Bible Treasury: Volume N8

I have no hesitation in saying that ἀδίχιμος (translated in the English Bible “a castaway”) must be interpreted in each occurrence according to the nature and requirements of its context. It means disapproved on trial, which may be absolute or relative. This I freely grant. The question is, What is the necessary sense in 1 Cor. 9:27?

It seems to me very plain that the apostle means in the strictest and fullest way a disapproval of the person, emphatically so, and not a mere condemnation of his service but in contrast with it. He supposes that there might be the preaching to others without a single flaw or drawback specified (i.e. the work all right), but the person ἀδόχιμος. What has hindered many in ancient times, and yet more since the Arminian controversy, is the fear of weakening divine grace, and of compromising the security of the believer.

But this is a groundless fear; for it is no question of a believer, but of a preacher. It is supposed that the person preaches well enough, but there is no self-judgment, no keeping of the body under, no practical holiness—consequently, no faith or conscience before God, no jealousy for Christ, no fear to grieve the Holy Spirit. It is a man unrenewed, therefore, though possibly not a bad preacher, nor lacking in zealous work.

This was the snare laid for the Corinthians. In the eyes of some, gift and work were all, the will and grace and holiness of Christ practically of no account.

Why then does the apostle speak of himself hypothetically rather than of them directly? Because he was led of the Spirit with the finest sense of delicate consideration. He preferred out of love to put it in his own case. Not, as too many imagine, that he had the least doubt or fear as to himself; not that a single text raises the smallest anxiety about any one possessing life in Christ. Whoever throws off restraints, and lives contrary to Christ, may preach as well as you like, but will certainly be lost, were it Paul himself: as he says in chapter iv. of this Epistle, he has transferred the application to himself, if not to Apollos. But it is purely hypothesis, which in fact was as far as possible from Paul, but which he thus applied to himself, if he walked recklessly, for the warning of some of the Corinthians. It is hardly so strong as Heb. 12:14, 15, from which we must not be driven either by abuse or by ignorance; nor must we force it like those who would pervert the warning given to professors of Christ into opiates for Christians.

Ever yours affectionately,

—— [March. 1870].

Lectures Introductory to 1 Kings: Chapter 1-8, Continued

And this is what we are sanctified to, not merely to obey, but to obey as Christ obeyed. For this is the meaning of “sanctified,” where it says that we are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the spirit unto obedience.” Yes, but it is the “obedience,” as well as the “sprinkling of the blood,” of Jesus Christ. It is not the obedience of a Jew; it is not the obedience of the law. It is the obedience of Jesus Christ. Not but what this does accomplish the righteousness of the law. For there is no man that so thoroughly loves God and loves his neighbor as the man that obeys in the same spirit as our blessed Lord. And this is what we are all called to as Christians. Those that have merely the law before them as a thing to obey, do not really meet the righteousness of the law. Those that have Christ do, as it is said— “that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit.” You observe the language is exceedingly strong. He does not merely say, “fulfilled by us,” but, “fulfilled in us.” “Fulfilled in us” shows the reality of it; the intrinsic character of the fulfillment of the law in its great righteous character and requirement. And so it is alone fulfilled in Christ, or the Christian, as it was, in a measure, by those who were looking to Christ in the days before.

Well then, Bathsheba showed her own confidence in the will of God—her faith in short—by coming to Nathan. She went to the right quarter. She told him of the conspiracy of Adonijah and his party, and she goes to the presence of the king. Nathan followed. The consequence was, the king shows that, however aged, he was perfectly alive to the solemnity of the occasion. He saw and judged the crisis that was coming, and the only effect of Adonijah’s conspiracy was, not to hinder, but, to forward Solomon to the throne of Israel. Had there not been the conspiracy, Solomon would have waited, we can hardly doubt, for the death of the king, but the result was just simply to secure it and to secure it at once. So it is that if we are only calm, God always accomplishes His purpose. Who would have thought that the way for Joseph to be exalted—so that his father and mother and his brethren should bow down to a thing that at first rather irritated Jacob, much as he loved his son, and which irritated still more his brethren who would have thought that the way in which this was to be accomplished was by the wickedness of his brethren—either wanting to kill him, or even the most mild of them to sell him? But so it was. The pathway of sin, alas! which is so natural, to sinners, is the very thing that God employs for the accomplishment of His purpose. This does not make the sin less, but it certainly exalts God the more. And there is the blessedness, beloved friends, of reading, and of growing in the knowledge of God as it is shown in the precious word, because we are growing in our acquaintance and intimacy with Him with whom we shall be forever. And it is our privilege to have this acquaintance, and to cultivate it, and to enjoy it now; Hence, God has given us this word.

But now a word upon the great object of the Spirit of God in this book generally, and more particularly what has come before us. For this is particularly what I desire, not merely to draw your attention to great moral lessons, which would detain us too much with the detail of the chapters, but to give simply a wide and general sketch which you may fill up in your own reading of this book—I trust with some moral suggestions to profit and help. My purpose now is to gather the great object of the Spirit of God—that which is not so easily seen and laid hold of by souls, unless someone shows it; but that which if true you will prove to be true, and which you will enjoy so much the more, the more simply you receive it. But it is the word of God that will either confirm wherever one is true, or set aside wherever there is a mistake.

I say then that the grand point here is the establishment of the son of David, not merely man’s kingdom set up in Saul and God’s kingdom set up in king David, but now it is the son of David. And inasmuch as there were many sons this was the question. The devil was quite willing to make use of a son of David against the son of David. This was precisely the question now, and God was pleased to make use of the wickedness of those that insulted the king by practically treating him as a dead man while he was still alive. The hurry and haste of Adonijah only the more confirmed the title of Solomon. We need never trouble ourselves with our schemes for the accomplishment of God’s plans. All man’s efforts are in vain. God has His own way, and very often through man’s sin. Do you suppose that if Joseph had been out of the prison he could have come to be the chief man in Egypt so quickly as by the prison? That was not man’s way to raise him to be the prime minister of the king of Egypt. But there was no way, I will not say so sure, but there was no way so straight. It looked no doubt very far, indeed rather a turning his back upon the throne, to go into the dungeon, but in point of fact it was not only the way of God but, after all, it was the speediest way of all. The story as given in the word of God will explain without further remark from me.

Just the same now. Adonijah no doubt was interfering, but then it seemed as if he had a claim. it only affirmed the superior claim of God. And this was a grand point to establish at the beginning of the kingdom of Israel—that it was not merely, as in ordinary cases, a king in God’s providence. It was not, on the other hand, a thing that had to do with God’s people as such; but the remarkable character of the throne in Israel was that it was a king by God’s election—the only king that, in the full force of the word, was so. Nebuchadnezzar no doubt was by God’s providence, but there was more than providence in the case of the throne of Israel. And for this simple reason. The throne of Israel was in a very true and real sense the throne of Jehovah. And it is the only throne in this world that ever was the throne of Jehovah. This is the express statement of the word of God, as anyone can see, but for this reason it has a character of importance that no kingdom ever had—I do not say will have—for what was done then is only the shadow of that which is going to be done.

And this is of great moment, beloved friends, for us to be clear about, for we are apt to be taken up by our own special blessings; yet the knowledge of the church of God ought not to hinder our interest in the kingdom of God, nor should the shape that the kingdom of God takes now at all obliterate that which God has given in the kingdom of old. It is not a proof of great faith to be only occupied with what concerns ourselves, but rather of little faith. I grant you that people who do not, first of all, and as the great lesson to learn, seek to know their own place are mere theorists, but when we have found our place in Christ—when we have got our need supplied, our relationship defined, ourselves in the enjoyment of what grace has brought us into—what is the great practical object of God? Free for all He has to tell us, and free for all He bids us do, it is no longer a question of what touches ourselves. If so, then we shall enjoy each thing in the word of God because it is what interests God; it is what concerns Him; and there is no one thing which ought to be so dear to us now as that God means to have a kingdom—not merely a kingdom spiritually enjoyed as now; for “the kingdom of God is not meat and drink”; it is not eating and drinking, “but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.” All that no doubt is spiritually enjoyed, and into that call we are brought now. We see that kingdom; we enter that kingdom now. We are in the kingdom of God now in that sense.

It is called also “the kingdom of heaven,” because He who is the King of it is not on the earth, but rejected and is exalted in heaven. Consequently “the kingdom of God” is also “the kingdom of heaven”; and we are now in the form of it which is called “the mystery of the kingdom of God.” But then it is not always to be a mystery. It is going to be manifested; it is going to be a place where God will tolerate no evil, where self-will will be manifestly judged, where righteousness will cover the earth, where there will be the manifest blessing of God, all produced by His own power here below, when the King Himself will be exalted over the earth, and very particularly over this portion of it—the land of the people of Israel. Any one familiar with the scripture must know that the land is a part of the deed, if I may so say—is part of that great charter which secures the kingdom; not merely the people but the land. The land and the people, I repeat, are both in the charter. Well then that will be when the Lord Jesus is no longer in heaven, but comes again and takes the kingdom.

But perhaps you say, “How does that concern us?” And I would answer that by another question. If God has revealed it, is it not for us? Never confound these two things. It is not merely that God has revealed what is about us. He has given us a great deal that is not about us, but all that God has revealed is given to us. We ought to enjoy all the word of God, and it is a failure in faith where we do not. And further, we shall find the want of it—we shall miss the blessing of it when we least expect it. The way to be truly strong in the day of difficulty is not to be collecting our arms when the enemy has come, but it is to be well armed before he appears. I grant you that it is only dependence upon God that after all can be strength, but I speak now as far as armor is concerned, and I repeat, it is too late in the day of battle to be looking after our arms. We ought to prepare beforehand.

The kingdom then is of very great moment, and particularly so. For if we do not understand the nature of the kingdom we shall be exposed to those that confound it with the church. There is no more common error at this present time than to make out that the kingdom and the church are the same. Allow me to tell you that that is one of the great roots of popery. The papists think that the kingdom and the church are the same, and their great ground of assumption is that very identification for the simple reason that the kingdom supposes power applied to compel subjection. Hence, therefore, they ground upon that their title to put down kings, because what are the kings of the earth compared to those that have got a heavenly kingdom? They use, therefore, the title of the heavenly kingdom to put down earthly kings and to make a priest a far more important person really than the earthly king. Hence, again, their vain dream is founded upon this great confusion. Well, but you will find the same thing among most Protestants. I will just give you one or two examples to show you how very prevalent this delusion is, and how very important it is that we should distinguish in this matter.

Take a very respectable set of persons in Protestantism—the Presbyterians. Well now the whole of their system is founded upon Christ being the King—not Christ being the Head of the church, but Christ being King. That was the battle cry of the old covenanters, and that was the great cry at the time that the Free Church was established. It was that Christ was the King—that the crown of England was using its title against the rights of Christ. In the case about which there was so much talk some years ago, and to which I need not refer more particularly, this was the great thought. It was Christ’s title of King in the church that was disputed. So you will find in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is their grand standard of doctrine. In short, they always go upon the ground of Christ being King of the church.

So again with the Independents—just the same thing. When they managed to get the upper hand in England for a time they made very small scruple of sending the king to the block because they considered him to be the enemy of the King of the church—that Christ was the King, and not King Charles; that King Charles had behaved very badly and deserved to suffer, and so on; and they were the asserters of the rights of Christ the King.

Well now there was a grand fundamental error made by all of them. Thus Protestants are just as guilty in another way as the Romanists, for although they do not use the title of Christ to exalt themselves against the powers that be, habitually they do use it when the powers that he fail (as they consider) to behave themselves quite right. Then they think they are perfectly entitled to call them to account, and, if necessary, to put them down, or even send them to the block. Now all this you see is a complete inversion of the right relationship of a Christian man to the powers of the world, and all founded upon the very plausible idea that whether you call Him Head of the church or call Him King of the church, it is all one and the same thing. They say that it is only “hair-splitting brethren” that see anything different; that it is only persons who continually put themselves disagreeably forward and tell people that they do not understand the scriptures; that it is only persons that have that rather quarrelsome, disagreeable style of convicting persons of not knowing the word of God.

Now, beloved friends, I say that however disagreeable it may be to be proved guilty of not knowing the word of God, this is the very thing that we do affirm; this is the very thing that we do assert now, that this is a subject of the greatest possible moment, that is, that our true relationship to Christ is not King of the church—that He is never so treated nay, that He is not even called “King of saints” except in a passage in the Revelation which every scholar knows to be a mistaken translation, the true meaning in that case being, “King of nations,” and not “King of saints,” or King of the church at all. In short, there is no such thought, and the fact is very important. It is no mere idea, and it is no litigious objection to people’s dogmas. It is a vital point, not for salvation, but for the true place of the church—the true relationship of the church—and you must remember our duties always depend upon our relationships. If I am wrong about my relationship, I am certain to be wrong about my duty. I am certain to make a duty of what is wrong, and that is exactly what the effect was to one or other of the different classes that I have referred to. That is what they have done. I need not repeat it, but I say that the opposite of the relationship is a fatal thing. The way it works is this. If my relationship to Christ is that of a member of the body to the head, my relationship is of the most intimate kind; my relationship is of the closest nature, and the Head loves me as He loves Himself, for no man ever yet hated his own flesh. Such is the relationship of Christ to the church. It is so intimate that you can have no person between you and the Head—none whatever. You see all depends upon it. The principle of the clergy depends upon it, because if that is the relationship the clergy are at an end. There is no such thing; it is only an imaginary class of beings as far as the truth is concerned. That is, they have no real title in the word of God. There is no such being in the word of God. There is no such position at all. It is only a thing that has been conjured up by persons who do not know the relationship of the church of God to the Head. So exactly that of which I am speaking now—the relationship of the members to the Head—excludes all dealing of the church with the world. The world is nothing to the church. The church is a thing separate from the world—not controlling the world not punishing the world, not putting the world under force to compel it to render unwilling subjection. All this is a total confusion between the kingdom and the church—the kingdom as it will be by and by with this only difference, that then, as we know, the obedience will be real except only in a certain set who afterward become rebellious and are so judged and punished.

Now all this then I maintain, beloved friends, is of a very practical nature, because the reason why so many saints are troubled in their souls among Presbyterians and Dissenters generally is this very thing. If I am only in the relationship of one of a people who have a king, well there is a long distance between the king and the people. No wonder I am not very intimate with the king. No wonder I am not on very happy terms with the king. I ought not to expect to be. My business as one of the people is to remain in a lowly outside place altogether, feeling indeed how poor my subjection is; but as to pretense to draw near the king—to go continually into his presence—it would be a very unbecoming thing in a subject to dare to do such a thing. Thus you destroy the very vitals of Christianity by this doctrine. It is not only that I speak now of great public errors, but I say that you destroy practical Christianity every day and every hour, and I hold, therefore, that this very mistake now of confounding the kingdom and the church is one of the most fatal in its consequences, not for sinners as a question of looking to Christ to be saved, but for Christians as a question of enjoying their own proper relationship, and of walking accordingly. Whereas if you know your place—as brought into the church of God—the body of Christ—then there can be no intimacy more complete; there can be no oneness more absolute. You are put, therefore, as a part of Himself before God, and instead of its being too high or presumptuous, or anything of the kind, on the contrary, it is merely faith in the truth it is merely appreciation of the grace that He has shown you; for it would be perfect nonsense for the body not to share the blessing of the Head; it could not be, and therefore you must deny the fact—you must deny the relationship not to enjoy this blessedness which you have in communion with the Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of God.

But then there is another thing that goes along with it—absolute separation from the world; but I do not go farther on this subject. I just touch upon it to show that whether it is the soul’s oneness, or whether it is the separateness of the church from the world, all depends for its power upon appreciating that, besides being spiritual in the kingdom, we are really and truly and fully, every one of us, members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones, and that these relationships, instead of being the same, are wholly distinct, and that, in point of fact, although we are in a certain sense in the kingdom, we are never said to be a kingdom. We are never said, in subjects. We are subject, of course. When I use the term “kingdom,” I mean in the sense of subjects. Subject we are, and I admit that the subjection ought to be more complete and absolute than even that of mere subjects of a king; but the character of the obedience of a subject is distance. The character of the body in subjection is nearness, and this is essential to Christianity.

And now in this Book of Kings, as we shall see, you never get the church. You never have the body of Christ. You have only the relationship of the kingdom a very weighty and important thing, and, indeed, very strongly and practically important for us as showing us the distinctness of those new relationships into which we are brought. But the grand point, you observe, even in the kingdom, was this—to maintain God’s choice, God’s will, as the foundation of all action. It was this that led king David, for I do not suppose, and it is never said, that king David made such a pet of, or made so much of, Solomon as he did of Adonijah. We are not told that so it was with all his other children. Adonijah evidently was the spoiled boy, and Adonijah was the one in the family that the father never could bear to displease, and, consequently, the trouble came in by him; it could not be otherwise; it was right that it should be. It is according to God’s government that whatever man sows he must reap. So it must be if he sows to the flesh, and so he had done. Of the flesh he reaps corruption. This came to pass now, but, on the other hand, how marvelous the grace! What a recovery is that of God! Think of David now. Think of Bathsheba now. Think of Solomon now. When one remembers who and what Bathsheba had been, of whom Solomon had been born, how wondrous the grace of God, and what a comfort, beloved friends, for anyone that has to look back bitterly upon what was most humiliating most painful! How the grace of God not only triumphs, but makes us more than conquerors through Him that loves us. So we see it even in the kingdom.

Well, the thing is now established, and the very that sense, to be the sphere except in a mere effort to destroy it brings out, as I have already figurative way. We are said to be kings, not said, the speedy establishment of the will of God.

Solomon is caused to ride upon the king’s mule. The trumpet is sounded. The real men that had fought the battles of the kingdom and that had guided the counsels of the king, and the king himself above all, put their seal upon this great transaction, and Solomon is fairly seated as the king on the throne of Jehovah in Israel. Such then is the introduction of this book.

In the second chapter we have David’s death, and the charge that was given before he died to king Solomon to judge righteously, for David evidently feels that, for his own word’s sake, he had spared more than one wicked man. This lay upon his conscience. He could not but deliver it over to king Solomon. It is wrong to call this vindictiveness; there was no vindictiveness in it whatever. It was really a burden upon the king’s mind. It was not because of their personal opposition to himself, but that it was so grave a sin against Jehovah’s anointed was what filled the king’s heart. He tells it to his successor Solomon, and, accordingly, the day comes when these sins rise up and call for judgment, but all in God’s time. There was no hurry. Adonijah, however, is the first to bring on his judgment upon him. The king had treated him kindly, had pardoned his offense and rebellion; but now he asks for a request which inevitably suggests the idea of a second and subtle effort after the kingdom. He sought the one that had been the youthful companion of the aged king. He sought—and this, too, through Bathsheba— “Adonijah, the son of Haggith came to Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon. And she said, Comest thou peaceably? And he said, Peaceably. He said moreover, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And she said, Say on. And he said, Thou knowest that the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel set their faces on me, that I should reign; howbeit the kingdom is turned about, and is become my brother’s: for it was his from the Lord. And now I ask one petition of thee, deny me not. And she said unto him, Say on. And he said, Speak, I pray thee, unto Solomon the king (for he will not say thee nay) that he give me Abishag the Shunammite to wife.”

It did not look much in appearance, but Solomon was wise. Solomon detected the unjudged ambition and rebellion of Adonijah’s heart, and so, then, although it was Bathsheba his mother who was in question, he judges. She presented what she called a small petition. That is often done when there is something great behind, though not always known, for Bathsheba, on this occasion, was but the instrument of one who did not seek something small, but the greatest place in the kingdom, and Abishag, accordingly, is the request. “And king Solomon answered and said unto his mother. And why dost thou ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for him the kingdom also; for he is mine elder brother, even for him, and for Abiathar the priest, and for Joab the son of Zeruiah. Then king Solomon sware by Jehovah, saying, God do so to me, and more also, if Adonijah have not spoken this word against his own life. Now therefore, as Jehovah liveth, which hath established me” —you observe how simple and how real is the sense in the king’s mind that it was of Jehovah’s doing, and, so long as this was held fast, Solomon was strong as well as wise; but, says he, “as Jehovah liveth, which hath established me, and set me on the throne of David my father, and who hath made me an house, as he promised, Adonijah shall be put to death this day. And king Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and he fell upon him that he died.”

(Continued from page 228)

[W. K.

(To be continued)

Lectures Introductory to 1 Kings: Chapter 1-8

1.—Chapters 1-8.

The books of First and 2 Samuel show us the failure of the priesthood, and, in consequence, when a state of evident shame and dishonor overspread the face of Israel, the heart of the people desired a king, to the disparagement of the prophets that judged Israel whom the Lord had raised up in extraordinary grace. But, thereupon, the Spirit of God, even before all this, was manifest, declares in prophetic communication the immense change that was about to take place; for while it was man’s sin to have desired a king, like the nations, to go at the head of Israel, it had always been the purpose of God, only—God made His own counsel to coalesce with their sin—one of those mysterious but admirably divine ways of the Lord that we find continually in scripture. Thus man has ever showed how little he is to be accounted of. God has ever shown how worthy He is of all our trust. God made use of man’s infidelity to Him to bring in what was not only better then, but the type of that which will be infinitely good in its own way in the day that is coming. For all this furnished the beautiful shadow of a king after God’s heart. Nevertheless, this did not come in at once; for as the people were faithless towards the Lord, they did not ask the Lord to choose them a king—they preferred to choose one themselves. They chose one to their own still greater shame and hurt, and consequently, the first Book of Samuel is that which is naturally in regard to king Saul. The second Book is, at any rate, the type, and in a certain sense the reality, as far as a pledge was concerned, of that which was spiritual. The king after God’s heart is established on the throne of Israel in the person of David. This is the great subject of the second Book of Samuel, and I have made this prefatory observation in order that we may the better understand the connection of the two preceding books with those that come before us now.

It is clear that the Books of Kings are the natural consequence and successors, if I may so say, of the Books of Samuel; so much so that they are, in some copies of the scriptures, all classed as Books of Kings. But here we have David approaching his end; and the eldest of his sons that then survived—Adonijah—takes advantage of the king’s infirmity for his own ambitious purpose. There was no fear of God in this. For it was well known in the house of David, and in the land of Israel, that as God chose David from the midst of his brethren, so He had been pleased also to designate Solomon for the throne of Israel. Hence, therefore, it was not only human ambition, but we learn this very serious lesson for our souls—that the indulgence of what is fleshly assumes a graver character in us than in the people of God in their measure, of old; in us still more now. It was not mere ambition in Adonijah. In one totally ignorant of the word of God and the will of Jehovah for Israel, it would have been ambition. But if we have an incomparable blessing in the word of God, we have a greatly increased responsibility, and further, sin acquires a new character. The sin of Adonijah was not merely therefore ambition; not merely, even, rebellion against the king, against David; it was rebellion against Jehovah. It was a direct act of setting himself in contradiction of the declared and revealed purpose of God.

Now it is always of the greatest importance that we should bear this in mind, because we are so apt to look at things merely as they lie on the surface. When, for instance, Ananias and Sapphira were guilty of their sad sin in the church of God, how does the apostle Peter treat it? Not merely as a lie. They had lied to God. Why was this? Why was there in that lie something altogether beyond an ordinary lie, bad as a lie always is in a Christian; indeed, in any one? But why was it so especially and emphatically a lying to God? Because Peter, at any rate, believed that God was there; that it was not merely therefore the general moral feeling against a person saying what was false and deceiving another, nay, not merely that it was against God’s will and word, but it was an affront done in the very presence of God. And consequently, as the sense of the presence of God was so fresh and strong in the minds of all of them—in Peter above all—he, in the power of that Spirit who manifested God’s presence, pronounced the judgment—no doubt according to God’s guidance on the sin; and Ananias at first, his wife shortly after, breathed their last; a sin manifestly unto death. So that in the very earliest days of the church of God, we may say, the solemn truth had this voucher before them all, that God will not tolerate sin in that which bears the name of the Lord Jesus upon the earth. The very object of the church of God is to be an expression of the judgment of sin. We begin with that; we begin with Christ our Passover sacrificed for us; consequently, the lump must be a new one, as ye are unleavened—as ye are unleavened—not that ye may be unleavened, but ye are unleavened, and, therefore, the old leaven is to be purged out. Whatever might be the natural tendency, whatever might he the special wickedness (for what will not Satan attempt?) just because God has wrought in the might of His own grace, this furnishes further occasion to the devil. He takes advantage of the goodness of God to bring a fresh slight upon Him and to dishonor Him the more because of the greatness of His love. Accordingly, therefore, God showed on this very occasion, by His servant, His deep resentment of the dishonor that was done Him, and, as the consequence, the judgment of the man and his wife that had been guilty of this great offense.

So it was upon this occasion. Adonijah had presumed upon his father’s old age and infirmities, for he was stricken in years, and covered with clothes, but even thus found little comfort from it. And Adonijah accordingly at once takes his measures; but then there is more than this. There is another lesson that we have to gather from it; it is written for our instruction. His father had not displeased him at any time in saying, “Why hast thou done so?” A good man, a man after God’s own heart, a great man, too, for such, surely, was David; one of those rare men that have ever appeared in this earth, not only rare as a man, but remarkably blest of God and honored too. For who has furnished, as he has done, that which has filled the heart and expressed the feelings of saints of God from that day to this? I do not say that there was not the constant, inevitable (as far as man is concerned) blot. For indeed there was; not always of the same kind, but alas! we see in him, as we see too commonly, that where there was most conspicuous power and blessing and honor, there might be a most shameful evil against the name of the Lord. There is no preserving in any honor that God puts upon us; there is no possible way for any soul to be kept from sin against the Lord, except by his self-judgment and dependence; and therefore even, the more exalted a man is, the more liable is he to fall. There is no greater mistake, therefore, than to suppose that the signal honor of David, or the grace that had wrought in David, was any preserving power. Not so; rather the contrary. Where the eye is taken away from the Lord—and this was exactly the case with David—we are all liable to it. There is no security, I do not say as to eventual recovery and as to the preservative grace of the Lord in the end, but there is no security against dishonoring the Lord by the way, save in continually looking to Him.

Now David had failed greatly at home as well as abroad on particular occasions. Alas! at home in this very respect; he had a tender and a soft heart. He was one that greatly enjoyed the grace of God towards his own soul; he felt the need of it, but, instead of making him careful for the Lord, grace is very apt, if we are not watchful, to be severed from truth. In Christ they were perfectly combined; in the Christian they should be. It is what God looks for, expects from us. In David there was a failure, and there was a failure at home—very often a critical place for any of us. It was so, at any rate, with king David. This son of his seems to have been a special favorite—as bad a thing for the son as for the father. His father had not displeased him at any time in saying, “Why hast thou done so?” And if his father had not displeased him he must reap the bitter fruit; he must be displeased himself. The son would certainly displease the father if the father had not displeased the son. There was no greater failure in jealous care and in loving care, too; for, after all, to have been displeased for his good, for his reproof, would have been a deeper love—not so showy, not so apparently gracious. But we must distinguish between grace and graciousness. There was a deal of graciousness in David in all this. I do not think there was much grace, for it is all a mistake to suppose that grace is not watchful. It was just the want of grace. It was a father’s kindness, a father’s tenderness, but it was not grace. Had there been grace there would have been truth. Real grace always maintains the truth. The truth was not maintained in the relationship of David towards his son Adonijah. Adonijah lives therefore to be the shame and grief of his father. This was not merely to manifest his father’s fault before all Israel, to manifest his father’s failure before all the saints, all the people of God of all times, but, beloved brethren, for our profit, if we are wise.

