way than the baptism in the Holy Spirit.
He gets at his thought this way: "If I speak with the tongues of men and
of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or a clanging
cymbal." Look at that thought. He is going to draw an eclectic man – a man
who possesses the high excellence of all great men and leaves out their faults
– for instance, the patience of Job, the patriotism of Washington, the wisdom
of Solomon, the strength of Samson, the meekness of Moses, etc. He is going to
picture a man that has all the excellence of an earthly kind that any man ever
had. "If I speak with the tongues of men" – that means all the
tongues of men. If in the university or college one is proficient in Greek,
Latin, Hebrew, Spanish, French, and German, they call him a linguist and be
becomes famous; but now add to those every other language ever spoken by man
from the few gutturals of the lowest barbarian in Africa to the most cultured
scholar in London or Paris; then add to that that he can speak in the language
of angels; that he can think his thoughts into heaven and stop Gabriel and make
him think his thoughts back to him, or Michael, or any other of the shining
lights that stand in the presence of God – suppose he could do that, and he
doesn't have what Paul is here presenting – love – he would, with all of those
vociferous tongues, be as sounding brass or clanging cymbal. He is proving the
superiority of the Christian graces – faith, hope, and love – over anything
that is involved in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. This is the "most
excellent way." He goes on, "And if I have the gift of
prophecy." That is another one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Suppose God had gathered back the curtains from all the future to the great
judgment day in my sight, so as to enable me to see it all, as a whole and
every minute detail, the yet unrecorded things of the future; what if my heart
as a prophet was as hot as Jeremiah's; what if a live coal from the altar was put
upon my lips as upon Isaiah's; what if I, like John on Patmos, could see high
above the world the great court of God, then have it pass in review before me
in grand panorama till Jesus comes; suppose I had that, as well as all those
languages "and knew all mysteries," so that nature has no secrets
from me: so that there is nothing in astronomy, in geology, in biology, in
sociology, nothing in any of the "ologies" that I do not know;
suppose that like Solomon, I could sing a song concerning the birds that fly
through the air, the vine that grows on the wall, and the fish that swim in the
sea; suppose I could be able to locate a gold mine, a coal mine, a deposit of
oil, and every mine of precious jewels; suppose I could look to the bottom of
the sea, and behold all the jewels and the money and the fine apparel that had
ever been sunk into its depths; what if I understood eclipses, cyclones,
earthquakes, all mysteries (That is the sort of man we are coming to, an
ecletic man.): "If I had all knowledge," not in one department, but
in all departments, so that I myself was the biggest encyclopedia in the world;
so that I myself was a walking library of all the records of history and
achievements of science in any of its departments; so that whatever man has ever
known since the world was, down to the present time, I knew; "and if I
have all faith {not saving faith, but that faith that enables one to work
miracles], so as to remove mountains"; if I could make Himalaya and the
Ural change places; if I could pile the Alps upon the Apennines, and the
Apennines upon the Pyrenees, as the old giants are said to. have done Pelion on
Ossa; if I could look at Aetna, Vesuvius, Hecla, Stromboli, and Popocatepetl
and say, "Put out your fires," and they would become extinct in a
moment, and I have not love, I would just be nothing.
He wants to make clear the thought of the great difference between gifts and
graces. Then he goes on, "And if I bestow all my goods to feed the
poor." 0 what comments in the daily papers of the world that are excited
by the huge gifts of the rich! Look at Carnegie trying to dispossess himself of
all his wealth by building libraries over the world; look at Rockefeller giving
$35,000,000.00 to one institution and $100,000,000.00 to the aggregate institutions.
Now, what if I were to do that, and then, in addition to that, I were to give
my body to be burned as an act of patriotism; unselfishly to be willing, not
merely to die, but to be burned to death, in order to save other people from
pain, and I had not love, I would be nothing. If the love that is set forth
here did not prompt these things, then it is not as great a thing in the sight
of God as one throb of real faith and real love in a converted Negro's heart.
In Shakespeare we have Mark Anthony delivering the funeral oration over Caesar.
He had Caesar's body brought before him, took the mantle off and showed the
holes in it, and says, "I remember when he put this mantle on. It was the
day that he conquered the Nervii." He holds in his hands Caesar's will in
which he gives all his goods to the Roman poor, (just what Paul is talking
about) and the people are weeping while looking at the torn mantle, and the
orator goes on, "Do you weep at merely seeing his garments rent? 0, here
is himself; here is Caesar; look there; see where the envious Casca struck, and
how his heart broke when Brutus smote him here." Caesar, for motives
governing his mind, did will all his goods to the Roman people. These people
are accustomed to establish circuses, which they held in the amphitheatre and
let everybody come free to the big show in the circus, and the politicians that
didn't give bread in the circuses didn't get a vote. A man might have the
things that have made men famous in the past, every thing that I have enumerated,
and when he dies gaping posterity would want the heavens to be hung with black,
and the orators of the world to be praising him; the monuments would be erected
higher than all earth's monuments up on top of each other, and all over each,
and in large letters, would be inscribed the great attainments and achievements
of this eclectic man, but if he were not God's child, if he didn't have faith
in the Lord Jesus Christ, if he didn't have the love that is described in this
chapter, then we might let the monuments crumble into dust.
I never shall forget the enthusiasm of my heart when I read George W. Cutter's
wonderful poetical paraphrase on Henry Clay's great oration at the foot of
Bunker Hill monument. In that poem these words occur: There let it stand until the
river that flows beneath shall cease to flow; Until that hill itself shall
quiver with nature's last convulsive throe, And instead of a few inscriptions
on it he would cover it all, Until it should fail to furnish room to write even
the initials of a man.
This is earthly fame.
Having shown that the excellencies of this world are nothing in comparison with
the three things he is going to talk about, with a few strokes negative, and a
few strokes positive, he describes love. Let us see what they are. We will take
it negatively: "Love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself [doesn't brag],
is not puffed up [doesn't swell up and become vain] doth not behave itself
unseemly, seeketh not its own, is not provoked, taketh not account of evil;
rejoiceth not in unrighteousness." These are the negatives.
Let us see the positive side. This is what it does: "Love suffereth long
and is kind; rejoiceth with the truth; beareth all things, believeth all
things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Love never faileth." That
is love. He contrasts again. Let us see about these others – those given by the
baptism in the Holy Spirit: "Whether there be tongues, they shall
cease." They were given for a temporary purpose, for a sign, for attesting
the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, and when that attestation is complete,
tongues shall cease, and "whether there be knowledge, it shall be done
away." Here he refers to the supernatural knowledge that comes with the
baptism of the Holy Spirit. "For we know in part" in that baptism of
the Holy Spirit that gives us such marvelous knowledge without study, and in
order to get it we make no effort; it comes not by laborious, persistent
reasoning and investigation, and yet he says, "When you have gotten it you
know only in part. and when you have that marvelous gift of prophecy conferred
upon you, you only prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect is come,
that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a
child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child; now that I am become a man, I
have put away childish things." In other words, "As a mere child, a
novice, I might have been lifted up with the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as a.
little child rejoices to ride a cornstalk horse." But when one becomes a
man, he doesn't ride cornstalk horses. Far, far removed, 'is any such thought.
The perfection here is maturity. "I put away childish things," that
is, the past is just as dust in the balance in comparison with other things,
particularly, things he is going to discuss. "For now we see 'in a mirror,
darkly." The mirrors were not polished glass with a good background behind
them, but just polished metal. Even the most finical belles of Rome when
arraying themselves had to content themselves by standing before the mirror of
polished metal, that would dimly reflect. I am sure it nearly killed them.
"But then face to face." Love is going to put us where it will not be
a reflection that we look at. We will stand face to face with the real thing.
"Then shall I know fully, even as also I was fully known." Paul says,
"Brethren, I count myself not to have apprehended. laid hold on, all the
things for which Christ laid hold on me, but forgetting the things that are
behind and reaching out for the things that are before, I press forward toward
the goal unto the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." Love
will bring us there. Then he could see different things from what he could see
by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. He says, "Here in Corinth, because my knowledge
is so limited, I know only in part, but then I shall know even as I have been
known." O,
would some pow'r the gift to give us, To see ourselves as it hers see us!
But better O
would some power the gift to give us, To see ourselves as Jesus sees us!
Not as Jesus sees us here, but as he sees us in the complete likeness; when our
souls are as complete as his soul; when our bodies are as complete as his body;
when our knowledge is as his knowledge. As a bolt of lightning lightens the
landscape so that in one flash we may see every house, tree, and building, so
the knowledge in heaven will be by intuition that is swifter than any lightning
on earth. The baptism in the Holy Spirit doesn't take us to that, but love
will.
Then he goes on, "But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the
greatest of these is love." These are the abiding graces.
If just one spark of the divine love has ever shone in our souls – not if we
have great faith in Jesus Christ, but if we have faith, great or little – if
the love of God has ever been shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit
which was given unto us, it will abide always within us, the Arminians to the
contrary notwithstanding. It will abide, and adversity may come on us in its
cruel image of death, and prosperity may attempt to beguile us, hell may send
out demons like locusts from the pit to pluck us out of the hand of God, but
faith, hope, and love abide.
Then in view of this, methinks I hear him say, "Why then, 0 Corinthians,
do you magnify the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Why have you discarded these,
the most lasting, world-renewing and astounding graces of the Spirit, in order
to fall down and worship mere power, whether it be power to move mountains or
power to heal the sick, or whatever else?"
In closing this discussion, I will give a word picture of three pyramids. We
need to know what kind of love it 'is, for if we make a mistake on that, we
have indeed made a great mistake. It is not a gushing thing, a sentimental
thing, that people often talk about, who don't know anything about it. Imagine
three blocks. On the first one put, "Faith." Then let us put a block
on that a little shorter at each end and write, "Hope," then another
on that block and write, "Love"; then on the top of that put a
flagstaff and write on a banner, "1 Corinthians 13." Now what will
that pyramid show? It will show that love, the greatest thing in the world, is
the topmost block; that it is bottomed on faith. So we have faith, hope, love.
If a man says that he has the love that is spoken of in 1 Corinthians 13 and
has not faith, then his pyramid is an aircastle.
I will give another pyramid. This one commences at the top and starts with the
banner. On it is written, "1 Timothy 1:5." Then on the first block
under the bannerstaff is written, "Love"; on the next, which is a
little longer, "out of a pure heart"; on the next block, "and a
good conscience"; and the next block, "and faith unfeigned."
There we have the base, that is, "faith unfeigned" leads to a
"good conscience," then a "pure heart," and then to
"love." A man's conscience is made good when it is purified by the
blood of Jesus Christ: "How much more shall the blood of Christ, . . .
cleanse your conscience, ..."
Now we come to the last pyramid, and we will let Peter build this one, either
from the King James Version or from the Revised Version. Peter says, "To a
like precious faith add: . . ." Now put block one, and write,
"Faith." Then on block two write, "virtue" (or courage;
that is what it means) and to virtue add knowledge; to knowledge, temperance;
to temperance, patience; to patience, godliness; to godliness, brotherly
kindness; to brotherly kindness, love. There love is on top and faith on the
bottom again. Now draw on the pyramid the banner with 2 Peter 1:5-7. When Paul
discusses love he does not discuss the sentimental gush that anybody can talk
about; he cannot conceive of this love that does not grow out of faith.
Does verse 12 prove heavenly recognition? It certainly does; as a good old
sister said once, "I am not smart, never went to college, but I have
always had sense enough to recognize my friend here on earth, and I don't
suppose I will be a bigger fool in heaven." Then we shall know even as we
are known; we are recognized here, and it certainly teaches that we will be
recognized there.
QUESTIONS
1. What the judgment of the
critical world relative to 1 Corinthians 13, and what the title of Henry
Drummond's masterpiece written on it?
2. What the connection
between 12:31 and chapter 13?
3. What the distinction in
the gifts conferred in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which the smallest
perhaps, what exhortation concerning gifts, and what the "most excellent
way," of 12:31?
4. With what does Paul
contrast love, and what the author's eclectic man?
5. What the meaning of
speaking with tongues, the gift of prophecy, the knowing of all mysteries, all
knowledge, all faith, the bestowing of goods, and the giving of the body to be
burned, as contrasted here by Paul?
6. What the description of
love negatively?
7. What the description of
love positively?
8. What contrasts does Paul
now make as to the duration of these gifts?
9. What are three abiding
graces, which is the greatest, and why?
10. Describe a pyramid based
on 1 Corinthians
13. 11. Describe one based
on 1 Timothy 1:5.
12. Describe one based on 2
Peter 1:5-7.
13. Does the Bible teach
heavenly recognition, and if so. what the proof?
THE GIFT OF TONGUES
1 Corinthians 14:1-33.
This discussion is devoted to 1 Corinthians 14, and is the conclusion of the
discussion of the miraculous spiritual gifts conferred in the baptism of the
Holy Spirit. I will take all of the chapter down to verse 33. The rest of the
chapter I reserve for a separate discussion. It is with reference to woman's
place in the church, and I will combine that closing paragraph, touching the
woman, with another paragraph in the same letter, and with a corresponding
paragraph in the letter of Timothy; and so we will just go to verse 33:
"Follow after love." The word "follow" has a strong
meaning. It means to pursue, to chase, not just to saunter along after it, but
to pursue it, to chase it; "yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts,"
that is to say, notwithstanding the comparison that he has instituted between
faith, love, and hope on the one hand, and the spiritual gifts on the other
hand, he doesn't discount the spiritual gifts. "Earnestly desire them, but
rather that ye may prophesy," that is, select that one as the one that is
most profitable. Desire that one. To prophesy, in the Bible, does not
necessarily mean to foretell future events. That may be included, but it means to
speak for God under the inspiration of the Spirit, so that what one says is as
if God said it. Whether you are stating a fact or foretelling a future event,
is immaterial. The meaning of the word "prophesy" is to speak for God
under the impulse of God's Spirit. He goes on to explain why the gift of
prophesying is superior to the gift of speaking in unknown tongues: "For
he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man
understandeth; but in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries." Mark that clause,
"He that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men but unto God; for no
man understandeth." Notice verse 4: "He that speaketh in a tongue
edifieth himself." Then verse 14: "For if I pray in a tongue, my
spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful."
We have to combine those three passages: "He that speaketh in a tongue
speaketh unto God; he that speaketh in a tongue edifieth himself; he that
prayeth in a tongue his understanding is unfruitful." Those three
expressions have given rise to a controversy that I suppose will not be settled
until the judgment day. Upon them many distinguished scholars take the position
that to speak in a tongue is to speak ecstatically ; that the man himself is,
in a measure, unconscious, as if some mighty power had seized upon him causing
him to mutter and say things, and that when he comes from under the influence
of that power he cannot recall what he said. Conybeare and Howson strongly
present that argument. They say that to speak in unknown tongues is simply to
speak ecstatically, as if in a trance. A person going under the influence of
chloroform talks, but he doesn't remember what he says. Though that position is
taken in the Pulpit Commentary and in Conybeare and Howson's book, the author
utterly dissents from it. I do not like to put myself in antagonism with
distinguished men, but there are more distinguished men on my side than on the
other side of the question.
Let me show that this speaking in tongues meant to speak in a language that a
man had not acquired, and had not studied. Turn to Acts 2, where this gift is
first manifested and commence at verse 6: "When this sound was heard, the
multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them
speaking in his own language. And they were all amazed and marveled, saying,
Behold, are not all these that speak Galileans? And how hear we, every man in
our own tongue wherein we were born? Parthiana and Medes and Elamites, and the
dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, in
Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and
sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we hear
them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God." A man must have
more brass on his face than was ever in the brazen gates of Babylon to assume
that that doesn't refer to speaking in different languages.
Here came a man from Cyrene over in Africa; there came a Roman; here a Cretan;
there an Arabian; and they heard these men under the influence of the Holy
Spirit speaking in the tongues in which they were born.
My second argument is based on 1 Corinthians 14:14: "If I pray in a tongue
. . . my understanding is unfruitful." I don't know what the words mean,
but if it was an ecstasy that language would not be so applicable. I have no
doubt that when God gave power to Balaam's beast to speak audibly, his language
was not understood by him. He spoke in a language that he himself didn't
understand.
Let us make a third argument. In olden times at the Tower of Babel, where it is
expressly said that the people were all of one lip, one speech, spoke the same
language (and speaking the same tongue enabled them to hold together better,
but they were holding together for evil) God came down and confused their
speech, and a man up there putting down the sundried brick could not understand
what the fellow with the hod said to him. It was in an unknown language. By the
confounding of speech, nations arose.
The different languages didn't arise from the different nations, but different
nations arose from different languages. The philological miracle around the
Tower of Babel produced the different nations. Those that could understand one
another would go together and they would become a nation, speaking one language
of their own.
It was the intent that, as the human race was dispersed through the confusion
of language, at Pentecost that should be reversed, and they should be brought
together and united by giving the power to speak in the language of all the
nations.
Take these three arguments and notice the objection that is made. The first
objection is that he speaks to God, and no man understands him. Let us see how
that applies. We will assume that we are present in that church at Corinth and
one man, having the power to speak in different languages, speaks the Parthian
tongue. Nobody understands him, for nobody speaks that tongue, and he can't
understand himself, and he is, as it were, speaking unto God.
We can harmonize it with the theory that they were speaking different
languages, but we cannot harmonize the effect by saying it was an ecstatic
utterance like that given when under the influence of chloroform. However, I am
not dogmatic as to this interpretation.
Let us advance again in the argument in this issue. Paul says, "If I speak
in an unknown tongue which the people cannot understand, what good will it do
unless I translate?" That shows that it was an unknown language. If we
send a missionary to a foreign country and he does not know their speech and
they don't know his speech, and a particular man knows both theirs and his,
that man is asked to be an interpreter. The missionary says a few words, and
then the interpreter speaks these words in the language of the people
addressed. He understands. "Now," says Paul, "what good does it
do to speak in unknown tongues unless you interpret?" He shows again that
this is the thought. He says, "If you give thanks in an unknown tongue,
how shall he that is unlearned say, 'Amen,' to your giving thanks, since he
does not understand what you say?" And how powerfully the reformers quoted
that against the Roman Catholics whose public services were conducted in Latin
whether anybody understood Latin or not. The reformers quote this passage and
say, "How is that going to help the people? Speak it if you want to, but
tell them what the Latin means."
I was making a reply once to a man who was going outside of the line in which
he had knowledge, to criticise something that he knew nothing about. I pointed
my finger at him and said, "Ne sutor ultra crepidam." I
thought everybody would understand, but some fellow said,
"Interpret." "Let not the shoemaker go beyond his last."
"The shoemaker is a judge of the shape of the foot, but let him not
criticise a painter's landscape," which became a parable. So you might
say, "A mole is a good judge of earthworms, but he is not expert on
landscapes." Notice again that he says here, and the language is very
remarkable in its bearing, "Even things without life, giving a voice,
whether pipe or harp, if they give not a distinction in the sounds, how shall
it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain
voice, who shall prepare himself for war?"
I used to be a soldier, and every morning there was a certain bugle-sound
called "reveille," which means "get up quick"; then a
certain other sound of the trumpet meant, "saddle up," and a certain
other sound meant, "mount," another very lively one meant,
"Forward march." "Now," said Paul, "if a man just gets
up and blows a noise out of a trumpet that doesn't signify anything, how can
anybody prepare himself for battle?" Therefore he says, "I would
rather speak five words to the church with my understanding than ten thousand
words in an unknown tongue."
Some people like it because they think it sounds big. A politician said to
General Jackson, "When you get up to make a speech throw in a little
Latin." And so Jackson, at the close of the speech said, "E
Plunbus unum, ultima thule – ne plus ultraùpotestatem deditùne sutor ultra
crepidam, potens Cypri, Sic fratres Helenae, Sidera Ludda, Quandem Catalina
nostra patientia abutere?" And the people just went wild in their
cheering. Where it is just thrown in for the sound it has an exciting effect,
but suppose we wanted to know what General Jackson was saying, what good would
all that Latin do us if we did not know the Latin?
I leave it to the reader as to whether I have made out my case, that the
speaking with tongues means the speaking in languages that a man had not known,
or that was unknown to him. If I spoke in Parthian and there was a Parthian
present the Parthian could understand, but the Cretans and Arabians could not;
if I were saying good sense, in whatever language, God would understand. I
would be speaking to God, and even if I couldn't understand, I could tell the
mighty impulse of the Spirit. That would make me feel good, but it wouldn't
edify other people.
This is a great chapter. We find in it something that ought to benefit us as
long as we live. "Even things without life, giving a voice, whether pipe
or harp, if they give not a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known
what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound who shall
prepare himself for war? So also ye, unless ye utter by the tongue speech easy
to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye will speak into
the air." There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and
no kind is without signification. No word is without some meaning, but if I don't
know the meaning of the word I shall be ''to him that speaketh a barbarian, and
he that speaketh shall be a barbarian to me."
A critic who criticised everybody at a Baptist Convention, criticised my sermon
by saying it had too many big words in it. I saw him when he made the note, and
here are the words I used, staling the different places the people came from:
"Oriental, occidental, austral, septentrional." I supposed that crowd
of picked preachers would know the meaning of those words. I started out with
"Oriental," which means eastern; the "occidental," that
means the opposite from the eastern, or western; "austral"
means southern, and "septentrional" means northern. I wrote
him that generally I tried to use words that anybody could understand, but
occasionally I wanted to increase the vocabulary of the people that I spoke to.
If every man hears in his own tongue, he hears them speak in the tongue that he
was born in, not that they spoke Hebrew and the hearer heard it in Parthian.
That would make the hearer the subject of the baptism; that would be putting
the discriminating power to his ear. There were a great many speaking, one in
Parthian, and another in Persian; one in Latin and another in Greek. Now all
the Greek people would understand their own language because they were familiar
with it. The hearers comprehended, though it was spoken in the language that
the speaker knew nothing about.
Let us go on, taking up verse 15: "What is it then? I will pray with the
Spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also. I will sing with the
Spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also." In other words, a
great deal of emphasis in religious matters must be put upon the understanding,
and if the good pray, they want not only to be prompted spiritually to pray,
but want to understand what they are praying about, and if I am praying in a
language I don't know and know that somebody is listening, he may catch the
spirit of the prayer, but it won't touch the spirit of his understanding. I
want to hear the words.
One night at church the singing was just about as the seven stars above me. I
was told by an expert that it was fine, but the screech in it didn't use any
distinction in words. I couldn't tell what it was. If I had bad a book before
me I might have made out something of what they were trying to say.
When a man sings I want to hear the words. I don't want him just to sound his
voice out in ascending and descending scales. They may be harmonious, but it
isn't intelligible to me. I will put it plainer. When one goes to feed the
cattle, he doesn't out the fodder so high that they can't reach it. It may be
good fodder to look at, but a cow would rather have it lower where she can
reach it. That was the power of Christ's speech. He spoke words easily understood.
He illustrated with a hen and chickens, a sparrow, the lilies of the field, the
sheep, and the goat. The people could not find fault, because his words were
simple and had meaning to them.
I remember when I was very small my father, who was a preacher, was sitting on
the gallery and one of our smartest Negroes, Aunt Sarah, came up and was
telling about her new preacher. Father asked how she liked him. "O, he is
fine." "What do you mean by fine?" "Well, he does speak
such big sounding words." "What words did he use?" "Well, I
remember the word 'fecundity.' " "Well," father asked, "do
you know what that means?" "O no, and I don't care whether I does or
not; it's a mighty big word and it just thrilled me." Her understanding
was not profited at all. That cow couldn't reach the fodder.
I am going to give another proof of the correctness of the position that I took
on these languages: "In the law it is written, By men of strange tongues
and by the lips of strangers will I speak unto this people." Where do we
find that in the law? It is in Deuteronomy 28, and we find one very much like
it in Isaiah 28, and that is this: "You get drunk, you men that represent
God, and you say words that convey no meaning. Now because you have dishonored
your power, I will speak to you in the language of a foreign nation, and you
won't understand this language, and thus bring against you the Assyrian and the
Babylonian." I have said that these baptismal gifts were for attesting,
accrediting, and this proves it: "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to
them that believe, but to the unbelieving." A sign is a miracle 'intended
to accredit the one speaking as having power and authority. That day at
Jerusalem when that big crowd of many nations came together, these men that
could speak only one language, were heard – these ignorant and unlearned men
that had never been to school – speaking in the different languages of the
world. "Some great power is here," they said. "It is a sign to
you unbelievers, but prophesying is for a sign, not to the unbeliever, but unto
them that believe." Suppose I am a believer and we stand upon the same
plane, and all at once some mighty power descends on me, and I get up with a
new spirit and speak with all the authority of God. That carries conviction to
the soul of the believer. It is a sign to him that God's Spirit is on me.
We come now to the strongest part of the chapter, and one that I have preached
many sermons on. I preached a sermon on it in Kansas City and S. J. Porter, now
at San Antonio, was pastor of the church. When I got through with that sermon
there was a stir in the congregation equal to Pentecost. I never saw such a
sight in my life. My theme was, "How the Church Shall Convict Sinners of
Sin." It reads as follows: "If therefore the whole church be
assembled together and all speak with tongues [every one speaking in a
different language], and there come in men unlearned or unbelieving, will they
not say ye are mad [i. e., you are crazy?]. But if all prophesy, and there come
in one unbelieving or unlearned, he is reproved by all, he is judged by all;
the secrets of his heart are made manifest [that is, to him] and so he will
fall down on his face and worship God, declaring that God is among you
indeed."
I started out on this line: Where the congregation of God's people assemble
there will likely step in some ignorant man or some skeptic, and one of two
things is going to happen – either they will convict that man of sin or he will
convict them of sin. If the character of the services is such that they seem to
be mere fanaticism or a sanctified row, one man praying while another is
singing, and another is talking, and everything is confusion, all jumbled up,
will he not say that they are crazy? And when he goes away he will carry the
report about them, and his report is, "those so-called Christian people
are simply mad; it is a delusion." Suppose, on the other hand, that when
that ignorant man takes his seat and all of the services are so simple that
notwithstanding his ignorance he can understand; the words are easy to be
understood; he gets hold of the preaching or singing or praying, he is
convicted by all. Convicting power rests upon the whole congregation, and that
man sees the sins of his heart.
The secrets of his heart are manifest, and so falling down on his face he will
worship God, and go away and report that God is with that crowd of people. Then
how careful we ought to be at church to ask the question, "Is there any
ignorant soul here today that I can so put the truth before that even his
simple mind can see it? Is there not some skeptic here today who, by the order,
instructiveness, the fervor, and the pathos of the service may see himself to
be a sinner in the sight of God?"
I have seen all of this. I have seen my old church in Waco when convicting
power rested on every member of the congregation. There was something in each
song, in each prayer, in each exposition of the Word of God, and in each word
based on the exposition that went right home to a man's heart like a feathered
arrow from the bow, and it got to be the talk of the town that no infidel could
attend three of these services and not be converted. One of them accepted the
challenge, and I saw him when he came in the church. I was about a third of the
way through my sermon. Conviction seized him, and before he got halfway down
the aisle he was converted. He came right up to the front, whirled around, and
related his Christian experience, and I just let him do the talking. That was
such fine preaching I just stopped.
I am now going to give out a secret. When Moses came down from the mountain
where he had been communing with God, "Moses wist not that his face was
shining," i.e., Moses didn't know it was shining.
When one becomes conscious that he is shining, he quite shining. The most
effective conviction of sinners ever wrought has been wrought by people that
didn't know they were doing it.
The first time I was ever convicted of sin, the one that convicted me of sin
had no idea of it. I had run away from home to go to a big barbecue and
political speaking, and I was only thirteen years old, and I started home
through a big pine forest, and when those pine trees began to moan at night and
it got dark, it was not very comforting to a runaway boy. In the heart of the
pine forest I saw a light. It was the light of a camp meeting, in a big shed,
with platforms erected, dirt piled up on the platforms and pine knots laid on
the dirt; that illuminated the shed and all around it, and illuminated it well,
too; not like electric lights perhaps, but very well. When I got within about
100 yards of the meeting I heard somebody singing; evidently it was a woman, a
sad woman, but yet a Christian woman, and as she kept up that song, so full of
tears, I was convicted of sin from the crown of my head to the soles of my
feet. The secrets of my heart were made manifest to me. When I got up closer,
there she sat on the outside of that congregation holding her dead baby in her
lap. It had just died, and her heart was broken, but her Christian soul
surrendered the baby to the Lord and submitted to his will, and she had
commenced singing, "O love divine, all love excelling," and that song
convicted me of sin. She didn't know that she was convicting me of sin. If she
had been an actress, and had tried to sing like a woman whose baby was dead,
there would have been no power in it to convict.
I will name three books that I studied on the conviction of sinners of sin.
They have never ceased to benefit me. The first book is the Bible. I commenced
at Genesis and read straight through until I found a case of conviction of sin,
and so I wrote that case down i.e., who was convicted of sin here, and how this
conviction was brought about. For instance, the case of Joseph's brothers. When
the cup was found in Benjamin's sack their guilty consciences said to them that
their sin had found them out: "We are every one guilty concerning our
brother's blood." Then I came to David. He had murdered Uriah, having debauched
his wife, and had no compunctions of conscience, going to the Temple and
singing praises to Jehovah with them, and occupying the chief seats among the
saints. After & while he was convicted of sin. Nathan comes to him and
tells him a story about a man that had one ewe lamb, and it was all that he
had, and a rich man had a large flock, and a traveler came to stay with the
rich man, and he spared his flock, but took by violence the one ewe lamb of the
poor man. David listened to the story and just got madder and madder, and
finally cried out, "Whoever has done this shall die!" Nathan said,
"Thou art the man!" David says, "I have sinned." He was
convicted. And what took place on the day of Pentecost when they were preaching
to them was conviction. Then at another time the jailer says, "What must I
do to be saved?" Thus I went through the Bible and made a study of it.
Then the next book that I took was my own experience. I went back over my life
just as far as I could remember, and just as honestly as I could; I recalled
every time in my life that I became sensible that I was a sinner and I asked
myself, "What brought it about?"
And the third book that I read was the book of observation. One day a Mr.
Sherwook preached a sermon in a big meeting in Georgia, and 4,000 grown men and
women were converted. I never studied anything as I studied these three books –
the Bible cases on conviction of sin, the cases of my own experience of
conviction of sin, and the great historic cases of conviction of sin. That is
the subject I discussed in Kansas City. The message was that God had appointed
the church to convict sinners and lead them to salvation.
Paul now says, "How is it that every one hath a psalm, everyone a
hymn?" In other words, "When you get together each man is so anxious
to parade what he knows that one talks Greek, another talks Parthian; this one
preaches, that one prays; another is singing, and the services are a confusion.
God is not here. You will make a wrong impression by a service of that kind."
Some may call that a "sanctified row," if they want to. It is in
reality a row without the "sanctified." The most powerful conviction
comes in a still meeting, where one can hear a pin drop. The sinner's
conviction is signal, as if in a great electric storm the lightning had struck
and riven hundreds of trees and they are falling right and left, and yet no
voice is lifted – not a whisper. It is the stillness of profound attention and
emotion.
The point is that God intended the gifts in the baptism of the Spirit for a
certain purpose, and these Corinthians were using them for other purposes, and
they were doing harm rather than good. They had lost sight of their mission to
convict sinners and lead them to Christ. Ignorant people came, and went away
uninstructed; skeptics came, and went away confirmed in their skepticism; they
went away and reported that there was nothing in that crowd; that if that was
religion they didn't want to see any more of it. Maybe the preacher was
conceited as to his part and would use the biggest words that he could, until
they would think he was some great one, and when the choir would sing they
would screech and get as far away from singing a song that one could understand
as possible; everything perfunctory, but God was not in the songs, nor in the
prayers, nor in the sermon, and the day was lost, and souls were lost.
QUESTIONS
1. Why did the author omit
the latter part of chapter 14 for the time being?
2. What does "Follow
after love" (14:1) mean, and what Paul's application here?
3. What the most profitable
gift of the Spirit, and what is meant by prophesying?
4. Why is the gift of
prophesying superior to the gift of tongues?
5. What three passages furnish
the basis of the teaching by some that to speak in a tongue means to speak
ecstatically, and where may the argument be found?
6. What the author's first
argument to show that to speak in & tongue meant to speak a language one
had never learned?
7. What his second argument?
8. What his third argument?
9. What the first objection
to this argument, and the reply?
10. How does Paul show
further that the author's interpretation is correct?
11. What text used
especially by the reformers and how?
12. What illustration from
the author's experience?
13. How does Paul illustrate
the thought, and what the author's parallel illustration from his war
experience?
14. What illustration of the
effect of big sounding words on a popular audience given by the author?
15. Was the speaker or the
hearer the subject of the baptism is Holy Spirit? Illustrate.
16. What statement here
shows Paul's emphasis on the "understanding" in religious matters,
and what the application to modern singing? Illustrate.
17. What the author's proof
of the correctness of his position from the references to the law and to
prophecy?
18. What the direct proof
that tongues were to attest? Illustrate.
19. What text here shows how
a church may convict a sinner?
20. What illustration of
this from the author's life?
21. What the author's secret
respecting Moses, and the present-day application of it? Illustrate.
22. What three books given
by the author on the conviction of sin, and how did he study them?
23. What the condition where
there is the greatest convicting power?
24. What the main point of
all this discussion by Paul, and the application by the author?
MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND THE POSITION OF WOMEN
IN PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES 1 Corinthians 7:1-40; 11:2-16; 14:33-40.
It will be recalled that we have been treating 1 Corinthians topically, and
hence when we take hold of a subject we take in everything bearing on that
subject and pass over some things. Heretofore we have left untouched 7:1-40;
11:2-16; 14:34-40. So that the scope of the present discussion is the three
passages – all of chapter 7; 11:2-16, and 14:33-40. The general topics embraced
in these parts of the first letter are Marriage, Divorce, and the Position of
Women in the Public Assemblies, all exceedingly delicate questions, and
therefore my reserve in treating the matter. I don't suppose there is much help
in studying this letter in the commentaries. I myself had never reached a very
satisfactory conclusion on some points involved until recently.
Before we take up the serious matter of marriage, divorce, and the whole
question of sexual relation, there are certain antecedent matters to consider,
and the first is, that whatever is here said by the apostle Paul is an answer
to a letter that the Corinthian church wrote him. He commences chapter 7 with a
reference to that letter. He says, "Now concerning the things whereof ye
wrote." So we see that he answers questions propounded to him. The next
antecedent thing is that we must never forget the mixed, ethnic composition of
this church. "Ethnic" means of many nationalities. The mixed, ethnic
composition of this church and the particular distressed conditions existing at
the time that he wrote, are matters of great importance. This church was
composed of Greeks, Romans, and other Orientals, besides Jews.
Upon the subject of marriage, divorce, and the position of women, the Jews,
Romans, and Greeks widely differed. Each nation had its own fixed custom or
customs upon all of these points, and they were all converted in this big
meeting, some from all these peoples. And they naturally wanted to know what
was the bearing of the new religion upon this subject of marriage, divorce, and
the position of women, slavery, and things of that kind.
Among the Jews divorce was granted for a very slight cause. Moses did permit
divorce in this form, viz.: that no man could put away his wife without giving
her a bill of divorcement; he could not put her away and leave her as goods and
chattels that he was not responsible for. He must give her a bill showing that
he claimed nothing from her in the future. Christ explained, that on account of
the hardness of their hearts, divorce was allowed by Moses, who did ameliorate
it, but didn't give the highest law on divorce, because they were not in
condition to hear it. Following that custom, Josephus tells us frankly that he
put away his wife because she didn't please him, and he assigned no other reason,
and went before no court. It would be very hard to please some men, even some
of the time, and very hard to please them all the time; and it wouldn't be best
to please them all the time, for much of the time they would be wrong. Among
the Greeks and Romans divorce could be had for almost any reason. Moreover, the
Orientals believed in the seclusion of women. They kept them in harems guarded
by a eunuch; but the Romans had much broader views than the Greeks, and the
Greeks were much in advance of the Orientals. A lady at Rome had great liberty
without being subjected to invidious criticisms. This is the mixed ethnic
condition of this church.
But another thing must be considered which is expressed in chapter 7. Paul
says, "I think therefore that this is good by reason of the distress that
is upon us." There was a particular distress bearing upon the people at
that time that modified the answers that he gave to some of their questions,
and we can't understand this chapter 7 and the other paragraphs in chapters II
and 14 without keeping in mind that broad statement – "the distress that
is upon us." That refers to the condition of the church at that time when
all Christians were persecuted. No Christian knew one day what would be his
financial status the next, for everything of his might be confiscated. He could
not know one day whether he would be out of prison the next; he couldn't know
one day whether he would be banished the next. Day by day they were practically
taking their lives in their own hands. If a man is living in a prosperous time
'it wouldn't be proper to answer him on the question of marriage as if he were
living in unsettled conditions. In other words, what would be expedient in
prosperous times, would be inexpedient in unprosperous times.
The third important antecedent thought in the understanding of those passages
is the people's misconception of the results of regeneration. Paul had said to
them, "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are
passed away; behold they are become new." They did not know how far to
carry this thought. For instance, if a married man was not converted yesterday,
but became a convert today, did his marriage pass away? I will show how that
this is a very practical question before we get through with this discussion. A
man was a slave yesterday and unconverted; he hears the gospel of freedom
preached to him, that is, that if the Son makes him free he is free indeed. He
hears that in Christ Jesus there is neither bond nor free, therefore today he,
being a new creature, what conclusion shall he draw from this new relation as
to his slavery?
Again, the gospel was preached to them as individuals, without regard to age,
sex or previous condition of servitude, and it was distinctly stated that in
Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, Barbarian, Scythian, bond, free,
Jew, nor Gentiles. If that be true, has not every Christian precisely the same
privileges in the public assembly, whether man or woman? If there be neither
male nor female in Christ Jesus, may not a woman preach as well as a man? If
they stand on the same footing when they join the church, what effect does it
have on the old commandment that a child should obey his parents, or that the
wife is subject to her husband? It may seem that this is all a little
overstrained, but the history of the world shows that these are intensely
important questions.
Take the case of the "mad men of Munster," who argued from the fact
that Jesus had come to establish a kingdom upon the earth, and that that
kingdom was to overcome all other kingdoms of the earth. They said,
"Therefore, if I be a member of the kingdom of Jesus, that absolves me
from my allegiance to any kingdom of this earth." There were no
subordinates in the land where they lived, as they were free from the law of
the nation. They reasoned that if they had the liberty of a Christian, might
they not take two or three wives? Hence the leader of the Munsterites did not
stop until he got fourteen, but that was not quite so far as Brigham Young
went. They went on, "Do we, being the children of Jesus Christ, have to
pay tribute or taxes? If I be a member of the kingdom of Jesus Christ that
absolves me from any kingdom of this earth, why not set up a purely religious
kingdom?" One of these men was made king, and the whole power of the
German Empire had to be invoked to put down this movement. Yet a great many
people were converted people – enthusiasts misconstruing the teaching of God
upon the results that would follow our becoming new creatures.
Yet again, this gospel taught that the citizenship of a Christian is up yonder,
not down here, and that up yonder neither marrying nor giving in marriage takes
place. Upon this they reasoned thus: "Does not that obligate me to lay
down the work of this world? Why talk about farming, merchandising, and the
dull, heavy round of earthly occupations?" Just so the Thessalonians went
wild, because they expected Christ to come "day-after-tomorrow," and
therefore there could be nothing for them to do except prepare their ascension
robes. In other words, "Up there they don't marry, and what effect does
that have on me, since I am married? I have become a citizen of heaven, where
they do not marry. Ought I not to abjure this marriage? Ought I not to go and
live in a monastery and leave my wife and children on the care of the world? If
I have never married, should I not become a sister, and enter into the
nunnery?" Such were their reasonings.
The last great things that we are to consider in chapter 7 is the point that we
have just presented: "If I contracted marriage before I was converted, was
it dissolved when I became a new creature, and old things passed away? If I
have not contracted a marriage, shall I avoid it?" The apostle answers it,
first, from the viewpoint of the present distress that he refers to, i.e., in
view of the present condition, when their property might be swept away in a
day, when they must be silent or be in banishment. He takes the position that
in this particular stress and under these conditions it was well not to marry.
But we must not forget the old-time law that God instituted marriage as the
only way to carry out the commandment of God to multiply and replenish the
earth. Therefore, Paul says, "My advice to you is to let every man have
his own wife, and every woman her own husband." It was impossible for him
to take a position against the necessity of marriage, but he said that in view
of that distress it might be best not to marry, but if they did marry
notwithstanding the distress, they committed no sin, and if governed by the
distress not to marry this was no sin, but as long as we are in this world and
the sexual distinction exists, we cannot get away from that primeval law of God
that marriage is honorable in all.
We know that another question was presented because of the answer given.
Suppose one is already married when converted? In the middle ages this question
became one of the biggest that ever occupied man's mind. It was a common thing
for a man at his conversion to say, "In view of the fact that I am now
under a higher law of God, I will give up my wife and children, go from home
and shut myself up in a monastery." Hundreds and thousands of men and
women took the vow never to marry. There are many cases where the men took the
vows of celibacy, trying to live a life like the angels. That is the most
seductive form of temptation that ever came to men, and it led to the building
of monasteries and nunneries all over Europe and a greater part of Asia and
North Africa, where women would seclude themselves and vow not to marry, and
even married men would abandon wives and children and shut themselves up in
monasteries. Paul says, "If a man is married let him not put away his
wife, and let not the woman put away her husband. Your being converted does not
change the law of God in regard to marriage." So the question comes in
another and different form. Under the old law of the Jews, a Jew could not
marry a heathen, unless a proselyte, without the penalty of excommunication,
and the ground was, that to marry a heathen puts him in danger of becoming an
idolater. In Nehemiah we learn that when some of the Jews had violated that
law, he put before them the alternative of either keeping the Jewish law or
being excluded from the Jewish communion. Knowing what the law was on that
subject, they put the question, "Here is a man who is converted and his
wife is a heathen; shall the Christian put away his heathen wife?" That is
very different from the original question, "Ought a Christian to marry a
heathen?" which law holds now that it is best for believers to marry
believers, but Paul answers that question emphatically, "No; the marriage
relation is a divine institution and there is nothing in such a case to justify
that man to put away his wife."