Now it takes then a public shape. The son—the failure at least (to speak of it by the mildest name)—the failure that had long gone on at home bursts out abroad. Adonijah therefore confers with a suitable person. He confers with Joab, the man that had constantly used David for his own purpose. Joab reckoned now that David would be of very little use to him any longer. The opportunity seemed fair; he embraced it. Policy is always ruinous work in the end, at any rate among God’s people. There was no faith in Joab. He was a wise man after the flesh; he was an extremely political individual. Joab was a person who saw directly what could turn to his own profit, what offered an opportunity for his talents, for he was a man of great ability; and Joab now made up his mind. Adonijah was the man for him, so that they suited each other. Joab was remarkably adapted to Adonijah object, and at the same time Adonijah suited Joab’s policy. Had there been faith Joab had resisted Adonijah far more sternly than he once did David. This was the man that reproved David’s numbering the house of Israel, for a man that has not faith is sharp enough to see the failure even of a man of faith when he steps out of his own proper line. Joab well knew that the day was when David single-handed fought the battle of Israel. He, after the Lord’s most signal exaltation and blessing, he to be guilty of that which would have been poor work in any man of Israel, but most of all in David! he to be merely numbering the hosts of Israel as if they were the strength of the people, and not the Lord God! Therefore it was that foal) considered that the danger was too great for the result. He would not have minded the sin; he was afraid of the punishment, he was afraid of what it would involve. He had a sort of instinctive sense that the thing was wrong; that it was peculiarly wrong in David. He warned him therefore as we know. David would not be warned, and he fell into the snare completely.

But now the same man that could warn David could not warn himself. What lessons! beloved friends, at every turn. How wholesome for our souls! Of what importance it is that we should go on simply in the path of faith. Joab, then, confers with Adonijah. The priest, too, is found necessary as well as the commander-in-chief, and they follow Adonijah and help him. “But Zadok the priest, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada,” who was the true servant of the king’s purposes, not Joab—Joab had the name, the title, but Benaiah was the man that did the real work— “Benaiah the son of Jehoiada and Nathan the prophet,” the man that was the interpreter of the mind of God—these, as well as “Shimei, and Rei, and the mighty men which belonged to David, were not with Adonijah.” Adonijah might have his feast and invite all his brethren the king’s sons! For this is another thing too that we have to observe. A departure from the mind of God is always apt to be successful at first. Every step of unfaithfulness has a great result in the world where there is ability, where there is the marshalling of all that would act upon the mind, for no doubt this was well calculated. Joab would influence a certain set. Abiathar the priest would have his religious name and reputation. And above all there were the king’s sons all of them save Solomon, and “all the men of Judah,” as it is said, “the king’s servants.” It was a widespread, and it seemed, a prudently concocted rebellion. “But Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah, and the mighty men, and Solomon his brother, he called not.” And there is just where faith can rest—on God’s word. That was what gave the weight to Solomon; for there was nothing very particular known as to Solomon at this time, if indeed we leave God out. Yet that is really the root of all his blessing; for there is no vital blessing except where the call of God is. It matters not where his choice lies, the blessing of God is found, and the power of God too, with His election, and only there. And this was the very thing, that was left out. No, it was this that irritated Adonijah; for naturally he had superior claims if the flesh was the rule and not God. The flesh may govern for a while in the world, but God must rule among God’s people.

This then becomes known. The mother of Solomon goes to the aged king after conferring with the prophet; and there she showed that whatever might he her weakness her heart was right. She went to the one who, above all, could give the mind of God—to Nathan—the one that had himself reproved the king in the midst of his power, the one that had courage to speak for God whatever the consequence. She goes to Nathan. And allow me to say, beloved friends, as a matter of practical profit, we always show where our heart is by our confidence. Supposing a man is going wrong in his will. He is sure to take advice just in the very quarter where he ought not. He looks for advice where there will be weakness if he cannot count upon positive sanction—where at any rate there will be the feeblest protest, if not a measure of encouragement; for weakness is apt to lean on weakness. Whereas, where there is a single eye we are indeed conscious of our weakness, and ought to be; but if there is a single eye we want the will of God. “He that doeth the will of God abideth forever.” Whatever is not the will of God perishes, and ought to perish, for what are we sanctified for if it be not to do the will of God? It was the very character of Christ; it was what all His life consisted of. You might sum it up in this one word, He came to do God’s will. “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.” There is no one thing that more unvaryingly describes Christ than that very thing. Not miracles; He did not always do miracles. He did miracles in a comparatively small compass of His life. He was not always working atonement. No greater mistake, and no more injury done to the atonement itself, than to confound it with what is not atoning. He was not always suffering either, still less was He suffering in the same way, even when He did suffer. But He was always doing the will of God.

[W. K.]

(To be continued)

Lectures Introductory to 1 Kings: Chapter 12-15, Continued

2. Chapters 9-15. (continued)

Accordingly, this was the point that he assailed. “Can I not get him to eat bread and drink water?” So he pretends that he has a fresh message from God. What was the man of God about? Does God say and unsay? If it were so we should have no standard whatever, no certainty, and what would become of the poor children if there were such a thing. I know that unbelief constantly says it, and tries to make the Bible contradict itself, but then those who do so are guilty; and so the old prophet was guilty of lying— “he lied unto him.” Nevertheless, the man of God listened. He had sat under the oak and was found by the old prophet there. He listened to the old prophet, and parleyed with him. The mischief takes effect. The man of God returns, breaking the word of the Lord in his own person, but not without the hand of God stretched out against him. If the man of God was false to God, God would be true to the man of God and true in a most painful way; and mark, beloved friends, most righteously; but it is a righteousness according to God, for we in our folly would have thought, “Surely the old prophet is the man that is going to die for this.” Not so, but the man of God. For it is those who ought to know best, if they fail, that God chastises most. Do not wonder if the same things are done elsewhere and pass, apparently, without a chastening from God, or without any very direct exposure. These things cannot be done where the word of the Lord is the rule.

The man of God, accordingly, hears now the word, and this word was given him by the old prophet. “And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith Jehovah, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of Jehovah, and hast not kept the commandment which Jehovah thy God commanded thee, but camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place of the which Jehovah did say to thee, Eat no bread, and drink no water; thy carcass shall not come unto the sepulcher of thy fathers.” It is not that his spirit did not go to the Lord. We are sure it did, but, nevertheless, his body did not come to the sepulcher of his fathers. The Lord did deal with him, and dealt with the body that his spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord.

“And it came to pass, after he had eaten bread, and after he had drunk, that he saddled for him the ass, to wit, for the prophet whom he had brought back. And when he was gone, a lion met him by the way, and slew him: and his carcass was cast in the way, and the ass stood by it, the lion also stood by the carcass.”

What a testimony! It is not so that the lions usually behave. It was in itself a wonder. The body of the man of God lay there, the ass beside it, the lion on the other side, all perfectly peaceful. The work was done. God was just in it, and accomplished what He pleased, but the lion had no mission to do more, and there in the face of all men it was evident that the hand of God was there according to the word of God. “And when the prophet that brought him back from the way heard thereof, he said, It is the man of God.” He knew right well whose carcass was there. “It is the man of God who Was disobedient unto the word of Jehovah: therefore Jehovah hath delivered him unto the lion, which hath torn him, and slain him, according to the word of Jehovah, which he spake unto him.”

And so the prophet goes and finds the ass and the lion standing by the carcass. “The lion had not eaten the carcass, nor torn the ass. And the prophet took up the carcass of the man of God, and laid it upon the ass, and brought it back: and the old prophet came to the city, to mourn and to bury him. And he laid his carcass in his own grave; and they mourned over him, saying, Alas, my brother!”

What a history! How true and how full of instruction, but how solemn—solemn to think of the man of God, but, oh! what can we say of the old prophet? What can we say of those that tempt the men that are of God and that have been faithful in their mission, to depart from the word of the Lord, and draw a miserable consolation to themselves for the moment to countenance their own living in habitual disobedience, in habitual ease where the man of God was forbidden to eat of the bread or drink of the water? There is nothing that so hardens the heart, and there is nothing that so destroys the conscience, as habitual disobedience to the word of the Lord—not in gross sins, but in religious indifference. That was what marked the old prophet. He consoled himself that he had respect for the Lord—respect for the man of God. He was put to the proof. He was Satan’s instrument, and he brought out, no doubt, the weakness of the very vessel that God had made so strong against king Jeroboam. He knew he was utterly weak before the seductions of the old prophet. Oh, beware of such! Beware of those who use their age or their position, or anything else, to weaken the children of God in their obedience to the word of the Lord.

This, then, is the deeply interesting and instructive history of the true path of saints of God in the midst of that which is departed from scripture—departed from the Lord.

Another thing that we learn, too, is that after this thing Jeroboam returned not from his evil way. He could entreat the prophet, the man of God, and the man of God could entreat Jehovah, and not without an answer, but it had taken no effect upon his conscience. There is no good done unless conscience is reached in the presence of God. “He made again of the lowest of the people priests of the high places: whosoever would be consecrated.” It was not only Jeroboam’s will that was at work, but anybody’s will, everybody’s will. “Whosoever would, he consecrated him, and he became one of the priests of the high places. And this thing became sin unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the face of the earth.”

In the next chapter (14.), accordingly, we find the hand of God stretched out against the house of Jeroboam. Ahijah the son of Jeroboam fell sick, and Jeroboam well knew that there was reality in this man of God, so he bethinks himself of another—Ahijah the prophet. He tells his wife to go to Shiloh and to see Ahijah. “And Jeroboam said to his wife, Arise, I pray thee, and disguise thyself, that thou be not known to be the wife of Jeroboam; and get thee to Shiloh: behold, there is Ahijah the prophet, which told me that I should be king over this people.” She was to bring an honorary gift in her hand to present to the prophet, and Jeroboam’s wife did so; and it is written for our instruction.

Ahijah could not see for his eyes were set; they were fixed by reason of his age, but God gave him to hear and gave him to see, too, what was unseen. “And Jehovah said unto Ahijah, Behold the wife of Jeroboam cometh.” What was the folly of men! There was a man that could trust the prophet to tell him the future, and not to see through the disguise of his wife. How great is the folly of the wise, for jeroboam was a wise man after this world. But the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God, even as God’s wisdom is foolishness in their eyes. “And it was so, when Ahijah heard the sound of her feet as she came in at the door that he said, Come in, thou wife of Jeroboam; why feignest thou thyself to be another?” What a humiliation! “For I am sent to thee with heavy tidings. Go, tell Jeroboam, Thus saith Jehovah God of Israel, Forasmuch as I exalted thee from among the people, and made thee prince over my people Israel, and rent the kingdom away from the house of David, and gave it thee: and yet thou hast not been as my servant David, who kept my commandments, and who followed me with all his heart, to do that only which was right in mine eyes; but hast done evil above all that were before thee: for thou hast gone and made thee other gods, and molten images, to provoke me to anger, and hast cast me behind thy back: therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam.”

Abijah—he was not to recover. She was to get back to her husband and to her house. “And when thy feet enter into the city, the child shall die. And all Israel shall mourn for him, and bury him: for he only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, because in him there is found some good thing toward Jehovah God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam.” What grace of God—to produce some good thing toward Jehovah God of Israel in the house of the man that had wrought such things against Jehovah, and to show His mercy in taking him away from the evil to come! “And he shall give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam, who did sin.” And that was not all. “And who made Israel to sin.” And so it was. Jeroboam died and Nadab his son reigned in his stead.

“And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which Jehovah did choose out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there. And his mother’s name was Naamah an Ammonitess. And Judah did evil in the sight of Jehovah, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins which they had committed, above all that their fathers had done. For they also built them high places, and images, and groves, on every high hill, and under every green tree. And there were also sodomites in the land; and they did according to all the abominations of the nations.” And, accordingly, God let loose the king of Egypt against Rehoboam. He came up “and he took away the treasures of the house of Jehovah, and the treasures of the king’s house; he even took away all; and he took away all the shields of gold that Solomon had made,” so that Rehoboam was driven at last to shields of brass.

“Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? And there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all their days. And Rehoboam slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David. And his mother’s name was Naamah an Ammonitess. And Abijam his son reigned in his stead.”

On what follows I make a very few remarks in concluding this lecture. We have here a signal turning point in the history of Israel. In this chapter xv. we have a long and deep course of evil and of the Lord’s righteous ways in the house of Jeroboam. But first of all as to Abijam. “He walked,” it is said, “in all the sins of his father, which he had done before him: and his heart was not perfect with Jehovah his God, as the heart of David his father. Nevertheless for David’s sake did Jehovah his God give him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him, and to establish Jerusalem: because David did that which was right in the eyes of Jehovah.” And God forgets it, never. “And there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all the days of his life. Now the rest of the acts of Abijam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? And there was war between Abijam and Jeroboam. And Abijam slept with his fathers.”

And Asa succeeds, who reigns a long while in Jerusalem, and he does what was right in the eyes of Jehovah as did David his father. He took away the sodomites out of the land. “Asa’s heart was perfect,” or, undivided, “with Jehovah all his days. And he brought in the things which his father had dedicated, and the things which himself had dedicated, into the house of Jehovah, silver, and gold, and vessels.” We find the war continued, and Baasha king of Israel builds Ramah that he might not suffer any one to go out or come in to Asa king of Judah. But it was in vain. Benhadad, the king of Syria, hearkens to king Asa. A sad descent in his latter days—that the king of Judah finds his refuge in the king of Israel instead of in the Lord. Nevertheless, all goes, apparently, well for the moment, for God does not judge all at once. “It came to pass when Baasha heard thereof that he left off building.” The house of Asa is concluded here. “In the time of his old age he was diseased in his feet. And Asa slept with his fathers and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father.”

Nadab comes to his end, and Baasha conspires against him and “smote him at Gibbethon, which belonged to the Philistines: for Nadab and all Israel laid siege to Gibbethon. Even in the third year of Asa king of Judah did Baasha slay him, and reigned in his stead. And it came to pass, when he reigned, that he smote all the house of Jeroboam; he left not to Jeroboam any that breathed, until he had destroyed him, according unto the saying of Jehovah which he spake by his servant Ahijah the Shilonite: because of the sins of Jeroboam which he sinned, and which he made Israel sin, by his provocation wherewith he provoked Jehovah God of Israel to anger. Now the rest of the acts of Nadab, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel.”

So then in this very next chapter (xvi.) we find what I have already referred to the judgment following. The sovereignty passes out of the hand of Jeroboam. Zimri his captain rises up against him. Omri kills Zimri. Thus family after family takes possession of Israel, but God left Himself not without warning. It was in that very time that a great and solemn act was done according to the word of the Lord. A man dared to despise the word of Joshua, who had pronounced a curse upon him that would raise Jericho once more. It was not that Jericho was not inhabited, but to raise its walls as a city—to give it the character of a city—was despising God. The judgment was long stayed. A long time had intervened, but God had forgotten nothing. In these wicked days if he raises up one part the judgment is in the death of his eldest son, and if he raises up another part it is in the death of his youngest. His family paid the penalty of despising the word of the Lord. Oh, what a thing it is to us, beloved friends, to see how God maintained His word not only with the man of God, on the one hand, but with the open despiser and blasphemer, on the other. The Lord give us more and more to delight in the word of the Lord, and give us to cultivate a deepening acquaintance with every part of the word. Amen. [W. K.]

(To be continued)

Lectures Introductory to 1 Kings: Chapter 12-15

2.-CHAPTERS 9-15. (continued)

But further, “Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he offered upon the altar. So did he in Beth-el, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made; and he placed in Beth-el the priests of the high places which he had made. So he offered upon the altar.” For why not, Jeroboam? Solomon had done so. “So he offered upon the altar which he had made in Beth-el, the fifteenth day of the eighth month, even in the month which,” as Scripture says so graphically, “he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel; and he offered upon the altar, and burnt incense” (1 Kings 12:32, 33).

But God was not wanting to give a testimony even to this wicked king (13). “And, behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of Jehovah unto Beth-el: and Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense. And he cried against the altar in the word of Jehovah, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith Jehovah; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men’s bones shall be burnt upon thee” —the grand vindication of God against the wicked religion of Jeroboam! “And he gave a sign the same day, saying, This is the sign which Jehovah hath spoken.” That prophecy might await its accomplishment in due time, but there is a present sign given, as God constantly does—a present pledge of a future accomplishment. “Behold the altar shall be rent and the ashes that are upon it shall be poured out.” The moment jeroboam hears this he wants the man arrested. He puts forth his hand from the altar, saying, “Lay hold of him,” but the power of God was with the word of God. “And his hand, which he put forth against him, dried up, so that he could not pull it in again to him. The altar also was rent, and the ashes poured out from the altar, according to the sign which the man of God had given by the word of Jehovah. And the king answered and said unto the man of God, Intreat now the face of Jehovah thy God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored me again.”

Thus it is not only that we find the chastening of God’s people for their good, but the punishment of the wicked, at any rate, for their warning to break down their proud will; and so it was with Jeroboam. “The man of God besought Jehovah and the king’s hand was restored to him again, and became as it was before”; but it left the king as he was before. There was no bending of his heart to the Lord. Nevertheless the king could not but be civil, and so he says to the man of God, “Come home with me and refresh thyself, and I will give thee a reward.”

This brings out a principle of the deepest moment for you and for me, beloved friends. “And the man of God said unto the king, If thou wilt give me half thine house, I will not go in with thee, neither will I eat bread nor drink water in this place: for so was it charged me by the word of Jehovah, saying, Eat no bread, nor drink water, nor turn again by the same way that thou earnest.” And no wonder. Here was Jehovah slighted. Where? Among the Gentiles? That were no wonder. Among His own people—direct apostasy from the Lord God of Israel. Here was a man that went forth in the strength of the word of the Lord. Absolute separation was therefore enjoined, and eating and drinking in all ages have been most justly regarded as the sign of fellowship. It may be as in the most solemn way fellowship between God’s people and the Lord Himself at His own table; but even in other lesser ways eating and drinking are not so slight as man supposes. “With such an one no not to eat.” Who? A man that is called a brother. If an unbeliever hid you, even supposing the unbeliever might be the worst man in the world, you are free to go, provided you believe that God has a mission for you—an object. Supposing it was the man’s soul—nothing more important in its way—you are free to go to the very worst on the face of the earth if you can serve God by going. You had better be sure of that first. But there is another thing, and that is, suppose a man that is called a brother is living in wickedness, “with such an one no not to eat.” This does not mean the Lord’s table; it means the common ordinary table. It means that there is not to be a sign of such fellowship as this—fellowship in ordinary life—because one of the most important means of dealing with the conscience of one that is called a brother is not merely separation from him at the table of the Lord, but it is intended to govern all one’s ordinary social life with him. Not with the world; there is no greater folly than putting the world under discipline; but there is nothing more important in the church of God than walking in holy discipline, not merely at the table of the Lord, but at all other times.

I know that the world makes light of this, and counts it extremely uncharitable; and I am aware, too, that it has been so abominably perverted by popery that one can understand why most Protestants are rather alarmed at anything that is so close and trenchant; but nevertheless it does not become those that value the word of the Lord to shrink from the danger, and I think that there cannot be a doubt that what I am saying is correct as to the 5th of the 1St Corinthians. I know that some apply it to the Lord’s table. I will just give one or two reasons that are decisive. First, there would be no sense in speaking of a man that is called a brother only; no sense in saying that he is not a man of the world because there could not be a question about eating the Lord’s Supper with him. The question might arise with a brother, no doubt. But in speaking of an erring Christian “no not to eat” means that fellowship is not to take place in so little a thing as to eat. “Not so much as to eat,” meaning that it was a very small thing, and so it is a small thing to take an ordinary meal. Who could suppose the Holy Ghost treating the Lord’s Supper as a very little thing? Why there is nothing of more importance on earth, so that I am perfectly persuaded “no not to eat” means so small a thing as to eat, which at once shows that the meaning is in no way the Lord’s Supper. The Spirit of God never could treat that as a small matter. No, it means an ordinary meal.

I am not now speaking of relatives, because that modifies the thing. Supposing, for instance, a Christian person had a heathen father or mother. Well he is bound to show them reverence, even though they were heathens; and so with other relationships in life. Take, for instance, the wife of a man who perhaps was a despiser of the name of the Lord. She must behave properly as a wife. She is not absolved from that relationship. She is in it. Nov that she is in it she is bound to glorify God in it. But where the scripture speaks so peremptorily as I have been now describing, it is where there is freedom. This is jealousy for the Lord that we should not err in an act that might seem open to us, because it was a slight one. It is jealousy that we might not forget the glory of the Lord in seeking also to arouse the conscience of him who evidently has fallen into such grievous sin.

So, then, the man of God was put upon this as the point of honor for a man of faith. He was not to eat bread or drink water, or even to go the way he came. He was evidently to pass through the land, not to be as one that was even repeating his footprints in the path which he had trodden before, but he was to go through it as one that had a mission to perform, and to have done with it. This was God’s purpose in it. It was a most marked and solemn token, too, because it was meant to be a testimony, and therefore he was not to repeat it merely to the same persons who had seen it, but it was that others should see it too. This man of God was to pass through the land that was now apostate. And this, beloved friends, is of very great moment to us to bear in mind, as we have to do now with a most guilty state of Christendom. A very large part of Christendom is in a state of idolatry. Perhaps we do not see so much of it in these lands, yet it is increasing habitually, and it takes the shape of apostasy more particularly where there are Protestants; where those that came out of idolatry are going back to it in any form. It may begin in very trifling matters; it may show itself in little ornaments about the person, but what Satan means is not ornament but idolatry, and what Satan will accomplish by it is idolatry, and it is a very small thing which scripture shows most clearly that both the Jews, who are, apparently, the greatest enemies of idolatry in the world, and Christendom, who ought to have been altogether above idolatry, will go straight back into downright idolatry. Scripture is perfectly plain as to this, so the Lord told the Jews that the unclean spirit should return. That means the spirit of idolatry; and to return not as he formerly was alone—but return with seven other spirits worse than himself. Antichristianism—the worship of a man as God—will accompany the idolatry of the last days, and this in Israel. And neither more nor less than this is what is taught in the 2nd Epistle to the Thessalonians as to Christendom. For what is the meaning of apostasy, and what is the meaning of the man of sin that is to set himself up, and that is to be worshipped? Not so is it with the revelation which strongly speaks of their worshipping gods of gold and silver and brass that could not see and hear and so on. This is not the Jews only, but Gentiles also, and Gentiles that once bore the name of Christ and are so much the worse for that.

But although these are the extremer things, there are other things now, for this is what we are called upon as Christians. The world itself will see when things come out so plainly, though there will be no power to resist, for all the motives of man and all the prosperity of men and all the countenance of the world will depend upon persons acquiescing, and men will not endure the dissent from it, and those that give a testimony will be intolerable. And, therefore, beloved friends, it is now our place to judge these things (that will be) in their principles—not merely in the open result that will be by and bye. But there is the working now of what will lead to that, and the only security is Christ, and the way in which Christ practically works is in the obedience to the word of God.

This was what the man of God, then, was called to—the most decided separation from the apostate people, and this because being the people of God they were now idolaters. But “there dwelt an old prophet in Bethel” —ah! these old prophets are dangerous people. “Now there dwelt an old prophet in Beth-el; and his sons came and told him all the works that the man of God had done that day in Beth-el: the words which he had spoken unto the king, them they told also to their father. And their father said unto them, What way went he? For his sons had seen what way the man of God went, which came from Judah. And he said unto his sons, Saddle me the ass. So they saddled him the ass, and he rode thereon, and went after the man of God, and found him sitting under an oak.”

He was not told to sit under an oak. There was the beginning of it. There was his first failure, and there is no failure—there is no ruin—that takes place at one step. There is always a departure from the word of the Lord which exposes us to the power of the devil, and it is not first, I repeat, Satan’s power. It is first our own failure, our own sin, our own disobedience. He was sitting, then. He had been told that he was not to return by the same way that he came. He was evidently to get away as fast as possible. A man that is forbidden to eat and drink was not intended to sit under a tree. But this old prophet found him sitting under an oak, “and he said unto him, Art thou the man of God that earnest from Judah?” Nothing could be apparently a more thorough recognition of his mission and of his work from God. He was a servant of the most high God that had, no doubt, come to show them the right way. There was great respect. “And he said, I am. Then he said unto him, Come home with me, and eat bread. And he said, I may not return with thee, nor go in with thee: neither will I eat bread nor drink water with thee in this place. For it was said to me by the word of Jehovah, Thou shalt eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest.”

He does not now come in the same power. When he came it was not merely so. It is a stronger expression. But, however, I will not dwell upon that now. “Thou shalt eat no bread,” he repeats as before, “nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou earnest.” “He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of Jehovah saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him. So he went back with him, and did eat bread in his house, and drank water.” And there his testimony was broken—his sword utterly broken in his hand—for it was not merely a word that he was called to, but to deeds, and men will care little for your word if you do not show them by deed that you feel that word which you would fain press upon them. There is nothing that men will not bear you to say if you do not act it out; for this it is that always troubles, not only the world, but still more the old prophets—for they are the people that feel. The old prophet could not bear the fact, for if this was the case with the man of God where was the old prophet? And it is not said that he was a false prophet; and the issue of the story would rather seem to show the contrary. But the old prophet was determined to try the man of God and see whether he could not make him as unfaithful as himself, for that is what would have been a miserable salve to a bad conscience. There is nothing that so troubles Christians that are not walking with God as when there are any that do; and there is nothing so important as not merely the testimony, but the living testimony, the walking in what you say.

[W. K.]

(To be continued)

Lectures Introductory to 1 Kings: Chapter 17-22

1 Kings 17-22

The days were very dark in Israel. Not only rebellion. And rebellion, always serious, was peculiarly so in Israel, for there it was insubordination in a direct manner against not only God’s providence, but God’s government. That government, as no other, was the direct action through the family that God Himself had chosen to govern His people, and therefore the very fact of their being the people of God made their insubordination to be so much the more grievous. For there cannot be a more false maxim than to bring in the question of whether people are God’s children—to apply it to present circumstances—in order to mitigate the judgment of any evil thing that is done by them. In fact, the very thought is a pollution, and shows that souls must have departed from God, whenever the fact of the grace of God towards any person could be used in order to mitigate the gravity of their guilt against God. It is evident that if sin be always sin, the aggravation of the sin is the favor that God has shown the person that is guilty of it, and the nearer the relationship of the person that is guilty the greater the sin. Hence, even in Israel, God did not require the same sacrifice from one of the common people that He did from the ruler, nor did He look for that from a ruler which He did from the congregation as a whole; and the high priest, although he was only one man—the high priest’s guilt as being that of (in early days at any rate) the representative of Jehovah on the earth in Israel as king, became Israel’s guilt. The high priest’s sin had precisely this same effect, that is, it damaged the communion of the whole people, just as the whole people’s guilt would have interfered with, or affected, him. But now we see the very darkness and evil of the people of God—for here we have to do not with a family, not with His children in the true and Christian sense of the word; but we have to do with a people under the government of Jehovah—in having now set up, not the fullest form of apostasy from God, but that which was verging towards it—the first great departure from God, religiously as well as politically.

In the setting up of the calves of gold—founded upon antiquity, no doubt, but an ancient sin—having gone back as men will, not to ancient purity, but to ancient sin, so it was a divided allegiance, nominally to Jehovah. They had not yet cast Him off entirely, but really there was the worship of the golden calves. But dark as this day was, it only furnished the occasion for God to cause a new light to shine—the light of prophecy. It always gives a grand testimony for God, and if that light be always alight, when would it shine most? When the darkness was greatest. So then we find it coming out now in a very conspicuous manner, even in a richer and fuller form, as we know it afterward did when not merely the ten tribes of Judah were departing from God. Then we have the grand burst of prophecy in Isaiah and Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and all the rest, not to speak of the Minor Prophets. But here we have a peculiar form—prophecy not merely in word but in deed—the blending of miracle. For these are miraculous signs, as well as wonders. Indeed, this is a very common thing in the miracles that God causes to be done by His servants, that is, even what was done teaches. The facts speak out the mind of God, and so it was in the case of Elijah. He is introduced most abruptly. The occasion required it. It was high time for God to interfere. There is no preparation of the way. It was a question of God, and God accordingly works by His servant.

But this remarkable planting of prophecy on miracle is found, not in Judah, but in Israel. The reason is manifest. Judah maintained still, however guiltily, the word of the Lord. Israel had virtually cast it off. Accordingly, therefore, having sunk into the place of the faithless they would have signs offered to them, as the apostle Paul shows that miracles are for the unbelieving. Prophecy, in the Christian sense of the word, no doubt as such when compared and contrasted with miracles—prophecy is for the church. Thus you see we find that the double character remarkably suits the case. On the one hand it was Israel, and, consequently, there is prophecy; on the other hand it was Israel faithless or unbelieving, and consequently there were miracles, that is, there were signs to unbelievers at the same time that there was prophecy planted with them. So that the perfect wisdom and harmony of the dealings of God with the grand principles of truth that are found throughout the word of God, I think, must be apparent to any person who will consider what has been just brought before him.