Then the question comes in another form: "Suppose when a woman joins the
church that the heathen husband makes it a ground of disfellowship and refuses
to live with her, what then?" Paul said, "In such a case, if the
unbeliever depart, let him depart. You have done nothing wrong and are willing
to stand by your marriage contract." But what does he mean by saying,
"The husband or wife is not in bondage in such a case?" Does it mean
that a voluntary separation totally abrogates the marriage tie so that the one
left is at liberty to marry somebody else? That question comes up in our own
civil law. Blackstone comments on it, saying, "You may grant divorce 'Amensa
et toro,' " which means, "Divorce from bed and board." In
other words, people can separate; the man doesn't have to live with that woman,
and the woman doesn't have to live with that man. But the law is emphatic that
such separation is not breaking the marriage bond. It permits a possible
separation. That is intensely practicable.
When I was a young preacher I was called into a council. A preacher's wife had
left him. She refused to live with him, left him, and went back to her father,
and he afterwards married again, and his plea was that abandonment justified
remarriage. He quoted that passage, "A husband and wife are not in bondage
in such cases." The question for that council to decide was, "Would
it be a wise thing to put a man into the ministry who lived under a cloud of
that kind?" One of the oldest and most distinguished Baptists that ever
lived took the position that such a one was free to marry again, but I, a young
preacher, dissented from him, and do still. It does not break the marriage tie
so as to permit one to marry again. I quoted the declaration of Paul where he
says, "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives,"
and he certainly couldn't contradict himself in the same chapter. Then he says,
"If her husband be dead, she shall be permitted to marry again." That
settles that question.
Paul does not discuss the only cause that does thoroughly break the marriage
bond, if one is disposed to plead it, which is the case of infidelity to the
marriage vow discussed by our Lord. Hence my contention is that what is here
said does not discuss all of the law on the subject of marriage and divorce.
Let us take up the question, "Ought widowers and widows to remarry?"
There he states that a widower under the law of Christ may marry again, though
it is not mandatory. There was at one time the question raised of putting a
special tax on bachelors. The Greeks and Romans had a law to that effect. It is
nothing to smile at; it comes from the idea that the state is more important
than the individual. They carried that law further, and forbade a bachelor to
Inherit; if he remained unmarried he must turn over his property to the state.
When I was a little boy we had a kangaroo court, and a candidate for the
legislature was telling what he would do if he were elected. He said, "I
would change the pronoun 'them' for the word 'um,' so all the common people could
say grammatically, 'I love um,' and I would have a law passed that would draw a
tooth from an old bachelor's head for every year he remained unmarried."
But how does Paul answer that question? He says, "If you take this present
distress into consideration, it is not favorable for contracting marriage. If
you want to marry, do so, but you will have trouble in view of this
distress." But he says that it is lawful for a widow to marry again, and
in the case of young widows, as in the letter to Timothy, he makes it a very
urgent recommendation.
Let us take the next question: Does regeneration change the natural
subordination of woman to the man, and the sphere in which each moves? The
gospel preached was that in Christ Jesus there was neither male nor female. So
in chapter II he answers, "I would have you know, that the head of every
man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man. . . . Every man praying or
prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman
praying or prophesying with her head unveiled, dishonoreth her head; it is one
and the same thing as if she were shaven [that was a sign of an infamous life].
. .. But if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.
For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the
image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For the man is not
of the woman; but the woman of the man: for neither was the man created for the
woman; but the woman for the man." The angels of God were hovering round
watching over the assemblies of God's people, and it grieved them to see the
law of God violated. Paul goes on; he 'is not only arguing from that old law,
but he is arguing from nature: "Is it seemly that a woman pray unto God
unveiled? Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair,
it is a dishonor to him?" I once knew a young fellow who was really
pretty. He had great long curls that he spent a long time each day in combing
and twisting and anointing with oil, and brushing. And I took the New
Testament, marked this passage, and sent it to him. It made him very indignant.
Paul's answer is that becoming a new creature, so that "old things are
passed away and all things become new," does not mean that all old things,
viz.: that God's law of order has passed away. When we get to heaven we will
live as the angels live, but while we live on earth the laws of order
instituted in paradise must stand.
That question comes up in a little different form in chapter 14: "God is
not a God of confusion, but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, let
the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to
speak; but let them be in subjection, as also sayeth the law. And if they would
learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for
a woman to speak in the church." Now they are meeting that by saying that
the word of God had come to women. And it is unquestionable that the spirit of
prophecy did come to women. But Paul teaches that that spirit of prophecy was
subject to the person that had it; that it was not given him to violate order;
and that if the spirit of prophecy did come to them, let them remember that it
came to other people also.
North of the Mason and Dixon's line we occasionally come upon a church with a
woman for a pastor – a Baptist church at that. I was both cheered and hissed
for a statement I made when I preached in Chicago. I don't know which was the
louder, the cheering or the hissing. I started out expounding this passage of
Scripture,. 1 Timothy 2: "I desire therefore that the men pray in every
place, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and disputing. In like manner that
the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety;
not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; but (which
becometh women professing godliness) through good works. Let a woman learn in
quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have
dominion over man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then
Eve." Adam saw Eve and said, "Issha," woman; it means that woman
is derived from man; that she got her soul and her body from Adam. She is as
much a descendant of Adam as we are. I read the scripture, and took the position
that there are two distinct spheres, the man's sphere and the woman's sphere;
that the man's is more public; that the woman shall live in her children. When
a worldly woman came to visit Cornelia and paraded her fine jewels that blazed
on her head and arms and her ankles before her, Cornelia, drawing forward her
two sons, Gains and Tiberius Gracchus (the Gracchi), said, "These are my
jewels, and I am going to live in these. My sphere is my home and my
boys."
There is one other question – that of the slave. They said, "If I am a
freedman of Christ, shall I be a slave to man?" But Paul answers that
Christianity does not propose to unsettle the established order of things. Its
object is to develop the inner life: "Let each one of you abide in the law
you were in when God called you." In other words, if he was circumcised,
let him not try to efface his circumcision. If he was a slave when God called
him, let him be satisfied with being Christ's freedman, and with knowing that
his master if Christ's servant, and let him in his position of slavery
illustrate that the truth and the power of the Christian religion is in
serving, not with eye service, but showing that Christianity can come to any
form of life and glorify 'it. In yet other words, being converted and becoming
a new creature, we should not disregard the established order of things which
God has appointed for this world. When we get up into the other world we can
adapt ourselves to conditions there.
QUESTIONS
1. What the scope of this chapter,
and what the several topics?
2. What is the first
important antecedent matter in chapter 7?
3. What the second
antecedent matter, and of whom was the church at Corinth composed?
4. What the position of
Jews, Romans, and Greeks, respectively, on marriage and divorce, and the woman
question in general?
5. What the difference
between the Orientals, on the one hand, and the Greeks and Romans, on the other
hand, with respect to this question?
6. What condition at the
time Paul wrote this letter greatly modified his answers to some of their
questions?
7. What the third antecedent
thought essential to an understanding of these scriptures?
8. How did their application
of this thought affect their earthly relations? Illustrate fully.
9. What was Paul's answer to
their inquiry as to whether one who was not married should marry, and what its
bearing on the primal law of marriage?
10. What question arose
about those who were converted after marriage, what Paul's answer to it, and
what the results of this misconception of the Corinthians as practiced in the
Middle Ages?
11. Ought a Christian to
marry an unbeliever?
12. What is the Christian
wife or husband to do in case the unregenerated husband or wife makes it a
ground of disfellowship, and refuses to live ill the marriage relation?
13. What does Paul mean by
saying, "The husband or wife is not is bondage in such a case"?
14. What illustration of the
author's interpretation from his own experience?
15. What the only cause
which breaks the marriage bond, and where do we find the statement of it?
16. What the law of marriage
in the case of widowers and widows, and what legislation against bachelors?
17. What the bearing of this
subject on the relation between man and woman in the sphere in which each
moves, what Paul's teaching on this, and what his arguments for it?
18. What the form of this
question as treated in chapter 14, how do some people meet Paul's argument
here, and what does Paul teach that settles the question beyond all dispute?
19. What the author's
experience on this line in Chicago, and what is his interpretation of 1 Timothy
2:8-15? Illustrate.
20, How did this subject
affect the relation, of the slave and his master, and what Paul's answer to their
reasoning on the subject?
THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
The fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians is a great chapter on the resurrection of
the dead. Luther said that the doctrine of justification by faith was the
doctrine of the standing or falling church, but inasmuch as Christ was raised
for our justification, we would be nearer the truth to say that the doctrine of
the standing or falling church is the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead.
I understand by the resurrection of the dead the making alive of a dead body,
raising it from the grave, and glorifying it – that is, what was sown in
weakness is raised in strength; what was sown in dishonor is raised in honor;
what was sown in corruption is raised in incorruption; what was sown a mortal
body is raised an immortal body; what was sown a natural body is raised a
spiritual body, and then a reunion of the body with the soul which once inhabited
it. That is my understanding of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead,
and it certainly includes the idea of the identity of the body.
Before leading on to Paul's argument I will show the importance of the subject under
consideration, and the first point that I make is that our Lord Jesus Christ in
his lifetime made this the crucial proof or demonstration of his divinity and
of his mission. He made this issue with his enemies. I cite therefore the
following passages upon that point. I will prove that intelligently and openly
this was made the keynote position with his enemies and understood by them. In
John 2:19 (Harmony, p. 20) the Jews who were indignant at his first purgation
of the Temple, demanded of him: "What signs showest thou unto us, seeing
thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this
temple, and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews therefore said, forty
and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three
days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore be was raised from
the dead, his disciples remembered that he spake this; and they believed the
scripture, and the word which Jesus had said."
Again, Matthew 12:38 (Harmony, p. 59): "Then certain of the scribes and
Pharisees answered him, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he
answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a
sign; and there shall be no sign given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet:
for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so
shall the Son of man be three days and nights in the heart of the earth. The
men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall
condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater
than Jonah is here. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with
this generation [showing that the resurrection is to be general] and condemn
it: for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and
behold, a greater than Solomon is here." Those were there who repented and
those who were impenitent.
But the point I am now on is that the issue was joined. Let us see that they
distinctly understood the issue. Matthew 27:39-40, while he was hanging upon
the cross "they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and
saying, “Thou that destroyeth the temple, and buildest it in three days, save
thyself; if thou art the Son of God, come down from the cross." Then in
the same chapter again, after he was buried (Harmony, p. 217, "The chief
priests and the Pharisees were gathered together unto Pilate, saying, "Sir
we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, after three days I
will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the
third day, lest haply his disciples come and steal him away, and say unto the
people, he is risen from the dead: and the last error will be worse than the
first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a guard; go your way, make it as sure as
ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, the guard
being with them."
Now look at the report of that guard: "Now while they were going, behold,
some of the guard came into the city, and told unto the chief priests all the
things that had come to pass. And when they were assembled with the elders and
had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, his
disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to
the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and rid you of care. So they took
the money, and did as they were taught; and this saying was spread abroad among
the Jews, and continueth until this day" (Matt. 28:1115; Harmony, p. 222).
As final proof on that issue, the issue being his resurrection from the dead, I
cite Acts 4, on the occasion of Peter and John healing the impotent man:
"And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers and elders and
scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem; and Annas the high priest was
there, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the
kindred of the high priest. And when they set them in the midst, they inquired,
By what power, or in what name, have you done this? Then Peter, filled with the
Holy Spirit, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders, if we this
day are examined concerning a good deed done to an impotent man, by what means
this man is made whole; be it known unto you all, and to all the people of
Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom
God raised from the dead, even in him doth this man stand here before you
whole. He is the stone which is set at nought of you the builders, which was
made the head of the corner. And in none other is there salvation: for neither
is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must
be saved." This shows that it was still the issue after his resurrection
from the dead. There was a challenge given, and a challenge accepted, and the
matter was put to proof.
Just as clearly, on this very doctrine, is his teaching to his disciples. On
the occasion of the great confession of Peter, this is what occurred (Harmony,
p. 91): "From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that
he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief
priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up" (Matt.
16:21). Peter rebuked him. He had not understood the. death of Christ, nor the
resurrection of Christ. The disciples were very slow to believe, but he began
the teaching of that doctrine at Caesarea Philippi, where that disciple said,
"Thou art the Son of the living God." Notice again in Galilee, the
last six months of his ministry, this language is used (Matt. 17:22-23;
Harmony, p. 97): "Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be delivered
up into the hands of men; and they shall kill him, and the third day he shall
be raised up. And they were exceeding sorry." Or as Mark says, "They
understood not the saying." Or as Luke puts it, "Let these words sink
in to your ears," and then he adds, "They understood not the saying,
and it was concealed from them, that they should not perceive it," and
Mark says, "And were afraid to ask him." This is the chronological
order of the teaching.
In John 10, after this incident that I have just cited, Jesus says, "I lay
down my life, that I may take it up again. No one taketh it away from me, but I
lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it
up again. This commandment received I from my Father." Yet they do not
seem to realize.
I cite a still later incident. This is when he was on his way to Jerusalem for
the last time. It is recorded in Matthew 20; Mark 10; Luke 18: "Behold, we
go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief
priests and scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall de liver
him unto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify; and on the third
day he shall be raised up."
I cite a still later instance that is recorded after his resurrection. On one
of his appearances to them he brings this matter up and impresses it with great
emphasis upon their hearts. He appeared unto them and "they were terrified
and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit. And he upbraided them
with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which
had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled?
and wherefore do reasonings 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. And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his
feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said unto
them, Have ye here anything to eat? And they gave him a piece of broiled fish.
And he took it, and did eat before them" (Harmony, p. 225). And later he
invited Thomas to put his finger in the prints of the nails and in his side.
Therefore the apostle John in his letter uses this language: "That which
we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and
our hands handled – declare we unto you."
In 1907 there was a minister of the South of exceeding loose views on the inspiration
of the Scriptures, and, it seemed to me, in order to give him the opportunity
to exploit his particular views, they put him up to preach a sermon at the
Southern Baptist Convention, and in that sermon he used these words (I shall
never forget them): "Christ's resurrection-body was assumed temporarily,
merely for the purpose of identification, and afterwards eliminated. What
became of it we don't know, and it is not important that we should know."
Those are his very words. The sermon was published.
In a textbook of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary at Louisville,
Kentucky, Epochs in the Life of Jesus, by Dr. Robertson (an
exceedingly valuable book with this one blur on it), there is this statement:
"All at once Jesus stood in the midst of them; he had risen from the dead.
This appearance opposes the idea that it was only the spirit of Jesus. He
showed his hands and his side, and expressly alleged that he was not a mere
spirit, but even had flesh and bones. [Now we come to the trouble.] This passage
adds to the difficulty. One must admit it, for flesh and bones will not enter
into heaven. In the resurrection the body is a spiritual body; but one must
remember that the case of Jesus is entirely exceptional. He spent forty days
where his body was in sight. He could go through closed doors and yet eat
broiled fish." That is where the man got his idea in the sermon.
I was appointed to preach the next year, and I preached on the Nature and
Person of Our Lord. In that sermon I used these words:
He is the firstborn from the dead. That means he was the first in history whose
body was raised to die no more. Other resurrections of both Testaments were but
resuscitations to mortal life.
It means that the same body that died on the cross was the body raised from the
tomb, and was so identified, unmistakably. It means far more: That this very
body which wag dead, quickened, raised, recognized, was the body in which he
ascended into heaven, and which is now in heaven, and in which he will return
to his people. To say that Christ's risen body was assumed merely for the
purpose of identification is the rankest heresy. To break any link in the chain
of its identity is to destroy all of the doctrine of the resurrection and blot
out all hope for the revival of our own dead. He was declared to be the Son of
God by his resurrection from the dead. It is the keystone of the arch of
redemption. It is just as important for us to know what became of the body of
Jesus as it is to know that he was raised from the dead. God's history of the
divine man, Christ Jesus, is not a mutilated fragment, Christ's body ascended
into the clouds with the angelic assurance – the assurance that "This same
Jesus (identity again) shall come in like manner as ye beheld him going into
heaven." And this ascending Jesus was the very one who had just for forty
days "showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible
proofs." So John says, "That which was in the beginning, that we
beheld, which our hands have handled," etc. Who, because of metaphysical
difficulties interpreted into Christ's words and deeds, from these difficulties
evolved from his own puzzled questionings, shall dare to break the identity of
the body of the resurrection of the ascending Jesus?
I call attention again to this fact that Jesus said that when he got to the
place to which he was going, the Holy Spirit would come, and he came down on
the day of Pentecost as the demonstration that Jesus of Nazareth that was
crucified and buried, that was raised, and, as Paul says, that was exalted, is
yet alive, and so John, in Revelation, says, "He is risen " and he
hears him say, showing it is the same person, "I am he that was dead, that
am alive to die no more," and being alive he can now give proof of his life,
and does give it every day that we live. Then he gave the ordinance of baptism
as a monumental evidence, and he pledged that the day upon which he arose would
become to the Christian the sabbath of the New Covenant. As long as waters form
into lakes or are gathered into baptistries; as long as men celebrate the
Lord's Supper that points to his second advent; as long as congregations
assemble upon the first day of the week to worship, these things will stand as
pledges to the fact of the resurrection of the dead.
Let us take up Paul. Attention has already been called to the mixed character
of the constituency of the church at Corinth. There were Jews, and other
Orientals, and Romans and Greeks, and all these people had different
philosophies concerning the future life and the disposition of the body. Three
of these philosophies are worth mentioning here. First, the Greek Epicurean,
whose views were shared by the Sadducees, who were materialistic and atheistic,
denying that there is any such thing as spirit, or that there is any
resurrection of the body. Second, the Stoic philosophy. Their philosophy was
that the soul exists, but ultimately it will be absorbed and left in the
divinity which created it. They did not believe in the resurrection of the body
in any sense. The third view was that of Plato. He believed in the immortality
of the soul; he did not believe that the soul would ever be merged into the
divine being so as to lose its identity, but he did not believe in the future
life of the body. Plato's philosophy was that in dying one gets rid of sin;
that sin resides in the body, and to die is to be saved, if he gets rid of the
body.
I present these views in order that we may understand the .significance of the
address of Paul to the people who may have held one or another of these
philosophies, or the subsequent ones developed soon after, and in order to show
that as these views are held now, chapter 15 is just as important to us as it
was to them to whom it was addressed.
QUESTIONS
1. What chapter is perhaps
the greatest chapter in the Bible on the resurrection of the dead?
2. What said Luther of the
doctrine of justification, and what doctrine, according to the author, more
nearly expresses the truth?
3. What is meant by the resurrection
of the dead, and what does it especially include?
4. How does the author show
the importance of the resurrection, and what the first point?
5. Cite three scriptures
showing that Christ made his resurrection the test of his divinity with his
enemies, and three others showing that he made the same test with his
disciples.
6. Cite proof that his
enemies understood and accepted the challenge, and also proof that the
disciples did not understand his test until after his resurrection.
7. What the proof that this
was still the issue after his resurrection?
8. On. what historic
occasion did a preacher exploit his views on this subject, what were his views,
and how were they met by the author?
9. What the position of the
author on this question, and what importance does he attach to it?
10. How was the exaltation
of the risen Lord demonstrated, and what the testimony of Paul and John to the
fact that he is alive?
11. What the monumental
evidence of his resurrection?
12. What the Epicurean
philosophy concerning the future life and the disposition of the body?
13. What the Stoic
philosophy on the same points?
14. What the Platonian
philosophy concerning the same points?
15. Why is it necessary to understand
these views before studying I Cor.16?
DEATH AND THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
1 Corinthians 15:1-58.
This chapter commences with the statement of the facts which constitute the gospel.
The first fact, "Christ died for our sins, according to the
Scriptures." Three ideas are involved in that fact:
1. Christ actually died. It was not a mere trance; it was actual death.
2. It was a vicarious, substitutionary, expiatory death. "He died for our
sins."
3. He died for our sins "according to the Scriptures" – that the
Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament up to the time of his
crucifixion clearly foretold his actual, substitutionary, and expiatory death.
The second fact in the gospel is that he was buried – he was dead and buried –
and that was according to the Scriptures. The Scriptures testified that he
would be buried. The third fact is that on the third day, according to the
Scriptures, he rose from the dead; and the fourth fact of the gospel is, that
risen, he was visible to men, recognized by men, and identified by men.
Paul goes on to tell of the numerous appearances, including an appearance to
him. He was buried, he rose again, he was visible after death with spiritual
evidence, and his body was identified. In other words, John says, as if to
anticipate many foolish statements, "We don't know what we shall be, but
we do know that when he comes we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he
is.”
The next thing that Paul presents is that this was not merely a preaching of
his, but all the apostles preached it, as verse II of that chapter shows. And
the next thought is that they did not originate it. He says, "I have
delivered unto you that which I also received, and you received it from
me." That was according to the sign which Christ submitted: "He died,
he was buried, and was raised." The next argument that he makes is that
every Christian in the days of the apostles believed what he said, "As I
delivered it, so you received it, and that so believing it, you are saved by
it," making it a doctrine of salvation.
He then passes to this position – that the doctrine of the resurrection of the
dead is the foundation of all Christianity. He presents it under the following
heads:
1. "If there be no such thing as a resurrection of the dead, why, then,
Christ is not risen.
2. Then all preaching is vain.
3. All faith in the preaching is vain.
4. All of the apostles were false witnesses, for every one of them testified that
Christ rose from the dead, and that they saw him.
5. He then says again, "If there be no resurrection of the dead, you are
yet in your sins," i.e., when they said that God for Christ's sake forgave
their sins, they either wilfully lied or were deluded. It was not a fact. He
adds next, "Those without hope of the resurrection are of all men the most
miserable." That is a tremendous thing. If this hope be taken away the
Christian is the most miserable of all men.
He then shows the place of this resurrection of Jesus Christ in the scheme of
redemption, and in their order are these:
Christ is risen from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep. No man
had been raised from the dead in the same sense, that is, to die no more. Two
men had been translated, Enoch and Elijah, and after his own resurrection many
of the saints came out of their tombs and appeared unto many people who were
able to recognize them. It was true that Lazarus was raised, but he was raised
to die again.
Next he shows that this position results from Christ's position as a Second
Adam, and hence ours. As by the first Adam death came, so by the Second Adam
the resurrection comes, and that means not only the resurrection of the
righteous, but the wicked. In two places in the Scriptures, and very
emphatically in one of them, the words indicating universality are used. But
all in their body are quickened, further indicating his position in the scheme
of redemption. He says that the resurrection of Christ must not only precede
all others, but draw the others after it as a result. Then he proceeds to show
that the resurrection is necessary to the raising of Christ and the exercise of
his high priestly functions in heaven, as is further developed in the letter to
the Philippians. He emptied himself, laid aside all his glory, and became
obedient unto death, therefore God hath also highly exalted him, in his
exaltation to be King of kings and Lord of lords, and to exercise the functions
of his high priesthood. They were based upon the fact that he had died and was
raised.
He goes on further to show this by stating that Christ's reign on the
mediatorial throne in heaven is to last until every enemy that shall be
destroyed is dead. Then Christ delivers up his kingdom to his Father; so if we
deny the resurrection from the dead, we deny that Christ is Priest and King.
Not only that, we deny this: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my
right hand [that is, in the kingly position], until I make thine enemies thy
footstool." We not only deny that, but we deny all assurance that there
will be a judgment day. Paul testified that God hath appointed a day in which
he will judge the world, and hath given assurance to all men in that he hath
raised him from the dead. So the resurrection of the dead underlies the
doctrine of the judgment.
He then takes up the life of a Christian. The first argument that he presents
is this: "Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead? If the
dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?" Doubtless
the reader is asking in his mind, "What does that mean?" I will give
some theories that I don't believe, and then I will give what I think it means.
The first theory is that Christians had already commenced proxy baptism; that
if a man unfortunately died before he was baptized, some friend would be
baptized for him. I have two reasons for regarding that as false. First, there
is not any reason to believe that any had done this before the writing of the
Scriptures; second, that if it had been much practiced by the apostle Paul
never could have quoted it with any degree of approval. So I am quite sure it
doesn't mean that.
The second explanation is that the baptism for the dead refers to the baptism
of suffering. Christ says, "I have a baptism to be baptized with,"
and he tells his disciples that they must be baptized with the same baptism,
but there is no reference to those who undergo this baptism of suffering here.
Here is what I think it does mean: "As many of you as were baptized into
Christ were baptized unto his death," i. e., "You made the profession
of faith that you were dead to sin, and being dead to sin you are symbolically
buried and raised to walk in the newness of life." In other words, to put
it in plain English, it means this, Why retain the ordinance of baptism if
there be no resurrection from the dead? That is what it means. What
signification has it? It is a baptism unto Christ's death. What should they do
who are baptized for the dead if the dead rise not at all? What is the use of
the ordinance?
The next argument that Paul presents is based on the life of Christians and
their endurance of suffering. He says, "Why should I have fought with wild
beasts at Ephesus, and placed my life in jeopardy every hour, if there be no
resurrection from the dead?" He had been sentenced to death – was
delivered up to death) and the sentence of death was wrought. In other words, I
believe that what is there stated is not even mentioned in the Acts. The wild
beasts of Ephesus were not the crowd that was raised by the silversmith, for
they didn't get to Paul &t all. He was not even present, but it means that
he was condemned to death – that he was thrown into the amphitheatre and, as he
says, God raised him up. Now, what is the pertinency to the matter in hand? Why
was a Christian thrown to the wild beasts, and why, being thrown to those
beasts, did he not rather deny his Saviour and purchase his life? It is said in
the letter to the Hebrews that the Old Testament saints who believed in
Jehovah, e. g., women refused to receive their children, looking for a better
resurrection, not the escape from death in a figure, as Isaac escaped in the
case of Abraham, but they willingly saw their loved ones die, because they
believed in a better resurrection than a mere pardon after the sentence of
death had been pronounced.
I have a copy of a great painting which I always keep in my study to show my
children. Every one of them has stood before that picture and heard its
explanation. It presents a Christian girl betrothed to a heathen lover. Her
father and mother are heathen. This girl, becoming a Christian, was brought
before the image of Diana and commanded to take just a little incense and
sprinkle it on the image, and that would save her. There is her lover begging
her not to lose him forever. There are the old father and mother weeping and
saying, "0 daughter, don't break our hearts!" There she stands with
her face lifted up to heaven, pledging not to abjure the name of her Lord. That
shows what a tremendous power that doctrine was in the life and death of the
saints of God.
I shall never forget this incident. One day after great solemnity of feeling I
went down to the Brazos River with an omnibus full of ladies clothed in white,
and buried them in baptism. I came out and said to the driver, "Take me to
the cemetery while my dripping clothes are on me; I want to stand over the
little enclosure that holds three of my children buried there where we put
them," and standing there with tears rolling down my face, I said,
"Little ones, you shall not sleep forever; your father this day has
erected a monument that pledges your resurrection from the dead. I will see you
again; we will meet each other, and we will never part again." I have
passed through many precious experiences of the Christian religion, but none
more calm or sweet than that one.
His third argument from the life of the Christian is based on the quotation
from the heathen poet, "Evil companionships corrupt good morals," not
manners, but morals. His thought is, to deny the resurrection from the dead
corrupts morals – that morality is all dependent upon antecedent doctrines from
which it is developed. Therefore Paul's letters all commence with doctrines,
and when he has gotten through with them he takes up morals as developed from
them. Then he quotes the doctrine of the Epicureans: "If the dead are not
raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." Or as a Latin proverb
of the Epicureans puts it, Carpe dies, "Seize the day," that
is, the joys of the present. A notable French infidel was dying, and a friend
said, "Do you want to see a priest?" "0, no!" "Do you
regret anything?" He said, "Why should I? I have never denied myself
anything that I wanted." He was perfectly satisfied. That was his theory
of life, but that theory would destroy the significance of all holy relation
between father and daughter, husband and wife, and the soul and God – would
destroy all altruistic doctrines. Miss Rose Cleveland took the position that
George Eliot could not write poetry; that she could write the form of poetry,
but it was simply prose arranged in that way. Big ideas in it, but no poetic
soul in it, and she said that no agnostic could write poetry". I thought
it was .the best criticism I ever saw on the emptiness of infidelity. It knows
nothing of the great position from which the imagination flies up to its God
and catches inspiration from the heavenly Muses.
We now come, in his discussion, to the process of the resurrection, and the
kind of body with which it is raised. This 13 another argument where Paul is
replying to an objection: Some one will say, "How are the dead
raised?" He first starts out with an analogy. It creates presumptive
proof. He says, "When you go out into a field to sow, you sow wheat or
barley or grain, and it produces grain of its kind." A grain of wheat was
found when they discovered and brought over to this country a mummy of that old
Pharaoh that persecuted the Jews, and they got the grain of wheat. It had been
preserved alive in the hand of that mummy for ages, and did no good until
discovery brought it to light and it was planted. It died – then it produced
abundant wheat. Paul says, "Think on that analogy of nature." Then he
proceeds to explain the different kinds of flesh. He says that the flesh of a
beast is not the flesh of a bird or a fish. The beast has a body that is
adapted to the surroundings, as the bird to the atmosphere. When we pass to the
heavenly environment, why should not our bodies be changed to suit new
conditions, as there are bodies terrestrial and bodies celestial? He then takes
up the heavenly bodies and calls attention to the fact that the splendor and
the glory of the sun and the moon and the stars are different, as everything
has a form to suit its condition. That is his analogical argument. As Oliver
Wendell Holmes says, "Who has not gone out whistling and musing, busy with
his thoughts, and as it were by chance, turned over a piece of bark and beheld
the mysterious things under there, and seen how they ran to cover themselves?
One of them may be an ugly thing that cannot get away, but when it passes
through death, from the chrysalis emerges the golden winged butterfly that in
the air finds its home." Paul does not attempt to explain, therefore he
presents these illustrations, and no man ever can explain life of any kind. We
can not, to save our lives, explain how in an acorn there is a giant oak. He
then tells what there is in every resurrection of the dead. First, there is a
quickening of the body that was put in the grave; second, the raising of that
body; third, the glorifying of that body. Every one of those things is involved
in the resurrection of a righteous man. As every man is born in the image of
the first Adam, they shall be in the image of the Second Adam.
As he proceeds to illustrate still further, he takes the case where there never
has been and never will be any death at all. Enoch never died, Elijah never
died, and nobody ever questioned the identity of their bodies. There was a
transformation that glorified those bodies without dying, and then, as if
leaning over and whispering a great secret, he says, "Behold, I tell you a
mystery: Not all people shall die; some shall be alive when Jesus comes, and
when he comes the living shall be like Enoch and Elijah," referring to the
living Christians. He then adds what so many preachers misinterpret. It is
this: "O death, where is thy victory?" In other words, "You
never got to me." That is at the second coming of Christ. "O spirit
world, where is thy victory?" They never were disembodied.
Now comes a great part, and in a few words. The second result of the
resurrection is that the Christian's labor is not in vain: "Wherefore, my
beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of
the Lord." If there be no resurrection from the dead, every preacher's
labor is vain; if there be a resurrection of the dead there shall be fulfilled
the declaration of Psalm 126: "They that sow in tears shall reap in joy,
and he that goeth forth weeping, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come
again with rejoicing bringing his sheaves with him." Or as is expressed in
Galatians: "Let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall
reap, if we faint not." See the bearing of the passage in 1 Corinthians,
where he makes this astounding statement: "God giveth us the victory in
every place," then he tells how their preaching was the savor of life unto
life or of death unto death, and in either event God is glorified, and that it
was his duty to present God's gospel, even if he knew it would be rejected.
I close by quoting that great author and man, Fairbairn: "If Christ be not
risen then that tomb of Joseph is not only a tomb of a man, but of a
religion." Christ made the issue of death and the resurrection. To his
enemies Christ gave the sign, '"As Jonah was three days and three nights
in the great fish," etc. They said, "Sir, we remember that he said
that the third day he would rise, and then the last error is worse than the
first one, i.e., we are in a worse fix than if we had never killed him."
In revivals of religion, the afflatus comes upon men in the Spirit of God. All
utterances and liberty in speech, in speaking, explain that Jesus who was dead,
is alive again.
QUESTIONS
1. How does Paul introduce the
subject of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15?
2. What does he claim as to
the origin of his gospel, and how did they treat it when he preached it to
them?
3. What is the first fact of
the gospel, and what three ideas involved in this fact?
4. What the second fact of
the gospel?
5. What the third fact of
the gospel, and what its relation to the Old Testament Scriptures?
6. What the fourth fact of
the gospel, and what is involved in this fact?
7. How does John seem to
anticipate many foolish speculations?
8. Was this merely a
preaching of Paul's, or was it the preaching of the twelve apostles, and what
the proof?
9. How does Paul, under
seven heads, show that the resurrection is the foundation of Christianity?
10. What the place of Christ's
resurrection in the scheme of redemption, and what is the meaning of "the
first-fruits of them that are asleep"? Illustrate.
11. What the argument from
the two Adams as to Christ's position, and how does he here prove the
universality of the resurrection?
12. How does he show the
necessity of Christ's resurrection in order to the exercise of his high
priestly functions, and what parallel passage in another letter?
13. What is involved in a
denial of the resurrection from the dead?
14. What the meaning of
"baptized for the dead," what the several theories relative to it,
and what the arguments against these theories?
15. What argument does Paul
make for the resurrection based upon the life of Christians and their endurance
of suffering and what the author's interpretation of "fought with wild
beasts at Ephesus"?
16. Describe the scene in
the picture referred to, and give the author's experience illustrating the
tremendous power which the doctrine of the resurrection has over the lives of
God's saints.
17. What his argument for
the redirection based on a quotation from a heathen poet, who the poet, what
the doctrine of the Epicureans what the Latin proverb equivalent, and what
illustrations cited?
18. What the process of the
resurrection, and how does he show the kind of body with which a person is
raised?
19. What mystery does Paul
here give, what its interpretation, and when will this be fulfilled?
20. What the inference and
practical application of verse 58?
21. In conclusion, what
quotation given, what its meaning and what the perpetual evidence of Christ's
resurrection?
THE GREAT COLLECTION; MANY ADVERSARIES; INFERIOR,
BUT WORTHY BRETHREN; HOUSEHOLD CHURCHES; AND ANATHEMA MARAN-ATHA
1 Corinthians 16:1-24.
This chapter closes our discussion on 1 Corinthians. There are at least five
important lessons to be learned in this last chapter.
The great collection (16:1-4). Every Bible student ought to know the history of
the series of collections, of which this one is a part. Participating in it are
all the churches in Galatia, the churches in Macedonia, and the churches of
Achaia, of which Corinth was the capital. It is quite probable that more
sections of territory participated in it than these, but these three are
specified. It is a collection, taken, not by one church only, nor by the
churches of one province only, nor even the churches of one continent only, but
Asia united with Europe in one big collection. It is every way a big lesson.
The extent of territory covered, the long period of time in which the campaign
was prosecuted, the number of churches participating, the great principles underlying
their cooperation in one great financial and benevolent enterprise, the number
and character of the leaders who engineered its details, the wisdom of the
methods employed, not only in the taking of each collection, but in its
transportation and final disbursements, the lessons incidentally suggested, the
laying down of great fundamental principles susceptible of fair application to
other kingdom enterprises, the motives to which appeals were made, the great
direct object to be attained, and the mightier reflex influences put in motion
– all these, and others not now cited, call upon us to give the lesson deep and
sustained attention.
It is not purposed now, however, to do more than prepare for the thorough study
requisite, which will come up more appropriately in 2 Corinthians, where we
will find, not just four verses, as here) but two whole chapters devoted to the
subject. Now the reader is directed to study carefully and in their order the
following heads:
1. The poor saints in Jerusalem for whom these collections on two continents
were taken.
2. The occasion and necessity for so many and so great collections in their
behalf. On this necessity will be found these scriptures having an indirect
bearing, to wit: Acts 2:4445; 4:32-37; 5:1-11; 6:1-4. Then it will be found
that Acts 11:27-30 has a more direct bearing. And still more direct, Galatians
2:1-10, especially verse 10, coinciding in time and place with Acts 15:1-6.
3. The absolutely direct scriptures on the history of these collections are: 1
Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8-9; 12: 17-18; Romans 15:25-28; Acts 24:17.
The reader must make his own independent study of all these scriptures; and I
would suggest that he read chapter 32 of Farrar's Life of Paul, and the
corresponding part of Conybeare and Howson's Life and Epistles of Paul.
Having carefully made this preliminary study, then he is prepared to answer
particularly the following questions and others that may follow:
(1) What was the ground of obligation resting on the Gentile churches to make
this contribution?
(2) Who were Paul's coadjutors 'in engineering it?
(3) What were the rules governing this collection, or what the great motives to
which appeals were made?
(4) What the steps taken to guard against misapprehension concerning the
handling of money?
(5) What the application of principles involved to other kingdom enterprises?
(6) Finally, what the varied results of the entire campaign?
That is the first great lesson on chapter 16.
The second lesson is based upon verses 7-9: "For I do not wish to see you
now by the way; for I hope to tarry a while with you, if the Lord permit. But I
will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost; for a great door and effectual is opened
unto me, and there are many adversaries."
The Corinthians were urging him to visit them, and he assigned reasons why he
could not visit them just at that time. He was engaged in a great meeting at
Ephesus which had been prolonged for years, and in which all proconsular Asia
received the gospel, hence he says, "I will tarry at Ephesus until
Pentecost; for a great door and effectual is opened unto me, and there are many
adversaries." This is one of the greatest preaching themes in the Bible.
The imagination must see the great effectual door wide open) the adversaries
trying to shut the door, the Corinthian people trying to call the apostle away
from the door, and his purpose to stand there and preach as long as God holds
that door open.
Upon that theme one may note: First, what the door is; and second, who it is
that opens it. In this connection consider the following passages: Revelation
3:7-8. This tells us who it is that opens the door; 2 Corinthians 2:12;
Colossians 4:3, which shows what is the door to be opened on the preacher's
part; Acts 14:27; 16:14, which shows the door to be opened on the people's
part. Considering the adversaries who were trying to shut the door, we have
recourse to the history of his work at Ephesus as set forth in Acts 19. By
reference to that chapter we may find the following to be .the list of the
obstacles, or adversaries, in Paul's way at Ephesus:
1. Disciples baptized without authority, that is, by an unlawful administrator
(w. 1-7)
2. The opposition of the synagogue (v. 9)
3. The opposition of the evil spirits (w. 11-12)
4. The opposition of exorcists, that is, impostors who claimed to have the
power to cast out evil spirits
5. The opposition of evil deeds (v. 19)
6. The opposition of evil literature, or magical books (v. 19)
7. The opposition of evil business (v. 24)
8. The opposition of the craftsman's ring (vv. 25-26)
9. The opposition of the pride and the commercial spirit of the city (v. 27)
10. The opposition of a howling mob (w. 28-29)
Many times in Texas have I preached upon this great theme, showing the doors
that are locked and the great door opener, the adversaries who try to shut the
door, and the power of the gospel over the adversaries. This is the second
great lesson in chapter 16.
The third lesson is the deference to be paid to inferior, but worthy brethren
(16:10-11, 15-18). It is characteristic of the churches that they want the
greatest men to preach to them, and a great man can not be at every place. The
apostle is telling them how they must treat Timothy, who is young, timid, and
shy. Oftentimes I receive letters from churches saying, "Come yourself;
don't send some of your young theologs to practice on us." Paul is showing
that no matter how young one is, how inferior in experience and attainments to
others, if, like Stephanas, he is devoting himself to ministering to the
saints, and, like Timothy, he is trying to do good, the churches ought to honor
such men and feel proud to do it. The world needs a lesson right on that point.
The fourth lesson (16:19), shows household-churches, or churches accustomed to
meet in the house of a certain wealthy brother. The three other passages are
Romans 16:5; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 2. A study of these four scriptures
shows that in addition to the principal church in a place, as at Rome, Corinth,
Colosse, there were smaller churches meeting in private houses. As yet they had
no public buildings as we have. Indeed, we have to come down to the second
century before we find meeting houses built especially for the purpose, but a
small church did meet in the house of Aquila and Priscilla, another in the
house of Philemon, and another in the house of Nymphas.
My object in calling attention to these four scriptures 'is to show that they
destroy the very prevalent modern contention, which I am sorry to see advocated
by some people of the South, that in the days of the apostles every Christian
in the city, no matter how large the city and numerous the Christians, was
included in the church, and the head preacher was a bishop over the other
preachers, who preached to different parts of this one church. Some very
distinguished Baptists are now advocating that view in the South. From this
error arose later the idea of a metropolitan bishop, and later a diocesan
bishop.
The fifth and last lesson of this chapter is found in verses 21-22, as follows:
"'The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand. If any man loveth not the
Lord, let him be anathema. Maranatha." As has already been explained, Paul
was accustomed to dictate his letters) and with only one exception, the letter
to the Galatians, after dictating the letter he would sign it himself. But this
touches the words, Anathema, Maranatha. What do they mean?
When I was a schoolboy at Independence, at a session of the Baptist Convention,
the pastor of the First Baptist Church at Waco, a fine, portly man, preached a
sermon before the State Convention on this text: "If any man loveth not
the Lord, let him be Anathema, Maranatha." He had a rich, sonorous voice
like that of Spurgeon or Richard Fuller, and as he rolled out the words of this
text it seemed like a mighty big text. Assuming a dramatic attitude, he
commenced his sermon in exactly these words: "When the flaming sword of
divine justice was flashing in the sunbeam of heaven and whistling in, its
rapid path to sever the soul of man, Jesus stepped out and bared his own bosom
and let the fiery sword be sheathed in his heart; therefore, 'if any man love
not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema, Maranatha.' " With some
preachers the sound of the text is its chief attraction. Anathema is a Greek
word meaning "let him be accursed." Maranatha is the kind of Hebrew
that the Jews spoke at the time of Christ, that is, the Aramaic, or Syriac.
While the first word expressed the curse, the second word tells when the curse will
come. Maranatha means "the coming." In plain English, "If any
man loveth not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed when Christ shall
come." The same idea is found in Matthew 25, where the curse is pronounced
upon those that did not love Christ: "Depart ye accursed into everlasting
fire prepared for the devil and his angels, and these go away unto eternal
punishment." Or the words of 2 Thessalonians 1:710: "At the
revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his power in
flaming fire, rendering vengeance to them that know not God, and to them that
obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus: who shall suffer punishment, even
eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might,
when he shall come to be glorified in his saints."
QUESTIONS
1. What the first lesson. of
chapter 16, and what the scripture?
2. What makes this lesson so
very important?
3. Where do we find this
subject elaborated?
4. Under what three heads is
the reader directed to study this collection?
5. What scriptures cited on
each of the last two heads, and what books commended on these scriptures?
6. What six questions
constitute a kind of outline for the study of this collection?
7. What the second lesson,
and what the scripture?