Elijah, then, gives to Ahab a most solemn warning of the first great miracle which was itself a prophecy. He says, “There shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word.” He does not say merely, “According to Jehovah’s word.” Had it been simply according to Jehovah’s word it would have been simply a prophecy; but “according to my word” made it miraculous as well as prophetical. He was in the secret of Jehovah; he was an announcer of Jehovah’s mind, but more than that, he was the executor of Jehovah’s purpose; that is, there was prophecy in deed as well as in word, and this we have seen to be most suitable to the circumstance of the case.

The word of Jehovah: then, bids him flee. He has been bold in telling the king—the guilty king. But now that his testimony has been rendered, and that the fearful calamity that the restraint of dew or rain for years must be particularly in the east—that this was about to fall upon the people and to be connected indeed in a measure with the prophetic, and not merely with God, would have at once exposed him to the resentment of a wicked people and their king. God therefore bids His servant—for it must not be a mere resource, still less a question of timidity, but according to the word of Jehovah—to flee and hide himself by the brook Cherith. Yet even in this hiding-place he brings out the illustrious power of God, and His care for His servant, for God had many ways of watching over him. He chose one that suited His own glory. He says, “I have commanded the ravens to feed thee there” —birds which, as we all know, are remarkable for their voracity. These were the birds that were ordered to feed the prophet. “So he went and did according unto the word of the Lord, for he went and dwelt by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan. And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening.”

Undoubtedly, it was a solemn sign to Israel when it came to be known by them—that is, that the unclean should be rather the instruments of the action of God, the medium of caring for His prophet. It was, I say, a witness to them that they were even below what God had commanded to feed His prophet. It was not to be some particular person. Yet at this very time we know that there was one that God employed. But no, God would prove before all Israel how little His sympathies were with the people—how completely He was independent of all such action. He would care for His prophet Himself, and in a way suitable to His own glory. So after a season the brook dries up, but not before God had another purpose in hand. He sends him now to a place outside the land, to Zarephath, which belongs to Sidon. And how important this is, our Lord Himself teaches us, for in the 4th of Luke the Savior particularly selects this fact, as well as another that will come before us in the Second Book of Kings, as the witness of grace to the Gentile when the Jew had accounted himself unworthy of the government of Jehovah. Grace must work somewhere or other if the chosen people cast it out from them and will have none of it. God will not permit that brook to dry up, for the waters shall only flow in a fuller volume for the refreshment of weary souls elsewhere. And thus it is that God is always above the evil of man, and that the deeper the evil, God’s goodness only shines the more.

So the widow of Zarephath, or Sarepta, as it is called in the New Testament, becomes the favored one. She is met in great desolation. She is reduced to the lowest state. The prophet makes no small demands upon her pity, he puts her faith thoroughly to the test, and says what, if he had not been a prophet, and if it had not been a trial of faith, would have been a most cruel and selfish word, for with what face could a man, as a man, have asked her out of her little—her last meal—to provide first for him and then for herself and her son? But this was exactly the trial of it. God, when He gives a trial of faith, does not pare it down so as to spoil the very force of His blessing; but contrariwise. The greater the faith the more He tries, and if any one makes up his mind for slighting the practical cross in this world—the sense of what it is to have the dying of the Lord Jesus—that man will be tried in that very way. So this poor woman. She was in circumstances next door to death, and it is evident that God was far from giving her by the prophet, as He could easily have done, a barrel of meal to encourage her and the cruse to begin marvelously supplying oil. This would have spoiled the whole teaching of the Lord. Not so. Everything adds to the difficulty. This stranger-prophet that she never saw, never heard of before, is entirely unnoticed, and indeed, I think, we are warranted rather to gather that it was her first sight, and it may be, the first sound even of the prophet Elijah.

But still there is that, as in the word of God, so also in the prophet of God—in a man of God that gives confidence where there is faith. Very likely it will shock and provoke the flesh; very likely it will give ground for unbelief there, for you will find this to be most true that the very same things which are a support to faith are the stumbling-block to unbelief; but however that may be, God in no wise softened the trial, but brought it out to her in all its apparent harshness and difficulty. But He strengthens the heart to meet the trial, and we must never leave out this, which does not appear, and it is one of the beautiful features of the Old Testament.

Here we get the facts. The New Testament shows us the key that is behind. The New Testament lets us see every now and then, as, for instance, in this very case. There was the electing grace of God that wrought in this widow just as in the case of Naaman the Syrian. There were many widows in Israel; God chose this one outside Israel. There were many lepers; it was not there that the grace of God was running, but it was towards the Syrian—towards the great captain of their great enemy, for Syria was, at this time, perhaps their greatest foe. But if grace works God will prove that it is grace. He will show that there is no ground for acceptancy which indeed would deprive it of its character of grace—if there was any ground to look for it. Well then, the widow acts upon the word of the prophet, and not without a solemn word which he received. “For thus saith the Lord God of Israel, The barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail, until the day that the Lord sendeth rain upon the earth. And she went and did according to the saying of Elijah: and she, and he, and her house, did eat many days.”

But there was a greater trial still, for all this was either the sustenance of the prophet or the sustenance of those who were dying, as it were, from the famine, along with the prophet. But now comes another thing—death. And it is evident that there are no discharges for man in that war. There a man is utterly foiled. There, at least, he must feel the vanity of his pretensions. And so it came to pass that God would give a witness of that. It was manifestly above man, for soon the only son of the widow fell sick and died; and this searches the woman’s conscience, and she thinks of her sins and she spreads it out before the prophet—the lamentable, irreparable loss, as she supposed, of her son. But he asked for the dead body and he cries to Jehovah, and he stretches himself upon the child three times—a most unmeaning thing without the Lord. But the Lord would give the sign of interest, of tender interest, and the use of means even to any other, but not so with Him. We know still that He is pleased to use according to His own power, and I must make a little remark upon this.

There is a common idea that prevails, even among Christians, that miracles mean the setting aside of the natural laws of God. They mean nothing of the sort. The natural laws of God—the laws that He has been pleased to stamp upon creation—are not altered by a miracle. They go on all the same. Men are brought into the world; men die. There is not an alteration of that. That goes on. What a miracle is, is not the reversal of what are called these natural laws, but the introduction of the power of God to withdraw from the operation of them in a particular case. The laws remain precisely the same as before. The laws are not altered, but an individual is withdrawn from the operation of those laws. That is another thing altogether, and this is the true and only true application of the thought. This alone is the truth as to a miracle. So in this present case there was no question at all about setting aside the ordinary operation of death. God acted according to His own sovereign will, but the same sovereign will that orders the creation and deals with each soul in it was pleased to withdraw a particular person for His own glory. This does not interfere, I repeat, with the ordinary course of nature, except in that one particular case or those cases where God has been pleased to do it. And in this instance Jehovah heard the voice of Elijah, and the soul of the child came into him again, and be revived; and Elijah takes him and gives him to his mother, who at once owns the God of Israel.

[W. K.]

(To be continued)

Lectures Introductory to 1 Kings: Chapter 18

1 Kings 17-22. (Continued)

In the next chapter (17), however, we have Elijah called to show himself to Ahab, and now comes the great testimony to the guilt of the people. The restraint of all that would refresh the earth from the heavens had passed over the people—a most solemn sign, for it was not merely water turned into blood, or various blows which fell upon the earth, but the very heavens were withdrawn from all the kindness of which they are the medium—from all the refreshment that God is pleased to give this earth. This was a far more solemn thing than anything that had been done in previous days, even with a stranger-people—with an enemy. But now the time was come for God to terminate this chastisement, and Elijah comes to show himself to the king.

“And there was a sore famine in Samaria, and Ahab called Obadiah which was the governor of his house” —who, singular to say, “feared Jehovah” —feared Him “greatly.” So wondrous are the ways of the Lord, and so little are we prepared; for the last place in this world where we would have looked for a servant of the Lord would have been the house of Ahab. Yet so it was. Do we not well to enlarge our thoughts? We should take in the wondrous ways of God’s wisdom, as well as of His goodness. God had a purpose there, for this comes out. “It was so, when Jezebel cut off the prophets of Jehovah, that Obadiah took an hundred prophets, and hid them by fifty in a cave, and fed them with bread and water.” And why I make the remark, beloved friends, is this, that as there was a failure of Elijah, it is apt to be our failure. We are constantly in danger of forgetting what is not before our eyes. We are in danger of failing to identify ourselves with that which God is doing outside of what, I have no doubt, is the more honorable path; for it was a poor place for a servant of Jehovah to be in the house of Ahab, though it was a great honor, for God gave him to feed these prophets by fifty in a cave even in the face of Jezebel.

But Ahab now says to Obadiah, “Go into the land, unto all fountains of water, and unto all brooks.” This gives occasion to Obadiah’s meeting Elijah. Elijah bids him go and tell the king that he was there. Obadiah declined. “What have I sinned?” said he, for indeed it troubled him to appear to disobey a prophet— “What have I sinned, that thou wouldest deliver thy servant into the hand of Ahab to slay me? As Jehovah thy God liveth, there is no nation or kingdom, whither my lord hath not sent to seek thee.” We can understand therefore why Elijah was fed by ravens. “And when they said, He is not there; he took an oath of the kingdom and nation, that they found thee not. And now thou sayest, Go, tell thy lord, Behold, Elijah is here. And it shall come to pass, as soon as I am gone from thee, that the Spirit of Jehovah shall carry thee whither I know not; and so when I come and tell Ahab, and he cannot find thee, he shall slay me: but I, thy servant, fear Jehovah from my youth.” And so he tells of what he had done to the prophets. Elijah, however, says: “As Jehovah liveth, before whom I stand, I will surely show myself unto him to-day.”

So Obadiah, with this pledge of the prophet, goes and tells his master; and Ahab meets Elijah. He meets him as wicked men do. He throws the blame of all the trouble not upon the sinner, but upon the denouncer of the sin; not upon himself, the most guilty man in Israel, but upon the servant of Jehovah. And Elijah answers, “I have not troubled Israel” —answers the king of Israel who taxes him with it “but thou” —for this was the truth— “but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of Jehovah, and thou hast followed Baalim. Now therefore send, and gather to me all Israel unto mount Carmel, and the prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets of the groves four hundred, which eat at Jezebel’s table.” It was a challenge given—a fair and open challenge by the prophet. It was to be a question between God and Baal, and this was to be decided by Elijah on the one hand and these prophets on the other. So Ahab sends to all, and all gather together. “And Elijah came unto all the people and said, “How long halt ye between two opinions? if Jehovah be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word. Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of Jehovah; but Baal’s prophets are four hundred and fifty men. Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under; and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under; and call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of Jehovah: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.”

And so it was done. Elijah tells the prophets to choose the bullock, and dress it first; and so they do. “And they called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made. And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked. And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them. And it came to pass, when midday was past, and they prophesied until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice” —for Elijah would make them feel their folly and their wickedness— “that there was neither voice nor any to answer, nor any that regarded. And Elijah said unto all the people, Come near unto me. And all the people came near unto him. And he repaired the altar of Jehovah that was broken down. And Elijah took twelve stones,” for there must be the testimony always of the full people of God. No surer mark will you find throughout the whole of the Old Testament of the line and direction which the Spirit of God gives of what is according to Himself than this, that even though it were a man isolated as no man ever more felt himself to be than Elijah, nevertheless, that man’s heart was with the whole people of God. Therefore it was not merely ten stones to represent the actual number of the tribes that he was immediately concerned with, but twelve. That is, his soul took in the people of God in their whole twelve-tribe nationality as God’s people, for faith never can do less than that. Never can it content itself with a part; it must have all God’s people for God. This is what, at any rate, his soul desired, and this is what his faith contemplated, and on this the judgment was to take its course.

“And Elijah took twelve stones according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob unto whom the word of Jehovah came, saying, Israel shall be thy name: and with the stones he built an altar in the name of Jehovah; and he made a trench about the altar, as great as would contain two measures of seed. And he put the wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid him on the wood, and said, Fill four barrels with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice, and on the wood.” There must be the fullest proof here that, if on the one hand, in trying the poor Gentile widow there was no weakening of the trial, so still less where God’s own honor was concerned, and the disproof of Baal’s pretentions. Therefore it was not anything that would feed the fire, but rather put it out if it were fire from man. “Fill four barrels with water and pour it on the burnt sacrifice and on the wood. And he said, Do it the second time. And they did it the second time. And he said, Do it the third time. And they did it the third time.” There was therefore the fullest witness on his part.

“And the water ran round about the altar; and he filled the trench also with water. And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near” —not merely the people to him, but the prophet to the Lord. He drew near to that which was to be the witness of His power, of His testimony, of His own name and glory— “and said, Jehovah God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word.” How blessed! It was a secret between God and His prophet, but it was a secret divulged now before there was any answer—that all the profit of the answer might belong to the people and that the word of the Lord might he enhanced and glorified in their eyes.

“Hear me, O Jehovah, hear me, that this people may know that thou art Jehovah God, and that thou hast turned their heart back again. Then the fire of Jehovah fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, Jehovah, he is the God; Jehovah, he is the God. And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.” For we must remember, and it is an important thing in looking at all these operations of the ancient testimonies of God to understand it, that a prophet had his warrant for what he did from God—that not only the word of the Lord, but the power of God that accompanied it, was his warrant. Therefore we do not find God and the prophet at all acting according.to the mere letter of the law. It was not that the law was set aside any more than, as I said before, the natural laws of creation are set aside in the case of a miracle. Prophecy did not set aside the law of the Lord, but prophecy was the special intervention of the law of the Lord and the ways of the Lord without any setting aside of the law. The law had its course where the law was owned, but these prophets who were acting thus were where the law was not owned, and, accordingly, there God acted according to His sovereignty. It was therefore no infraction of the law. The law had its own place according to its own proper sphere, but where it was disowned and where there was idolatry set up instead, there God acted according to His own sovereignty.

Accordingly, it was no question of going up to the temple at Jerusalem to offer a sacrifice. It was no question of calling in the priests or anything of that kind; it was enough that God warranted, and the power of God that accompanied was the sanction of His warrant to this prophet.

And what could have been more so than the fire of Jehovah coming down even to the altar, licking up all the water in the trench? And it is the more remarkable, too, that this very character of miracle is what Satan will imitate in the latter day. The same power that God used, either in the days of Elijah when it was a question of Jehovah, or in the days of the Lord Jesus, when it was a question of Messiah, will be imitated by the devil, and will deceive the world, for fire is to come down from heaven in the sight of men in the latter day. It is not said, really, but, “in the sight of men.” As far as men can see it will be the fire of Jehovah. It will not be really so.

But this will completely ensnare men, who will then, more than ever, be on the watch for material proofs and present instances of the power of God.

The whole story of evidences will have been exploded as a fable, and men will no longer attach any importance to the record of what they consider the myths of Scripture! Indeed, they have come to that already. These very facts that carry the stamp of divine truth upon their face are now treated as the mythology of Israel, just as the miracles of the New Testament are treated as the mythology of Christianity. And the one effort of learning on the part of men of the world, now is, in general, to account for it—to trace their connection with the fables of the heathen in one form or another. Clearly all this is dissolving, as much as possible, confidence in the word.

And then will come something positive, not merely a negative destruction of the true testimony of God, but the positive appearance before their eyes of the very same power. Thus man between these two forces will fall a victim to his own folly and to the power of Satan.

But there is more than this. Elijah now says to Ahab, “Get thee up, eat and drink, for there is a sound of abundance of rain.” Yes, but no ear of man on earth heard that sound but Elijah’s. “The secret of Jehovah is with them that fear him.” And Elijah goes up, as well as the king, and casts himself down upon the earth, puts his face between his knees and sends his servant to look. He had heard the sound, but he wanted to get the testimony of the sight from his servant. His servant goes, and looks, but sees nothing. “And he said, Go again, seven times. And it came to pass at the seventh time” —patience must have its perfect work in every case— “that he said, Behold, there ariseth a little cloud out of the sea, like a man’s hand.” It was enough. Elijah said, “Go up, say unto Ahab, Prepare thy chariot, and get thee down, that the rain stop thee not. And it came to pass in the mean while, that the heaven was black with clouds and wind, and there was a great rain. And Ahab rode, and went to Jezreel. And the hand of Jehovah was on Elijah; and he girded up his loins and ran before Ahab to the entrance of Jezreel.” [W. K.]

(To be continued)

Lectures Introductory to 1 Kings: Chapter 19

1 Kings 17-22. (continued)

Now that the judgment had taken its course, he was willing and ready to be a servant of the king. But if Elijah was willing to serve the king, and did so as no man could have served him without the power of God strengthening him—running and keeping up with his chariot at full speed—Ahab was not prepared to serve the Lord one wit the more. “And Ahab told Jezebel all that Elijah had done, and withal how he had slain all the prophets with the sword. Then Jezebel sent a messenger unto Elijah, saying, So let the gods do to me, and more also, if I make not thy life as the life of one of them by to-morrow about this time. And when he saw that, he arose, and went for his life, and came to Beersheba, which belongeth to Judah, and left his servant there” (chap. 19.).

What! Elijah? Elijah? What is man? What is he to be accounted of? Elijah quails not at the message of the Lord. There was no quailing there, but there is at this message of Jezebel’s! And thus it is that the greatest triumphs of faith often precede the greatest failure; for, beloved friends, it is not triumph that keeps a man, it is dependence. There is nothing that has preservative power but self-emptiness, which looks to God and His resources. And this, we see, Elijah did not now, for though he was a wondrous man he was a man, and here the point is not his wonders but that he was a man, and a man that listens to Jezebel instead of looking to God. What was she to be accounted of? What was he now to be accounted of? No, there is not one of us that is worthy of one single thing apart from the Lord Jesus, and it is only just so far as we can, because of our confidence in Jesus and in His grace, afford to be nothing, that we are rich, and then we are rich indeed. If content to be so poor as to be only dependent upon the Lord we are truly rich. Elijah trembles for himself. There was the secret of it. He could not tremble for God, and he was not thinking of God, but of Elijah. No wonder therefore he shows what Elijah was—what Elijah was without God.

He went a day’s journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a juniper tree, and he requested for himself that he might die. It is not but what we see the man of God, but still the man who was tired of life. That was not a feeling of faith. There is very often much more faith in being willing to live than in wishing to die. Wishing to die is not the proof of faith at all. I grant you that no man that knows what death is, that knows what judgment is, that knows what sin is, that knows what God is, could wish to die unless he knew the Savior. But having known the Savior we may wince under the trial to which we are exposed in this world. Elijah did, and he wished to die, wished to get out of the trial—certainly a most unbelieving wish. The Lord never did. And there was the perfection of it. If the Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane had wished to die it would have been the same failure. It could not be, and God forbid such a thought, but on the contrary the perfection of the Lord Jesus was that He did not wish to die— “Not my will, but thine be done.” On the contrary, He felt death, and He felt the gravity. I grant you there was all the difference between the death of the Lord Jesus Christ and that of any other. In any other case death is a gain. Death to a believer is gain, but still we ought not to wish to gain till the Lord’s time comes for it. We ought to wish to do His will, the only right wish for a saint. He said, “It is enough; now, O Jehovah, take away my life.” He was impatient. “Take away my life, for I am not better than my fathers.” Yet he was running away from Jezebel. He was vexed; he was unhappy. He now fails I after his testimony. He was miserable now, but after all he wanted not to die when Jezebel wanted to take his life, and now that he is here he wants to die.

So “as he lay and slept under a juniper tree, behold, then an angel touched him, and said unto him, Arise and eat. And he looked, and, behold, there was a cake baken on the coals, and a cruse of water at his head. And he did eat and drink, and laid him down again. And the angel of Jehovah came again the second time, and touched him, and said, Arise and eat; because the journey is too great for thee. And he arose, and did eat and drink, and went in the strength of that meat forty days and forty nights.” There are those that would try to throw a question upon this one transaction on the ground of its similarity to Moses, and even to the blessed Lord; but I meet all that in the face and say they are not similar—not one of them. They are each of them different. They are each exactly constituted to the particular case, and if we lost one we should have a positive gap in the scheme of divine truth. And what is the difference? Why in Moses’s case there was no eating at all; no eating and drinking. It was the presence of Jehovah—the enjoyed and applied presence and power of Jehovah that proved its power of sustaining, even if the people must learn that it was not with bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Surely God’s own presence had not less power to sustain the man that was in it in the way that the children of Israel were not, than the manna that came down from Him.

[W.

(To be continued)

Lectures Introductory to 1 Kings: Chapter 3-8

Thus we see that although Solomon was not the man of blood that David was, and was not the conquering king of Israel, he was a type of the Lord Jesus when He goes forth as a man of war, which He surely will, and when He executes vengeance upon His adversaries, when He will bring them before Him and have them slain before Him, as He says in the parable. He is the type of the execution of righteous vengeance. There will be great examples made—not merely the awful carnage of the day of Edom, but there will be also the tremendous judgment that will cast even into eternal fire—that punishment which is prepared for the devil and his angels; that is, there will be what far more than fills up the picture, for, indeed, the anti-type is much greater than the type. Nor is it confined to Adonijah, when Solomon further acts by thrusting out Abiathar and accomplishes the word of the Lord that was given to Eli, for there it was that the wrong family—not Phineas, but the other line that had usurped the place of Phineas—crept into the high priesthood, now restored according to the word of the Lord. The priesthood in the house of Phineas was to be an everlasting priesthood. All was in confusion for a considerable time. Solomon now is acting righteously, and is ruling in equity according to his measure. Further, Joab at once feels the treatment. He sees that the hand of righteous power is stretched out, and his conscience smites him. He pronounces his own judgment when he turns away and flees to the tabernacle of Jehovah, and vainly lays hold on the horns of the altar. It was told king Solomon, but he simply bids Benaiah execute judgment upon him. Nor this only. The story of Shimei comes before us, and as Joab suffered the due reward of his deeds, Shimei broke a decided fresh lease, if I may so say, which the king gave him. He violated the terms of it, and came under judgment by his own manifest transgression. Thus, righteous judgment executed by the king on the throne of David is the evident intimation of this second chapter.

In the third chapter we have another scene. Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh king of Egypt. Alas! one cannot say that the righteousness in this is maintained; but how wonderful that God should make a thing that was wrong in itself to be a type of what is perfectly good in Him, for, as we know, there is no way in which the Lord has manifested His grace so much as in His dealings with the Gentiles. However, we cannot say that this was according to the mind of God for a king of Israel. “He took Pharaoh’s daughter, and brought her into the city of David, until he had made an end of building his own house, and the house of Jehovah.” And I do not think, beloved friends, that that order is without its teaching. It was not until he had built Jehovah’s house and his own. He was thinking of his own first. No wonder, therefore, that he was not so particular about Pharaoh’s daughter. We are never right when the Lord’s house is not before our own. “Only the people sacrificed” —for this, alas! accompanied it too. “Like king like people.” “Only the people sacrificed in high places, because there was no house built unto the name of Jehovah, until those days.”

Now I do not mean to say that that had the same flagrant character that it had afterward.

We must always remember that it was where Jehovah had placed His name that they were there, and there only, to sacrifice to the Lord. But that was not yet fully, or, at any rate, publicly established; it was about to be. There was to be the house of Jehovah. This would be the public witness of that great truth before all Israel; but that house was not yet built. Therefore, although it might have been a failure, still it was a failure for which the Lord showed His tender mercy and compassion to His people until His own power had established the visible memorials of His worship; and then to depart to the high places became a matter that at once drew down the judgment of the Lord. Now here is an important thing to consider, because it looks plausible in an after day to say, “Well, here you observe people sacrificing in the high places without any condemnation; and, therefore, evidently the Lord had pity for His people at this time, and did not treat it at all in the same way as afterward.” Thus the wicked heart turns the mercy of God—His forbearance in a day of difficulty and of trial—into an excuse for sin, when there is no excuse possible. So it is that men habitually divorce the word of God from God’s object. The king, it is said, “loved Jehovah, walking in the statutes of David his father: only he sacrificed and burnt incense in high places.” His father had not done so. “And the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there; for that was the great high place: a thousand burnt offerings did Solomon offer upon that altar.”

We have noticed elsewhere, I am sure, most of us, how remarkably David sheaved his sense of what was due to God, because he is found before the ark. The ark was what attracted. This was the more remarkable, because the ark is not at all the public link with God like the great altar. The great altar was in the court; the great altar was before every eye; the great altar was the place where offerings were. The ark was, comparatively, a little thing, and it was unseen. It was purposely behind the curtain veils. It was a matter, simply and purely, for faith, as far as that could be for an Israelite. It was his confidence that there was where Jehovah’s glory was most of all concerned. That was what drew king David. Not so much king Solomon—not so characteristically. We are told this particularly in contrast with his father. This you observe in the chapter where the tendencies to departure first begin to be perceived. Affinity with Pharaoh’s daughter is one; sacrifice at the high places is another.

With his father it was not so. In Gibeon, however, Jehovah appeared. And how great the grace of God—that although it is here put in contrast with his father’s deeper and higher faith in Gibeon Jehovah appears! What a God was He! He appeared to Solomon in a dream by night and asked what He was to give him—nay, told him to ask—and Solomon answers with great beauty to the call of the Lord, for he asks what would enable him to govern His people rightly. He asks neither length of days, nor wealth, nor honor; but wisdom, and wisdom that he might govern Israel; and the God that gave him this wisdom, more than to any man that ever reigned, failed not in any other thing, for, as we know, there was none outwardly so blest as the king, none outwardly so renowned as this very king Solomon. I do not say that there was not a very deep and painful departure, as indeed the spirit that overlooked the ark and that went to the high places, must have its fruit in the latter end. For, beloved friends, the failure that is found at the beginning of our Christian career—to apply it now to our circumstances—does not fail to show itself still more as time passes over, unless it be thoroughly judged and departed from. A little seed of evil bears no small crop. I speak now of the seed as buried. The seed that is sown, not merely that exists, but what is allowed and covered up will another day rise up and hear bitter fruit.

So it was with Solomon, and although this does not appear for a time, it does not fail to appear afterward. But in the same chapter we have a striking proof of his heart carrying the stamp of God’s power along with it in the case of the two women who claimed the living child. I need not dwell upon it. He perfectly understood the heart of man; David entered into the heart of God. There was the difference. Solomon understood the heart of man well—no man better; no man so well; and God has employed him as the vessel of the deepest human wisdom that even the word of God contains. I call it human, because it is about human affairs. It is about the heart; it is about the things in the earth; but still, it is divinely given wisdom on human topics. This was just as well suited for king Solomon, as the Book of Psalms that lets the heart of the saint into the understanding of the heart of God (according, of course, to a Jewish measure) was suited to David. That is the difference. The man after God’s heart was just the one to write the Book of Psalms; the man that so well knew the heart of men and women was just the person to judge in this case between the two contending mothers, as they pretend to be.

Here then Solomon was king over all Israel, and, accordingly, the honor and glory and administration of his kingdom come before us in chapter iv., as well as his great wisdom, wealth, and glory.

In the fifth chapter we see the action, not by affinity, but by alliance, with the Gentiles, and how they become the servant of his purposes; nay, we can say even God’s purposes for the earth, as far as Solomon was the servant of them. This is given in a very interesting manner in this fifth chapter.

In the sixth chapter we see the fruit. The temple of Jehovah is built the temple for His praise and glory, and this is described with great care in that chapter. I shall not dwell upon the details of it at this present time. They would rather take me away from the great purpose of giving the sketch that I propose.

In the seventh chapter we have the house. “He built also the house of the forest of Lebanon.” We have the difference between what was connected with Solomon in contrast with that which was for Jehovah; and we find one remarkable fact, too, that long as he was upon Jehovah’s house, he spent nearly twice as long time upon his own. It is quite evident, therefore, what Solomon was coming to. It might be slow, but the fruit was yet to appear—bitter fruit of self. Further, we find that Solomon assembles all the elders of Israel, and the heads of the tribes, and the temple is consecrated. And here we have what is incomparably better and deeper than all—the manifest accompanying proof of God’s presence. It was not merely that Jehovah’s throne was filled by a man—by king Solomon—His throne upon the earth, as He deigns to call it, but Jehovah took a dwelling-place. Jehovah deigned to come down in a manifest way to dwell in the house that Solomon built. There was no greater act now known in Israel, and this is brought before us in a deeply interesting manner. The priests brought in the one great object that was unchanged. In all the other vessels there was, no doubt, the old type of the tabernacle somewhat changed and enlarged for the temple. The ark was the same. How beautiful when we think of One who is emphatically the same yesterday, to-day, and forever, and there was no one thing that more represented Him than the ark. The ark was brought in and the staves were drawn out, and there was nothing in the ark, now, save the two tables of stone which Moses put there at Horeb when Jehovah made the covenant with the children of Israel. In short, what was so strikingly found in the ark before is now absent. We see nothing now of that which had been so strikingly the comfort of the people of God in the wilderness. The law, and the law alone, remained. It was not that which was meant for maintaining them in grace through the wilderness. The reason is plain. What was now manifested was the outward kingdom—what will be when Satan is bound—when the Lord reigns, when the power of evil is checked. But if there is not an emblem of grace any longer found in the ark, there is the expression of the authority of God, because the kingdom will be precisely that. The presence, therefore—the combined presence of the tables of stone in the ark—is just as striking as the absence of the emblems of grace and priesthood which are now, as you know, the great force of preserving the people and bringing them through the wilderness. Aaron’s rod that budded was just as strikingly suited for the ark in the wilderness as only the law was suited for the ark in the land and in the temple—the house of Jehovah.

But then Solomon breathed a most striking prayer to God suitable to the new circumstances of the king, and this fills the rest of the chapter.

One thing, however, I must say a word upon.

Even he puts it entirely on a conditional ground. He does not fall back upon unconditional grace. He falls back simply upon government. I do not doubt that this was all according to God. It would have been presumptuous, and, indeed, it would have been beyond his measure, to have pleaded unconditional grace. This is only done fully when Christ Himself is seen. When we know Christ and have Christ, we dare not ask any other ground than unconditional grace for our souls. For our walk we must own and how to the righteous government of the Lord; but for our souls for eternity we dare not have any other foundation than the absolute, sovereign, unconditional grace of God.

Now Solomon has no thought of this. It is governmental dealings. It is conditional upon subjection, and accordingly, this is carried out throughout the chapter. But the end of it all is this—that the king is seen. And here is another point that I may draw attention to—the king is seen in a most interesting position: he offered sacrifice before Jehovah. “And Solomon offered a sacrifice of peace offerings.” How remarkable! The king, not a priest, now. How is that? It is exactly what is predicted in the beginning of the first of Samuel—that it would not be the anointed priest now, merely, but another anointed. He should raise up a faithful priest before Jehovah’s anointed. Zadok is the type of that faithful priest, but then here is another anointed—a greater anointed. In the days before the kings, the great anointed one was the priest; but when the king was established he takes the superior place—the evident type of Christ. The priest retires into a secondary place. The king, accordingly, not only is then the highest in the throne, but he is even the highest in point of sacrifice. It is he that sacrifices before all Israel. So, it is said, “Solomon offered a sacrifice of peace offerings, which he offered unto Jehovah, two and twenty thousand oxen, and an hundred and twenty thousand sheep.”

It is connected with himself; and even more, too, we find. He drove, as we saw, an unfaithful priest out of the priest’s office. He takes the superior place over the priest. “The same day did the king hallow.” It is all connected with the king now. It is not the priest that hallows. The priest might be the instrument; I am not denying that for a moment, but it is all connected with the king. “The same day did the king hallow the middle court that was before the house of Jehovah” (as he had dedicated the house of Jehovah) “for there he offered burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and the fat of the peace offerings: because the brazen altar that was before Jehovah was too little to receive the burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and the fat of the peace offerings. And at that time Solomon held a feast, and all Israel with him, a great congregation” —the type of the great gathering of the latter day when the Lord Jesus, as the true Son of David, will more than accomplish all that is given here. He did so seven days and seven days, that in the mouth of these two witnesses every word should be accomplished—the duplicate witness of perfectness. “On the eighth day he sent the people away; and they blessed the king, and went unto their tents joyful and glad of heart for all the goodness that Jehovah had done for David his servant, and for Israel his people.”

I shall not prolong the subject now, but I hope in a future lecture to give the end, and, I must say, the sorrowful end of king Solomon, as well as the continued failure of those that succeed.

[W. K.]

(Continued from page 246)

(To be continued)

Lectures Introductory to 1 Kings: Chapter 9-15, Continued

2.—Chapters 9-15 (continued)

I do not mean that the mischievousness of either Hadad or of Rezon was only when Solomon became an idolater, but I do draw attention to the fact that the Holy Ghost reserves the account of the vexation they caused the king till then. It is put by the Spirit Himself as a direct chastening of his idolatry. And these were not the only ones. They were external. Solomon might say, “Well, we cannot expect anything better. They have private grudges, or national grudges, against our family.” But “Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, an Ephrathite,” was no foreigner, nor was it a question of avenging the supposed wrongs that were done to his family or his race. Not so; he was “Solomon’s servant whose mother’s name was Zeruah, a widow woman, even he lifted up his hand against the king. And this was the cause that he lifted up his hand against the king; Solomon built Millo, and repaired the breaches of the city of David his father. And the man Jeroboam was a mighty man of valor: and Solomon seeing the young man that he was industrious, he made him ruler over all the charge of the house of Joseph. And it came to pass at that time when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the way; and he had clad himself with a new garment; and they two were alone in the field; And Ahijah caught the new garment that was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces; and he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, Behold I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee.”

What an announcement—ten out of the twelve tribes to Jeroboam, the servant. “But he shall have one tribe,” for so God calls it, “for my servant David’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel; because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father. Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand; but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant’s sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes. But I will take the kingdom out of his son’s hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes. And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a light alway before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there.”

What mercy! “a light always.” Reduced greatly—reduced in the extent and glory of the kingdom, but with this most marked difference, compared with the ten tribes—the much larger part that passed to the other—they would shift their loads from time to time, and after having, continual changes in the family that governed they had one after another rising up. If it was a rebellious servant that it began with, it would not end with him, but many a rebellious servant would rise up against the king of Israel, and so the dynasty would be changed over and over and over again. No so with Judah. Even though reduced to what God calls but one tribe, in order to put in the strongest possible way this utter diminution of their glory, nevertheless there the light shall be always. Such was the merciful, but at the same time, most righteous dealing of the Jehovah God of Israel.

And soon, too, the word takes effect. Solomon dies. Rehoboam comes and is himself the witness of the truth of his father’s word that the father might heap up riches without end to leave to a son, and who knows but what he will be a fool? And Rehoboam was a fool in the strictest sense of the word. I do not of course mean by that mere idiocy, for such are a matter of compassion; but there are many fools that are fools in a very much more culpable sense than idiots. They are those persons who have sense enough and ought to use it aright, but persons who pervert whatever they have, not only to their own mischief, but to the trouble of those who ought most of all to be the objects of their care; for there is no king that rightly governs unless he holds his kingdom from the Lord, and more particularly a king of Israel, who had to do with Jehovah’s people.

And this was the thing that filled David’s heart spite of many a fault in him. He felt that it was God’s people that was entrusted to him, and this alone was at the bottom of his dependence upon God. For who was he? He needed God who was sufficient for such a thing. God alone could guide in the keeping of His people. But Rehoboam was the foolish son of the wise father, but of a wise father whose last days were clouded with darkness and with guilt, and who now is to reap bitter results in his family and is only spared by the grace of God from utter destruction. Rehoboam then, it is said, reigned in his father’s stead. “And Rehoboam went to Shechem: for all Israel were come to Shechem to make him king.” The very first word shows the state of the king and the state of the people. Why to Shechem? What brought them there? What business had they there? Why not come to Jerusalem? When David was coming to the throne the tribes of Israel came to Hebron because Hebron was where the king lived. It was the king’s chief city, where he had reigned before he reigned in Jerusalem, and the people came, as became them, to the king. Rehoboam heard that the foundations were being loosened and about to be destroyed for the king goes to Shechem. It was there that the people chose to go, and there the king perforce follows. He was a fool; he did not understand how to reign; he did not own his place from God.

“He went to Shechem, for all Israel were come to Shechem to make him king.” That is the reason of it. It was not that God had made Shechem the center or the right place for king or people, but evidently the people chose to go there, and Rehoboam followed them, and that was the way in which his reign began. It was an ominous beginning, but it was a beginning remarkably suited to the character of Rehoboam. Where Rehoboam ought to have been firm he was loose, and where he ought to have been yielding he was obstinate; and these two things unfit any man to govern, for the grand secret of governing well is always knowing when to be firm and when to yield, and to do so in the fear of God with a perfect certainty of what is a divine principle, and there to be as firm as a rock; and to know, on the other hand, what is merely an indifferent thing, and there to be as yielding as possible.

Now it was not so with Rehoboam. “He went to Shechem, for all Israel were come to Shechem to make him king.” There was not now an association of divine grace, or truth, or purpose, or any other thing at Shechem; it was merely that Israel went there and he followed; he went there too. “And it came to pass, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who was yet in Egypt, heard of it (for he was fled from the presence of king Solomon, and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt), that they sent and called him. And Jeroboam and all the congregation of Israel came, and spake unto Rehoboam, saying, Thy father made our yoke grievous— “You see the rebellious spirit from the very beginning. It is now in their language, as it was in their act before. “Now therefore, make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee. And he said unto them, Depart yet for three days, then come again to me. And the people departed. And king Rehoboam consulted with the old men, that stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, and said, How do ye advise that I may answer this people? And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants forever.”

It was not the noblest ground it is true. It was not the ground that would have left him in both liberty and responsibility. That would be the true ground I need not tell you, beloved brethren, and it ought to have been the ground if he would be a servant of Jehovah—if he would serve Jehovah in watching over the best interests of Jehovah’s people. But said they according to their measure, “If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants forever.” It was prudence, it was good policy. I could not say there was faith in it but there was good policy in it, as far as that went. “But he forsook the counsel of the old men, which they had given him, and consulted with the young men that were grown up with him, which stood before him. And he said unto them, What counsel give ye that we may answer this people, who have spoken to me, saying, Make the yoke which thy father did put upon us lighter? And the young men that were grown up with him spake unto him, saying, Thus shalt thou speak unto this people that spake unto thee, saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it lighter unto us; thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father’s loins. And now whereas my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.”

His days were numbered—the days of the kingdom of Rehoboam. “So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day.” He was in the plot, he was the one that well knew what the prophecy was, and now there was an opportunity of taking advantage of it. This is not the only connection you will find of Rehoboam with Shechem. “And the king answered the people roughly, and forsook the old men’s counsel that they gave him; And spake to them after the counsel of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions. Wherefore the king hearkened not unto the people; for the cause was from Jehovah, that he might perform his saying, which Jehovah spake by Ahijah the Shilonite unto Jeroboam the son of Nebat.” Did that excuse Jeroboam? This is a very important principle that you will find constantly in the word of God. A prophecy is in no way a sanction of what is predicted. Prophecy takes in the most abominable acts that have ever been done by the proud, corrupt, or murderous, will of man.

Prophecy therefore is in no wise a sanction of what is predicted, but nevertheless to a crafty and ambitious man as Jeroboam was, it gave the hint, and it gave him confidence to go on according to what was in his own heart. He therefore soon gives the word. “So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, the people answered the king, saying, What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David. So Israel departed unto their tents. But as for the children of Israel which dwelt in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them. Then king Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the tribute.” But this only became the overt occasion for the rebellion to display itself. “And all Israel stoned him with stones, that he died. Therefore king Rehoboam made speed to get him up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem. So Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day.” And that rebellion was never healed. Alas we shall find greater abominations than this, but thus the bitter fruits of evil were beginning to show themselves; and he that had sown the wind must reap the whirlwind.

“And it came to pass, when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again, that they sent and called him unto the congregation, and made him king over all Israel: there was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only.”

Rehoboam wants to fight. It was in vain. God had given away ten parts out of the kingdom and God would not sanction that the man who is himself guilty should fight even against the guilty. God had not given them a king of the house of David in order that they might fight against Israel. “Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren the children of Israel: return every man to his house; for this thing is from me. They harkened therefore to the word of Jehovah and returned to depart, according to the word of Jehovah.”

And what does Jeroboam? In the 25th verse we are told that he built Shechem. That was the place that he made to be his central spot. “Jeroboam built Shechem in mount Ephraim, and dwelt therein: and went out from thence, and built Penuel.” But Jeroboam considers.

“Jeroboam said in heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David. If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of Jehovah at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah.” He was afraid that if he allowed his subjects to go up to Jerusalem they would bethink themselves of their old king—bethink themselves of the grand purposes of God connected with Jerusalem. What does he do then? He devises a religion out of his own head. “Whereupon the king took counsel and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.”

He put it upon the ground of bringing religion to their doors, of helping his people to a religion that would not be too costly or too difficult, in fact, was only seeking to make religion subserve his policy. Accordingly, he did this knowing well that it is impossible for a kingdom—more particularly Israel—God’s people—to be strong in the earth, where there is not the owning of God—where there is not the owning of God blended with the government so that there should not be two contrary authorities—or, possibly, contrary authorities in the kingdom. For in fact the stronger of the two for the conscience is religion and not civil obedience.

In order therefore to confirm the strength of his people, he makes the religion to be the religion of the kingdom. That is, he makes both the polity and the religion to flow from the same head the same will and for the same great ends of consolidating his authority. Hence therefore he thinks of religion. And what does he go to? Not the blotting out of Jehovah: that was not the form that it took; but the incorporating of the most ancient religious associations which he could think of and which would suit his purpose. And he goes to a very great antiquity—not the antiquity, it is true, of that which God had given, but an antiquity that immediately followed; not the antiquity of the tables of stone, or the statutes and judgments of Israel either, but the antiquity of the golden calves. This is what he bethought himself of. “And he set the one in Beth-el, and the other put he in Dan. And this thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan. And he made an house of high places, and made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi.”

The reason of Dan being the one that was chiefly cultivated was this: it was at the greatest distance from Jerusalem. Bethel was rather too near. A dozen miles or so might have exposed them no doubt, as he would have thought, to the temptation of Jerusalem, so Dan was the one. Although there were the two, Dan was the one that was chiefly courted. But he was not satisfied with this. He made a house of high places in imitation of the temple, and he made priests of the lowest of the people which were not of the sons of Levi. [W. K.]

(To be continued)

Lectures Introductory to 1 Kings: Chapter 9-15

II.—CHAPTERS 9-15.

Solomon was now at the height of his glory, a vivid type of a greater than Solomon. And it is only when we see that he really does thus prefigure the Lord Jesus as King that we can understand the importance that God attaches to the history of such as David in one light and Solomon in another. David as the warrior-king who puts down the enemies actively, Solomon as the man of peace who will reign over the subjugated nations and kingdoms, more particularly Israel; but in point of fact, at the same time, the glorious Son of man that will have all kingdoms and nations and tribes and tongues then. Now I am persuaded that every one’s faith has something lacking who does not leave room for this glorious future. I do not mean now in the smallest degree as a question of one’s soul with God, but I am speaking of the intelligence of a Christian man. And I repeat, that he who does not look for the kingdom of God to be established by and by in this world has neither a key to the Bible nor, in point of fact, can he understand why God permits the present confusion. There is nothing more likely to fill the soul with perplexity than leaving out the future. Bring it in and we can Understand why God exercises such amazing forbearance. The present is but a revolutionary time, and so it has been for ages, marked by the solemn fact that even the very people of God are the most dispersed of all nations upon the earth. I speak, of course, of Israel now, and I say that if there be a people that are no people, Israel is the one that comes up before our view. The devil may have a kind of imitation of it in some other races that are scattered over the ends of the. earth, but then the man that could confound Israelites with, for instance, the Egyptians would be evidently doing the greatest injustice to one of the most remarkable people even as a race, as a nation, that has ever lived upon the earth. The other is only a kind of Satanic imitation of it; but no man can wisely despise Israel, even as a man. Still more, when our hearts take in the real truth of God and remember that God Himself in the person of His own Son deigned to become an Israelite, was in truth the Messiah, the Anointed, was the born King of the Jews. He who takes this in can understand the great place that Israel has in the mind of God, and that it is a proof of very little faith and of great occupation about ourselves when we do not relish what God has given us about His ancient people.

I grant you that it is a poor thing for the soul to be occupied with that in the first place, and it is, therefore, of great consequence that as now it is no question of Israel, but of Christ. And if then of Christ, of Christ as a Savior, and further as the Head of the church. We are called now to know Him as a Savior, next as members of His body to know what the Head of the body is, and what is involved in these relationships both of His to us and of ours to Him. But having the truth as to these, the more intimate and of the deepest personal importance to us, the question is whether our souls are not to be exercised on that which God hail given us here, and what is God’s thought, God’s lesson, God’s intention, for our souls in it.

This I shall endeavor to gather, not by forcing it to speak Christian language, not by what I may call “gospelling” the different parts of Scripture, which is really very often a perversion; not even by taking profitable hints from it that are most just and true and concern the grand living principles of divine truth, most important as all these are. But still there is another thing that we ought all with jealousy to care for, and that is to seek the real mind of God what is intended by the scripture that comes before us. This leaves perfect freedom for every other application, but we ought to have first and foremost what God intends us to understand by His word. The time will come when we shall require to know how far any application is just. Because, needless to say, the divine purpose in the scripture necessarily has the first place for him that respects God, and who is not uneasy and anxious, and who is not coming to scripture always asking, “Is there anything about me here?” or, “Is there anything for me?” The great point is this, Is there anything about Christ there, and what is it that God is teaching us about Christ there? I am supposing now that the soul’s want has been already met.

What then is it that God is showing us here? Why, clearly He is bringing once more the man of peace, Solomon, the type of Christ Himself when reigning in peaceful glory. But, alas! it was not Christ yet; it was only a shadow and not the substance, and the consequence is that although God has written the scripture very especially to keep up the type and to exclude what would be inconsistent with it, nevertheless, we have the truth; and God intimates here the danger that was before Solomon and his family. He intimates the conditional ground which he must take until Christ brought in sovereign, unconditional grace. It is impossible not to speak in the way of condition except in view of Christ, of Christ personally. It is there alone that we get the full mind of God and heart of God, and whenever that is the case it is no question of conditions but of perfect love that works for His own name’s sake, and that can do it righteously through the Lord Jesus. But this gives me reason to speak of a very important principle that I shall have many opportunities of illustrating; what might seem a very strange thing in setting up the kingdom in Israel. Of all things in Israel there was nothing that illustrated the principle of one master so much as the king. Even the high priest did not in the same way, though he also did in another form. But the king determined the lot of the people in this way: if the king went right there was a ground for God’s blessing the people, simply and solely for that very reason. On the other hand, if the king went wrong judgment fell upon the people. Alas! as we know, a king might go right, and it did not follow that the people would; if the king went wrong, the people were sure to follow. Such is the inevitable history of man now. Well, this principle would seem very strange, and always does appear so till we see Christ. Then how blessed! God always meant to make Christ, and Christ alone, the ground of blessing. For any other—for any of the children of Adam to be the pillar, so to speak, on which the blessing should repose, would be a most precarious principle. We know well what Adam’s sons are. We ought to know by ourselves, but when we see God looking onward to the Second man—the last Adam—then we understand the principle.

Well now, it is for this reason that, whether you look at David or Solomon, they have a very peculiar place as being personal types of the Lord Jesus as King. In a way, that is not true of others. Others might be in part, but they far more fully; but the principle is most true of the kingdom in Israel. That is, that there was one person now on whom depended the blessing of the people, or, alas! who involved the people in his own ruin, and this is the great principle of the kingdom of Israel. Miserable! till we come to Christ. How blessed! when Christ comes to reign. Then all the blessing of all the world hangs upon that one Man, and that one Man will make it all good. Such is God’s intention, and He will never give it up. Now anyone who takes this in has a wholly different view from the history of the world—from the gloom that must settle upon any man’s heart that looks upon the earth apart from Christ. That God should have aught: to say to such a world, that God should take an interest in it, that God should own such a state of things—how difficult otherwise to understand! The more you know of God, and the more you know of man, the more the wonder increases. But when we see that all is merely suffered till that one Man come, God meanwhile working out other purposes, as we know now, in Christianity, that as far as regards the earth and man upon it, it is all in view of Christ’s coming again, and coming to reign; that is, coming to take the world into His own hands in the way of power—not merely to work in it by grace, but to take the reins of the world under His government, banishing him who is the fertile source of all the difficulty and contention and rebellion against God, that has filled it now, and indeed ever since sin came into it—the difficulty is solved. Well then, in this second appearing of the Lord to Solomon, we have what, to a spiritual mind, would at once show the danger, nay, the sad result, the utter failure, that was to come in. Nevertheless, there was great comfort in it in the words of the Lord—for these are most true—that His eyes and His heart shall be there perpetually; and, further, that that family, and that family alone, was to furnish an unbroken line till the fullness of the blessing of God be made good in this world. David’s family is the only one that has that honor, for God preserved, as you know, the genealogical links until Messiah came; and after the Lord Jesus was born, before that generation passed away, Israel was dispersed. Where are they now? And where are the proofs now? All hangs upon Christ. But God took care that, till Shiloh came, there should be this maintaining of a man of David’s house; and then, when the Lord Jesus was put to death, and it seemed as if all was gone, on the contrary, rising from the dead the work was complete. There was no need of any further line which was in the power of an endless life even as king, even in His kingdom. For David, according to Paul’s gospel, must be raised from the dead, and so He is, and, consequently, He is brought in as unchanging. We can understand, therefore, that by virtue of Christ, the eyes and heart of God rest there. There may be nothing to show for it now. Of all places in the earth, the land of Palestine and Jerusalem may outwardly seem to be given up to be the prey of Satan. Nowhere has he more manifestly triumphed. Nevertheless, all is made good, and God will prove it, and prove it shortly. The truth is, the foundation is laid; nay, more than that, not merely the foundation laid, but the Person is in the glorious state in which He is to reign. He is risen from the dead, He is glorified, He is only waiting for the moment—waiting, as it is said, to judge the quick and the dead, but waiting, also, to reign.

This then is what lies underneath the type of Solomon. But as to himself we see that in the very next chapter (10.), although there was still the keeping up of honor, and the testimony to his wisdom in the queen of Sheba’s coming up, and all her munificent homage to the wisest king that God had ever raised up among men—nevertheless, even then failure shows itself. The conditions of God are soon broken by man. “Solomon gathered together chariots and horsemen; and he had a thousand and four hundred chariots, an twelve thousand horsemen.” “And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt.” “And a chariot came up and went out of Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver” (10:28, 29). Was this obedience? Was this the king after God’s own heart? Had He not expressly warned His king to beware of it? Had He not cautioned him against the accumulation of wealth, for he had had wealth of his own without seeking? God had ensured him that, but he sought it, he valued himself upon it, he laid no small burdens upon his people to accumulate wealth for the king; and at the same time he shows his dependence upon the Gentiles. He goes down to Egypt for horses, for that which would add to royal splendor, and would be an enticement to his sons, if not to himself, to seek conquest not according to the mind of God.

In short, whatever might be the object, it was a transgression of the distinct and direct word of the Lord, as we all know, given in the Book of Deuteronomy, where God had foreseen these dangers. But there was another danger too (chap. 11), and a deeper one. “But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites.” What! The wisest king—the wisest king—so to prove his total ruin in the very thing where, least of all, it became him! So it is with the sons of Adam. You will always find that in the very point in which you most pride yourself you most fail. In that which it might seem to be least possible, the moment your eye is off the Lord, in that particular you will break down. Adam, it would not have been thought, would so soon have forgotten his place of headship—Adam, to whom the Lord spoke especially. I do not say to the exclusion of his wife. Far from it. For indeed she was united with him in it. But undoubtedly he was the one who ought to have guided the wife, and not the wife her husband, and there was the first failure at the very beginning. But had not Solomon known that? Had he not heard of it? How had he profited?—this man with his seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines! And so we find that his wives turned away his heart. “For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with Jehovah his God, as was the heart of David his father. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. And Solomon did evil in the sight of Jehovah, and went not fully after Jehovah, as did David his father. Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. And Jehovah was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from Jehovah God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice” (11:4-9).

The greater the privilege and the higher the honor, the deeper the shame. This was, I will not say the sad end of Solomon, but undoubtedly the rapid decline and fall of the man. This is the sad character that Scripture attaches to him, that in his old age he listened to the follies of these strange women, and, accordingly, God begins to chastise, not merely when Solomon was taken, but in his lifetime. And indeed there is no happier intimation of Scripture that I know of about Solomon. For while God deigns to give us his estimate of the elders that walked by faith, or that in some way signalized their faith, Solomon is not one. Nevertheless, that God did put especial honor upon that son of David, who can doubt? Who inspired him to give us some of the most weighty portions of God’s word? And by whom was he given this signal wisdom of which Scripture speaks so much, and indeed which he proved so truly? But, nevertheless, it is written for our wisdom, for our learning, for our warning, that we should beware of slipping in the very thing which God signalizes. There is no strength in wisdom or in aught else. Our strength is only in the Lord, and the only way to make it good is in dependence upon Him. It was not so with Solomon. He rested in the fruits that God had given him. He yielded to the enjoyment of what came from God, but what was turned aside from the living source. All was ruined, and so Jehovah, as we are told, stirred up Hadad the Edomite. He was one that when David was in Edom, and Joab was there, had been concealed and kept.

“Jehovah stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king’s seed in Edom. For it came to pass, when David was in Edom, and Joab the captain of the host was gone up to bury the slain, after he had smitten every male in Edom (for six months did Joab remain there with all Israel, until he had cut off every male in Edom), that Hadad fled, he and certain Edomites of his father’s servants with him, to go into Egypt; Hadad being yet a little child ‘‘ (vers. 14-17). Now he comes forward. God is wise, and that young prince was kept to be a sting to king Solomon. But this is a little comfort to us, and indeed, I may say, almost the only comfort that we have in the history that is given us of king Solomon—that God chastised him. He chastised him, not merely allowed the fruit of his evil, the results of his folly, to appear in his family, but chastised himself in his own lifetime. This is His way with His own people, and indeed in some cases it is almost the only hope that you have that a person is a child of God, namely, that God does not allow the evil to pass, but deals with it now in this world. Those that God passes over in spite of evil are persons who are evidently waiting to be condemned with the world, but those who, being guilty, are dealt with now are objects of God’s fatherly care. He is dealing with them, rebuking them, judging them, but after all, they are chastened that they should not be condemned with the world. Solomon, at any rate, most clearly comes under the chastening of the Lord. As the Lord had said to his father and implied to Solomon himself, He would not take His mercy from him, but He should chastise him with stripes, and this He does. But it is Solomon. It is not merely the house generally, the family generally, or their offspring, but Solomon himself.

Hadad then is one means of putting the wise king to great uneasiness. God made him a source of trouble to Solomon, for when Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers he comes forward. But now it is particularly mentioned. God does not say a word about that until Solomon’s failure. Then Hadad comes forward in a most decided and distinct way to be a scourge for the guilty king. But he was not the only one. “God stirred him up another adversary, Rezon the son of Eliadah, which fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah: and he gathered men unto him, and became captain over a band, when David slew them of Zobah: and they went to Damascus, and dwelt therein, and reigned in Damascus. And he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon, beside the mischief that Hadad did: and he abhorred Israel, and reigned over Syria.”

[W. K.]

Actualities of the Rapture

Are not the ideas of many much mistaken on this subject, and do not those wrong views hinder the soul from its bright anticipation of, and desire for, the event? There is many a Christian whose wish is for a peaceful, painless, quiet death, without agony or long illness—a death like that of an old saint only the other day (eighty-nine years of age), who was ill but a few hours, and who, after expressing between pauses his readiness to go, and later ejaculating Hallelujah! and again Hallelujah! turned his head on one side and the happy spirit departed. Christian, in its essential elements, the Rapture will be very much like that. If such is the death you desire, then the Rapture is just what you do desire. It will be more instantaneous. Our withdrawal from this scene will be in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye (1 Cor. 15:52).