8. What were the conditions
which occasioned this language of Paul?
9. What points may be noted
concerning the door referred to and what the scriptures cited?
10. What were the ten
adversaries in Paul's way at Ephesus?
11. What the third lesson of
this chapter, and what the scripture?
12. How does the author show
the need of this great lesson in modem times?
13. What the fourth lesson
and the scripture?
14. What three other
passages bearing on the subject, and what modern teaching to the contrary?
15. What the fifth lesson
and the scripture?
16. What the meaning of
Anathema Maranatha? Illustrate.
17. What other scriptures
teach the same thought?
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION AND EXPOSITION TO
2 CORINTHIANS
2 Corinthians 1:1-20.
The second letter to the Corinthians grows out of the
first and its development. Paul wrote it. We know that the first letter was
written at Ephesus just before Pentecost, In the spring. This letter was
written soon afterwards, probably in the summer, A.D. 57.
Acts 19:21-22 tells us how he left Ephesus, where he wrote the first letter;
also, Acts 20:1. In this letter, 7:5-13, after leaving Ephesus he came to
Troas, the site of ancient Troy, whence he set out to establish the gospel in
Europe on a previous expedition. At Troas he had appointed a rendezvous with
Titus, who took the first letter to Corinth. He told Titus to meet him at Troas
and report about the reception of that letter. When he got to Troas our letter
tells us that he was distressed in mind about not meeting Titus and hearing the
effect of his first letter – so distressed that he could not work, though a
great door was opened to him. So he left Troas and crossed over into Macedonia.
This letter tells us that in Macedonia, not specifying where, Titus came to him
with the report of the reception of the first letter. On the reception of that
report he wrote this second letter and sent it back by Titus. So his letter
grows out of the report of Titus. In studying its parts we can easily find out
what the report was, and thereby get the key to the occasion of the letter.
Titus reports first, that when he got to Corinth, the other letter was well
received, but that they received him in fear and trembling. We find that
statement in 7:15. He states, in the second place, that the majority of the
church were deeply penitent over the wrongs that had provoked the first letter,
particularly with reference to this case of fornication in the church. When we
study the character of that repentance we find one of the best lessons on
repentance to be found in the Word of God. He then states that under this
penitence the church excluded the erring man, and that the erring man himself
was made penitent by the action of the church and Paul's letter. He then tells
Paul that he had commenced to take the collection for which he had been sent,
and that it was progressing very well, though not completed yet. All that was
very satisfactory and lifted a great burden off Paul's heart.
But Titus brought a mixed report. Some of it was bad. He reported that some
members of the church were unequally yoked with unbelievers, who by their
association with heathen in the festivals and games disqualified themselves for
the true Christian life.
A very distinguished Alabama lady wrote me once about dancing and said, "I
found that, while it seemed to be innocent per se, its spirit was such that it
became a foe to grace in my heart." She was a rich woman belonging to the
better class of the old-time Southern people. Some of her kinsfolk were members
of my church, which brought about the correspondence. The letter showed how
very difficult it is for one in social life to keep from doing many things
hurtful to Christian character and influence. So this report from Titus showed
that many Corinthians had crippled their influence by social entanglements.
His report further showed that while the minority of the church accepted and acted
upon Paul's letter, yet the spirit of debate, strife, envy, and jealousy was
rife. Thirty-five years after Paul is dead, when Clement writes his first
letter to this same church, we find that while they have followed Paul's
commandments in nearly everything, still there remained that spirit of debate.
While not inspired, Clement's letter is one of the very best in church history.
That was not pleasing news, but Titus had some much more unpleasant news, to
wit: There was an incorrigible minority in the church who denounced Paul for
writing instead of coming to them, saying that he kept promising, but did not
keep his word; instead of coming he sends a letter, which was very weighty
indeed, but he knew that in bodily presence he was weak and his speech was
contemptible, and so he got out of his promise by writing a letter. They still
questioned his apostolic authority, saying that he had never seen the Lord in
the flesh, and was not one of the original twelve; that the fact that he worked
for his living instead of demanding apostolic support showed that he was
conscious of the weakness of his apostolic claim' that he did not demand a
support for himself and wife as Peter and others did; that he did not have the
true gospel which was taught by James and Peter. On 'account of this mixed news
we have a mixed letter, just about as mixed a letter as was ever written.
In general terms this letter is divided into three parts. Chapters 1-7, roughly
speaking, are devoted to a discussion of Paul's ministry and its methods.
Chapters 8-9 are devoted to the great collection which he is still urging to be
completed. Chapters 10-13 are devoted to meeting the criticisms of the
incorrigible minority. There is a vast number of subdivisions. In these last
chapters he is fighting a battle, not for his own life, but for the very life
of the gospel itself. Those last chapters are very stern. They disclose a
mortal combat.
By whom did Paul send this letter? By Titus, instructing him to finish that
collection, and sends with Titus the messenger of the churches who had been
chosen to take charge of the collections elsewhere. There is a reference to two
of these messengers that has put the world to guessing who they were. These
three men go back to Corinth with this letter;
In the character of the letter it is utterly unlike any other in the New
Testament. If a window had been opened so that we could look right into Paul's
heart, it would illustrate this letter. It brings out his personality more than
any other or all the rest of his writings and speeches. It brings to light the
secrets of his history that never would have been known but for this
opposition. The picture of the man contained in this letter cannot be filled
out in its outlines by any other man that ever lived on the face of the earth.
One man, being asked the key word of this letter, said, "affliction."
Paul tells of his sufferings and their purpose. Another man said that the key
word was "boasting"; he used the word "boasting" about
twenty-two times in all the rest of his letters and twenty-nine times in this
letter. In other words, he is forced to refer to himself and discuss himself in
order to furnish those who befriend him the means to reply to his adversaries.
He has to put the weapons into their hands, since they don't know these things
as he knew them.
We are now ready to take up the letter itself. Before I get through with it I
will give a more extensive outline. All that I have discussed so far has been
under the head of histopical introduction.
The first item of the outline is, the salutation (w. 1-2): "Paul, an
apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto
the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints that are in the
whole of Achaia: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus
Christ." We have already learned how Paul opens a letter with a
salutation, so we pass at once to the thanksgiving (w. 3-7). It was Paul's
habit, after saluting properly, to express whatever grounds for thanksgiving he
had, and just look at this:
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of
mercies and God of all comforts; who comforteth us in all our affliction, that
we may be able to comfort them that are in any affliction, through the comfort
wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God. For as the sufferings of Christ
abound unto us, even so our comfort also aboundeth through Christ. But whether
we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; or whether we are
comforted, it is for your comfort, which worketh in the patient enduring of the
same sufferings which we also suffer; and our hope for you is steadfast;
knowing that, as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so also are ye of the
comfort."
He thus prepares the way to discuss the most unparalleled sufferings and
afflictions, and then gets his thanksgiving out of them. His thanksgiving is
that God so comforts in those afflictions that it enables him to comfort other
people in their afflictions. If one were about to write a letter to a far-off
friend, and after the salutation he should commence: "I have great reason
to be thankful. Yesterday I broke my leg. Day before yesterday my house was
burned, and the week before that my horse died, and today I was robbed, and I
learned this evening that I am to be sent to jail," it would startle the
friend. So a man who can get a thanksgiving out of Paul's bill of fare has a
power of gratitude in him that cannot be exceeded.
I once heard of an old brother from whom one could not get a single doleful statement,
no matter what the circumstances were. He would not whine, nor mouth, nor
complain. Once, when there did not seem a thing left to him on earth, he got up
and said, "Brethren, I am thankful because the only two teeth in my head
meet."
Commencing with verse 8, Paul begins to refer to some of those sufferings (an
account of the same sufferings is given in Acts 19): "For we would not
have you ignorant, brethren, concerning our affliction which befell us in Asia,
that we were weighted down exceedingly, beyond our power, insomuch that we
despaired even of life; yea, we ourselves have had the sentence of death within
ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the
dead." Couple this with, "If after the manner of men I fought with
beasts at Ephesus." This language here, coupled with the language about
fighting with beasts, makes me believe that at one time Paul was thrown into
the arena, and, as he had once been stoned and accounted for dead, and the
brethren came and worked until they brought him back to life, so here he says
of God, "Who delivered us out of so great a death, and will deliver; on
whom we have set our hope that he will also still deliver us." That is one
of the afflictions, and one of his sufferings. He had been sentenced to death.
The sentence had been executed. God had delivered him from death, and he
believed that God would continue to deliver him.
He continues: "Ye also helping together on our behalf by your
supplication; that, for the gift bestowed upon us by means of many, many thanks
may be given by many persons on our behalf." See how he gets his
thanksgiving again: "God delivered me, but it came partly through your
supplication. You and a great many other people were praying for Paul." So
when Peter was put in jail, the church met and prayed for him, and God
delivered Peter. Paul thus shows how other people could get comfort out of his
sufferings if they would take it. How many people are pessimists! Mr.
Ready-to-Halt, Mr. Despondency, Mr. Man-with-the-Blues, the man against whom
everything is working, now, if your spiritual liver gets out of order in that
direction, I prescribe for you a generous dose of the thankful spirit of Paul.
The next item in the outline is his defense against some accusations that had
been made and reported to him by Titus. That is found in verse 13. Some of them
had accused Paul of "wire-pulling" by a secret letter. I heard of a
preacher once, who, having to go away from his church for about a month, wrote
to a leading sister and suggested how she might, unknown to him, get up a big
reception on the' occasion of his return. They accused Paul of working up
things by writing a letter of that kind. Here is the way he replied: "For
we write no other things unto you than what you read or even acknowledge, and I
hope ye will acknowledge unto the end." The letters are all public, and
the charge is that they be read to all the church.
In verse 15, and on through chapter I and part of chapter 2, he defends himself
from the charge of light mindedness and fickleness. Notice what he says in
verse 17: "When I therefore was thus minded, did I show fickleness?"
The charge of fickleness is based upon this, that he had sent word to them from
Ephesus that when he went to Macedonia he would come by Corinth first; that he
would speedily come; but he had not come; that instead of coming he wrote
another letter, and they had charged that the reason that he did not come was
on account of his personal presence. He defends himself from that charge of not
fulfilling his promise. Let's see how he does it. The preceding verse states
his confidence that he would be their glory, and they would be his glory, in
the day of the Lord. Now he says, "In this confidence I was minded to come
first unto you [not to go to Macedonia and then come to Corinth, but to come by
you on my way to Macedonia], that ye might have a second benefit; and by you to
pass into Macedonia, and again from Macedonia to come unto you, and of you to
be set forward on my journey unto Judea. When I therefore was thus minded [and
had promised accordingly], did I show fickleness? or the things that I purpose,
do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be the yea yea,
and the nay nay?"
On that expression a great novel of modern times is written, Richard Yea and
Nay. The author of that book takes the most heroic character in England and
presents him to us first one way and then another, to show that he did not
follow out any steadfast line that looked to the good of his country, but merely
the present moment of passion or impulse. If the impulse came be would go to
Scotland today and declare war on France tomorrow. Paul says, "My purpose
was not a flesh purpose, nor following my desires, but it was based upon my
then conception of your condition and conditions elsewhere. When conditions
changed so that God would be glorified by changing the plan, I changed it. Does
that make me fickle? If that change resulted from some fleshly impulse, I would
be 'Paul Yea and Nay,' but the change was brought about solely for the glory of
God and the good of those to whom the promises were made."
He now begins to make a bigger defense than that: "But as God is faithful,
our word toward you is not yea and nay." In other words, "You say my
word is yea and nay. I want to tell you something that is not yea and nay. The
gospel I preached to you was not yea and nay gospel."
Dr. E. C. Dargan, then of the Louisville Seminary, preached at the Baptist
Convention in Belton in 1892, and he took this theme: "The gospel is not
yea and nay, but yea and amen." "For how many soever be the promises
of God, in him is the yea; wherefore also through him is the amen, unto the
glory of God through us." He treated that subject this way: The gospel of
Jesus Christ is not yea and nay; it is one thing. We can rely on it; it is yea
and amen, the "yea" in God and the "amen" in us. God tells
us that he will say "Amen, amen, amen!" We may get this whole sermon
from that one line of thought, and so we may preach a sermon on the subject,
"The Gospel is not yea and nay."
QUESTIONS
1. Out of what does the
second letter to the Corinthians grow, and who wrote it?
2. When did he write it, and
where?
3. What the occasion of this
letter?
4. What the three favorable items
of Titus' report to Paul concerning the Corinthians?
5. What the first
unfavorable item of Titus' report, and what illustration from the author's
experience cited?
6. What spirit prevailed in
the church at Corinth at this time, according to the report of Titus, 'and what
later light of history touching this spirit of the Corinthians?
7. What the third
unfavorable item of Titus' report, and what the points of authority questioned?
8. What, in general terms, a
brief analysis of the book, and what the nature of the latter part of the book?
9. By whom did Paul send
this letter, and with what instruction?
10. What the character of
this letter, what two key-words suggested, and what do you think is the
key-word?
11. Quote, from memory, the salutation.
12. What is Paul's ground of
thanksgiving in this letter, and are such thanksgivings common among even
Christians? Illustrate.
13. What unparalleled
sufferings does Paul describe, and where else do we find an account of the same
sufferings?
14. What the author's
interpretation of 2 Corinthians 1:9-10, and why?
15. What credit does Paul
give the Corinthians for his delivery and what parallel in the history of
Peter?
16. What a good prescription
for Mr. Ready-to-Halt, Mr. Despondency, and Mr. Man-with-the-Blues?
17. What charge, inferable
from 1:13, did they bring against Paul and what his defense?
18. What charge, inferable
from 1:15-17, did they bring against him and how does he answer it?
19. What great novel was
written on 1:17, and what the purpose of the author of the book?
20. What great sermon cited
on 1:18-20, and what the import of the sermon?
THE TWO COVENANTS
2 Corinthians 1:21 to 3:18.
In the last of chapter 1 there is one passage that we need to discuss:
"Now he that established us with you in Christ, and anointed us, is God;
who also sealed us, and gave us the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts."
Some words used here a Christian ought to understand. For instance,
"anointed," "sealed," "earnest." In the Old
Testament, prophets, priests, and kings were anointed with the "holy
anointing oil" whose recipe Moses gave in Exodus 30:22-33. As a ceremony
it signified their consecration, or setting apart, to office. As a symbol it
signified the influence of the Holy Spirit which qualified them to perform
their official duties. In the New Testament it means that the Holy Spirit,
received by faith, qualifies every Christian to be a priest of God, to offer
spiritual sacrifices. The word "anointed," I say, refers to the
influence that comes upon the Christian in the sense of setting him apart for
the work of Christ and qualifying him to do it. As the Old Testament priest,
prophet, and king were anointed for an office, so is every Christian. We are
all kings and priests unto God. Without the Holy Spirit we cannot acceptably
serve God.
The word "seal" has a different signification.
It is quite common in Pedo-baptist literature to refer to baptism as a seal,
but in the Word of God baptism is nowhere called a seal. On the contrary, we
are expressly said to be sealed by the Holy Spirit.
The object of a seal is to accredit or designate ownership. For instance, a man
writes a letter and puts the mark of his seal on it; that authenticates the
letter. If a seminary confers a degree or sells a piece of property, neither
degree nor deed is valid unless it bears the corporate seal of the seminary. We
are said to be sealed by the Holy Spirit. That simply means this – that the
gift of the Holy Spirit to a Christian authenticates that Christian as God's
property. Suppose I address a communication and put my seal on it; that seal is
designed to keep the communication intact until it gets to its address. So we
are sealed unto the day of redemption.
That is a very strong argument in favor of the final preservation of the
saints. The imprint of the Holy Spirit on us is a mark that we belong to God
and will be delivered to God on the day of redemption. If the seal of God does
hold (and there is no power that can break it) that is demonstrative that the
Christian will reach his destination.
There is still another word – "given the earnest of the Spirit in our
hearts." An "earnest" is something of this kind: The holy land was
promised to the Israelites. Spies were sent to look out the country and sample
it. They brought back a bunch of grapes, and the people were enabled to eat
those grapes before they got to the country where the grapes grew. They were
the same in kind, but not the same in quantity. God intends that our promised
land shall be heaven; but before we get to heaven he gives us foretastes in
kind of what we are to get when we reach heaven; the joy, peace, and glory that
often comes to the Christian heart here on earth is an earnest of what heaven
will be. It is a little piece of heaven, sent down to us beforehand. How often
in a great revival we hear brethren say, "This is heaven on earth! We are
getting foretastes of the glory of God." The sense of forgiveness, the
sweet peace that comes in the heart on reconciliation with God, the joy of the
converted soul – anything of that kind is an earnest of heaven.
The first part of chapter 2 is devoted to a case of discipline. In the first
letter he had written very sharply in a way to bring grief to their hearts
because they had allowed an awful sin, committed by one of their members, to go
unrebuked. He is now explaining to them why he made them sorry: "If I make
you sorry, who then is he that maketh me glad but he that is made sorry by me?
And I wrote this very thing, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow from them
of whom I ought to rejoice; having confidence in you all, that my joy is the
joy of you all. For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you
with many tears; not that ye should be made sorry, but that ye might know the
love which I have more abundantly unto you." That sharp letter he wrote
was prompted by love. He saw that they were getting themselves into trouble. He
adds, "But if any hath caused sorrow, he hath caused sorrow, not to me,
but in part (that I press not too heavily) to you all. Sufficient to such a one
is this punishment which was inflicted by the many." When they came to
expel that man they could not get a unanimous vote, for some stood for him.
That conveys this lesson to us, that in expelling a man it is not necessary
that the vote should be unanimous; a majority vote is sufficient for expulsion
or any discipline whatever.
It is different in the reception of a member. Pastors and churches sometimes
have to show why it is that a majority vote is sufficient to expel a man, and
here is the text. The word "many" means majority. This case also
contains another important lesson on discipline: "Sufficient to such a one
is the punishment inflicted by the majority; 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."
That raises the question: What is the object of discipline? To gain the
offending brother. Even when we exclude him, if he be a Christian, and his
exclusion is conducted properly, it will likely have that effect on him. It had
that effect in this case. When this man saw that this church by a majority vote
decided that he was living in a, sin of such heinousness that it disqualified
him for membership in a church of Jesus Christ, it broke his heart and he
repented of his sin. Paul says, "Let that punishment of expulsion be sufficient,
and on his repentance forgive him and take him back again." That is the
point in discipline.
All the rest of the letter until we come to chapter 8 is on Paul's ministry:
"Now when I came to Troas for the gospel of Christ, and when a door was
opened unto me in the Lord, I had no relief for my spirit, because I found not
Titus, my brother; but taking my leave of them, I went forth into
Macedonia." The thought is that a man who loves to preach the gospel and
is holding a meeting where the door of success is open, may yet have such a
burden on his heart about other matters that he cannot fulfil his duty as a
preacher. Paul is distressed to death about that case at Corinth for fear that
the church should go astray and be lost from the churches of Jesus Christ, as
he says elsewhere that the case of all the churches was resting on his
apostolic heart. Many a time when the preacher preaches he carries a burden
that nobody else knows anything about. Sometimes he has a burden on him right
in the midst of a meeting that does not touch the meeting, coming from
circumstances elsewhere that divert his mind and press on his heart.
Then he says, "But thanks be unto God, who always leadeth us in triumph in
Christ, and maketh manifest through us the savor of his knowledge in every
place."
Notice that always and in every place the true preacher triumphs.
Paul explains how that is: "For we are a sweet savor of Christ unto God,
in them that are saved, and in them that perish; to the one a savor from death unto
death; to the other a savor from life unto life." Some preachers think if
they preach, and people are not saved, they have failed. If the preacher
preaches God's gospel where he wants him to preach, he wins a victory over the
lost if not over the saved.
In other words, God intends that the terms of mercy contained in his gospel
should be submitted to people whether they receive it or reject it, and that
there is no responsibility attaching to the preacher in the issue.
If they reject it, the gospel is to them a savor of death unto death, and of
life unto life, if they accept it. I do not know any other part of the
Scriptures so little understood as that statement.
One night, when I was a young pastor, a brother pastor came to see me, very
much distressed. He said, "My ministry is a failure." I said, "I
am disposed to question that." He said, "I cannot disguise it from
myself; it is a dead failure. I have preached for a solid year in tears and in
earnestness and nobody in my community has been convicted of sin." I said,
"That does not prove that you have failed. If you had preached without
praying or studying or asking God to give you the right message, I would agree
with you that your ministry is a failure. But if you have preached in faith, in
tears, in prayer, faithfully holding up the gospel, you have won the
victory," and I read this passage. He was so impressed that he got right
down on the floor at my house, and such a thanksgiving I never heard. He said,
"Do you know that you have saved my life? I felt like quitting the
ministry because I was in such despair." Generally, we should look for
success in the salvation of men, and that should be our principal desire in
preaching, and generally that will be the result, but sometimes it will not. "But
always in every place God causeth us to triumph."
Chapter 3 commences with a reference to letters of recommendation: “Are we
beginning again to commend ourselves, or need we, as do some, epistles of
commendation to you or from you? Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts,
known and read of all men; being made manifest that ye are an epistle of
Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the
living God; not in tables of stone, but in tables that are hearts of
flesh." He uses two figures about the letters: First, in his heart it is
written; second, Christ, using him as a penman, wrote a letter on their hearts,
and that letter that Christ wrote could be known and read of all men – not
written with ink and pen, but with the Spirit. It was not written like the
commandments of Moses, on tables of stone, but on the fleshly tables of the
heart. He says, "I don't need a letter of recommendation, as some other
people do. The Jewish brethren came bringing letters from the Jerusalem church,
and they had stirred up all this trouble. They needed letters of
recommendation. You heard the gospel through me. I built on no other man's
foundation, but led you to Christ. If you want to know where my letter of
recommendation is, look on yourselves. Christ dictated; I wrote the letter, and
it is a long ways better than a letter written in ink." An ink letter
oftentimes means very little.
Once a man came into my office and asked me for a letter of recommendation. I
said, "I do not even know you." He said, "That is all right; you
can tell them about me." I said, "Why do you not tell them about
yourself? Your word would mean as much as my letter. You have come to the wrong
place; I never write a letter of recommendation unless I know what I am writing
about." Again, a certain man wanted me to commend a book. I said, "I
have never read that book." "Well, I will show you its
prospectus," said he. "But the prospectus is not the book. Do you
think I would commend a book that I have not read, and do you think I would
trade my name for a single book?" "Well," he said, "other
people do that way." "Yes," I said, "and that is the reason
that their letters of recommendation are not worth anything."
It is a suspicious thing for a man to carry his valise full of recommendations.
I once knew a preacher who carried around a scrapbook in which he had preserved
every foolish thing that had ever been said in his favor by the newspapers. My
father used to say, "Whenever you see a chimney with a big log up against
it, you may know that it is a weak chimney, and needs to be propped." The
object of a letter of recommendation is simply to give a person an
introduction, and then let him stand for himself.
The poorest preacher and the poorest pastor I ever saw had twenty-three letters
of recommendation and several degrees from colleges.
The most important thought in connection with these letters of recommendation
is that, after all, everything must be judged by its fruits, and every man must
be known by his works. What is Christianity? Christ wrote a letter. Where is
that letter? That Corinthian church. Is there anything different between what
they are now and what they were before their conversion? Yes, a great deal of
difference, and all that difference is in favor of the Christian religion that
worked the change. We may tell a man about the effects of Christianity, and he
will take all we say with a grain of salt, but if we show him actual cases of
changed people, they become letters of recommendation for the Christian
religion. If the one who joins the church remains as he was before, it proves
nothing; but if Christianity makes better husbands, wives, brothers, sisters,
and citizens, the whole wide world can read that letter.
An infidel once said to me that there was one woman in my church who had really
been converted, or changed, and that the change was for the better, and that
was one argument for Christianity that he could not answer. The next thought is
in verses 5-6: "But our sufficiency is from God; who also made us sufficient
as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the Spirit: for the
letter killeth." The lesson from that word "sufficient" should
sink down into every preacher's heart. It is not because a man is six feet
tall; Paul was a low man. It is not because a man is pretty; Paul was ugly. It
is not because a man is clear-eyed; Paul was dim-eyed. It is not because a man
is sound in health; Paul was in ill health. It is not because a man is a
rhetorician; Paul did not use his rhetoric. "Our sufficiency is of
God." We cannot put too much emphasis on that thought.
I was stopping once in Louisville. The brethren, hearing I was there, sent for
me to make a talk to the Seminary boys, and I combined two passages which say,
"Good and able ministers of Jesus Christ." I took that as my theme.
What is a good preacher? This refers to character. What is an able preacher?
This refers to efficiency. I do not think I ever made a better talk to
preachers than I made that night.
Now comes in the ministry of Paul, commencing at verse 7, showing a distinction
between the two covenants. We have already had one distinction, – that the old
covenant was written on tables of stone and the new covenant on tables of the
heart. Here we have another: "But if the ministration of death, written,
and engraven on stones, came with glory." The old covenant was the
ministration of death. The law gendered to bondage. The soul that sinneth shall
die. The new covenant is the ministration of life. We cannot save men by the
law. We can kill them, but we save men by the gospel. That distinction should
be kept sharp in mind. It was a very solemn thing when God came down on Mount
Sinai, crested with fire, and shaken with thunder, illumined with lightning,
and the beat of the angel pinions filled the air – it was a glorious thing. But
what is that to the ministration of life through the gospel of our Lord Jesus
Christ? The law came by Moses, but grace and truth by Jesus Christ our Saviour,
who abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the
gospel. The law – the ministration of death – is written on cold rock, outside
of man. The gospel – the ministration of life – is written on the warm heart,
inside of man. Paul, in Hebrews 8:7-12, says in speaking of the two covenants, "For
if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place have been sought
for a second. For finding fault with them, ha saith, Behold, the days come, saith
the Lord, That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the
house of Judah; Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers In
the day that I took them by the hand to lead them forth out of the land of
Egypt; For they continued not in my covenant, And I regarded them not, saith
the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of
Israel After those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind,
And on their heart also will I write them: And I will be to them a God, And
they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his fellow-citizen,
And every man his brother, saying, know the Lord: For all shall know me, From
the least to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their iniquities,
And their sins will I remember no more.”
Then Paul adds, "In that he saith, a new covenant, he hath made the first
old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing
away." The new covenant is internal, and nothing has been done until the
writing touches on the inside.
The glory of the old covenant was reflected in the face of Moses. When he came
down from the mount his face was shining so that it dazzled the eyes of the
people. But that was nothing like the shining of the transfiguration of Christ.
The shining of Moses' face was transitory. Moses put a veil over his face. He
knew that the shining would pass away and his face would be as it was before.
He veiled his face lest the Jews should see the end of the shining, and would
not follow him. But the Jews believed that he veiled his face because it was
too bright to look at, and that if the veil were lifted off, the face of Moses
would outshine any face in the world. Mightily does Tom Moore bring out the
thought in The Veiled Prophet of Khorasan, in Lalla Rookh. An
impostor, wearing a veil, played upon the superstition of the people, saying
that no mortal could endure the brightness of the splendor of his face, and in
mercy to them he kept his face veiled. But he promised some day to uncover his
face that they might see his glory. His object was to pre-commit them, and so
bring them to absolute despair and ruin at the unveiling. One of the most
pathetic things in poetry is where the prophet lifted his veil that the ruined
Zelica might see his face; that she might see the horrible face of the demon
who had deceived her. What must be the unveiling of the Law covenant to the
lost dupes who have trusted it?
The next point is, that the Old Testament is a ministration of condemnation:
"For if the ministration of condemnation hath glory, much rather doth the
ministration of righteousness exceed in glory." The word
"righteousness" here should be rendered "justification."
The thought is that the old covenant condemns men; the new covenant justifies
men. The preacher ought to be able to distinguish between those two points,
condemnation and justification.
The next point is that the old covenant was written in types, veiling the truth
signified. He says, "Having therefore such a hope, we use great boldness
of speech, and are not as Moses, who put a veil upon his face." Moses set forth
things in allegories and types. Boldness, or plainness of speech here, refers
to absence of figures of speech. That is the difference between telling a thing
in straight-out language, and in using parables. The gospel makes the way of
life very plain, so that a fool cannot misunderstand. In much of the Old
Testament we have to study so as to find the signification of the type or of
the prophetic visions. They were but shadows.
Notice again the old covenant dazzled the eye – verse 18: "But we all, with
unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed
into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the
Spirit." The verse preceding says, "The Lord is the spirit: and where
the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Mirrors in those days were
made of hammered and polished metal) and made a dim reflection. The sun may be
out of sight, but the moon is a mirror catching the light of the sun and
reflecting it to the eye of the beholder.
I am going to give you what I call a very impressive illustration. In
Prescott's Conquest of Peru, there is a description of the Temple of the Incas
as Cuzco. This temple consists of three walls, north, south, west. The eastern
side of the structure was open. The walls were smoothly cemented, and on the
cement was put thinly hammered gold. The way they worshiped was this: They
would come to the temple just before dawn and stand in that opening to the
east, and facing the western wall – a golden wall; on the left a golden wall;
and on the right a golden wall. The sun would rise behind them, and long before
they could see it directly they could see its reflection in the western wall,
and be covered with the golden light. Their faces were illumined in the
reflection. Now we all look into the mirror upon the glory of the Lord, and
that mirror reflects it on us, and we catch the reflected image and are changed
in it from glory to glory; as the sun behind those people rising higher,
blazing brighter, bathed them more and more in its reflected light, so the Lord
of righteousness, as he rises, brings healing in his wings. We look at Christ
as in a mirror. He is not here, but we see him mirrored in the face of his
saints. It is a law that we become like that which we steadfastly contemplate.
If we steadily study about good, pure, and holy things, we become like them. If
we study about evil things, vile and loathsome and slimy, we become like them.
We steadfastly behold the glorious things of the gospel as in a mirror and
become transformed ourselves, more and more like Jesus, and at last become
altogether like him in image.
QUESTIONS
1. What three important
words in 1:21-22 which need to be understood?
2. What the meaning and
application of the word "anointed"?
3. Discuss the word
"seal," showing its application by illustrations.
4. What the meaning of
"earnest," what the illustration given, and what the spiritual
significance of it?
5. To what is the first part
of chapter 2 devoted, and what connection has this with the first letter?
6. What the history of this
case, and what important lesson for us in. it?
7. What lesson here as to
the object of discipline, and how is it clearly shown in this case?
8. To what is the next
section, 2:12 to 7:16, devoted, and what the lessons of 2:12-13?
9. What the ground of Paul's
thanksgiving here, and how could Paul say, "God always leadeth us in
triumph"? Illustrate.
10. What lesson for us here
on the question of letters of recommendation, and what the explanation of
Paul's two figures of speech relative to this matter? Illustrate.
11. What the most important
thought in connection with these letters of recommendation, and how does the
author illustrate it?
12. What lesson here as to
our sufficiency, and how does this idea relate to "Good and able ministers
of Jesus Christ"?
13. What 2 distinctions here
noted between the new covenant and the old?
14. What prophet does Paul
quote to show the difference between the old covenant and the new, where do we find
this quotation, and how does this prophet show the difference?
15. Give an account of the
shining face of Moses, and illustrate with the incident of The Veiled
Prophet of Khorasan.
16. How is the Old Testament
a ministration of condemnation, in what does the ministration of righteousness
exceed the ministration of the Old Testament, and what the meaning of word
"righteousness" here?
17. What difference between
the Old Testament and the New Testament expressed in 3:12, and how is this
illustrated in the case of Moses veiling his face?
18. What Paul's
mirror-illustration, and how is this illustrated by author?
THE GOSPEL MINISTRY AND THE GLORY THAT IS
TO COME
2 Corinthians 4:1 to 5:15.
This discussion commences with 2 Corinthians 4, and I will call attention only
to points of special interest as we pass along in the exposition. We made a
point in the preceding chapter that when the Jew read the Old Testament he read
it with a veil over his eyes. In this chapter Paul anticipates this objection.
"Is not the gospel itself veiled to some, as well as the law?" Here
is his reply, verse 3: "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. For we preach not ourselves, but
Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. Seeing it
is God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in our hearts,
to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus
Christ." His reply is that the gospel is veiled only for a certain class
of people – them that perish.
The reason it is veiled in that case is that the devil has blinded their eyes
that they cannot see. The veil is on the eye, and not on the gospel. That is a
very important matter. If at night we should point to a lamp in a room and ask
a bystander, "Do you see that light?" and he were to say,
"No"; if we take him out of doors and show him the Milky Way, and the
stars, and ask, "Do you see those lights up yonder?" "No";
or if we should show him the moon and say, "Do you see that light?"
"No"; or wait until morning and point out the sun rising in the east,
and say, "Do you see the light of that sun?" "No"; what would
that prove to us? That the man was blind! If he were not a blind man he could
see the light. In that case those lights were not hid, but were shining in all
their brightness. The trouble was with the beholder, who had no eyes to see.
Preachers oftentimes wonder that the unconverted cannot see how very plain the
gospel of Jesus Christ is. They look at the people and talk contrition:
"Do you see that light?" "No." They talk about repentance
and explain it: "Do you see that?" "No," They talk about
faith in Jesus Christ and ask, "Do you see that?" "No, I don't
understand it." Whenever a case of that kind occurs the fault is in the
vision of the one addressed. The truth is that the devil has blinded his inner
spiritual eyes that he may not see and be converted.
Paul says that his commission was to the Gentiles, to turn them from darkness
to light, and from the power of Satan unto God. There is a spiritual blindness.
Our Saviour referred repeatedly in his preaching to people having eyes to see
and seeing not, and having ears to hear and hearing not. That is one thing we
must always take into account – the power of Satan to blind people so that they
cannot see. Suppose I shut my left eye, and hold a dollar over my right eye and
look up – can I see anything? The light is shining, but there is an object
between me and the light, and it does not take a very big piece of money to
hide the spiritual light from some people; a quarter of a dollar will sometimes
do it. As a quarter laid on a dead man's eye keeps his eye closed, so the love
of money shuts out everything else in the world from the vision. That is his
reply to the objections about the gospel being veiled.
Look now at his comparison between conversion and the creation of light in
Genesis 1. It is there said that the earth was without form and void, and
darkness was upon the face of the deep, and God said, Let there be light. And
there was light. Paul says, "Seeing it is God that said, Light shall shine
out of darkness, who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge
of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." As the brooding of the
Holy Spirit over the chaos of original matter brought out light, so in the
spiritual world the unconverted man is in a chaotic state, everything mixed,
darkness on the deep of his mind, and the first sign of regeneration to him is
light. "Whatsoever maketh manifest is light."
I may be standing by a man perfectly satisfied with himself. "Not a wave
of trouble rolls across his peaceful breast." He has committed a great
many sins, but has no spiritual realization of his state. I may keep preaching
to that man, and presenting one truth after another, and whatsoever that will
make manifest to him that he is a sinner, that is light. After a while I may
present a thought, and as if a lamp had been lighted and carried down into his
heart, the secret things of his inmost soul are revealed to him. As that light
shines down there, he sees himself a sinner against God. Paul in the first
letter gives a description of it, 1 Corinthians 14: "If all prophesy, and
there come in one unbelieving or unlearned, he is reproved by all, he is judged
by all; the secrets of his heart are made manifest; and so he will fall down on
his face and worship God." When a man is in a cellar he may think that he
is as clean as an angel, but bring him up out of that dark pit into daylight
and he will see the smut, coal dust, and dirty hands. The light does not create
those spots but simply manifests them. Paul says, "I was alive without the
law once, that is, I felt myself all right. But when the commandment came, sin
revived, and I died. As soon as the light shone into my heart, and I saw myself
a lost sinner in the sight of God, dead in trespasses and sins, I died."
That is a very impressive biblical illustration.
Take verse 7: He is talking about his ministry – indeed all this is about
Paul's ministry – the chapter commencing: "Therefore seeing we have this
ministry." Here he says that they had this gospel treasure in earthen
vessels, that the power might be shown to be of God, not of the man vessel, or earthen
vessel. What a theme for a sermon I Paul and Barnabas quarreled – both great
preachers and good men – earthen vessels. We see a preacher who seems to be a
great power in leading souls to Christ. When we get close to him and he is off
his guard, we detect frailties and infirmities. We are disillusioned. A
preacher sometimes wonders why a gospel so pure, intended to bring about
purity, to fit one for heaven, should have been placed in the hands of such
frail beings for administration. Why not have placed it in the hands of
spotless beings? Why not have made the angels preachers? Paul says one reason
is that when a man is converted God wants it to be known that the greatness of
the power of conversion did not lie in the messenger that brought the message.
The messenger was an earthen vessel, but the message was divine. lie goes on to
illustrate this earthen vessel, and answers another question: How is it, then,
if the vessel be earthy – if the preacher be a man of such infirmity and
frailty – that he can go on and be a successful preacher? He responds to that
this way: "We are pressed on every side, yet not straightened; perplexed,
yet not unto despair; pursued, yet not forsaken ; smitten down, yet not
destroyed; always bearing about in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life
also of Jesus may be manifested in our body. . . . So then death worketh in us,
but life in you." His explanation is that the omnipotent power of God
sustains this messenger of light, though he be frail, perplexed, pursued, cast
down. "The bruised reed he will not break and the smoking wick he will not
quench until he hath brought forth judgment unto victory." This is a great
consolation.
In verse 16 we reach our next thought. If the preacher that preaches this
glorious gospel of God is himself earthly and frail, why does not the thought
of this mortality utterly crush him? Here is his explanation: "Wherefore
we faint not; but though our outward man is decaying, yet our inward man is
renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is for the moment, worketh
for us more and more exceedingly an eternal weight of glory; while we look not
at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen, for the
things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are
eternal."
The part of the preacher that is earthy, breaking down all the time, is the
outward man. The inward man does not break down; he is renewed day by day, and
lives the life of Christ who lives in him, and while he is conscious that the
human side of him is mortal, and constantly crumbling, that does not discourage
him.
Nothing of that kind can discourage him, because he is not looking at the
temporal things, but he is looking at the invisible and eternal things.
He then comes to the climax of death. A preacher, though he be as great as
Paul, may die at any time. What about that? He commences the next chapter with
his answer: "For we know that if the earthly house of our tabernacle be
dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands," but
God will give a heavenly home for the soul. Finally, Jesus will come and raise
and glorify the body in the grave, and this glorified body will never die. He
carries that thought about with him all the time. It is one of the sweetest
thoughts to me in all the Bible.
When this outward man perishes, and the soul tenant has been evicted by death,
or when the approach of death has chilled his feet and hands and crept up to
his body, chilled his vitals, stopped his breath and the pulsations of his heart,
and he is dead) there is no stop to the inward man. And this outward man that
perished will be raised from the dead and glorified.
But we come to a more important thought than that – the resurrection is a long
way off. Now, if the enemies of the gospel kill Paul, as they did kill him
nearly 1900 years ago, what about him from then till now? Here is his answer to
that (v. 6): "Being therefore always of good courage, and knowing that,
whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord (for we walk by
faith, not by sight); we are of good courage, I say, and are willing rather to
be absent from the body, and to be at home with the Lord."
When the body perishes, when the man's work is ended, without a break in the
continuity of his being, instantly upon his death, his soul is where Jesus is.
Right here I have a controversy with the "middle-life" brethren. They
say that the soul of a Christian does not go directly to heaven, but lodges
somewhere in a halfway house; that here it is under guard and safe keeping, and
must wait until the judgment day. I frankly confess that that would not comfort
me much, but if I know that at the very moment I am absent from the body I am
present with the Lord, that is comfort. The question is, Where is the Lord? We
know that he ascended into heaven, and we know that he ascended soul and body,
and we know that he is sitting at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
Certainly, after the resurrection of his body the Lord Jesus Christ did not
lodge anywhere: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Stephen says, "I see the
heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of the Majesty on
high."
Is Jesus lodged halfway between here and heaven? Paul says, "The very
minute I die I am present with the Lord and that is the reason I am not
discouraged." It is not only a beautiful thought but an intensely
practical thought. I wish that all of my religion was as strong as my faith in
the resurrection of the body. There is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind about
either of those two points.
When I was a teacher and had just commenced preaching, a beautiful girl I used
to know when we were in school together, a very gifted girl, and a particular
friend of mine whom I thought to be the genius of the school, married a
worthless man (as it proved), the son of a very wealthy man, very handsome,
though he proved to be a great rascal, who broke her heart and abandoned her. I
did not know what had become of her, and one evening there came a note from her
saying, "Dear friend: It has been a long time since I saw you. I want to
see you once more before I die. Come to see me tonight if you want to see me
one time before the judgment." I went to the house and she was propped up
in bed, dying. She said, "I did not send for you to lead me to Christ, or
to teach me how to die. I know that. I have been a great sufferer, much of it
in body, but the most of it has been spiritual suffering. You have some idea,
but you cannot have a full idea of the darkness that has clouded my life. You
remember how bright my prospects were when we were at school. This is my last
night on earth. I go out forever tonight. I want you to get somebody who
believes as we do about the future life to come and sing to me of heaven."
So I gathered a few members of the church and we sang, O, sing to me of heaven,
When I am called to die, Sing songs of holy ecstasy, To waft my soul on high.
As we sang you could see the play of light on her face, and when we got through
she took up the last verse, and in a very faint, sweet voice, sang that verse,
and it ended in a whisper, and that whisper was her last breath. She understood
just what Paul means in our text, "When I am absent from the body I am
present with the Lord."
Whoever does not believe that, cannot be a happy Christian. If the preacher
believes it with all his heart and soul, he can comfort people, even though the
treasure they have is in an earthen vessel – a poor frail old vessel – full of
aches and pains subject to sickness and death.
The next thought is in verse 9: "Wherefore also we make it our aim,
whether at home or absent, to be well pleasing unto him." In other words,
"Whether in the body or out of the body, I want him to see that I am
trying to do what he told me to do, trying to' live as he told me to live, and
if he looks at me out of the body, I want him to see that I am coming right up
to him."
His track I see
and I'll pursue
The narrow way till Him I view
He tells us the reason why that is an ever present thought with him. "For
we must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of Christ; that each one
may receive the things done in the body, according to what he hath done,
whether it be good or bad." Then if we ask Paul, "Why do you all the
time seek to be well pleasing to God?" he answers, "Because I know
that at the judgment seat of Christ there will be a perfect revelation of my
whole life." The same thought is presented in 1 Corinthians 3:12-15, where
he tells about the work that a man does: "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." If a man is a Christian, on the
foundation of Jesus Christ, he will be saved. But salvation is not everything.