A Christian says, “The Lord’s coming would be too glorious; the spectacle too overwhelming; my wish is to pass away quietly.” But, for anything that the flesh can see, or feel, or hear, it will be quiet. The Lord will not be seen by mortal eyes, neither sight nor sound will reach the world—there will be no appearance to the senses (Col. 3:4), and as for you, fellow-believer, you will be changed before you know it. What can be swifter than the twinkling of an eye? We shall not be called upon to gaze at the glories until we are in a condition to bear the sight; but we shall be changed in a moment, and not until then shall we hear the heavenly sounds or see Christ Jesus our Lord. His shout will already have raised the sleeping saints unknown to us (John 5:28, 29 Thess. 4:16, 17). Then takes place our instantaneous transformation. We shall be wrought into His own likeness (1 John 3:2; Rom. 8:29), beauteously fitted for the courts above; and in that changed condition any emotion of fear will be impossible. The whole being will be in harmony with the scene around us. Every feeling of our then nature will there be perfectly at home.

Is there not something tender, and full of thoughtfulness for us, in the manner of the Rapture? Its privacy is a most precious thought. There will be no outward show to the world; that will come after. In the meanwhile, the resurrection of the sleeping saints will have taken place invisibly to this vain world, and the rapture of the living will be a private transaction between Christ and the church. As momentary and as peaceful as the painless death which you desire, even so will be your withdrawal from this life at His coming. You may be walking the road, or sitting in the house, in the railway train, or in the mart or shop; in the twinkling of an eye you will be changed, and, joining the host of the sleeping saints already in their glorified bodies, then by the omnipotent power of God the same by which He raised Christ from the dead (Eph. 1:19) you will be caught up to your Savor awaiting you in the clouds.

There is a beautiful incident in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus which somewhat illustrates this. It is recorded that Peter saw the linen clothes lying, and that the napkin or handkerchief was not lying with the rest of the clothes, but was folded together in a place by itself. This incident has been but poorly appreciated. The ordinary significance attached to this is that it indicates the calmness and orderliness of the resurrection. But surely there must be some other explanation than this. It scarcely seems a worthy supposition that the Lord or some attendant angel carefully folded the napkin and laid it apart. The thought when weighed savors of irreverence, however little intended; indeed it borders on the grotesque! But the real point of the incident is its unusualness. Ordinarily, when a person disrobes he puts his clothes together. Here it is the contrary. They are left in situ as they were. Naturally, the napkin would have been unwound and placed with the other garments, but here it is found as it had been, wrapped together, doubtless in the place where His sacred head had been; and the other linen clothes “lying,” not folded for neatness as the other interpretation would require. The received explanation deprives the account of the element of wonderment and holy mystery which obviously attaches to it. Why does the Holy Spirit make so much of these otherwise trivial facts?

John “stooping down, saw the linen clothes lying... Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and... seeth the linen clothes lying, and the napkin that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place [“a distinct place,” J.N.D. ] by itself” (John 20:5-7). That indeed was a wonder. There were the linen clothes lying in position, but Jesus was gone! The napkin was not unfolded, yet the head that it had enclosed was not there. Even so; just as Jesus in His spiritual body entered the room where the disciples were gathered, though the doors were fast shut, so at His resurrection He needed not to remove the clothes, to unfold the head-band or disturb the shroud—He calmly rose, leaving them as they were. There were the linen clothes lying! This was what awed and startled John, but did not impede Peter. And so, fellow-believer, will it be with thee, if thou art alive at the Lord’s coming.

Sweetly and beautifully thy body in a moment will be changed, and taken to the clouds, while possibly the suits which clothed the once mortal man will be left as an enigma to the world.

The desirability of the Rapture to the individual personally is a thing very important for the soul to grasp. There will be no terror in the Lord’s coming for the church. It will be the visit of the Bridegroom to claim His loved object. Can you be afraid of one whose love for you passeth knowledge (Eph. iii. 19)? There will be terror in His appearing to the world, but none to the saint at His coming.

At the present moment, many things conspire to show that just now the long-looked-for coming may be at the very door. The extensive way in which the truth of the Lord’s second coming has spread, and is now held by Evangelical Christians of all parties, is a significant action of the Holy Spirit. Sixty years ago the very idea was unknown, and scriptures which speak of it were universally interpreted as meaning death. But God raised up men to demonstrate the truth, and now there is a large number of believers who are really and practically awaiting the Lord’s return.

The soul, however, who gathers light from God’s word sees other indications. Scripture informs us that “the day” of the Lord will not be until “the apostasy” has first come (2 Thess. 2:3). Some will say, Does not that refer to Romanism? Certainly not. Romanism seems clearly referred to in the fourth chapter of the Second Epistle to Timothy—but that is only a limited apostasy “some shall apostatize from the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1). That is different from what is mentioned in 2 Thess. The Authorized Version has “a falling away,” but the true translation is “the apostasy.” This is an absolute expression, without limit or qualification, and implies the total abandonment of Christianity, which cannot be while the church is here below, nor indeed can it be fully consummated until the destruction of Babylon the harlot, by “the ten horns... and the beast” (Rev. 17:16). We have not yet the apostasy. It will take place after the church is gone. But what the anointed eye cannot fail to discern evidences of every day is the preparation of the public mind of Christendom for what is coming—the entire giving up of Christianity. It is being given up in reality now.

The inspiration and authority of Scripture, the revelation of God in the Old Testament, the incarnation, the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, the lost condition of man, the revealed judgment of the wicked, the existence of Satan, the nature of sin all these tenets, constituting the body of Christianity, are denied and preached against daily, not merely by adversaries in the profane world, but within the enclosure of that which professes to be the church. And this is virtual apostasy, but it is not apostasy in form while the name and profession of Christianity are still retained. The apostasy which is. coming will be open, shameless, and avowed abandonment, of the very form and name of Christianity. Men are not yet quite prepared for this, for the church acts as a restraint upon the world. But, in the meanwhile, Satanic agency is busy building up men’s minds in what will blossom into formal and patent apostasy after the church shall have been removed. When therefore we see a movement well in hand and far advanced which is to mature after the church has been caught away, does not this seem like an indication that that catching away may verily he near?

A third indication which should receive attention is the recent effort amongst the Jews towards a national organization. This is not so much developed as the movement in the direction of the apostasy. But it has the same character of analogy, inasmuch as it is the commencement of something which is to attain maturity after the church is gone. A recent series of articles in this paper have shown that the Jews are at “the time of the end” to attain a national position and autonomy. Now under our eyes action for this purpose has been initiated with considerable energy and enthusiasm.

The Christian should not need signs to lead him to adopt an attitude of waiting for Him whose last words to the church are, “Surely I come quickly” (Rev. 22:20). But if his normal duty be to wait for the Lord without any sign at all, is not that emphasized when we see such remarkable indications as those just referred to? At all events the hour seems to be one for drawing afresh the believer’s heart and hopes to that blessed event which Jesus Himself waits for, as well as His saints below.

“In hope we lift our wishful longing eyes

Waiting to see the Morning Star arise;

How bright, how blissful will His advent be

Before the Sun shines forth in majesty.”

E. J. T.

NOW READY Bible Treasury, Vol. VII., cloth 4/6 Bible Treasury, Half Vol. (1909) paper, net 1/6 Gospel Gleanings, Vol. IX. cloth, net 1/- Message from God, Vol. 1909 cloth 1/6

By J. N. D.

What the World is: and How a Christian can live in it ld.

Forgiveness and Salvation ld.

Conversion and Salvation 2/- per 100

The Bible 2/- per 100

By J. N. D.

Separation from Evil, God's Principle of Unity 2d.

Grace, the Power of Unity and of Gathering 10.

Sanctification (John 17) 10.

What is a Christian, now and hereafter?

On Discipline 14d.

Discipline and Unity of the Assembly (abridged)

Perfection, or Full Growth (Heb. 6) ld.
What the World is: and How a Christian can live in it

Forgiveness and Salvation ld.

Conversion and Salvation per 100 2/-

" The Bible " (on 4 page Cards, assorted tints), in 1'- packets of 25 (1,:3 post free)

By J. N. D.

What is a Christian, now and hereafter? lld

Perfection, or Full Growth (Heb. 6) ld.

What the World is: and How a Christian can live in it ld.
What is the World and what is its End (new edition) Id,

Forgiveness and Salvation ld.

Conversion and Salvation per 100 2/-

" The Bible " (on 4 page Cards, assorted tints), 1/-per packet of 25 (1/3 post free).

By W. K.

Christ Tempted and Sympathizing .4d.

Christ for the Saint, and Christ for the Sinner 2d.

Gospel of the.Glory of Christ 2d.

Covenant or Testament? 2d.

We must all be Manifested 11d.

Soul neither Mortal nor to Sleep l.:W.

Christ the Life ld.

" Christian Science," a Delusion of the Day, Second Edition per doz. Gd.

BY J. N. D.

What is a Christian, now and hereafter? ,

Perfection, or Full Growth (Heb. 6)
What the World is: and How a Christian can live in it ld. What is the World and what is its End (new edition) ld.

Forgiveness and Salvation 1 d.

Conversion and Salvation per loo 2/-

ON SALE

The Unity of the Spirit: and what it is to keep it (being Notes of a Lecture delivered in 1882), Third Edition 3d.

The Word of God, by W. K. 24.

On Matt. 18, by W. K. 2d.

" By Faith ye Stand," by A. L. H. ld. Necessity of the Atonement, by E. J. T.

By J. N. D.

What is a Christian, now and hereafter? lid

Perfection, or Full Growth (Heb. 6) ld.

What the World is: and How a Christian can live in it ld.
What is the World and what is its End (new edition) ld.

The State of the Soul after Death ld.

Forgiveness and Salvation ld.

Conversion and Salvation per 100 2/-

Christ’s Coming Again (New Edition) cloth 3/-

Daniel’s Seventy Weeks (New Edition) 4d.

The Righteousness of God: What is it? (Rom. 3

21-26), New Edition 4d.

The Action of the Holy Spirit in the Assembly

(1 Cor. 12-14) 4d.

The Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16), New Edition 2d.

The Spirit of God (John 1:29-33), New Edition 2d.

Jesus Forsaken of God and the Consequences (Psa. 22), New Edition ld.

The Unity of the Spirit; and What it is to Keep it (New Edition) 3d.

By E. J. ‘I’.

The Time of the End, but the End not yet (Revised

and Enlarged) cloth 1/6

Death and Beyond cloth 9d.

Is Prayer Compatible with General Laws? 3d.

The Necessity of the Atonement id.

Letter to an Evolutionist id.

Letter to a Young Believer not Breaking Bread id

By W. J. H.

Continuance in Divine Things. An Address on

2 Tim. 3:14.17 2d.

Permanence of Divine Things ld.

By W. K.

Christ's Coming Again (New Edition) cloth 3/-

Daniel's Seventy Weeks (New Edition) 4d.

The Righteousness of God: What is it? (Rom. 3

21-26), New Edition 4d.
The Action of the Holy Spirit in the Assembly

(1 Cor. 12-14) 4d.

The Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16), New Edition 2d.

The Spirit of God (John 1:29-33), New Edition 2d.

Jesus Forsaken of God and the Consequences (Psalm

xxii.), New Edition ld.

The Unity of the Spirit; and What it is to Keep it (New Edition) 3d.

By E. J. T.

The Time of the End, but the End not yet (Revised

and Enlarged) cloth 1/6

Death and Beyond cloth 9d.

Is Prayer Compatible with General Laws? 3d.

The Necessity of the Atonement 1d.

Letter to an Evolutionist Id.

Letter to a Young Believer not Breaking Bread id

By W. J. H.

Continuance in Divine Things. An Address on

2 Tim. 3:14.17 2d.

Permanence of Divine Things ld.

NOW READY

Bible Treasury (Half Vol.), 1910 net 1/6

Gospel Gleanings. Vol. X. (1910) net 1/-

Message from God. Vol. 1910 1/6

Glad Tidings for the Young. Vol. VI. (1910) 1/6

ON SALE
Time of the End, but the End not yet. By E.J.T., cl. 2/-

The Epistle to the Hebrews, its aim and for whom written? By J.N.D. 2d.

By W. KELLY

The Righteousness of God, New Edition 6d.

Christ the Way ld.

Christ the Truth ld.

Christ the Life ld.

Law and Grace Id.

Enduring Temptation and Entering into Temptation id.

JUST PUBLISHED
Practical Remarks on Prayer, by E. J. Thomas cl. 1/-

Al.SO BY THE SAME

Time of the End, but the End not yet cl.

Death and Beyond paper, 4t1.; cloth, net 9(1.

Is Prayer compatible with General Laws? 3d.

The Necessity of the Atonement d.

Letter to an Evolutionist

Letter to a Young Believer not Breaking Bread d.

NEW EDITION JUST PUBLISHED

Hymns Selected and Revised in 1894 and 1911. Large Type
Edition with Authors' names (corrected)-

Ordinary Paper, P.G. Limp, gilt edges 2/6

French Morocco, Limp Roll 4/6

India Paper Edition, P.G. Limp, gilt edges 4/-

French Morocco, Limp Roll 6/- „ „ French Morocco, 'app 7/6

" Concerning Millennial Dawn ' Teaching,"

per 100, post free

" Fifty Things Every Christian Should Know " (re

" Millennial Dawn ") per 100, post free 3/6

E. J. T.

By E. J. THOMAS

Time of the End, but the End not Yet cl 2/-

Practical Remarks on Prayer cl. 1/-

Death and Beyond cl., net 9d.

Is Prayer Compatible with General Laws? 3d,

The Actualities of the Rapture

The Necessity of the Atonement

Letter to an Evolutionist (3/- a hundred, net) d.

Letter to a Young Believer not Breaking Bread

LONDON

T. WESTON, Publisher, 53, Paternoster Row

THE BIBLE TREASURY

No. Igo New Series OCTOBER 1911 Price rid., by Post 2d.

E. J. T.

BY W. KELLY

Daniel's Seventy Weeks (New Edition) 4d.

The Righteousness of God (New Edition) 4d.

Action of the Holy Spirit in the Assembly 4d.

The Unity of the Spirit and What it is to Keep it 3d.

Unity of the Church in the Inspired History 2d.

One Body and One Spirit 2d.

Remarks on Matt. 18 2d.

The Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16) 2d.

ON SALE

Bible Treasury (1910, 1911), Vol, viii., cl. 4/6. Message from God (1911), cl. 1/6.

Gospel Gleanings (1911), Vol. xi., cl. 1/- net.

Victoria Hall Addre,:ses, Vol. I. N.S., cl. 1/6 net. Glad Tidings for the Young (191.1), cl. 1/6.

Advertising

The Unity of the Spirit: and what it is to keep it (being Notes of a Lecture delivered in 1882), Third

Edition 3d.

The Word of God, by W.K. 3d.

On Matt. 18, by W.K. 2d.

“By Faith ye Stand,” by A. L. H. ld.

By J. N. D.

What is a Christian, now and hereafter?

Perfection, or Full Growth (Heb. 6)

What the World is: and How a Christian can live in it What is the World and what is its End (new edition) Forgiveness and Salvation Conversion and Salvation

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

This widespread, universal religious sense (we can hardly term it the sense of God) which, even among the darkest heathen, crops up amidst the corrupt and desolate debris of their systems, is certainly to be regarded as something in the nature of a testimony to Him, who, while “in times past suffering all nations to walk in their own ways, nevertheless left not himself without witness” in their hearts.

We must guard, however, against certain ideas on this subject now beginning to be spread abroad. It will be no digression, either, to examine them here, as they really underlie much of the reasoning of this part of the lectures under review. These ideas are not at all of the frankly materialist school already alluded to, however akin in some respects. They emanate rather from a conception of religion as that primeval instinct in man which materialists deny; but an idea, at the same time, which distorts that fact, as well as many others, to suit a classification of religions imagined to be scientific.

What is termed the science of Comparative Religion is one of those ideas of recent growth, which seem to believers of plain scriptural training to be quite as erroneous as their appearance is momentous. No doubt it is something imported from that quarter, which underlies the term “sense of God” in regular use in many quarters as a designation for the religious consciousness in heathendom. On that ground must be explained our quarrel with the phrase, which otherwise appears harmless enough. If what was meant by the “sense of God” were merely the dim consciousness of the existence of such an One in pagan hearts, all were well; but this is not at all SO. A great change has come over the minds of many in regard to the relation of Christianity to other religions of the world. Whereas formerly the faiths of the world were divided simply into true and false—Judaism, where partially, and Christianity, where fully, God had revealed the truth, and Paganism, wherein (certain admirable ideas and features notwithstanding,) men groveled in error and darkness—now, a more detailed or complicated classification is attempted. A full survey of the various systems of religions, ancient and modern alike, throughout the world is being conducted on strictly modern philosophic principles, with due attention also to what psychology can teach as to their origin and phenomena.

The comparison of Christianity with previously existing systems, at least with those in proximity to which Christianity first appeared, so as to suggest comparison, is no new thing. Its relation to Judaism was a question early raised, and clearly settled also, while the apostles themselves were yet on the scene. No small part of Paul’s particular mission was the setting free the new religion from the bonds of Jewish legalism; while a whole epistle, Hebrews, is given up to the elaboration of the comparison between the two systems. To another category altogether, however, belong the other religions and philosophies with which primitive Christianity came in contact, whether in Greece or Rome. Inspired Christian writings are comparatively reticent as to these, although some there are no doubt who read into New Testament scriptures the reiteration of their technical terms at least. For instance, that the language of the opening verses of John’s Gospel, with its use of the “Logos,” is reminiscent of the Greco-Oriental speculations of the Alexandrian Philo, or that moral terms in regular use among the Stoics make frequent appearance in Paul’s epistles, or again that the noteworthy resemblance between Paul and Seneca, which forms the matter of one of Lightfoot’s treatises, proves parallelism in their teachings.

Answer to all this was not at all difficult. For, if, as we believe, Christianity is the sole and sufficient answer to the deepest need of the human heart, that need which even pagan idolaters could not but feel, and which their philosophers could not meet but only falteringly express; if, as one has said, “Paganism brought nothing to Christianity but aspirations frustrated, and yearnings unsatisfied,” is it at all to be wondered at if God, in revealing that which alone could satisfy these yearnings, condescended to use, as far as He could, the terms in which these aspirations were expressed? As the late Editor of “Bible Treasury” has said, “The truth is that God in His grace, who knew the bewilderment of man’s mind, not dissipated but deepened by philosophy, etc., either anticipated or answered these unbelieving reveries by the revelation of the truth.... Christ, true God and perfect man, is the revelation of God, which sets aside the corrupt Gnostic, the self-complacent Stoic, and the dreaming Platonist. If inspiration employed their language, it was in pitiful condescension to impart the truth of God in Christ, which brings to naught their vain, self-righteous and false ideas.”

At Athens, it will be remembered, “the city wholly given to idolatry,” Paul saw an altar with the inscription, “To the unknown God,” and forthwith made opportune use of the incident. “Whom ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.” In a way these Athenians are a representative class. “In all things too superstitious,” “excessively reverent of divinities,” yet so little satisfied with those they had, that “to tell or hear of something newer” was their characteristic occupation, learned and philosophic as they were, they may be taken as eminently representative of what religious aspirations directed by human philosophy amounted to, or could achieve, in Paganism at its best. In what measure then was the true God conceived of, or any genuine knowledge of Him reflected, in anything within the compass of their elaborate system. The only element wherein the faintest reference to Him appears was that melancholy inscription seized on by the apostle— “To the unknown God.” God the Unknown, felt after, indeed, even by Athenian devotees of divinities many; God the Unknown, a sense of whose existence no worship of false deities could obliterate, no specious philosophy explain away; yea, even while under the charm of Greek eloquence at its best, “at the sound of cornet, flute and psaltery, and all kinds of music,” they bowed themselves at shrine erected, or image set up, in this city surrendered to idol-worship, God the Unknown at the long last they still find it necessary to admit at least into their Pantheon. Consciousness of Him cannot be quite shut out, nor drowned in clamor of idolatrous liturgy, whether Stoic pipe or Epicurean sackbut. But how humiliating the confession. “To the unknown God.” This then the final exemplification, the summing up of all that was best, most worthy, in heathen philosophers, Alexandrian, Epicurean, Stoic, Skeptic, or any other; for that was all, that vague ascription of the fag-end of their homage, “To the unknown God,” which out of the ruins of their idol worship even they could construct!

Take then that strangely significant altar inscription as the symbol of anything in the way of truth or knowledge of God classical paganism ever showed. Is there much to constitute it a formidable rival of, anything to entitle its being regarded as a valuable contributor to, Christian thought and doctrine? Why, rather, what have they in common? May we not see also in Paul’s use of the occasion, his reference to their abject confession, and to the obscure statement of one of “their own” poets, an apt illustration of what the Spirit of truth may have done in adopting, or adapting, the diction of their philosophy to serve His own ends in setting forth that which met their every question, and made foolish their every dream? As has been said, this answer to the suggestion of Christianity’s relation to the religions of the past prompts itself readily, and proves sufficient. And, really, the assertion sometimes made to-day that “Christianity was at first a mere development of Judaism, and that it was by combining with elements borrowed from the religions and the philosophies of the ancient pagan world that it assumed its final form” is best answered, as it has been answered, by the statement that, “Were we to see in Christianity only a synthesis of all the anterior religions, we should have in Christ only a composite idol enshrined in the last of the pagodas.”

But now we have a newer study of religions, from an entirely fresh and original standpoint. Conclusions similar to those appearing in the last quotation we no doubt find accepted in many cases under this novel method as well; but they are reached from a different direction, as the subject is approached in a rather different way. That is, the principle of differentiation between Christianity and other religions is sought in another and wider sphere. The comparison of Christian doctrine with the teachings of the older religions of which we have spoken would be regarded as only a partial application of the comparative method by adherents of the new school, and would have reserved for it the particular designation, “Comparative Theology,” the remaining portions of the field of survey being the “Psychology of Religion” and the “History of Religions.” Together forming a comprehensive scheme to be known as the “Science of Religions.” Now under this pretentious title they profess to “seek to study religion not merely in particular aspects and ways, but in its unity and entirety, with a view to its comprehension in its essence and all essential relations.” Two things we must expect, then, from such as affect to take such philosophic views of that which is a serious enough matter for men at large—their religion. These are, that any special claim as to Christianity must not be preferred at this early stage, it must go into the crucible with the rest, take its chance of emerging approved worthy of place, or of supreme place, in the illustrious society of the faiths of the world, when they are “unified and co-ordinated in a truly organic manner.” And at the same time we must expect, from those who propose to probe so deep into the origin of this peculiar compound feeling called religion, this “process of mind,” this inexhaustible field for psychological study, we must expect, let us remember, to hear much of man, his progress in ethical thought, and perception of the infinite, and very little of “the notion of a special revelation from God.”

The meaning and significance of this recent development may best be understood by reference to an instance of its exposition. Thus, at the great Anglican Church Congress of 1908, the report of the section which was devoted to this subject gives clear expression to the great divergence from the older ideas, the more modern conception being widely entertained. In fact, if the several contributors to the discussion were in any sense representative, it may almost be said that the Anglican Church’s imprimatur is assured to the new theory, so feeble was any protest, so meager was the statement of what Scripture gives as the truth about idolatry. In the opening deliberation of “Section B” the issue was well defined. “The Congress had to consider whether they preferred to remain on the old lines, holding that one religion was true, and all the rest false, or whether they sympathized with the efforts made in most of the Congress papers to relate other religions to that which Christians held to be specially revealed.” The general attitude of this important Congress was sufficiently manifested by such things as the continual, and in general depreciatory, reference to “the old ruthless doctrine which sharply separates Christianity from other religions”; as also it was by the constant claim “that now it is generally realized that much in Christianity belongs to the common stock of religion,” and that “we perceive the Spirit’s work in the higher aspirations of all races.”

Whereunto this will grow, or what sort of influence such conceptions of other religions are likely to exert on Christian missionary efforts and methods, may be matter of conjecture. One thing certain about them is their novelty. But the change of attitude was in fact categorically asserted on the same occasion. From an accredited account of the proceedings of the Congress which then appeared, take this— “As to the attitude which the church should adopt towards the non-Christian creeds and systems with which she finds herself in contact, the time has gone by when undiscriminating repudiation is indulged in.... and, while the last traces of this habit of mind have not yet entirely vanished, the change during recent years has been great and salutary.” Then, finally, “This attitude, conciliatory and adaptative, and not the implacable hostility of the Crusader or the Cromwellian trooper, was with satisfaction recognized as the predominant note in the discussion.” Such was the finding of the experts of the Pan-Anglican Congress!

Now what does Scripture teach as to the religions of the world? Perhaps the consideration of how, according to Scripture, they one and all originated and developed might prove enlightening to many, if no further, certainly at least as to the radical divergence between its account and these modern ideas on the subject. The chapter in Romans already alluded to will furnish an example of what is the invariable testimony of the word as to the origin of what it at least does not scruple to call idolatry. Rom. 1, after adducing creation’s testimony as “that which may be known of God,” proceeds in verses 21-25 to consider man’s treatment of such positive knowledge of God as he at one time undeniably possessed. “Because that when they knew God they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves; who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator who is blessed forever. Amen.”

“Because that, knowing,” or, “having known,” “God.” This is a distinct advance upon nature’s witness, being that knowledge of God on man’s part, which may be termed traditional. He was thus positively known by men at as late a date as the day of Noah—if, indeed, it be not precisely to that memorable post-diluvian morning that reference is here made, when we find Noah and his family—all that was left of the human race upon the earth—surrounding their altar as worshippers of the one true God. Thus far at least have we to go back the stream of history ere we come upon the happy time when it could be said that men, as a class, “knew God.” In the absence of any later occasion when it was true, this may be the occasion referred to, if, as seems likely, a definite point in history is in the apostle’s mind.

(Continued from Vol. 7. P. 380)

(To be continued) LJ. T.]

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

(Continued from page 16)

On the threshold of a new world, then, only one God was known, owned, or worshipped; only one form of religious belief existed. Whence have come the others? From development of that? or through degeneration from it? Is it progress or lapse that time has brought? Many, reasoning from the undoubted progress of the race in material things, and in the, intellectual sphere also, imagine a similar progress to have taken place spiritually. The illustration of man groping his way from primitive ignorance through hideous nature-worship, and polytheism, to true knowledge of God, is a common, if erroneous one. The truth is, according to this chapter, that the progress is in exactly the reverse direction. “Knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful.” That is to say, primarily He was known, conceived of objectively, present to the mind of man as existing and almighty. And such knowledge, remark, man is credited with, not as a deduction logically and laboriously arrived at, but as an assurance he is originally furnished with. The glorifying of Him, as such, however, men soon ceased to render, the experience of His continued goodness awakening no grateful response. Practical recognition of God was thus abandoned, and that right early. The process of His dethronement from their hearts was begun, little as they knew of how soon the vacancy thus created would be re-inhabited. A scheme for man’s deception the enemy had prepared of which this was, in reality, the initial step. Thereafter the knowledge and remembrance of God gradually faded. Especially so when, “becoming vain in their reasonings, their undiscerning heart became darkened.”

Under professions of wisdom they made rapid progress in their path of folly, until ultimately, become fools, “they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,” and, on the downgrade ever, “to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” Without going further on in the chapter, the latter verses of which corroborate and strengthen this witness of man’s exchange of the truth of God for falsehood, and of the veneration and service of the creature rather than of “the Creator who is blessed forever” —such is the account the word of God gives of the origin of idolatry. How incompatible with it is what is here taught under the term “sense of God.” Endowed with the significance the science of comparative religion attaches to it, it is misleading and erroneous, giving entirely false value to that consciousness of God which, confessedly, is rooted in every human heart. As a witness to Him, the presence of that intuitive sense is worthless if we so corrupt it. Correctly understood, in its own way it does bear testimony concerning the fact that God is, and however feebly it may supplement other and more important forms of evidence, its quota is neither to be neglected nor perverted.