We see two ships coming into a harbor from distant ports. As one comes in sight
we see that every mast is broken and every shroud torn, its cargo lost, it has sprung
a leak, and a harbor tug must tow it in. It just barely gets into port. The
other ship comes in with every mast standing, with every sail filled, cargoed
to the water's edge, meeting the shout of men and boom of artillery from the
shore. That is the difference in dying Christians. Some have no reward. Others
have great reward on account of their fidelity. When they believed in Christ,
they were justified. That does not have to be done over. But a Christian's
fidelity will be judged by what a man does.
Verse 11 contains another thought: "Knowing therefore the fear of the
Lord, we persuade men." That accounts for his. earnestness in addressing
either Christian or sinners. It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of
the living God, and, as Peter says, "The time is come for judgment to
begin at the house of God: ... And if the righteous is scarcely saved, where
shall the ungodly and sinner appear?"
He now explains another thing (v. 13): "For whether we are beside
ourselves, it is unto God; or whether we are of sober mind, it is unto you. For
the love of Christ constraineth us." Some of his enemies had accused him
of being a crazy man, saying that a man who would talk about hell-fire and
judgment and all that stuff, must be seeing visions. Now he replies: "If I
am beside myself, it is unto God." As he said on another occasion. "I
am not mad, most excellent Festus, but speak forth words of truth and
soberness." Here it is: "The love of Christ constrains me and impels
me into this zeal which you object to."
The brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ objected to his zeal, and went one day
to arrest him as one would arrest a lunatic, because he worked without stopping
to eat. Whenever you see an earnest Christian who does not count his life dear
unto him, who puts the salvation of men above all bodily ease, lets it triumph
over all thought of time, and bestirs himself in the might and power of the
commission of God given unto him, a great many worldly-minded people will say,
"He is a crank. We want a preacher who doesn't get excited and who is too
polite to say 'hell.' Let him say 'hades,' and not talk about eternal
punishment."
Verse 15 leads us to another thought: "He died for all, that they that
live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who, for their sakes,
died and rose again." I have heard at least twenty-five sermons preached
on that, in which it was expounded in this way: "No man liveth unto
himself, other people are interested in him and he must live with reference to
other people." That is not the thought, but that we must live unto Christ,
not for earthly pleasure or glory, but for Christ who purchased us, must we
live. Some may say, "I will not go to my appointment today because it is
raining and I might get wet." But another will say, "I am not living
for myself, but for Christ. I am going to that place today if I have to swim a
creek."
It is the creek-swimming men that shake the world – the brier-cutting men who
will not allow obstacles to keep them from doing what God wants them to do.
Let a congregation get the idea of their pastor that he is a pink of
perfection, can beat anybody in town tying a cravat, and wears the nicest
little shoes, knows how to fasten a nosegay in his vest, and how to enter a
room and entertain company; carries an umbrella so as not to burn his delicate
skin, then what will be his power to awaken and save the lost? An umbrella is
all right in its place, but what I want to impress is this – that a stalwart
man, a real man, will accomplish more of the great things in the work than all
of these little fellows. He will not stop to consider a thousand things that
absorb the mind of the trivial man, but will go right straightforward to the
accomplishment of his great purpose. I have heard these dainty essayists preach.
I have gone to their churches hungry and tried to get something – and failed.
It reminds me of the story of a preacher who tells this of himself: During the
war he went to a house to get some supper. Army rations were poor, and he was
very hungry. They had just a little butter and they all wanted to make it go as
far as possible, so each one tried to hurry through in order to get another
chance at the butter before it disappeared. He said that he could not get rid
of the butter in his plate. He even tried to sop it up with his bread, but it
did not have any taste to it. At last he looked up and saw through a knot-hole
in the roof over his head that the moon was shining down through into his
plate, and that all the time he had been sopping moonshine.
QUESTIONS
1. Is the gospel, as well as
the law, veiled to some people, and what is the reply of Paul to this
objection?
2. What reason for their
blindness does Paul give, and how does the author illustrate it?
3. How does Paul show from
his commission, the spiritual blindness of the lost man, and what the teaching
of Jesus on the same point?
4. Give clearly Paul's
comparison between conversion and the creation of light.
5. How is a man. led to see
himself a sinner, and how may a church convict a sinner, as described in 1
Corinthians 14? Illustrate.
6. How does Paul here show
the weakness and imperfection of preachers, and what reason does he assign for
the Lord's commissioning men instead of angels to preach?
7. What Paul's reply to the question,
"If the preacher is so frail, how can he be successful"?
8. Why does not this thought
of mortality utterly crush the preacher?
9. How does Paul answer the
objection that the preacher may die at any time?
10. What about Paul from his
death until now, what the "middle life" theory, and how does the
author refute the claim?
11. How does the author
illustrate from his own experience his faith in the realities of heaven and the
resurrection?
12. In view of this
doctrine, what was Paul's great aim in life, what reason does he assign for it,
and where do we find the parallel thought expressed by Paul? State and
illustrate.
13. How do we account for
Paul's earnestness from 5:11, and what parallel thought expressed by Peter?
14. How does Paul answer the
charge that he was crazy, what other similar accusation against him cited, and
what his reply? What the meaning of the first clause of 5:14, and what the
practical application of all this to present day preaching?
15. What the meaning and
application of 5:15? Illustrate.
THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION
2 Corinthians 6:17 to 7:16.
This discussion commences at 2 Corinthians 5:17, and extends to the end of chapter
7. Before going forward with this discussion, I want to call attention to some
critical questions involved in the preceding chapter. In 5:11, what is the
meaning of the "fear of the Lord" – "Knowing therefore the fear
of the Lord, we persuade men"? Does it mean that the dreadfulness of God,
or the fear that men may have of God? My answer is that it means God's
fearfulness or dreadfulness, his awful character in holding each sinner to
strict account for all of his sins – "Knowing the fear of the Lord."
In 5:14, "The love of Christ constraineth us" – does the love of
Christ here mean Christ's love for us, or our love for Christ that does the
constraining? My answer is, it means our love for Christ, that is superinduced
by our conception of Christ's love for us. When we relied upon Christ's love
for us, that awakened our love for Christ, and that constrains us to do what we
do for Christ. What is the meaning of "constrain"? That is, does it
simply mean to impel, or does it manifest its etymological meaning of narrowing
down or shutting up to, so that we cannot do anything but that? Virtually it
means the latter – that my love for Christ shuts me up to doing what I do. In
other words, Luther said when they demanded that he recant, "Here I stand;
I can do no other." That is, his love of Christ put it out of his power to
abjure his conception of justification by faith.
Verse 17 says, "Wherefore 'if any man is in Christ, he is a new
creature." "Therefore" always refers back, and there are two
things to which it refers back: (1) Verse 15, that Christ died for us, and so
we are under obligation not to live unto ourselves, but unto Christ. (2) Verse
16, "As Christ died for us, we henceforth know no man, after the flesh,
but according to the Spirit." These are the two reasons why a man is a new
creature. The old things have passed away, meaning that old things are covered
by new things. After conversion, a man is a new creature. Before conversion a
man is his own guide, and the knowledge he has is after worldly understanding.
I once heard a sermon preached on this text, and one of the members said,
"I have found out by that text that I am not a Christian." I said,
"Why?" He said, "Old things have not passed away, and all things
have not become new. My wife is not new. The sun shines as it did before, and I
get hungry as I did before. According to that sermon I am not converted."
That preacher did not understand the force of the "therefore." He did
not see in what respects a man was new – that he is new in that he no longer
lives unto himself but unto Christ, and no longer forms his judgment by worldly
knowledge, but by spiritual knowledge. All of the old things that touch these
points have passed away.
I heard a very prominent Baptist preacher, without knowledge of Greek, or a
critical study of the text, preach on that text to set forth the evidences of
conversion. He enumerated a dozen evidences by which one might know he was a
Christian, without noticing either one of the two that the text expresses. When
he got through I said, "Whenever you take a text there is always a better
sermon in it, according to its true meaning, than any sermon you can preach
away from it. Everything you said was true, but you ought to have gotten it
from other scriptures."
In preaching on the evidences of conversion from this text one must confine
himself to this line of thought – that an unconverted man lives unto himself
and decides all questions according to the way it pleases him, but the
converted man is a new creature in that respect, and decides things as Christ
would have him decide, though contrary to his inclinations.
When the Baptist General Convention met at Belton I preached a sermon on
"The Ministerial Office," and commenced the sermon with stating that
every preacher was under obligation when he selected a text to give its primary
meaning and then its contextual meaning. Then he may deduce from the principles
involved a new line of thought. But his new theme must be a logical development
from the primary and contextual meaning. He should never take a text and preach
a sermon without telling what it means primarily, and in its context. The most
suitable description of a sermon that violates this rule is credited to a
Negro: First, he took his text; second, he left it; third, he never got back to
it.
The new creation may mean a great deal more than Paul says here, but all the
meaning here is that a man who is in Christ no longer lives unto himself, but
unto Christ, and no longer judges according to the spirit of the flesh, but after
the Spirit of God.
We now come to the most important part of this second letter. We may make
mistakes about some things in this letter, and the mistakes will not be fatal,
but if we make a mistake on the reconciliation part of this letter we have made
a radical mistake. Verses 18-21 contain a brief discussion of reconciliation.
If one understands these verses, he is a pretty sound theologian. The word
"reconciliation," first of all, implies that there has been a
previous enmity. Second, the ground of the enmity is that man is a sinner.
Third, it implies that, being a sinner, he is lost. All of that can be brought
out in this passage clearly.
What does reconciliation mean? That the two at enmity have been brought to
perfect peace. Who is the author of this reconciliation? "All things are
of God, who reconciled us to himself." There never was a case where a man
at enmity with God was himself the cause or the occasion of the reconciliation.
Then what is the meritorious ground of the reconciliation? "Who reconciled
us to himself through Jesus Christ." The ground of the reconciliation is
what Jesus has done. What the method of the reconciliation? "God was in
Christ recon" oiling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their
trespasses." They must be reckoned somewhere. Look at the last verse:
"He hath made him to be sin for us."
The method of reconciliation is to impute the man's sins to Christ, and not to
the man, and impute Christ's righteousness to the man. Christ is to be
accounted a sinner in the place of the man, and the man righteous in the place
of Christ. God made the just one to take the place of the unjust one. The
strongest passage in the word of God on the doctrine of substitution and
imputation is 2 Corinthians 5:21. No man who denies what is called the doctrine
of imputation has ever been able properly to interpret this passage.
This method is perfectly in harmony with what the prophet declared in Isaiah
53: "Our iniquities were laid on him. By his stripes we are healed. The
chastisement of our peace was on him, and because it was on him it pleased the
Lord to bruise him." God bruised him. He poured out his soul unto death
and made an offering of himself for the sinner.
What is the blessing that hereby comes to the sinner? The forgiveness of sin.
If the sinner's sins are charged to somebody else, and that sinner is
acquitted, then he is free. If a brother owes $100 and the surety pays it, the
creditor cannot collect that $100 from the original debtor, for the debt has
been paid by the surety. So far we have considered reconciliation Godward. God
cannot, by his nature and attributes, be reconciled to the sinner until
satisfaction be made to his infracted law. He must be propitiated before he can
become propitious. His justice claims must be met and satisfied.
But what is the ministry of the reconciliation? The text says, "And hath
given to us the ministry of reconciliation." The ministry of
reconciliation is God's appointing men to go and preach the terms of
reconciliation. What authority then is conferred upon the preacher that goes to
preach this? "We are ambassadors of Christ." What is an ambassador?
The United States sends an ambassador to England, and gives him credentials. At
the court of St. James in England he is the representative of the United
States. Whatever he does under that authority binds the United States. But an
ambassador is not allowed to go beyond his instructions, and any ambassador
that goes beyond them must be held responsible to the government that sent him.
A preacher then goes with divine instructions not to say, "peace, peace
when there is no peace," but to set plainly before the unconverted the
only terms of reconciliation – that the sinner shall repent of his sins and
accept the Lord, and the evidence that he has accepted Christ is that he no
longer lives unto himself but unto Christ, no longer as the world judges, but
according to the Spirit of God. That is the whole subject of the gospel in a
nutshell. It is of the highest importance that a preacher should understand it.
"We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ, as though God were
entreating by us: We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to
God." I consider that the most important thought in the second letter. The
work of Christ reconciles God to man. The work of the Holy Spirit reconciles
man to God.
Taking up chapter 6, let us advance in the thought. What is the time to be
reconciled? At
an acceptable time I hearkened unto thee, And in a day of salvation did I
succor thee; Behold, now is the acceptable time; Behold, now is the day of
salvation. That is, no minister has a
right to treat with a sinner on the morrow, next week, or next year. He has to
hold the sinner down in every sermon to immediate reconciliation with Christ.
Mr. Spurgeon, in talking to his preacher-students, tells of an. incident that
he witnessed. He was visiting an Episcopalian preacher, and a man under
conviction of sin came to see his pastor. He told Mr. Spurgeon to stay and hear
what the man had to say. The sinner stated his case. The preacher said,
"You go home and read a certain book on the 'Evidences of Christianity'
and read certain passages, and pray to the Lord, and in a week come back to see
me." Mr. Spurgeon leaped to his feet and said, "My dear sir, don't dismiss
that man that way. You have no right to do it. He comes to you as an anxious
sinner, for you to tell him what to do, and you have marked out a line of
conduct that may take him beyond his life time. If you will permit me, I will
tell him what to do. Let him now accept Christ; let us pray now that he may at
once accept Christ." The Episcopalian said, "If you want to do it, do
so." Mr. Spurgeon said to the man, "Will you right now look to the
Lord Jesus Christ while we pray," and he knelt down to pray and the man
arose happily converted.
We should never postpone a convicted sinner's case. If the man is not under
conviction we may work to convict. But when a contrite and penitent man comes,
who feels that he is a sinner, and wants to know what to do to be saved, we
should deal with him just as Paul did with that jailer at midnight, who said,
"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Paul answered, "Believe on
the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." He was saved that very
night. There is the great failure in most meetings.
One Sunday in Oklahoma City I preached three times. I suppose there were fully
2,500 that heard the sermons. The audience room was very large, and it was
crowded. In the afternoon I was preaching to men, and I came to the point of
immediate reconciliation to God. Since God is the author of this
reconciliation, and since the blessing of reconciliation is remission of sins.
and since that comes by imputation of our guilt to Christ, and the 'imputation
of his righteousness to us, what use is there for us to take time? If salvation
be a gift, how long does it take to receive a gift? A wonderful impression was
made. Three men came to see me after the sermon on the subject of immediate
acceptance of Christ. One of them offered me an extravagant sum of money if I
would stay and hold a meeting.
I heard a very distinguished preacher take this text: "We beseech you in
Christ's stead be ye reconciled to God." The main thing he preached about
was this: That there were two parties to the original enmity, God and man; that
the man did not have to do anything to reconcile God; that the man was the only
fellow out of it; that God is already reconciled, and the man must bring
himself to bear upon reconciling himself. When he got through I said, "Do
you know that you have made a dreadful mistake? God's reconciliation is in
Christ, and so long as man rejects Christ, God is not reconciled to that man;
the wrath of God is on him," It was Christ that appeased the wrath of God
by dying for the sinner, but it does not follow that because Christ died nearly
1900 years ago the law has nothing against us. It has nothing against us only
when we accept Christ.
The reconciliation of God to us is not out of Christ, but in Christ, but we get
in touch with that reconciliation when we accept Christ.
What then should be the conduct of a preacher who has this ministry of
reconciliation? Verses 3-10 constitute a lesson to a preacher: "Giving no
occasion of stumbling in anything, that our ministration be not blamed; but in
everything commending ourselves, as ministers of God, in much patience, in
afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, in stripes, in imprisonments, .in
tumults, in labors, in watchings, in fastings, in pureness, in knowledge, in
longsuffering, in kindness, in the Holy Spirit, in love unfeigned, in the word
of truth, in the power of God; by the armor of righteousness on the right hand
and on the left, by glory and dishonor, by evil report and good report; as
deceivers, and yet true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold,
we live; as chastened, and not killed; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as
poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all
things."
Now comes another point in the argument – since a man who is a new creature 'is
to live not unto himself but unto Jesus Christ, how does it affect his past
relations with men and things? Verses 14-17 answer: "Be not unequally
yoked with unbelievers; for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity, or
what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with
Belial? Or what portion hath a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement
hath a temple of God with idols, for we are a temple of the living God; even as
God said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and
they shall be my people. Wherefore, Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate,
saith the Lord, And touch no unclean thing.
What follows from being a new creature? A man must draw a line of demarcation
between himself and every evil tiling and evil association. The argument is
tremendous.
We now come to the second and most important part of the whole letter – his
discussion of repentance. What precedes repentance? Godly sorrow, or
contrition. "Godly sorrow worketh repentance." What does repentance
mean? A change of mind toward God on account of sin. How is repentance
distinguished from worldly sorrow? Worldly sorrow has a different origin; it is
remorse. How is repentance evidenced? Look at verse 11: “For behold, this
selfsame thing, that ye were made sorry after a Godly sort, what earnest care
it wrought in you, yea what clearing of yourselves, yea what indignation, yea
what fear, yea what longing, yea what zeal, yea what avenging." They had
partaken of the sin of that fornicator, and were not disturbed until Paul wrote
this letter which brought about Godly sorrow in their hearts, and led them to
repent. Their repentance was evidenced by its fruits. They cleared themselves
of the offense by excluding that man, and what is true of Godly sorrow and
repentance there is true of repentance on the part of the sinner. There is no
other mill that grinds out that kind of grist. John the Baptist said,
"Bring forth fruits meet for repentance. Don't oppress the poor, but be
content with your wage." If a man is a Christian let him prove it by a
Christian life.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the meaning of
"fear of the Lord" in 2 Corinthians 5:11?
2. What the meaning of
"constrain" in 5:14?
3. What is the force of
"therefore" in 5:17, and what the two reasons given in this passage
why a man. is a new creature?
4. What the meaning and
application of "old things . . . they are become new" in 5:17?
Illustrate.
5. What bearing has 5:17 on
the evidence of salvation?
6. What the preacher's duty
relative to his text when he goes to preach, and what illustration of a
violation of this rule given by the author?
7. What, according to the
author's estimate, is the most important part of this letter, and why?
8. What does the word
"reconciliation" imply?
9. What does it mean?
10. Who is the author of our
reconciliation in salvation? 11. What is the meritorious ground of
reconciliation?
12. What the method of this
reconciliation?
13. What the strongest passage
in the Word of God on imputation, and the prophetic teaching on this subject?
14. What the blessing of
reconciliation? Illustrate
15. What is the ministry of
the reconciliation?
16. What the authority
conferred upon the preacher? Illustrate,
17. What, then, the
preacher's evident duty?
18. What reconciles God to
man, and what reconciles men to God?
19. What the time of
reconciliation, and why? Illustrate.
20. What illustration of a
misconception, of reconciliation, and how did the author correct this
misconception?
21. What should be the
conduct of a preacher who has this reconciliation?
22. How does the "new
creation" affect a man's past relations with men and things?
23. What the second most
important part of this letter?
24. What precedes
repentance?
25. What does repentance
mean?
26. How is repentance
distinguished from worldly sorrow?
27. How is repentance
evidenced, and particularly in this case?
THE GREAT COLLECTION FOR THE POOR SAINTS
AT JERUSALEM
2 Corinthians 8:1 to 9:15.
The Great Collection discussed in 2 Corinthians 8-9 was for the benefit of the
poor saints in Jerusalem. We learn from Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37; 5:1-11; 6:1-4, the
following facts:
1. That in the great revival following Pentecost, and lasting three years and a
half, up to the dispersion brought about by Saul's persecution, vast multitudes
of the Jews of the dispersion being gathered to attend the annual feasts remained
over in Jerusalem on account of the revival, that every year at the feasts this
multitude was increased, and that as the majority of the converted were from
the poor, very great poverty existed in the church. This constitutes the
occasion of these collections.
2. That to relieve this destitution, extraordinary but voluntary donations were
contributed by the wealthier class of Christians in order to form a relief fund
to be distributed by the apostles.
3. That in connection with donations to this fund occurred the dramatic tragedy
of Ananias and Sapphira.
4. That complaints arising among the Christian Jews of the dispersion as to an
equitable division of this fund, brought about the creation of the office of
deacon. We learn from Acts 11:27-30 that a great dearth throughout the world so
greatly enhanced the destitution in Jerusalem that the Antioch church took a
relief collection and sent it for distribution to the elders of the Jerusalem
church, by Barnabas and Paul. This is the first outside collection on record
for the poor saints in Jerusalem. We learn also from Galatians 2:10 that James,
Peter, and John urged Barnabas and Paul, missionaries to the Gentiles, to
remember the Christian poor at Jerusalem, which was in the private conference
preceding the public conference, both of which are described in Acts 15:1-21.
The distress of poverty among the Jerusalem saints must have been very great
and persistent to justify this appeal. It was in reference to this necessity
and appeal that Paul, in accordance with his promise, is responding in this
section.
The scriptures bearing directly on these collections are: 1 Corinthians 16:1-4;
2 Corinthians 8:9; Romans 15:25-28; Acts 20:4; 24:17. From these passages we
learn the extent and range of the collections; that all the churches of Galatia
in Asia Minor, all the churches in Macedonia, all the churches in Achaia took
part. There may have been others, but these are specifically named. It was a
series of collections in which two continents participated. From the presence
of Trophimus, the Ephesian, and Tychicus in Jerusalem with him when he tendered
the collection (Acts 20:4; 24:17; 21:18), we may infer that proconsular Asia
participated in the collection.