The evidence to the existence of God having been pursued along these two lines, and the belief in Him affirmed in the words of the Creed shown to be quite a rational conclusion, the signatories of that document may now regard themselves as relieved from any aspersions of blind, unreasoning credulity in signing it. This is so great a matter to-day. Rational we must show ourselves to be, whatever else we are! Compromise we may to any extent in matters of faith and religion, if we can only keep the peace with science, and remain on good terms with carnal reasoning! In other words, that is to say that to-day all we learn, hold, or assert as spiritual truth we are ever to be prepared to submit to the searching, sifting analysis which prevailing materialistic rationalism to-day insists on its right to apply. No doubt much will have to give way, but a sufficiently flexible faith will find no difficulty in surrendering whatever is called in question, and no alarm need be felt, for a considerable residuum of unchallenged verities will always be found to emerge either untouched, or indeed enhanced in appearance from the process! Does it give no pause, no suspicion to such as reason thus that this residuum is ever a steadily decreasing one? That those who surrender whatever is cried down as irrational or unscientific constantly find science and rationalism encroaching further on their territory? So much so that treatises written “in relief of doubt” (should they not rather, in keeping with their real purpose, be entitled “in relief of faith”?) very soon are out of date from not conceding enough! There is a sad absence of backbone in our beliefs, a lack of sound hard kernel in our convictions to-day, else were we less susceptible to such influences. Is there not room for suspicion really that at bottom there is something essentially at fault in our whole modern attitude towards revealed truth? Not only in the case of theologians themselves, but in the far graver instance of Christians generally as affected by them, would there not seem to be some element lacking, the want of which is leaving its mark over the whole field of common Christian belief and confession? Without yielding to unduly pessimistic impressions, there can be no doubt that to-day, alike in doctrinal expression and inward conviction, there is lack of that full assurance which accompanies true faith in God. In essaying either to state or to learn the truth we fear really to claim or expect certainty; we shrink from advancing much further than probability. When asked for “a reason for the hope that is within us,” there is abundance of “meekness and fear” of a kind; but little preparation for giving a satisfactory “answer, always and to every one” who calls for our apologia.

As to what can be the cause of this cold hesitancy, does it require a very skilful diagnosis of present symptoms to discern what it is? Our times, we must remember, have witnessed the spread of education, and the advance of knowledge to an extent unprecedented before. Along with these blessings, however, it is to be feared we stand in danger now of the uprising of what can only be described as a flood of intellectual anarchy. When we recollect man’s natural propensity to intellectual pride, how little it takes to puff up the carnal mind, it is not to be wondered at that the really marvelous progress presently being made in knowledge and science tends to overwhelm him with a sense of his own ability in that direction. Wherein the peril lies, however, is that in presence of this high regard for, almost worship of, intellectualism, the hold upon men of everything formerly held sacred, or valued as spiritual truth, appears to be endangered. Where everything is liable to be called in question there can be no real, no permanent certitude. And it is just this certitude in the realm of spiritual things, this sureness that cannot be gainsaid, indispensable for faith, that the spirit of the age is threatening to swamp. This again in large measure owes its origin to want of confidence on the part of Christians themselves—to sheer unbelief in the written word as God’s medium of Communicating the truth to us. Doubtless the influence of speculative philosophy must not be forgotten—its influence on the popular conception of what the truth in itself really is, and whether from its essential nature it admits of being at any time finally standardized—this must certainly be allowed for as contributing to form the general lax attitude. But next to that, or in combination with it, the equally modern, and equally infidel science of Higher Criticism must be held accountable for the fall of temperature. For (to make but the briefest reference to this latter) there is ground for more than suspicion that the principal evil result of the methods of scripture study introduced by Higher Criticism may be anticipated not from attack in detail—the destructive criticism of the various portions of the Bible, or their piecemeal surrender resulting—the evil rather is apparent in this general attitude towards Scripture induced by it. A general abatement of respect for Biblical authority (an even more serious thing than doubts as to any particular portion of it) has resulted, insomuch that what is now quite common is either uneasy distrust, or actual discredit of the Scriptures as God’s full and final revelation. Truth, the truth, all profess to seek; but a common conception of the truth seems to be, not that it is identical with, or synchronizes with, an unchangeable “faith once for all delivered,” a divinely appointed standard, guaranteed by God Himself as its fixed and final expression; but that it is more or less a thing of flux and change, a thing still in process of development or discovery. Nay, is there not a tendency to relegate to the background altogether the very thought of a revelation from God? In any case this fact of revelation occupies now but a minor place in the scheme.

In this very respect the lecture under consideration is remarkable, and in nothing more characteristic of modern thought than in its omission of all mention of God’s revelation as a source of evidence to Him. In Scripture, if anywhere, should it not be recognized, we have unique testimony to God, the great standing witness to His existence, to say nothing more? All that nature and human God-consciousness, “the antecedents of revelation” someone has termed them, all that these can communicate concerning God, all that reason and conscience can make known of Him, is not to be mentioned beside that knowledge of God which His word conveys to the believer. The fact of His existence, after all, is but a small thing to have demonstrated. Scripture does so unmistakably, but how much more! God is there made known, His nature, His character as far as Infinite can reveal itself to finite, shown forth in grace. All that concerns Him in relation to us, and all that has to do with man’s responsibility to Him is made the subject of its testimony, not to mention greater and larger spheres. “He that cometh to God must believe that He is.” So much, perhaps, might be gleaned from what “nature itself teaches”; but the further necessary conviction, “and that He is the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him,” with what it implies, Scripture only could produce. We cannot go so far as to say that nature’s witness to Him is but incidental and undesigned, or that it is absolutely incommunicative as to what His character is; but there is in no sense to be observed there the same full purpose of communication and revelation that is evident in Scripture. For the truth from God we will look in vain anywhere else. Taken in conjunction with that objective adumbration presented in Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son, whose declaration, “I am the truth” (John 14:6) can only be understood in the sense of objective display, and not to be severed either from the further fact that “the Spirit is the truth” (1 John 5:6), as signifying subjective power of apprehension, the Scriptures fill a unique, and indisputably important place in the divine scheme of revelation, being the descriptive record of that which God makes known. “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17). How gross a blunder then to omit this weighty consideration from the sum of Christian Evidences as epitomized in the Creed! Why should the Scripture be eliminated? Is it that the force and value of its testimony has deteriorated, is now discounted with men, in face of the questions regarding it recently raised? Is it fear of the charge of obscuration, of Bibliolatry, that has led to its omission? Whatever the cause, it surely is something of a novelty to have the evidences to the primary fact of God’s existence enumerated, and His own revelation left out. [J. T.] (To be continued)

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

Judging from the tone some apologists adopt, one cannot but conclude that their conception of Christian doctrine is that it is something in the nature of a derelict from ancient seas, drifted from its mediaeval anchorage and stranded now upon an inhospitable shore. Thankful we are to be if from the wreck we can obtain some fragments of its old-fashioned freight, and to be too aggressive even in that is matter for ridicule. It may be an unfounded suspicion, but something like that spirit seems to underlie this choice, presently tinder consideration, of the Apostles’ Creed as a statement of Christian faith. A poor salvage it must be that effects the rescue of only that. As it is natural, however, to value considerably above its inherent worth anything obtained under such circumstances, the ancient relic appears particularly valuable to some to-day. It is doubtless this that accounts for their reading into the various clauses of the Creed much that never could be read out of it.

Thus as to its opening announcement, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,” we would perhaps scarcely be prepared to credit it with the amplitude some put upon it. It affirms, we are told, belief not only in God, but in “the Father,” and to this is given what is thought the value of the full Christian revelation of God in relation to His people. This greater and higher conception of God as the Father, brought to man, as it is so far rightly said, by Jesus Christ and the revelation He brought, is taken as declared accepted by the signatories to the creed. This may be so in the case of those who take it as now expounded; but in its original dress it scarcely seems to wear that complexion. As commonly understood, the words “the Father Almighty” are taken simply as distinctive of the first Person in the Godhead, the Son, and the Holy Spirit following in due order. No doubt much is implicit in all of these— “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” —as also in the simple baptismal formula of Matt. 28:19, from which formula, by the way, many conceive the Apostles’ Creed to have originated. As stated, the term “Father” is a relative one, involving the idea of sonship. But it is surely to over-amplify the ancient confession to read into it here all that the name “Father” involves when used as designative of His relation to us, “sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” Sermonizing upon the term, it may certainly be legitimate to draw attention to it as expressive of His relation to men; but reading it in its place and context in the creed, it would seem rather to define the manner in which the First Person of the Godhead stands related to the Second— “Jesus Christ His only Son.”

Moreover there is a lack of precision in what is advanced as the particular truth expressed under this name of “Father” in its larger signification even. There seems to be confusion, or at all events lack of clear distinction between, two things quite separate and distinct, the natural man’s relation to God, and the Christian’s. The term implying paternal relationship appears in scripture certainly applicable to both classes. “Adam which was [the son] of God” (Luke 3:38), instances the nature of the link in the one case; and of the God “in whom we live and move and have our being” we are no doubt “the offspring,” as elsewhere expressed; but the Christian’s relationship by faith in Christ Jesus, making it possible for him, having the Spirit of adoption, to cry “Abba Father,” is a quite different and far transcending truth. This distinction may seem so evident as to make it unnecessary to be emphasized, yet here we are in presence of a marked failure to draw it, at any rate with anything like clearness. The universal fatherhood of God, as modernly conceived, was emphatically not the substance of Christ’s revelation, and however true it may be that Philip’s “show us the Father and it sufficeth us” voices the universally felt need of the human heart, and that Christ’s answer, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” is the Christian revelation of God epitomized, and direct answer to that need, it is on another plane than that of nature, where this revelation is received, and this relationship enjoyed. “I have manifested thy name unto the men whom thou gavest me out of the world.” “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name, which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Nothing is more common than this confusion of the divine fatherhood in relation to man generally with that to believers in particular, or rather the absorption of the one into the other.

Here again is an instance of failing to give its distinctive place to what the New Testament teaches. For, leaving aside the Old Testament, what can be clearer in the New than that, consequent on the accomplished redemption it proclaims, part of the blessing it announces as the distinctive portion of believers, is their participation, theirs peculiarly, in the place and position of children and sons of God. Not only in the nature of the link itself do the two relationships differ, the one true of all who to Him as their Creator owe their being; the other a spiritual birth-tie existing in virtue of a divine operation of grace in the soul of one who is born again, born of God; but all round, as to their essential nature, the plane upon which they are realized, and the position of privilege and responsibility into which they severally introduce, the two things are wide as the poles asunder.

And even when a measure of distinction is seen to be called for by what the New Testament adds, more particularly by what the Lord Jesus Himself proclaims, it is largely misconceived. As parallel in its reasoning with the lecture at this point, and slightly more explicit, take a recent attempt, in a handbook on the “Life and Teaching of Christ,” to define what He teaches on the subject. Under the heading, “Subject matter of the teaching,” “God the Father” is taken as title of the first item. “Every new religion,” it is said, “begins in a new revelation of God, or in a new emphasis upon some hitherto half-understood aspect of the divine nature. Just as the starting-point of the religion of Israel was the new name of Yahveh given to God, so it is often claimed that the central point in the doctrine of Jesus is His conception of the fatherhood of God. There is, of course, nothing new in the idea. Jesus accepts a name for God which was already familiar; but fills it with a content and meaning of His own.” What then is this new content and meaning given to the idea not in itself original? “He speaks to the disciples of ‘My Father and yours,’ and teaches them to pray, ‘Our Father which art in heaven.’ This means a considerable advance upon the old conception of a Fatherhood derived from the fact of creation or generation.” Doubtless! In what then does it consist? “With Jesus the term ‘Fatherhood ‘ describes even something more than a relationship,” etc. The idea seems to be that Christ’s teaching carries the thought of God being Father beyond anything like the genetic sense it already had, and gives it rather an ethical significance. The Fatherliness of God rather than His Fathership is what is insisted on.

This elaboration of the idea of God’s Fatherhood, remark, leaves it still on the old ground, on the same plane as formerly. It is in no sense a new relationship opened up. With Jesus the term fatherhood “in the first place gives the essence or spirit which determines God’s action and lies behind it all,” either in redemption, as seen in the parable of the prodigal son, or in providence, as shown in the teaching of the Sermon on the mount. “The originality of His conception of the divine Fatherhood comes out in the stress which He lays upon the love of God. God is the Father of all men because He loves them.” In the second place, “He presents us with a new conception of the natural attitude of the soul to God under the figure of the filial relationship, in which there is a fine blending of childlike trust and godly fear, especially illustrated in His teaching in regard to prayer.” Finally, “It was not the least among the aims of the teaching of Jesus to bring home to men first the fact of this divine relationship, and then to show them the way to its fuller realization.” And is this all that is original in the “teaching of Jesus” on the topic of relationship with God? All that is to be learned from Him who, at the close of His ministry on earth, claimed as His peculiar prerogative, and accomplished mission, to have manifested the Father’s name? Who spoke of an hour coming when anything enigmatic about His disclosures to His disciples should be a thing of the past, and He would show them plainly of the Father? And who could give, as sufficient answer to the request, “Show us the Father,” the declaration, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father”?

How short, how very far short of an adequate presentation of the full Christian revelation this mere bringing into prominence of an unoriginal idea comes! How little apprehension of a new relationship with God through being born again spiritually, a relationship founded on the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, entered upon in association with the Son of God in resurrection, its basis essentially the possession of eternal life in Him, and God’s sending forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts crying, “Abba Father.” This, and no mere fuller realization of filial relationship on the plane of nature, gives “the full range and meaning and significance of sonship.” The confusion no doubt arises from the fact that in the revelation Christ brought there was undoubtedly that which had to say to men at large, as well as to those chosen out of the world as the special objects and recipients of His testimony. It is truly said, “While nature’s testimony and conscience’s witness evidence respectively God’s eternal power and divinity, and His righteous and holy character, neither of them gave the revelation of the Father. It was reserved for the Lord Jesus Christ to make Him known to sinners as a God of love.” Blessedly true it is that through Christ was shown the sovereign matchless love of God to a sinful world, the true unfolding of the Father’s heart towards His prodigals in the far country, if so it may be taken; but even this in no wise exhausts the fullness of that revelation of the Father concerning which it is said “the only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

If it is a truly great and effective contrast that John draws in the statement, “The law was given by Moses, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ,” a contrast not less striking we may see between what we learn of that tie of relationship between God and the members of the human family, owned still in spite of their fallen state, and what “eternal ages shall declare” of “those who, with Thy Son, shall share A son’s eternal place.” It was of this wonderful place and portion, to be enjoyed consequent on redemption and the coming of the Spirit, that our blessed Lord spoke continually. The fourth Gospel, in particular, gives full testimony to it. In how rich measure, in chapters 14 to 17 especially, containing His last words to His own, have we that manifesting of the Father’s name to the men given Him by the Father out of the world that He speaks of in His prayer (17:6). “I have made known to them thy name,” He said in closing, “and will make it known, that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.” The “declaring thy name unto my brethren,” as He did most unequivocally in resurrection— “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, unto my God and your God” —was surely the primary instance at least of His going on to make the Father known.

All this is involved in “that new conception of God, which burst forth into one word, religion’s ultimate, ‘Abba, Father.’” It may very well be questioned, then, if the statement of the creed has accommodation for all that is wrapt up in that wondrous name of relationship, “the Father.” More probably it was compiled, as it is by many recited, in much ignorance of this.

(Continued from page 32)

(To be continued)

[J. T.]

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

Passing on to further clauses of the Creed, it would be tedious and serve no purpose, to comment on every item. It is sufficient to point out wherein to a simple mind modern theology appears to impose a novel reading of its teaching, or to call attention to what, in the light of scripture, seems a defective or erroneous apprehension of the truth it summarizes.

In passing from the first to the second clause “and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord” unfortunately, one is not likely by any means to be free from difficulty in regard to what is taught yet. Rather, in fact, do we here, in this second declaration of belief, enter upon more controversial ground than ever. Proverbially it is so, as ancient ecclesiastical history, for instance, attests. Here have the fiercest and most oft-recurring combats of the past been waged. Throughout whole centuries this has been the field of conflict, where error after error has assailed the faith of God’s elect, and in some measure of faithfulness has been met and repulsed. To-day it presents somewhat the appearance of a historic battlefield, scarred with the marks of ancient combat, and strewn with the relics of a conflict long since stilled. Here and there, it may be, one of the old-time weapons may be disinterred, or some rusted fragment of broken armor, perhaps, of no more than antiquarian interest now, however much practical importance, for attack or defense, each may have had to those engaged in battle then. By even more graphic testimony, perchance, the thickly strewn relics of the slain, or other personal traces of the combatants, the field is seen to have been not always one of peaceful pasturage; but, in days long since gone, of turbulent tumult and fierce fighting. In literal fact this is ground, this that is entered upon by the, statements concerning the person of Christ, where the prolonged strife of controversies not a few has not failed to leave unmistakeable traces, and marks that can never he erased.

If, in fact, there is one instance where anything at all may appear to be in the claim of theology to have fulfilled its province of construing to expert intelligence, or enforcing on popular attention, a revealed truth of Christianity, it is here. How far in such a case it may be allowed that there has been, in the controversy as to this fundamental doctrine of the Person of the Son of God, a practical bringing of it into prominence, an emphasizing and elaboration of it which would not otherwise have been forthcoming, may be a question. Provided the thought generally associated with such ideas—that the scriptures, if at all, supply only the undeveloped formula of such doctrines provided that unbelieving thought be emphatically ruled out, there may be something to be said for it in the sense of seeing here supplied, in rebuke if also in the interest of decayed spirituality and faith grown feeble, in the providence of God a means of “supplementing” revelation by practical and historical emphasis. However that may be, it is certainly undisputed fact that in the church’s past it is on this truth perhaps beyond all others that steady unremitting attention has been bestowed, successive creeds amplifying definitions of it, doubtless with a view as much to express more adequately fuller conceptions, as to guard more effectively against fresh errors. So that in the whole volume of church history there is probably no point of doctrine so frequently referred to, nor so voluminously treated, as the truth concerning the second Person of the Godhead defined in the clause “and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.”

Nor are we to suppose that this is a field from which conflict has vanished forever, or that very different, or less contentious, conditions prevail there now. Nay, is it not rather the case that so very much in debate just at present is the question of Christ’s Person that we may fairly claim to be in presence of a fresh and most remarkable renewal of the warfare? The “Christ Question,” as it has been entitled, is very much alive to-day. Just how many things have combined to give it such a resuscitation it may be hard to say; but there is certainly no theological question on which discussion is so common or so keen as concerning the mystery of His Person. It appears to many also that in this very reanimation of the question may lie the danger of a recrudescence of ancient maladies. The trend of thought at all events in many cases is not free from parallelism with old-time heresies. The very fact in itself of the subject engrossing so largely popular attention is significant, ominous we may say. And that this is the case is being recognized even by many presumably.. not directly affected. “Christology” says one, in an article to a leading secular review on “Evolution and the Church” — “Christology has become the problem of the church to-day, as, viewed from other standpoints, it was of the church from the fourth to the sixth century.” This is certainly so, and many will be inclined to add there is more than a suspicion of the re-appearance of questions as ancient as the first century in much that is being advanced. Nor need it really occasion surprise to see threatening, as we do to-day, a renewal of polemical warfare around this particular doctrine. For when has theology as such, apart from simple quotation of scripture itself, been able to give a completely satisfactory and final pronouncement on it? In spite of what is claimed for creeds and confessions, what can it offer to-day even?

It may not be out of place to quote here a warning the above witness sounds from his presumably impartial standpoint. Remarking how quickly theories succeed each other in popular favor, and successively pass away, “systems of thought are short-lived,” he says, “the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door and shall carry thee out.” Really, if such evanescent theories so little comply with the requirements of truth as the quotation suggests, the fate of Ananias and Sapphira is not the worst that could overtake them. Nor is this marked failure to reach satisfactory conclusions so very difficult to explain. For one thing the matter is, one may say, inherently mysterious. It is remarkable that full in the past as has been the scrutiny it has undergone, and elaborate as to-day the treatment of it theologically has become, all attempted definitions, ancient and modern alike, of doctrine as to Christ’s person, when they go beyond the exact language, of scripture itself, very quickly throw off any restrictions it would impose, and pass into the region of mere speculation and conjecture. So much so in fact that even from theologians themselves we may occasionally have what looks like an extorted confession of how elusive and mysterious they find the matter to be. “Definite theological statements,” continues the same writer, quoting Jowett, “respecting the relation of Christ to God or man are only figures of speech. They do not really pierce the clouds. No greater calamity has ever befallen the Christian church than the determination of some uncertain things which are beyond the sphere of Christian knowledge.” What is this but a proof of the truth of Christ’s own warning word, “No man knoweth the Son but the Father.” If it is complained, as it has been, that by applying this wholesale to such knowledge of His person as all Christology is concerned in defining, we are condemned to a hopeless agnosticism on a subject of utmost importance, it can only be replied that in such a matter it may very well be that we may meet with the unknowable as well as the unknown. Where we are incompetent to diagnose, and revelation does not cast its light, it may be questioned if “hopeless agnosticism” is the proper term; but even so, faith can not only resign to the inevitable mystery, but discern, a fitness and moral congruity also in the arrangement which retains in seclusion from man’s vulgar scrutiny the holy mystery of His wonderful person. Better so than indulging in metaphysical flights on such a theme.

“No man knoweth the Son but the Father.” We do well to start here. There is a warning note in our Lord’s utterance it becomes us to hearken to. To pass beyond what is revealed is to enter a labyrinth where no wisdom of man can extricate us. We can understand how hopelessly men wander when they set out to explore this forbidden land, for that obscurity involves the whole matter we are informed here on the best of authority. Consequently they labor at their own charge who set out on such an expedition. Twentieth century thought no more than that of earlier days can solve the insoluble or be able to define the undefinable. So that in the strife now imminent, if not in progress, between the theorisings on this point of a New Theology, originating in nothing more stable than ever-changing conjecture, and the pronouncements of the older theology, basing themselves on creeds established and accepted for long, simple believers shall do well to repose the lightest of confidence in human thought as expressed in either; but arm themselves with, and withdraw themselves under that which can neither be superseded nor supplemented, the word of God.

Happily, in that which we are studying here, a great deal of historical theology is avoided by little or no reference to the doctrine of the Trinity. This is unusual in any exposition of the creed, for there is generally much stress laid upon this, and here, if anywhere, some elaboration of the truth would naturally be looked for. On this occasion, however, it is at once to the Son of God incarnate, the historic Jesus, to use the modern phrase, that we are directed. A great deal of what is said regarding the doctrine of the incarnation may be left aside, especially so from the fact that the attempt to show that it is not an unfamiliar idea to man, and to justify it as a credible doctrine leads to the use of the more or less technical language of philosophy. We cannot be expected to follow there; but it may be permitted to remark on the use of that rather novel principle which New Theology has given such prominence to— “the immanence of God.” Trust it not; especially when applied to the incarnation. “A mere philosopheme, absolutely fatal to a gospel” is not an unfair description of it. To many under the spell of philosophic reasoning on this doctrine of divine immanence, instead of the great mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh, “Christ Himself is,” as a Roman Catholic has recently said, “resolved into a mere lay figure draped in a few attributes which have no other origin than the minds of those actuated by its baneful influence.”

There are those also who claim “with the help of the modern categories of immanence, evolution and personality, to construe more adequately than ancient theology, and still more adequately than New Theology,” Christological doctrine. But in what does it result? Nothing but philosophical speculation, unsupported by scripture, where it is not indeed contradicted by it. This last, of course, may be of little consequence to those who hold that “the New Testament has left to dogmatic theology the task of thinking out, and construing to intelligence, such facts in regard to Christ as the apostles simply put side by side.” But to those who accept the scriptures as something less nebulous, as God’s revelation, in fact, of all we can know regarding the subject, all this shows with how great distrust the reasonings of philosophy on it must be regarded.

It is somewhat difficult, and becoming increasingly so, for plain Christian people to-day to apprehend, or even to come on to common ground of thought at all with, many teachers who make this branch of theology their province. Not only because of the above mentioned tendency to run into mere philosophic speculation, but because the subject is approached in so radically different a fashion from what they are accustomed to. This is not confined to the truth of incarnation alone, but a specially prominent instance of it is seen there. In what is under review here, after sheaving in the first place, and apparently as the prime consideration in regard to it, that the incarnation is a rational and credible doctrine, the next step to be considered is put in the form of a question— “Admitting the above, what proof have we that Jesus Christ was such incarnation of God?” “To some,” we are told, “the fact that the scriptures so teach is sufficient.” Amply so, a simple believer would rejoin; his only cause for dissatisfaction being that this consideration was so long in being advanced, that it was not first and foremost, given precedence over any such special plea as the reasonableness of the doctrine on philosophic grounds. To show that a doctrine was scriptural, was in line with, based upon the testimony of, the scriptures, used to be the first task of any Christian apologist. It is made now to wait till the development of proof from other lines of evidence has been completed. And not only so, whether the line taken be the parallelism of other religions in sheaving that the thought of a god becoming incarnate was not an unfamiliar idea, or the exposition of it in terms reminiscent rather of philosophy than of theology; but as a witness to the great truth the scripture is also subordinated in value by the assumption underlying all this, almost in fact in so many words stated, that it is not enough to be convinced that it can be established on scriptural grounds that Jesus Christ was really “God manifest in the flesh.” Considerations that shall appeal to those to whom the scripture is of little account, or who reject its witness, are thought worthy of first place.

No doubt there may be something in the plea, that it is at this point in the Creed where we part company with such as Jews and Mohammedans, who could very well adopt the first clause, concerning God the Father Almighty. But, since they do not accept the New Testament revelation, are we therefore to rule it out, or assign it second place in what constitutes the ground of our own faith and conviction? For surely in the recitation of a creed the object ostensibly aimed at is not primarily the gaining credence for its truths by unbelievers, but the statement or confession of one’s own personal faith. In terms sufficiently distinctive, and otherwise suited to the apprehension of such, it may be sought to be given, the simplest and most decisive language being that which is adopted. But for that very reason would not what one would look for in the exposition of that creed precisely he the bringing out, in something like the order of their relative importance, the grounds of the faith we therein confess, on what, as their primary foundation, these our convictions are founded? Is it then the case that the intellectual rationality of the doctrine of the incarnation is our first reply when asked to show cause why we believe in it? We credit the fact because it is quite feasible, and not at all a preposterous idea intellectually!

(Continued from page 48)

J. T.

(To be continued)

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

How cold and barren it all is, this being persuaded, granted even that it be fully persuaded, of the credibility, or philosophic certitude, of a truth such as this. That such a stupendous fact as God come down in love, the Word become flesh and dwelling among us, the eternal Son of God found in fashion as a man, in grace so profound, for purposes so great, and in a moral glory so beautiful, should, in a spirit that speaks of but little exercise of heart over it, he coolly observed, reasoned of, and assimilated into a system, somewhat after the manner of a scientific discovery, what does this argue in those who so discuss it? Is there not felt on the part of all who by His grace have been given to have a living interest in it, that in all this philosophizing there is an entire overlooking (what seems to us a most strange overlooking) of the spiritual import and significance of the wonderful fact so discussed? And, to any who have the least consciousness of its vital concern for themselves, how momentous seems the omission! Pathetic, too, to assured believers it cannot but appear. These laboring philosophers, as, with never a lift of their beaded brow to what is sun-clear to untutored minds, they bend over their task, how blindly they miss what we simple ones seize with alacrity! How callously they let slip, or leave out of consideration, that which alone we prize! How fatally they lose the force and value spiritually of the great and grand truth, when they attempt to equate it as a doctrine in philosophic terms! Oh, that its power, its grandeur, its sublimity would more fully penetrate our hearts!

“The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.” Is this merely the advent of a unique phenomenon upon the stage of life? a phenomenon so strange even that our whole system of philosophy must be ransacked for principles to explain it? Or is it altogether an intervention to descend to their terminology, of what, in this sense can only he called the non-phenomenal into the phenomenal world? “Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and, being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” Is this something esoteric to philosophers, or calling for such preliminaries as have been indulged in ere it become intelligible to us? Do we need to rove so far afield for its significance, wondrous fact as it is? Is there not a shorter and surer way to its spiritual meaning somewhere in the line of its appeal to our hearts? Ah! were we more under the power of that appeal, the whole spirit in which it is approached, should it not be vastly different? Philosophic reasoning might bulk less largely in our thought of it, occupation with it be less critical than contemplative. But would we be losers thereby? In presence of the greatness of that conception, the infinite grandeur of it morally, it needs not surely to be pressed which is the attitude of mind best becoming us. But for real knowledge of it even, this truth of the incarnation of the Son of God, what its meaning, what its implications, what its adjustment to the scheme of things—the region in which it must be studied most decidedly is the moral and spiritual and not the philosophic. As always in the discerning of the truth of God, whatever the subject, mere acuteness of natural intelligence avails nothing. Spiritual truth is communicated spiritually, and it is he that is spiritual that discerneth all things. And as to this great fact, “the mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh,” are we likely to find less true the operation of that principle?

Here, if anywhere, philosophy is at a discount, and spiritual vision is that which alone will reach tangible results. Received in faith, and contemplated spiritually, the bearings of it philosophically count for little, and are left behind as mere husk and shell. Oh! that the real kernel of it may be ours, that the great truth in all its range and beauty, as revealed in the word, may flood our souls with adoration of Him, who claims in this respect perhaps less our knowledge than our worship, who is “God over all, blessed forever.”

We are taken a little further on somewhat similar lines, though here there is a real substratum of truth underlying, when we are asked to remember that the very thought of a personally existent God involves the thought that He must express Himself. Further that, in the words of another, “in the being of God we see there is a Trinity which lays the foundation for the possibility of the incarnation of the Son.” Again, that in none other but the Son of God come in flesh can this be, for revelation is only possible where spiritual kinship exists. All, in their place, considerations not to be slighted. And only now, after such preamble, are we led up to Scripture to consider its testimony. Witness there is there, clear, full, and, above all, plain. Testimony to the Lord Jesus Christ is its express purpose, and the mystery of His person, His divinity and humanity alike, are abundantly evidenced. The order in which the Creed takes it up, first the divinity then the humanity, is that which is observed in this exposition also. “And I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.” With this statement it leads off. The true and essential divinity, perhaps we had better say deity, of the Lord Jesus Christ is what is here first affirmed. And scripture Makes it very apparent that nothing less is what it claims for Him.

This again, as it is very cogently remarked, not as a matter of a few proof texts here and there, which ingenuity of exegesis might essay to explain away, but woven into the very texture of the word.

There is, of course, no lack of categorical statements of His deity; but the truth rests broad-based on even wider foundation than these supply. As has often been remarked, there are attributes ascribed, actions and utterances recorded, and incidental allusions made throughout the entire New Testament that are almost more positive affirmations of His Godhead than the most direct statements can be. It is to this testimony en masse, rather than to particular references, that attention is drawn, so that perforce we must follow on that line. It is something to be thankful for that insistence is so firm on the fact that the New Testament does present Christ’s deity as an acknowledged truth. It is becoming so common now (we are warned) to speak of the orthodox confession of Christ’s essential divinity as a doctrine developed to its present proportions at a period in church history more or less advanced, and not explicitly New Testament doctrine. We are frequently told that, if at all, it was only in a very rudimentary form that an intelligible Christology was held in primitive times! The claims of the writers, more particularly the earliest writers, of the New Testament, for Christ, were not of the same exorbitant nature as those orthodoxy makes now! Divinity, in esse, was an attribute assigned by later ages to Christ, it is said!

With the New Testament before us this should not be difficult to settle. But again fault must be found with the method by which it is done. As is so common, here again there is compromise. Instead of a clear firm stand being taken on what is the uniform, unvarying testimony of scripture, there is, as we shall see, an adoption in measure, a taking over in principle of the heterodox idea, and then the foisting upon scripture of this sense and meaning. This leads to the argument taking, at this juncture, a most surprising turn. We all know how development as a theory seems to have a peculiar charm for theologians to-day, amounting in fact almost to an obsession. In any sphere whatever it needs but to be suggested for them to see something in it. Who would suppose now that, after controverting the idea of the true faith of Christ (that estimate which postulates of His true divine nature—deity) being inconsistent with New Testament Christology, and a matter of development in times posterior to it, that then, in a modified form, the self-same idea of development should be taken over, and read into, New Testament Christology itself? As the note sounded throughout now is far from clear, it seems due at this stage to call attention to this its uncertain sound.

As a start, however, it is rightly emphasized that the great thing to get hold of is what conception of Himself, and of His relation to God, was left by Christ on the minds of His followers, His disciples, the apostles. Did He appear to them, to use two separate confessions of the same individual, “Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God,” merely such? or, “the Christ, the Son of the living God”? Following in the wake of a recent writer on the subject, a sketch of New Testament Christology is here given. The theme is pursued along three lines of evidence—the Epistles of Paul, the Synoptical Gospels, and the Gospel of John—the question being what impression the writers of each had retained of the nature and personality of Christ Jesus. In what respect do they severally manifest His admitted uniqueness to consist? On this head what is advanced is all very well, and, if left at that, might be a fair, though certainly far from a full, presentation of New Testament teaching, showing at least that the “historical valuation of Jesus” assigned in the Creed was not out of keeping with that entertained by His disciples.

But, from this point, both the writer quoted from, and our lecturer proceed now on that line of reasoning from which we have expressed dissent. Says the former, “In this harmonious account there are still not wanting clear marks of development. The Synoptists give the rudimentary form, in Paul’s Epistles it is more fully developed, and in the Fourth Gospel it is complete. Then even within Paul’s Epistles, and again within John’s Gospel, signs of development are to be seen.” “Jesus was Jesus at first. Jesus becomes more and more ‘the Christ ‘ as we proceed. As a New Testament doctrine it is distinctly progressive.” This is thought to involve no contradiction or disparagement. The explanation of this development certainly differs considerably. By the lecturer it is thought “to have something to do with the fact that the truth of Christ’s divinity had to be forced upon the mind and attention of His Jewish disciples with their carnal conceptions of a Messiah,” and this being only gradually accomplished, the developing Christology of the New Testament may be indicative of its progress. But by the writer referred to it is traced to “the influence of Gentile modes of thought and expression,” and that idea, far from being found in any way objectionable, is held in reserve as a further consideration to explain the supposed progression in New Testament thought from the historic Jesus to the divine Christ. However explained, by both this development is affirmed, and regarded as indicating that as a primitive doctrine in the early church the truth of Christ’s divinity was only progressively held, realized, and taught; that consequently, the earliest impression, or original valuation of Him was comparatively low.

Now as conducive to anything like clear thinking, a distinction is at this stage called for which seems here to be omitted. Two things which we must clearly distinguish between are—the disciples of Christ simply as His earthly followers, and the same individuals, or such of them as were so used, in the capacity of New Testament writers. In regard to such a truth as His being God manifest in flesh, there is surely all the difference between the early glimmerings of faith in simple Galilan fishermen, and the truth as penned by apostles and teachers under the inspiration of the Spirit of God Himself. This last consideration by itself makes all the difference. If divinely inspired we believe these writings to be, they are—whatever the human element—at once for us removed above the possibility of containing a developing Christology. What of Peter, Matthew, or John as to their several measures of conceiving how Jesus could be divine? It may be that in the time of their companying with Him prior to the cross, and (we must add) to Pentecost, such varying measures were true. And that many a shadow of unbelief momentarily dimmed the full assurance of their faith in Him we can well believe, and in fact are told of. But in what they wrote of Him subsequently, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, however true it be that the characteristics of each remain in what they relate of Him, we can never imagine variety in either the nature or the quality of their testimony to what He was—to His Godhead. If it were merely a question of the development, during their earthly association with Him, of His disciples’ conviction of His divinity, it would be another matter. Keeping in mind the distinction between faith and knowledge one would surely allow that there was progression there. But this is an assuming that such development of conviction appears, or is reproduced, in the portion of the word of God they were used by Him to pen, and on every ground this is erroneous and false.

[J. T.]

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

Now before proceeding to consider further this modified adoption of the theory of a developing Christology, let us notice briefly whereto this notion may lead, and to what lengths it is being pushed, by theologians less moderate in its application. We are all familiar with the cry so often heard today, “Back to Christ.” What does it mean on the lips of theologians? A return to the simplicity and power of the truth as it is in Jesus? Alas! far from it. Here is an article by an accredited New Theology teacher on “The Christ Question,” which illustrates clearly what is being echoed so widely. “Back to Christ” is his cry too, and the way in which he interprets that ambiguous motto is instructive, to say the least. The article is throughout a plea for distinguishing between what he calls the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. This in the interest of a theory he has that the latter is something in the nature of an ideal, “an ever-growing, ever-advancing, ever-expanding ideal,” quite separate and separable from the real historic Jesus of Nazareth. In claiming that it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the “Return to Jesus which is manifest in modern thought,” he declares—

“Jesus is understood to-day better than in any previous age. Like a fossil that has long lain embedded in the Silurian rocks, so the actual historic Jesus has been buried under mountains of Christological dogma. And perhaps the greatest service that has been rendered to religious thought within recent years has been the excavation of the real Jesus of history. To change the figure, as an artist removes the grime, the dust, the whitewash from some long lost but newly discovered portrait, until the perfect likeness looks out again: and rewards his loving patience, so the labors of the truth-loving critic have at last re-discovered the lost likeness of the Prophet of Nazareth.”

Now, in itself this may look like nothing but elegant rodomontade, but our theologians will discover, if they follow on, that here is one who simply carries on their identical idea of development to its legitimate issue, only, he is much more consistent and thorough-going in his application of it. They admit the principle of development and imagine that by confining it to the New Testament they save the situation. That is to say, they allow the whitewash, but deny the grime and the dust. They do not deny the fossilizing (the figure is unhappily only a too fitting one for what has transformed living truth into cold dogma, from which all life has departed); but affirm the process of stratification only during the apostolic age. Possibly the later mountains of dogma do not appear to them to bury the truth, but to uplift and manifest it. But here is one who quite boldly takes their theory of the development of Christology in the New Testament, uses it to prove that ascriptions of deity to Christ are simply accretions on the original history, and roundly charges apostles with these practices of embellishing the simple truth, and overlaying it with dogma. After all, there is nothing like candor.

Notice how, in dealing with the New Testament evidence, the very same course is pursued as in the sketch indicated above—Paul’s Epistles, the Synoptical Gospels, and the Gospel of John.

“Paul,” he says, “delivered Christianity from Jewish limitations, but at the same time he started the movement which took it away from its Galilean simplicity. The speculations of the Apostle concerning Christ became the starting point of theology... All the same it was a departure from the life and teaching of Jesus. What triumphed was not the religion of Jesus, but certain speculations about the Christ that resembled very little the Galilean Gospel.”

Then as to the Synoptics. “They are not histories so much as ideals of Him which grew up in the hearts of His friends after a lifetime of loving reverence... They are all molded and shaped by one great idea. Jesus was the Jewish Messiah... bearing evidence throughout of the influence of this atmosphere in the mythological accretions they add to the simple life of Jesus.”

Finally, as to John’s Gospel. “It is impossible for us to conceive of any single individual speaking as Jesus is represented as speaking in the Fourth Gospel—’I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me.’ ‘If ye knew me ye would know my Father also. I and my Father are one.’ But that is just the way the Gospel writer would naturally speak of the ideal and divine Christ, who was living in his mind and heart, the eternal word who had come down from heaven, the ideal man, the indwelling image of perfect manhood.”

This is what it comes to at last— “the ideal man,” “perfect manhood.” With similar arguments our teachers expect to reinforce the doctrine of His “perfect Godhead.” But it may be more than doubted if there is any such strengthening of the evidence as they look for in such a way of reasoning. There is grave risk in adopting such premises at all. Indeed this modern distinguishing of “Christ” from “Jesus” in this way, and tracing the development of what the Christ-like idea is thought to imply, is just one of those novel ideas on the subject which we have spoken of as fraught with peril. We may recognize quite clearly where we are in the New Theology quoted from above. “Every spirit that confesseth not Jesus Christ come in the flesh is not of God.” Thus the teaching under notice here more particularly seems to be deficient in its lack of giving that full value to apostolic testimony which is also impressed upon us. “We are of God,” says the Apostle; “he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth us not. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” We are warned in this Scripture against giving ready credence to any and everything advanced as spiritual truth. There is the activity of the spirit of error, as well as that of the Spirit of truth, to be taken account of in the sphere of religious thought, and as a means of distinguishing the one from the other we are supplied with two tests. The true confession of “Jesus Christ come in the flesh” is the one. The reception of the apostles’ doctrine as of God, with all that that it implies, is the other. It certainly implies, this latter claim does, that what the apostles wrote they assuredly did under the full and unerring direction of the Spirit of God, else could not their teaching be so unequivocally associated with His name. “Hereby know we the Spirit of truth.” How this can be reconciled with the thought of a slowly dawning consciousness thus late in their minds of Jesus their Master’s divinity may be left to these apologists to explain. Certainly to a plain person it seems contradictory, and the teaching that affirms it derogatory in a measure both to that particular truth, and to the apostolic testimony regarding it.

Besides, let any ordinarily attentive reader of the New Testament say if this so-called development is really so self-evident as is affirmed. Taking as bare facts for the moment the two things—the gradual compiling of the New Testament, book by book, and its references to Christ’s Godhead or deity—it cannot be denied that these latter are both more numerous and fuller as time goes on; that, as; general rule, the later the book chronologically, the more ample the elaboration of Christ’s relation to God. But does this of necessity imply that correspondingly primitive or developed phases of Christology were contemporaneous with these as the faith of the church? Does it not occur to any that the fuller treatment of a point may keep pace with the growing measure in which it is being denied or perverted? That is to say, that the chronological order of the books of the New Testament, as far as can be ascertained, and the fuller emphasizing of the truth as to Christ’s person, synchronize, go hand in hand, more by reason of the growing prevalence of anti-Christian doctrine than of anything else. There is a principle evident ‘in the New Testament, which we are apt to give less weight to than we ought, and that is, that God in His wise providence allowed error of every shade and form to appear in the apostles’ own days, while still the truth was being communicated through them. Like offenses, it must needs be that heresies should come. We owe it to His wise ordering that the advent of the various germinant forms of error occurred in time for exposure and refutation from inspiration’s pen, ere the canon closed. On this ground, then, we conclude that, if more frequent allusion to, or more forcible reiteration of Christ’s Godhead is found in the later written portions of the New Testament, it is indicative really of another and more common form of development—that of error. Then, whatsoever the more frequent insistence on it latterly may be, the true deity of Christ is just as plain in the first as in the last of the New Testament writings, not to speak of the Old Testament, where this theory of development cannot apply. Christ, in fact, is the one great theme of scripture, and its testimony is unanimous and consistent throughout that He was nothing less than “God over all, blessed forever.”

The whole idea of Christ’s true and essential divinity being a conception of Him reached by His disciples only after long reflection, and entertained or expressed with any measure of clearness only as the New Testament closed, appears puerile to the last degree once we bring in faith as the medium of their apprehension of Him. The truth as to His person, we may see from many instances, was impressed upon them from the very first moment of their spiritual contact with Him, and the nature of that impression points to faith as the means of their spiritual illumination. Faith is so different from the mere intellectual “conceptions” we hear so much of; and nowhere is this more apparent than here in this matter of what the disciples may have thought as to Christ’s person. When we think of it all, the close and intimate intercourse between them and Himself; their daily observation of Him, His words and His ways; above all, their acquaintance with all the claims He made for Himself, and the calm conviction they had of these claims being valid, should we not speak less of their “conceptions” and more of their “conclusions”? Truly a blessed thing is faith! So sure of its ground, so clear of uncertainty! This by reason of being grounded on divine testimony. “To them it was given to believe on Him.” When Peter confessed Him “Son of the living God,” did not our Lord declare “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas.” Had it been flesh and blood which revealed it unto him, we should indeed look for some such development as is spoken of; but faith, resulting from what “my Father in heaven has revealed,” does not conform to such rules, or take so long to reach a conclusion. Does not our Lord Jesus Himself in His intercessory prayer (John 17) over and over again make clear that His own gathered round Him then had, whatever their failure, even ere this entertained true thought of His person and mission. “They have known,” He says, “that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.” “They have known surely (of a truth),” He says again, “that I am come out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.” The cardinal distinction between the world and His own is, He declares that (while “the world hath not known thee”), “these have known that thou hast sent me.” Was this knowledge rudimentary? a faint idea of some indefinable greatness in their illustrious Rabbi? Was such as this all the knowledge He predicted of them? “This is life eternal,” He said, and that specifically was His gift to those whom the Father had given Him, “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” Mark the association of personages, if the term may be allowed. There is co-ordination of Jesus Christ and the only true God implied here, it is sometimes said. There is, and it is expressed in such a way as betokens it the characteristic Christian revelation. A late and proportionately high revelation of Jesus, forsooth! Was this, or was it not, from the first the clear testimony concerning the Lord Jesus? Was this, or was it not, the confession of those with whom he companied when on earth? On one occasion, when He inquired of them, “Will ye also go away?” “Lord, to whom shall we go?” was their reply, “thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art the Holy One of God.”

Where our divines err in this matter, it is to be feared, is in that common respect of reading into others’ experience the circumstances of our own. The truth of God is to them largely a question of theology, Christology a branch of it, the true divinity of the Lord Jesus a doctrine to be gradually conceived, slowly reasoned out, and scientifically established. Consequently they imagine a like process in the early disciples and the writers of the New Testament. When shall they learn that there is such a thing in the spiritual realm as faith? such a thing as the certitude that comes from receiving divine testimony? such a thing that conviction is borne in upon the heart when God is realized as present and addressing men? Rudimentary Christology or not, was there nothing of this in those who followed the Lord when here on earth? or under the inspiration of God penned His truth for our guidance and instruction? Really now, could “God manifest in the flesh” be the true character of Christ’s incarnation, and men in spiritual contact with Him escape conviction of it—immediate conviction of it? Nay, verily. For Jesus of Nazareth to be to them, while they had His presence, no more than Jesus of Nazareth, and the idea of His being the Christ a subsequent idealistic investiture of that historical figure with the draperies that Christological dogma spun round it, is a thing quite incredible in itself; and how much out of keeping with Scripture one need not say. Rather there do we see that Christ Jesus, the eternal Son of God, the Word made flesh, approved Himself such to the earliest glimmering of faith in His own. and won from them then, as He does from all true believers still, the voluntary confession, “My Lord and my God.”

In fine, from all that the New Testament teaches about Him, whether it be the testimony of the Synoptists (thought to be the most rudimentary Christologists, but in reality quite sufficiently establishing who and what Christ really was): or that of Paul in his epistles (reckoned to give the doctrine in a more advanced stage of its evolution—really only presenting the same truth as to basis, but distinctly characterized, as might be expected by the witness of one to whom from heaven the Lord Jesus revealed Himself, and whose testimony consequently was of a heavenly and glorified Christ): or that of John in his Gospel (not the final form after the influence of Gentile modes of thought and expression had molded it into symmetry, but the grand, full, four-square witness of the one whose province it particularly was—in pursuance of that divine design impressed upon all the scriptures to manifest Jesus as the only begotten Son of God)—whichever of the writers be selected, from each will be found a testimony unvarying, and from all a witness uniform and complete; a record given which presents a life and teaching and character, a position and glory, and a personality and power absolutely incomprehensible on any other ground than that the One described is expressly what the creeds claims Him to be, “Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.”

[J- T.]

(Continued from page 80)

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

From what the Creed claims for Christ as a divine person we pass on to consider what it states concerning His humanity. “Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried.” So is expressed in the Creed the origin, nature, and circumstances of our Lord’s humanity. Now again as to the exposition. It is said that when we come now to speak of our Lord’s humanity we are on ground more familiar, we are in a region where the human mind is less likely to be so entirely incapable of reasoning as concerning His divinity. The subject matter is more within our scope. There is at the same time a complaint made that hitherto Christian thinkers have been too reticent on this matter of Christ’s humanity, and that the difficulty of the subject is largely imaginary. As an encouragement to proceed, one thing we are told in this connection that while hitherto in the creed we have moved in the region of truth open only to spiritual intelligence, now we are on altogether different and lower ground. We arrive at that which makes no call upon anything higher than ordinary historical credence, and that therefore discussion here is both legitimate and expedient. The clause just recited differs from preceding ones in this respect—that whereas they appeal to faith, this is a simple historical statement.

Now it is admitted that this portion of the creed, as it is said, is history, the particular clause of it where it trenches on historical ground. “Suffered under Pontius Pilate” is the distinctive mark of this special character of the clause. As has often been noted, this is the only time mark in the creed. Concerning it Pearson wrote— “As the Son of God by His deliberate counsel was sent into the world to die in the fullness of time, so it concerns the church to know the time in which He died. Accordingly that we might be properly assured of the actions of our Savior which He did and of His sufferings... in accordance with ancient methods of computation we learn that ‘He suffered under Pontius Pilate.’” Now, that Jesus Christ passed across the stage of human history may be an event to be recorded in its annals as of supreme importance, and without a doubt it concerns the church, in proclaiming these facts to the world, great, marvelous, and momentous as they are, regarding Him whom it confesses as Savior and Lord, to comply with all due requirements of evidence giving, and to set forth, in right order and sequence, supplying at the same time the date of, such great events. Yet it must surely be felt that, historical though this portion of the creed may be, it is scarcely as history that it counts. We can scarcely he said to have much evidence in Scripture that the Holy Spirit greatly concerns Himself with man’s history as such—mere cosmical as distinguished from moral history, that is—and as far as Christ’s place in that is concerned much more is made of it in many quarters than seems called for. The great fact historically in regard to Christ, it must be remembered, is that man, when He came to His own, received Him not. The great outstanding fact in the world’s history is that it rejected Him. This discounts considerably any historical valuation of Him they may frame now. The Holy Spirit has come “to convict the world,” not of His place in its history, but, “of sin, righteousness, and judgment. Of sin, because they believe not on me; of righteousness, because I go to my Father and ye see me no more; of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.”

Then again, to return to the Creed, historical whether this portion of it be or not, it is certainly more than history it recounts, its several items more than mere events for which it demands intellectual credence. It is surely more than the admission of these occurrences—the birth, suffering, death, etc., of Jesus Christ—as historic facts that is asked from those who subscribe to the Creed. Why let the opportunity pass of pressing upon hearers their own intimate concern in these facts, that here is no mere otiose confession of their historicity; but acceptance of them as truths from God charged with all the importance and potency that all such truths possess. Why, even in a historical work recently, which we might well expect to give no more than a secular view, on “The conflict of religions in the early Roman Empire,” the writer, who is, too, more or less Unitarian, after taking the matter up on this very ground, and speaking of “what exactly it was which happened in Palestine under the Emperor Tiberius,” is constrained to admit that “men are scanning that to-day with the sense that it concerns them personally to know, that the answer has an immediate bearing upon their interests and practice. Jesus of Nazareth,” he says, “does stand in the center of human history, but also HE brings God and man into a new relation and He is the personal concern of every one of us.” Ah! there are many who can assign to Christ a correct and unique historical niche who have little place for Him in their hearts. These professions of belief in His sufferings and death are surely more than academic acceptance of bare historic facts. They must be if to prove of any value spiritually. We cannot take Jesus Christ historically; the thing is impossible. Nor can this clause of the creed be so absolutely differentiated from others which make their appeal to faith. The spiritual exercise involved in the reflective study of such facts, and in the true entertainment of such beliefs, is not less intense nor real than in the case of the others professed. How then can the ground taken be in any way lower or more accessible to the natural man’s apprehension?

The assumption of our comparatively greater ability to understand Christ’s humanity is reiterated now as a thing that is enhanced by modern equipment theologically for the task. It is affirmed, at the same time, that many still too little realize the truth and force of the “gospel of Christ’s manhood.” The lingering reluctance of many to admit the subject as fit matter for discussion at all is scoffed at as unreasonable timidity in presence of what we know now, and we are informed indeed that the predominant note in Christology has long been the human element in Christ’s person. The real problem for many today, it is said, does not lie so much there, where modern religious thought can claim some acquaintance. That which constitutes their difficulty is to understand His essential divinity. That He who lived a veritable human life was at the same time very God. The opposite was the case, it is said, in early Christian times. It was the humanity, not the divinity, upon which emphasis came to be needed at a very early period. Their impression of His divinity became in turn so strong that they found it hard to realize His real humanity. An instance of this is found in Gnosticism, which, with its conception of the inherent evil of matter, found it necessary to maintain that Christ, whom they more or less clearly conceived of as in a sense divine, did not take unto Himself real human nature and form. So much was this the case that the menacing challenge of 1 John 4:2, 3, was, in regard to them, amply justified. “Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come in the flesh is of God. And every spirit that confesseth not Jesus Christ come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world.”

Whether this Docetic teaching alluded to owed its origin to an overpowering conviction of Christ’s divinity naturally dominating the thoughts concerning Him of those who were in so close proximation to Him who spake as never man spake, and did among men the works which none other man did—whether this be so or not, the fact remains that such false ideas were early afloat, and that it was in face of them, in an incipient form at least, that the apostle uttered the above warning note. “Jesus Christ come in flesh” is the true confession of Him, deity and humanity both real and true; and anything else John unhesitatingly regards as of Satanic origin and character. The time of fullness of manifestation and operation for that spirit of antichrist was not yet, but still future. A premonitory instance of its activity the apostle discerned this to be. How ominous is the reflection that it was precisely concerning this matter of the humanity of Christ that these went astray. Is there not then cause for apprehension lest, on these same sunken rocks where shipwreck of the faith on such a large scale in the past has occurred, we also should strike? It is no healthy feature of our time that this over-insistence on the humanity of Christ is the predominant note. The tendency to resolve everything into it is remarked by not a few. Thus Professor Orr, for instance, in his recent Sidelights on Christian Doctrine” — “Many tendencies are at present in operation to weaken the doctrine of the incarnation—speculative and evolutionary theories, doctrines of divine immanence, a pantheistic identification of God and man, above all, the powerful bent in the spirit of the age towards a non-supernatural interpretation of the facts and truths of religion. In all directions the attempt is being made to lower the doctrine of Christ to a more or less humanitarian level.”

What if this materialistically inclined “spirit of the age” should be identified with this same “spirit of antichrist” of which our passage speaks. Does it not appear like it? In view of all the subtle questions abroad on the subject also may we not in this declaration concerning the simple confession of “Jesus Christ come in the flesh” read a warning of the innate tendency of human speculation to err on the subject, particularly when the mystery of the person of Christ, of how His humanity and divinity are related, is sought to be analyzed metaphysically? One thing the passage makes plain at all events, the vital importance of true doctrine as to the person of Christ, and the decidedly antichristian nature of error on that score. Compared with present-day lukewarmness there is a seeming intolerance and illiberality about such a statement as that of John just quoted, when truth as to the person of Christ is in question, which some are not slow to condemn as one of “those sudden ebullitions of the fierce invective of bigotry characteristic of the beloved disciple. The difficulty would be to imagine the apostle adopting any less uncompromising attitude towards what assailed the true faith as to the One of whose divinity he was in a sense the special witness. To prove himself a “Boanerges” there was in no wise out of season. But in fact it is no mere question of John or Paul; scripture testimony is harmonious throughout, and we shall do well both to observe its unanimity and imitate its reserve. Why after all should any presume to go beyond it? Why should we consider human thought to-day better fitted to investigate, or more competent to declare exactly what occurred when the second Person of the Godhead entered the ranks of humanity, when “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”?

In pursuance of the claim of increasing competency to dissect the human nature of Christ, this section of the Creed is gone on with. Taking the verbs of the five clauses— “conceived, born, suffered, died, and was buried” —the lecturer speaks of them as “expressing the humanity of Jesus in terms in the compass of which every normal human life was contained.” Combining the two first, “conceived” and “born,” and significantly omitting all but the mere verbs, “the reality of the humanity He assumed is shown by the fact that he entered life by the ordinary channel. It was a real and not a phantom body He took when born, real human life He lived, and a real human death He died.” This is not at all satisfactory even in what it states; but in what it omits it is far from dealing fairly with the truth. If even the scriptures bearing upon it merely had been quoted, there would have been so far an exposition of this part of the Creed. So much at least we might surely expect, not to say that from a Presbyterian one might even look for some such attempt to define as his “shorter catechism” gives— “Christ the Son of God became man by taking to Himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her, yet without sin.” Instead of which we are led to understand that Biblical criticism and other lines of study have raised difficulties which make it desirable to look for the elucidation of the truth regarding, and confirmation of the uniqueness of, Christ’s humanity in other directions than what is called “the doctrine of the virgin birth.” That is to say, what is related concerning His miraculous birth in Matthew and Luke’s Gospels being under suspicion, grave and of substantial basis, either as to its being credible or authentic history, or as to genuineness of text, that particular line of evidence must be dropped.