The ground of obligation cited by Paul to justify the collections by his
Gentile converts is one of debt, thus expressed: "For if the Gentiles have
been made partakers of their spiritual things, they owe it to them also to
minister unto them in carnal things" (Rom. 15:27). Paul's coadjutors in
engineering these collections were Titus, Timothy, and others whose names are
not given.
The seven rules governing these collections were as follows:
1. As to time, they should, every Sunday, or on the first day of the week, lay
by in store until the accumulated fund was ready to be forwarded (I Cor. 16:2).
2. Let the contribution of each be "according as God has prospered
him" (I Cor. 16:2). "According as a man hath – not according as he
hath not" (2 Cor. 8:12).
3. It must be voluntary – "of a willing mind" (2 Cor 8:12).
4. It must be deliberate, i. e., according to a previous purpose (2 Cor.
9:7;8:17).
5. It must be cheerfully done, not grudgingly or of compulsion (2 Cor. 9:7).
6. The donor must have first given himself to the Lord (2 Cor. 8:5).
7. They pray for them and long after them (2 Cor. 9:14).
The motives to which appeals were made are both higher and lower. The higher
motives were:
1. The example of their Lord (2 Cor. 8:9).
2. As we sow, so shall we reap (2 Cor. 9:6).
3. God's grace will care for us (2 Cor. 9:8).
4. It is a deed of righteousness (2 Cor. 9:9-10).
5. This service not only supplied the need of the poor saints but awakened many
thanksgivings to God (2 Cor. 9:11-12).
6. The recipients of the bounty glorify God on account of the donor's subjection
to God (2 Cor. 9:13).
7. They pray for them and long after them (2 Cor. 9:14).
8. They should abound in the grace of giving as 'in other graces (2 Cor. 8:7).
The lower motives were:
1. The example of the Macedonian churches (2 Cor. 8:1-5).
2. To prove the sincerity of their love (2 Cor. 8:8).
3. It is expedient to carry on what has been begun (2 Cor. 8:10).
4. They had pledged to help, and should redeem their pledges (2 Cor. 8:11. Cf.
Eccles. 5:4-6).
5. The zeal of their pledges had stimulated others (2 Cor. 9:2), and shame
would follow if their pledges were unredeemed (2 Cor. 9:3-4).
6. On account of their zeal in pledging the apostles had boasted of their
readiness, and he would be put to shame if the pledges were unredeemed (2 Cor.
9:2-4).
Wise steps were taken to guard against suspicion and misapprehension in regard
to taking collections, and the handling and transporting agents, the brother,
"whose praise in the goscreet and trustworthy men were appointed as
collecting agents (2 Cor. 8:16-18; 12:18-19). and the churches themselves
appointed the messengers who should have charge of the funds collected (2 Cor.
8:19-23; Acts 20:4). Among these collecting and transporting agents, the
brother, "whose praise in the gospel is spread through all the
churches" (2 Cor. 8:18), was most likely Luke, as we know from the pronoun
"us" in Acts 21:18 that he was of the number who went with Paul to
Jerusalem when he carried the collection there.
The applications of the principle involved to other kingdom enterprises are as
follows:
1. As all the particular churches are related to the same King and kingdom,
their co-operation in kingdom enterprises on some equitable method is
mandatory.
2. That the method most approved by experience, and which conserves the
independence of the churches and expresses their independence, is by voluntary
associations and conventions through messengers of the churches.
3. That whatever the plan of association for eliciting, combining and directing
the funds of the churches, there must be no projecting of a church into an
association or convention so as to merge its sovereignty into a denominational
body having
4. That on the voluntary principle and by messengers, such appellate
jurisdiction over the private affairs of the churches. a co-operation may be
attained as will serve for all kingdom purposes.
5. That such care must be taken in collecting, handling, and distributing such
common fund as will remove all just grounds for suspicion.
QUESTIONS
1. For whose benefit was the
collection which is discussed in 2 Corinthians 8-97
2. What scriptures furnish
the background of so many and so great collections?
3. What the occasion of
these collections?
4. How was this
extraordinary destitution relieved?
5. What dramatic tragedy in
this connection?
6. What office was created
in the church at this time, and what the occasion of it?
7. What the first outside
collection for these poor saints, and what its occasion?
8. What indicates the great
and persistent distress of poverty among the Jerusalem saints?
9. What, then, brought forth
this discussion in 2 Corinthians 8-9?
10. What the scriptures
bearing directly on these collections?
11. From these and other
scriptures, what do we learn as to the extent and range of these collections?
12. What is the ground of
obligation, cited by Paul to justify the collection by his Gentile converts?
13. Who were Paul's
coadjustors in engineering these collections?
14. What the seven rules governing
these collections?
15. What the higher motives?
16. What the lower motives?
17. What wise steps were
taken to guard against suspicion and misapprehension in regard to taking
collections and the handling and disbursement of the funds collected?
18. Among these collecting
and transporting agents, who most likely was the brother "whose praise in
the gospel is spread through all the churches," and why?
19. What the application of
the principle involved to other kingdom?
EXPOSITION PAUL'S REPLY TO HIS ENEMIES
2 Corinthians 10:1 to 12:21.
This discussion, commencing at chapter 10, closes up the second letter to the Corinthians.
This closing section of the book is so utterly unlike the preceding part, that
a great many people try to make it a part of a different letter, but they are
very much mistaken. The difference arises from the fact that the first nine
chapters were addressed to the working majority of the church, and these last
chapters refer to the incorrigible minority. The object of the last section is
to defend the apostleship and gospel of Paul from the charges made by certain
Jewish emissaries who came from Jerusalem to that place, as at other places
where he had been, and endeavored to wreck his Work. We have considered this
matter somewhat in our exposition of the former letter. We will consider it
much more in the next two letters – Galatians and Romans. In these four letters
the great controversy is discussed.
The charges of these Jewish brethren with their letters of recommendation were
about these: First, he was not coming to them; he kept saying he would come,
and even if he should come, he would be very humble when present, though bold
in his absence. Second, that he boasted too much of his apostolic authority,
trying to overawe the people with his letters, though when present his person
was insignificant and his speech contemptible. Third, that he was not in his
proper sphere – not a true apostle, not even a true Jew; that he virtually
confessed he was not an apostle by not asserting his apostolic authority, as
Peter in killing Ananias and Sapphira; that he confessed it in not exacting
support from the people to' whom he preached, but that while he did not exact
any money while he was there, he was arranging for a very large collection. Why
should those poor people at Corinth be taking up a collection for some interest
away off yonder, unless Paul wanted to scoop the money into his own hands? Of
course, his not taking money when he was there was that be might send Titus,
his henchman, and take a big collection for himself. In other words, being
crafty, he caught them with guile to make gain of them.
Of course, these charges are inferred from his defense. We see into his very
heart, so sensitive and so deeply wounded, that he is forced to the seeming
folly of boasting. We, in our day, rejoice that their assault led to so many
rich disclosures of his life and heart that otherwise his modesty would have
concealed. It is never a pleasant thing to expose rascality. But we have this
pleasure – if these men had not preferred these charges, we never would have
had the statement in these chapters which are of imperishable value to the
world.
He commences by making his reply to the charges that be was a very humble,
modest man when he is present, but when he is absent he is bold: "Now I,
Paul, myself entreat you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I who in your
presence am lowly among you, but being absent am of good courage toward you;
yea, I beseech you, that I may not when present show courage with the
confidence wherewith I could be bold against some, who count of us as if we
walked according to the flesh." In other words, he did not want to assume
this boldness, because God did not give him this power except for the purpose
of building up. Only with great reluctance did Paul ever use his apostolic
power to vindicate himself, and never unless the gospel was jeopardized and
needed vindication. He had this power, which was not carnal, but. was of God.
In the exercise of this power he could reach any wicked imagination of their
hearts; he would pull down any strong- hold of opposition. He had but to speak
the word and God would attest the truth of the word. But for himself, in his
love for them, he deprecated such use of the power. They had judged according
to the external appearance when they concluded that because he was a modest and
humble man, therefore he did not have the apostolic power. Some people parade
their authority and want to show it off. Paul preferred to reach men by
persuasion, to govern by gentleness, always to win and not to drive.
With reference to his personal appearance and his speech, he uses this
language: "That I may not seem as if I would terrify you by my letters.
'For, his letters,' they say, 'are weighty and strong; but his bodily presence
is weak, and his speech is of no account.' Let such a one reckon this, that,
what we are in word by letters when we are absent, such are we also in deed
when we are present." They made the mistake of using the wrong standard of
measurement, and this gives us a fine text to preach from. In the King James
Version it reads: "They, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing
themselves among themselves, are not wise." Whenever any fallible test is
made a standard of measurement we are certain to bring about a wrong result.
When I was a young preacher I preached on that text. I stated that I decided to
put up a picket fence around my place, and as I needed exercise, I thought I
would saw the pickets for myself. I sawed off one just long enough to measure
by, then the next one by that, and the third by the second, and so on. When I
put up my pickets I found there was an inch and a half difference in the
height. Every variation that you make repeats and magnifies itself. We must
have one fixed standard of measurement and use that standard every time we saw
a picket. God has given one standard.
We don't say that everybody must come up to the measure of Sam Houston or
Daniel Webster. When we hear religious experiences we do not say that they must
all be alike. We may not have had the same length of despondency as someone
else. All we have to do is to tell our experience and let it be measured by
God's Word. No human standard can be good. Some people imitate others. Some
preachers select an ideal preacher, and try to imitate him. There used to be a
Negro preacher that tried to imitate Dr. Burleson. He would enter the house
carrying his big silk hat, bow, and sit down like Dr. Burleson, and strange to
say, measuring by human standards, people more often imitate the follies than
the excellencies. Paul says, "These men have come here on the field of my labor
and set up an arbitrary standard of measurement, and they want to make me fit
it. I will only be measured by God's standard, not man's."
Continuing his argument, he says with reference to the sphere, "But we
will not glory beyond our measure, but according to the measure of the province
which God apportioned to us as a measure, to reach even unto you. For we
stretch not ourselves overmuch, as though we reached not unto you; for we came
even as far as unto you in the gospel of Christ."
I think the greatest missionary sermon I ever preached was from that text:
"We came even as far as you in the gospel of Christ, having hope that, as
your faith groweth, we shall preach the gospel in the regions beyond you."
I drew an histopical picture of the progress of the gospel, commencing at
Jerusalem, until at this time it had reached Corinth in Europe. It represented
many long journeys and varied experiences of Paul. Paul's rule was when he
reached a place not to conduct all of his campaign from the original base, but to
make the new church a new base: "I have this hope, that I shall establish
a missionary church at Corinth, and that through that missionary church, I
shall reach out to the region beyond, and establish other missionary churches
beyond you, and use them as a base to reach others yet beyond." That
discloses Paul's method of work. That province had been assigned to him by the
Lord Jeans Christ. They claimed that he was out of his sphere. Peter and James
recognized that God had sent Paul to the Gentiles. They gave him the right hand
of fellowship on that. God's providence had met him there. God's Spirit had
blessed him there, and he was not building on any other man's foundation.
The next chapter commences this way: "Would that ye could bear with me in
a little foolishness." They claimed that he was foolish. "Well, hear
a little foolishness. You bear with people who are more foolish." Notice
what he says about what they had borne. If one should even slap them in the
face they would bear it. "Now bear with me. I am indeed jealous over you,
but it is a godly jealousy. I haven't that envy and jealousy that one preacher
has for another preacher lest the one beat me preaching. My jealousy is one
that God approves. There come preachers to you who do not preach the true
gospel, who come in another spirit and preach another Jesus, and as the serpent
beguiled Eve with subtlety, so will they seduce you. For if he that cometh
preacheth another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or if ye receive a different
spirit, which ye did not receive, or a different gospel, which ye did not
accept, ye do well to bear with him. For I reckon that I am not a whit behind
the very chiefest apostles." Their next objection was that Paul was not a
trained orator: "But though I be rude in speech, yet I am not in
knowledge."
As to that question of support, he says, "Did I commit a sin . . . because
I preached to you the gospel of God for nought? I did receive wages from other
churches. Part of the time I supported myself and part of the time the Macedonian
churches supplied my necessities while I preached to you. Instead of being led
to refrain from claiming support because I distrusted my apostolic right to do
that, my object was an entirely different one. I had a number of lessons I
wanted to teach you. One reason was that I might take away from anybody who
sought occasion to object to my ministry on that account. I wanted to teach you
lessons as I taught the Thessalonians, that men ought to work; that industry is
a good thing." He says, "It was wrong I did you and I ask you to
forgive the wrong."
It is a sin for the gospel to be preached contrary to the declaration of Christ
that "they that preach the gospel should live of the gospel."
Every enterprise should pay its own expenses and yield its fruits to the
laborer. "I made you inferior in this, that I took away from you the
dignity of paying for the gospel preached to you."
I discussed that question before the Southern Baptist Convention once when
there was such a hue and cry against agents. I told this anecdote: An Irishman
had only one load of powder and shot, and he had to have something to eat. He
saw a coon up a tree and fired at it. The coon fell out and hit the ground so
hard that it burst open. The Irishman said, "Faith, and what a fool I was
to waste that load of ammunition; the fall would have killed him." There
are people who talk about a waste of ammunition, but coons don't fall out of
the tops of trees unless someone wastes a load of shot on them.
Let us look at 11:20: "For ye bear with a man, if he bringeth you into
bondage, if he devoureth you, if he taketh you captive, if he exalteth himself,
if he smiteth you on the face." Those fellows with those letters of
recommendation were very exalted beings, and demanded high recognition; there
was no humility about them. They claimed money, and they got money, and they
brought the people from gospel freedom into bondage, and they would even insult
them by slapping them in the face. There are some people who are never
influenced by gentle means. The old Webster spelling book tells us that a man
may talk softly to a boy up an apple tree and he won't come down. He may throw
turf at him and he won't come down. He has to rock him to get him down. There
are some people who want a leader that will knock them down and drag them out,
and they have no respect for a leader that can- not fight and call somebody a
liar. The one who shot down the most men in western towns used to be a hero.
Paul says that these people were like those who cringe before their masters
like dogs. That reminds me of Aesop's fable of King Log.
As to the charge that he was not a Jew, here is his reply: "Are they
Hebrews? So am 1. Are they Israelites? So am 1. Are they seed of Abraham? So am
1. Are they ministers of Christ? I am more." Now follows a passage of
Scripture that ought to be written in letters of gold and carried with every
preacher. It shows what Paul had suffered for the gospel up to this time:
"In labors more abundantly, in prisons more abundantly, in stripes above
measure, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save
one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered
shipwreck, a night and a day have I been in the deep; in journeyings often, in
perils of rivers, in perils of robbers, in perils from my countrymen, in perils
from the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in
perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in labor and travail, in
watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fasting often, in cold and nakedness.
Besides those things that are without, there is that which presseth upon me
daily – anxiety for all the churches." I suppose if we put together the
labors and sufferings of all the other apostles, they would not equal the sufferings
of this one man. When we read the book of Acts, we do not read about any of
these shipwrecks, and only one on the scourgings, the one at Philippi by the
Roman lictors. Scarcely any of the other perils are mentioned.
No wonder John Mark got scared when they left the Isle of Cyprus and went on to
the mainland. Up those mountains, and swimming those river torrents, and
meeting those robbers, Paul's every step was into the jaws of death, always the
Spirit of God bearing witness with his spirit that bonds and imprisonments
awaited him. He counted it the same as breathing, and more certain than food,
for often he did not know he would get any food. How many times do we preachers
suffer real hunger in doing our duty as preachers? Do we ever swim creeks? How
many times have we been in jail and whipped by the magistrates?
They used to whip Baptist preachers in Virginia, and in ungodly New England it
was a devout exercise to banish Quakers and whip Baptists. I have the history
of the old Philadelphia Association. Within four years of the time that the
battle of Lexington was fought, and almost within sight of the battleground, a
large community of Baptists were taxed to build a meeting house for the
Congregationalists in a community where there were no Congregationalists.
Whenever they did not pay the tax readily, law officers came and attached the
center acre of their farms or gardens, and then under forced auction sales,
their enemies would bid in their property for a song.
We are living in a good, easy time. But our fathers have been tested. It is
certainly true that throughout the dark ages whoever was true to the gospel of
Jesus Christ walked at least somewhat in the steps of Paul. There are
historians who are unable to see any connection between the Baptists of the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and the preceding sufferings for Christ, but
they are very dim-eyed. The gospel is always transmitted by men. Paul says,
"What I commit to you, do you commit to faithful men who shall come after
you." Somebody carries the gospel, and it always broke out in the places
where these faithful preachers went. They could not publish books and preach in
houses. They had to preach in the caverns of the earth, and even in pious
Switzerland where John Calvin laid the foundation of Presbyterianism, the men
who insisted on immersion as baptism were condemned to be drowned: I you will
dip, we will dip you."
In chapter 12 he comes to another proof of his authority – the revelations made
to him. We have read nothing of this in the preceding history. It occurred
during his Cilician ministry, to which there are only two New Testament
references: "I know a man in Christ, fourteen years ago (whether in the
body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not; God knoweth) ; such a
one caught up even to the third heaven. And I know such a man (whether in the
body, or apart from the body, I know not; God knoweth) how that he was caught
up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for man
to utter." In other words, "You say I am not an apostle. This is only
one of the many experiences that I have had with my Lord." This man was
selected as a special medium of divine revelation, and God honored him by
catching him up to the third heaven – the paradise of God. The word "paradise"
occurs here, and where the Saviour spoke it on the cross: "This day shalt
thou be with me m paradise," and in the third chapter of Revelation:
"To him that overcometh to him will I give to eat of the tree of life,
which is in the paradise of God." These are the only three places where
the word occurs in the New Testament, and from these passages it is easy to see
where Paul was carried. The tree of life was in the midst of the paradise of
God, and the last of Revelation locates that tree of life: "And he shewed
me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the
throne of God and of the Lamb." That is paradise regained – the paradise
that the original paradise typified. The first Adam lost the type, and the
Second Adam gained the antitype. Paul says, "I do not know whether it was
just my spirit taken out of my body and carried up thereù1 cannot answer that
psychological question – but I know that God caught me up into the paradise of
heaven. I heard things not proper to tell now." Notice that Lazarus told
nothing as to his experiences the other side of the grave. Our revelation must
come from God.
Now Paul says, "By reason of the exceeding greatness of the revelations,
that I should not be exalted overmuch, there was given to me a thorn in the
flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me." Of course, everybody wants to
know what that thorn in the flesh was, but we can only conjecture. I infer from
some statements in the letter to the Galatians that it was his weak eyes. He had
to be led around, and have his letters written. He wrote the letter to the
Galatians with his own hand, and calls attention to the "sprawling
letters." He says the Galatians were so much in love with the gospel he
preached that they would have plucked out their own eyes and given him. So I
infer that the devil was permitted to afflict him. He prayed three times that
the affliction might be taken away. There are two other cases where three
prayers were made to God like this case, and where those praying did not get
the request in the form they asked for it. God did not take away the thorn in
the flesh, but he answered Paul's prayer by giving him grace to bear it.
In regard to that money business he says, "I did not myself burden you,
but, being crafty, I caught you with guile." We must understand these
words as quoted by him. It was the charge of his enemies to which he replies:
"Did I take advantage of you by any one of them whom I have sent unto you?
I exhorted Titus, and I sent the other brother with him. Did Titus take any
advantage of you? Walked we not in the came spirit? Walked we not in the same
steps?" I don't suppose any man ever acted more prudently than Paul did in
the management of money.
QUESTIONS
1. What can you say of the closing
section (chap. 10-13) of 2 Corinthians and from what does the difference arise?
2. What the object of this
last section, and where may we find the discussion extended?
3. What the charges of the
Judaizers, and how did they say that he acknowledged that he was not an
apostle?
4. What Paul's reply to the
charge that he was humble and modest when present, but bold when. absent?
5. What his reply to the
charge that his letters were weighty and strong, but his bodily presence was
weak, etc.?
6. What the mistake of the
accusers on this point, what illustration from the experience of the author,
and what the application to the Christian experience?
7. What Paul's reply to the
accusation that he was out of his sphere, what great missionary text in this
connection, what was Paul's method of work as revealed in this reply, and what
recognition was given Paul in this sphere?
8. What his reply to the
charge that he was foolish?
9. What his answer to the
objection that he was not a trained orator?
10. What his reply to the
charge that he did not demand a support?
11. What the teaching here
on ministerial support? Illustrate.
12. What the character and
methods of Paul's Judaizing accusers, and how does this method seem to fit some
people? Illustrate.
13. What his reply to the
charge that he was not a. Jew, and, briefly, what were Paul's sufferings for
the gospel up to this time?
14. How does this paragraph
from the life of Paul fit our case, and what, briefly, some of the sufferings
of our forefathers?
15. What proof of his
authority does Paul present in chapter 12, and how does it prove it?
16. What three passages in
the Bible contain the word "paradise," and where is paradise?
17. What was Paul's
"thorn in the flesh," and why was it given him?
18. What God's answer to his
prayer respecting it, and what other similar cases in the Bible?
19. How did Paul reply to
their charge respecting the money matter?
NOTE: For the first part of
the discussion of the revolt against apostolic authority, see chapter 16.