Now what are the facts of the case here? The truth enunciated in that clause of the Creed, “Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,” had been objected to, and ridiculed, by opponents of Christianity for long. In the welter of unbelieving skepticism prevailing over Christendom at present, however, many professing Christian teachers, having fallen under the spell of infidel reasoning all round, naturally shrink now from exposing themselves to the ridicule of those whose good opinion they have come to respect, by firmly maintaining this apparently particularly vulnerable doctrine. The objections, remark, have not themselves greatly changed, nor gained in force from any new facts elicited, from Scripture or otherwise. What has changed is only the sphere where they can be entertained, and that again is solely due to the inoculation of modern Christian doctrine with infidel ideas. Does this seem too strong? What else can be said of those who find now of so much weight arguments that in days of more robust faith never would have counted?

Proceeding then to consider this very damaging modern attack on the “doctrine of the virgin birth,” let us take an example from a work entitled, significantly enough, “Jesus, Seven Questions.” There is no thought of attempting to meet the questions raised, or the objections urged. Let them be seventy times seven, and they still could be added to, and remain questions. One peculiarity about them all is that while to a mind that can entertain them at all they must be insuperable, to a plain believer there is absolutely nothing in them. The only reason for quoting them at all here is to show the stuff the bug-bears of theologians are made of, and perhaps at the same time serve to supply an instance of what Prof. Orr has spoken of as to characteristic tendencies of modern thought on the subject. This attack on the doctrine of the virgin birth is opened by an attempt to account for its origin as a doctrine. The unique and transcendent place Jesus Christ occupies in history is first emphasized as “accounting primarily for the feeling that the character of both His person and His entry into the world must have been unique.” Then a familiar argument that “humanity could not in the ordinary course have produced Jesus Christ, and that therefore a miraculous birth was necessary ere Jesus could have been in possession of the attributes He continually manifested” is met—how? by arguing that “there is no accounting for the phenomenon of genius,” and that “evolution does not exclude the occasional and unrepeated irruption of genius.” Next, the silence of Paul, as well as of the Epistles in general, and of Mark’s and John’s Gospels regarding the virgin birth is mentioned as a discounting feature. Then, coming to the two passages which alone clearly teach it (Matt. 1:18-25, and Luke 1:34, 35), the author raises the question as to whether at all they are historical and not rather poetical and legendary. The bulk of what both these Gospels record in connection with the nativity of Jesus is then gone over, and so valuated. [ J. T.]

(Continued from page 96)

(To be continued)

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

“Have this mind in you,” said the writer, “which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being (subsisting) in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” As subsisting in very form of God, eternally so we may say, we first see Him as we proceed to trace the course detailed here of Him. Equality with God then was for Him no prize to be grasped at, or possession to be tenaciously clutched, whichever of the two we understand to be here so emphatically negatived. Certain it is at all events He sought not to retain this place and estate of Godhead glory; but exchanged in wonderful grace the form of God for the form of a servant, coming in the likeness of men. And this surely in itself for Him is descent of no mean degree. When one considers all that it involves, without at all following out the metaphysics, but on quite another plane, a veritable kenosis it indeed is, a very real emptying of Himself. To be found in fashion as a man, beset with all that of sorrow and suffering accrues to the estate fallen man is in, sin itself excepted, He who in heavenly glory subsisted in the very form of God, does this imply no emptying of Himself? Lord of all, and equality with God no object of aspiration to Him, His assuming in love to us the bond-servant’s form, though He was Son learning obedience by the things He suffered, yea, humbling Himself and becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, is all this not “kenosis” enough? Does it need that we amplify consideration of exactly in what respect limitations or altered conditions mentally and intellectually attached to the humanity He assumed? Is not all that, even if answerable at all, of but secondary importance, and foreign really as a matter of precise exegesis to the passage in its original setting? Pity it would indeed be if the wonderful power and pathos of its beautiful appeal were found to evaporate, the remarkable force and poignancy of its moving example to lose its potency, or the morally glorious exhibition of the grace and love of our blessed Savior’s course it contains, to melt away by such “botanizing on a mother’s grave.”

But what is it then that we are told is involved in this kenosis, this self-emptying of the Son of God? For with them it is not simply the giving up of position, privileges, and honor that constitutes this. Such renunciation of these as is involved in His becoming man, great as was the surrender by Him who, rich in glory, for our sakes became poor, the simple relinquishing of these does not appear to exhaust the meaning of His kenosis. It is carried back beyond all this, and made to apply to a sphere of things, to the ordinary Christian, savoring more or less of the abstruse or occult. Much intricacy of thought, and ingenuity of conjecture, which could obtrude upon or emanate from no mind but that of a metaphysician, has been expended upon the subject. In the effort to construe more intelligibly to such the truth as to His person incarnate, the expression “He emptied Himself” has been much dwelt upon. In this is to be found, it is imagined, much more than any mere general statement of His descending from glory on high to the condition of humiliation implied in His being found in fashion as a man. This kenotic process, it is affirmed, extended much further than either position or physical conditions. It took in, it is said, the much deeper sacrifice of powers and faculties. A field this is, this to which we are invited, where conjecture can find much room for play. The point of emphasis is that it was not merely in external or extraneous features that Christ’s self-emptying took place, but in what may be called intrinsic ones. That is to say that in the act of becoming incarnate the Son of God so shut off or reduced in potency all that pertained to His divine nature, that in the realm of mind and intellect no less than in physical qualities, all was of the human order. Superlative in degree perhaps; but indistinguishable in kind from that of ordinary men. Thus it is sometimes said, “Of what was it that Christ divested Himself in becoming man? Of everything pertaining to His deity, essential attributes alone excepted.”

God He was they confess. God He remained, but with everything proper to Godhead in abeyance, all divine prerogatives absolutely renounced, and all the conditions and limitations of real humanity assumed. A sort of temporary depotentiation of His divine nature in, by, or for its contact with the humanity He took to Himself. “Deity can,” they say, “without real self-impairment lay aside what belongs to it except essential attributes, and omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, are not these, but only expressions of free relation to the world he has made.” Still another way to put it is to say that “He retained the ethical attributes of God while abandoning the physical.” Accordingly, within a carefully defined list of prerogatives capable of being surrendered there has been an absolute kenosis, and among the abdicated attributes are to be found such as the above-mentioned-omnipotence and omniscience, but a short step being needed also, which many, alas, do not hesitate to take, to include the holiness, or inherent sinlessness proper to God. And in such limitations, physical, mental, or moral as the case may be, it is thought there may be found not only relief from the distracting problem of the relation of the divine to the human in His person incarnate; but fresh evidence also of the genuineness of His sympathy and the reality of His humanity.

Altogether does it not seem like what may be called intellectual tight-rope walking with metaphysics for a balancing-pole. On the Godhead, the manhood, and the unity of the Person alike, or in turn, one is in danger of losing balance. Even a modernist of the Roman communion can warn that “The whole doctrine of Christ’s χένωσις or self-emptying can be explained in a minimizing way almost fatal to doctrine, and calculated to rob the incarnation of all its helpfulness by leaving the ordinary mind with something perilously near the phantasmal Christ of the Docetans.” If an unbeliever sneers at their “limited God slowly emerging from imperfection and limitation,” they have nothing but their theory to blame; although pity it is that they should give occasion for his scoff at the incarnation as “an absurd localization of the Infinite, a differentiated moment in eternity, a limitation within the conditions of a fleeting human organism, of the omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect God.” This from the very class the theory is best calculated to conciliate. Kenoticists speak of saving the divine in Jesus by not shattering His humanity through ascribing extravagances of powers and faculties to Him. It rather appears to be sacrificing the divine to accommodate those who make all of the human. And when they do venture forth on their narrow fine-spun theory, such as the above quoted, they show no hesitation in using these their concessions to push them ruthlessly from their slippery foothold. If the precipice will be encountered, the overbalancing need not surprise. Precarious at the best any theory that can be framed to explain the adjustment of the two natures in one person must be. This metaphysically-inclined conception of Christ Jesus as a sort of amalgam of a self-emptied, depotentiated divinity, and humanity raised to its highest power, inspires no more confidence than others.

Of Kenoticism as a theory to account for the relation between the two natures in the one person of Christ it may quite safely be predicted that it shall only have its day. The face of things is in fact undergoing a change even now, and this fashionable theory is now beginning to be tainted and tinctured with new and ever newer ideas. This is not the first attempt by any means to construe into intelligibility the question of how Christ could be God and man in one person, and to set out in rational fashion how the two natures were related. To take what are generally regarded as the most conspicuous points in the history of Christology, there was in Appollinarianism a sort of pruning away of the humanity of Christ, excluding a rational human soul, principally with the idea of maintaining intact the singleness of His personality. Nestorianism, again, brought the two natures into no more than sympathetic harmony with one another, and by holding them too far apart the person was no longer an irrefragible unity. Eutychianism, in the very opposite direction, merged the two natures into one compound, a confusion not at all counterbalanced by the singleness of personality still retained. The statement of the Council of Chalcedon propounds no theory; but merely asserts the unity of personality and duality of natures. Not so the next landmark, Lutheran doctrine, which by almost a deification of His humanity approximates to Eutychianism. After all these comes Kenoticism, with its attempt to adjust the relation between the two natures, as we have seen, by the idea of a kenosis or self-emptying on Christ’s part. in the sphere of His divinity, not in the relative way legitimately following from the scripture supplying the term, but in an absolute and universal fashion unsupported by it, and inconsistent with all that otherwise scripture reveals of Him.

This inconsistency is abundantly evident from comparison with the Gospels, to even the most superficial study of them. Take as an instance that element of the teaching which has to say to Christ’s knowledge. The theory as it applies to this is that, in becoming man, “He laid aside the loud attributes of omnipotence and omniscience, and shared in these matters the limitations of our nature. Omniscience as to His mind was no more an attribute of the Man Christ Jesus than omnipresence as to His body.” “We are in the habit,” it is said, “of attributing, unconsciously perhaps, the divine mind to Christ, whereas, if any one thing is clear from the Gospels, it is that His knowledge and intelligence were of the ordinary human order.” Here at last we come to a question of plain facts, capable of being verified by reference to Scripture. Having now something definite to go upon, let us examine it. And first as to what is said of what Christ has laid aside. Is it the case that omniscience, or the knowledge of things divinely, was never manifested by the Man Christ Jesus? Does the Gospel record bear this out? Was it not on the contrary over and over again made apparent that such an attribute was really His, and was really there to flash out as occasion time and again called it into exercise? It was indeed precisely one of the ways in which at times He indicated that He was God. How frequently now during His ministry do we find simple souls, discovering themselves so fully read through by one penetrating glance of Him who discerned their inmost thoughts, impressed, in a way they could not have been by anything else, with the sense of who He really was.

One striking example of this comes to mind. In John 16 we learn that a certain statement of the Master’s had occasioned no small cogitation and perplexity to His disciples. Among themselves, strictly so, they had discussed it, not as yet making Him aware of their trouble (vers. 17, 18). Yet into the privacy of their secret thoughts Christ had penetrated, manifesting thus the power of reading men’s hearts, which is so clearly a divine prerogative. Knowing, in a most literal sense of the word divining, their still unexpressed difficulty, and that they were desirous to ask Him, He said unto them, “Do ye now inquire among yourselves of that I said?” Explaining and amplifying His previous utterance, He so fully and correctly dealt with their unconfessed perplexity that at the close they were forced to exclaim, “Now we are sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee; by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.”

Nor was this a solitary instance of His ability to discern things as well as truths beyond the range of merely human vision. How often it is apparent that His knowledge of men, their deeds, their thoughts, their hearts, was such as we can attribute only to the divine mind. He seemed to hear men thinking, as it is sometimes said. “Come see a man which told me all things that ever I did,” said the woman of Samaria. “Is not this the Christ?” On how many occasions was such conviction of His deity wrought in men who came in contact with Him. Take but two, one from the beginning, the other from the close of John’s Gospel. Nathaniel under the fig tree was known by Him, both as to his character and circumstances, and on hearing both described so accurately by One to whom such information could not possibly have been conveyed by the ordinary channels, he was constrained to ejaculate, “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel.” Thomas again, absent on the first occasion when, in spite of closed doors, the risen Lord appeared among His disciples, on the second occasion heard from the Savior’s lips the very words his unbelief had framed, and how was he forced to exclaim in ever-memorable words, “My Lord and my God!”

Ask such as these what opinion they would have of Christ’s having laid aside His omniscience. Why, it was the discovery of this very fact, “Thou knowest all things,” that so forcibly brought home to them conviction of who He really was. This it really was that, among the many ways in which His deity was often manifested, formed one of the most striking. The kind, no less than the scope, of the knowledge usually shown to be His, far from being an evidence of the extensive degree in which He had surrendered divine prerogatives, most clearly manifests His continued possession of such prerogatives in that very sphere. Knowledge such as He habitually displayed, consciousness of things others needed to have revealed, discernment of things no others could see, seem to argue in an inevitable way not the giving up, but the retention, back of all if in no other way, of full divine omniscience. [ J. T.]

(Continued from page [28)

(To be continued)

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

But, as F. W. Grant has so well said, “We cannot fathom the Christ of God. We can realize how perfectly, divinely, on both sides He suits us, though we may be quite unable to put the two sides together. Dual personality would not suit us; but we want one who is both perfectly human and truly divine—One who can sleep in the storm and rise and still the storm. Such a Savior we have got, how good to know it—if we can see nothing besides His heart of love that unites the two together.” “His heart of love uniting the two together” —a most blessed “conjunction medium” that, assuredly. If in no other way, certainly thus do we perceive them to be most truly united, as who cannot most surely testify who knows the blessed Savior and has experience of His love. That love, which, sweetly as it suits our case, would have been in vain had—He in whom it was manifested been anything less than God, no less truly depended upon Him being really and truly man that to us it might be made known. The power of the one, and the reality of the other were alike necessary, and in that love wherewith He loved us how truly both are present. By all the sweet familiarity of manhood has His approach been characterized, is it in anything less than the power of Godhead that He has drawn nigh?

Can we imagine Him undertaking in love to come upon the scene of man’s sin and degradation, with the purpose of effecting our ransom and redemption from these, and as He stoops to the task, laying aside those very attributes by whose agency alone that could be accomplished? All those immeasurable resources of divine power and wisdom which were eternally His, was it not just then that they were most of all indispensable if He were to be, as He is, “mighty to save”? How could it be in anything like this sense that He who was rich has impoverished Himself that we might be made rich? Would not that be, humanly speaking, to defeat His own object? Beggared Himself of all divine prerogatives to take up a task that nothing but divine power could accomplish; in a path and by a way that nothing but divine wisdom could select and devise! Nay, love is wiser than that.

We may be sure His voluntary impoverishment, great as it was, did not extend to matters such as these. The grace of our Lord Jesus, the riches of His glory, and the poverty to which He descended, were in themselves infinite enough, without imagining the first to imply such a kenoticism between the second and the third as really leaves the Blessed One who came in love to redeem us, shorn of that which alone could effect the purpose of His coming.

Of one thing all whom His love has reached and won may be assured no dispossession or curtailment of the divine in His Person could the Blessed Lord have adopted which curtailed His power to deal effectively with our case; no limitation of humanity would He have entered which limited his ability to employ the fullest resources available on our behalf. And if in no other way can we explain how divine power and wisdom could be His, while still in all respects a true and real man, we can only say we can understand Him possessing and using divine attributes because He was also divine, and because of the divine love in His heart which was no less wonderful. They may tell us that such attributes as omnipotence and omniscience, being quite incompatible with any assumption of real human nature, must have been laid aside. But “must” is a strong word, and “must have been” has often to give way before “may have been,” and there are cases where our rules do not apply. For are we now to say that only what of God was compatible with human nature retained its place, and was manifest in Christ? What then of this His love which Christ came to declare? Was divine love any less incompatible than divine power or divine wisdom? Was it laid aside, or in any way depotentiated or conditioned by, or for, contact with humanity?

It may be the New Testament nowhere says that “God is omnipotence,” or, “God is omniscience”; but assuredly it does say that “God is love.” And if divine love was not laid aside, but revealed in its fullness and strength in the Man Christ Jesus, where can the difficulty be in believing in the presence and activity in the Blessed Savior Himself of its attendant power and perception, the omnipotence and omniscience of Deity? Oh, how poor, how incredibly poor our perception is of the glory of His person! Was He not God, eternally the Son of God, and now upon earth

“God manifest, God seen and heard,

The heaven’s beloved One.”

The image of the invisible God, the effulgence of His glory, the impress of His substance, the everlasting Word that in the beginning was, was with God, and was God, and now for us become the Word made flesh; all this and more He was, and is, and ever shall have the glory of being. “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of an only begotten with the Father, full of grace and truth.”

And now, in closing our study of this part of the Creed, were it not infinitely better to have observed that reticence on questions as to the Person of Christ which a spirit of true reverence would inculcate, which the example of the Scriptures would itself enjoin, and which all who are spiritually-minded feel when they approach the subject, not to mention that distinct pronouncement of His own concerning

“The higher mysteries of Thy fame

The creature’s grasp transcend,

The Father only Thy blest name

Of Son can comprehend”

— “No man knoweth the Son but the Father.”

From the Person of Christ the Creed passes to a not less important topic—His work. His work of atonement, that is to say, or what was effected by His death on the cross. Most singularly brief, however, is the consideration given to the subject in the exposition we are following. His passion and death, referred to in the clauses, “suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried,” are rightly spoken of as facts that are central and vital to all that claims the name of Christianity. How truly this is so is abundantly evidenced from the large place given to it in primitive Christian teaching. In apostolic doctrine, as we have it in the epistles of the New Testament, to go no further, the cross is by far the most prominent feature. It is a fact not unworthy of mention, and certainly not unnoticed by hostile critics either, how completely, after His death, the attention, the emphasis, of scripture came to be placed upon that death as precisely the point of moment. Whether, having regard to the measure of attention it claimed even from the very first, we can speak of anything like a transference of emphasis or not from His life and ministry, certainly the cross, the death of Christ, holds and fills a place in early Christian doctrine almost supreme. It quite surpasses at any rate anything like the proportionate mention we should look for, if it were but an incident, granted even a striking incident, of His historical career. No, it was more than an incident. The unique and transcending place assigned to it in the apostolic scheme points to its having for them, as for soundness in the Christian faith it has still, crucial and unrivaled importance. Rapidly and early, and, we may say, undeviatingly and continuously since, Christian thought under divine guidance has come to be concentrated upon it as the foundation of its system, the fundamental item of its faith, has come to regard and esteem as the distinguishing or distinctive fact in regard to its Founder, not His life, not His miracles, not His teaching, but His death—has come to glory in His cross as the feature which outstands in, the truth which characterizes Christianity.

And there can really be no shifting of the focus of Christianity from this point without surrendering all that upon which it rests, and all that constitutes its power, its dynamic, its meaning as a gospel for sinful men. That such things as the suffering and death of Christ are of vital importance to Christianity as a religion there are few, perhaps even among merely nominal Christians even, but are prepared to admit. For it is universally realized that the cross is an integral part of its system of doctrine. And although varied may be the measures in which the truth of it is realized, as in some sense or other the procuring cause of our redemption, the death of Him who for us men and for our salvation underwent that dread ordeal, that is accepted by all who of His saving grace have had experience. It is felt and confessed by all as that upon which absolutely everything depends. Admit the divine purpose of redemption, or even the need of it for men, for us, and it is at once seen to stand or fall with the truth of a saving work effected by the suffering and death of the Redeemer.

As has been said, the consideration of the death of Christ, as to what it imports, is passed over lightly. Almost summarily dismissed in fact, rival theories of the atonement are mentioned as contending for place, and a safe line is sought to be taken by leaving all such aside, and accepting simply as a large general truth that Christ Jesus died for us. The fact is the great thing, it is said. The implications, the significance, of but lesser account. That is all very well; but it may be questioned if it will be found quite satisfactory, or possible even to draw the line at that. Real sin-burdened souls will look for some more definite evidence of the great sin question, of so much significance to them, having been dealt with therein. It is no academic question with them, and that Christ not only died for us, but that “He died for our sins according to the scriptures” will seem to betoken a relation between His death and the question of their sins that merits some more definite term than an implication. If in earnest indeed, the pardoned sinner cannot but be drawn on to consider how, by what means, in what manner, He has been cleared of His sins, and granted deliverance through the death of “the Lamb of God which beareth away the sin of the world.” When we find also, on the back of what is said as to the acceptance of the fact of Christ’s death, without attachment to any theory of atonement, a quite wanton scoff at the old Calvinistic ideas on the subject, dissatisfaction deepens.

[J. T.]

(Continued from page 160)

(To be continued)

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

Precisely here again we enter the interesting territory where new and old in Presbyterian theology contrast so deeply. It is just at such points, where the strong tide of high Calvinism meets the freshening flood of New Theology ideas, that one cannot but be arrested. The surge and swell of contending thought are there so marked. One whom we have before quoted from, Prof. Orr, has some discernment of the true bearing of much that is now put forth; and on such reasoning regarding the atonement as has been instanced he has remarked, “Distinction is often made between fact and theory in the doctrine of atonement; but it is evident that an element of what is called theory, i.e. of doctrinal significance, attaches to even the simplest statements of scripture on this subject. It is not every conception of the cross that suits the full and varied representations given of it in scripture. The New Testament will not allow us to believe that everything remains vague and undetermined in the meaning we are to attach to Christ’s doing and dying for our salvation.” And another, not a Presbyterian, has spoken out thus: “It is sometimes said, There are several theories of the atonement, but we have to do with the fact, and not with our understanding of it! This frame of mind is the root of all that is most feeble and ominous in the teaching in our churches to-day.” Then against the derision of such discarded ideas as the Calvinistic one of “Christ having rendered by His blood satisfaction to divine justice in the sense of quantative payment of a ransom,” compare a remark of the same, “We cannot in any theology which is duly ethicized dispense with the word satisfaction. It was no satisfaction of a ‘jus talionis ‘ yet the sinner could only be saved by something that thus damned the sin.” And still another, “There is room to-day for a truly forensic doctrine of the atonement. Christ has redeemed us not by a facile amnesty; but by making our sin His own in vicarious love, and bearing it in the face of the universe.”

A “facile amnesty” it is to be feared is the too common conception of what has resulted from the death of Christ for us, with but little concern for the solemn fact that ere sins could at all be forgiven there were questions, long-outstanding questions, between God and our souls to be settled, as regards the heinousness of them in His sight, and the guilt of them lying upon us, and that for the necessary removal of both, a real true work of atonement, propitiatory and expiatory, had to be accomplished by the vicarious suffering and death of the “Lamb of God.” A most remarkable confession was made by a young minister recently. “I have been urged,” he wrote, “to make the cross of Christ the heart of my teaching, but I have the vaguest possible conception of what is meant by this and similar phrases. I can understand the cross as the transcendent symbol of the Christian life; as symbolizing the death of the Christian to sin, but I fail to see the relation between the actual crucifixion on Calvary and the forgiveness of sins.” Consider how momentous that confession is from an accredited preacher of the gospel. And is there not serious reflection awakened as to the theological system of which such as this is the product. Here is one who has just undergone a modern theological training, and is regarded as qualified to preach and teach the truth of God. And what is the attitude assumed towards this great, vital, central doctrine of atonement. The cross, unless symbolizing the death of the Christian to sin (which is not atonement, but at best a sequel to it), has no such supreme importance attaching to it as to make it in any sense central to his teaching. No relation perceived between the death of Christ and the forgiveness of sin! A most strange confession! On what then is such forgiveness to be based? Or is it that there is no need for such a basis? Are we to imagine forgiveness of sins by God to be so light a matter as to need no such ground for its exercise as Scripture shows the death and blood of Christ to have provided. Really, if the state of mind disclosed does not indicate just such a conception as has been spoken of, of salvation as a sort of “facile amnesty” from sin, to be prevalent theology to-day, what else does it?

The real fact is, as Prof. Orr has pointed out, there is an ingrained aversion to the whole doctrine of an expiatory atonement in modern ideas. The principal cause, according to him, is that such presuppositions of the need and purpose of the atonement as, on the one hand, a sense of the character and holiness of God, and on the other of the gravity and guilt of sin, are totally lacking in present-day thought. A wrested mutilated doctrine of the Fatherhood of God, and the influence of a perverted evolutionary theory of man’s origin, are respectively to be held accountable for much of this departure from Biblical teaching on what God is, how holy, how righteous, how abhorrent of sin; on the fact also that sin is sin—no element of the world process, or necessity of human development, but a thing in itself horrible, displeasing to God, laying the transgressor under God’s just condemnation.

The inability to perceive any relation between the fact of Christ’s death on the cross, and the forgiveness of sins instanced above, is, alas, if all were as frank in confessing it, only too prevalent to-day. That, ere forgiveness of sins could be, the holy sinless Son of God had to become our Sin-Bearer, and under the whole burden of the cross endure the wrath and judgment of God “who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree”; that by His blood and death the requirements of God’s holiness should be met, and the whole question of sin as it affects Him be so perfectly settled that it can be said, “Once in the end of the age hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself,” and “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world”; that henceforth in the gospel there is the divine tender of a relief from the penal consequences of sin absolute, universal, and final, as also “justification by His blood,” and by God’s grace “through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness not only for the passing over of the sins that are past, through his forbearance, but also that now at this time he might be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” —all this is fast becoming quite meaningless to, or entirely misapprehended by, those who have drifted away from the truth as to the expiatory and propitiatory atonement of our Redeemer.

The expression given to it in the Westminster Confession, or the Shorter Catechism, may, as theological expressions, neither of them quite reach to adequacy— “The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the Eternal Spirit once offered up unto God hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father, and purchased reconciliation, etc.,” or, “Christ executeth the office of a Priest in His once offering up of Himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and reconcile us to God” —but they are surely preferable by far to the hazy, colorless, presentation of it given by the expositor of the Creed. This negation of all theories of the atonement, with professed adherence to the large and general truth of Christ’s death as the means, in an unspecified way, of our salvation is not reassuring in itself. When, joined to it there is ridicule, as well as repudiation, of the very expression used in the Presbyterian Confession! what can one say? No wonder it is so far back, or as far down as to the Apostles’ Creed such desire to go as the norm of faith necessary to Christianity. “Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried,” is quite comprehensive enough for them.

It may certainly be the case, that all attempts in the past to interpret the doctrine, or to construe it theologically, have failed in adequacy, or erred essentially, and being found incapable of responding to broadening and deepening thought on the subject, have had to be left behind. Otherwise put, theological definitions have consistently failed to fill out the complete doctrine as Scripture gives it, however true it be that a certain side of truth was emphasized in each case. There were, for instance, the so-called Ransom Theory, which has long since been superseded, at least, in the form in which it was originally held; the Socinian view of atonement in keeping with their system, which to believers now is just as erroneous as it ever was; the Governmental Theory prevalent in pre-Reformation times, with no more permanency. And again from the Reformation onwards what is called the Substitutionary Theory has held the field, until recently, when, as we are having instanced now, it also is being repudiated.

A word on the nature of that repudiation and what is to replace the rejected scheme. It is only quite recently that this latter was called in question, but it is in quite a wholesale fashion that it is being surrendered now. Readers of the theological works of last century must be familiar with the great and long-drawn-out controversy on “the extent of the atonement” waged so earnestly by adherents of Calvinistic theology, Presbyterians (as Candlish and Cunningham) among the number. The whole basis of reasoning on both sides was, and could not be other than, this same Substitutionary theory of atonement. Whether the results of the atonement were universal, or limited to the elect, could not, it is evident, be a question, apart from the idea of Christ having assumed in that work the place of a Substitute to render satisfaction to divine justice for sinners. It is most remarkable, yet no more than a fact, that it is almost impossible to imagine that controversy in the same quarter to-day. The Substitutionary theory, as a theory, is being dropped as completely as the others. And what is now emerging as a successor to it? Something more satisfactory, more scriptural, something giving fuller value to those aspects of the sacrifice of which admittedly the theory was deficient? The tendency now rather is away from any thought of a sacrificial and expiatory interpretation of the death of Christ at all. Complaint is made of atonement being turned into a non-moral and superstitious transaction by the theory of Christ as our Substitute taking the place and judgment due to sinners, and the trend of theology now is to develop the doctrine on what is called its ethical side. That is to say, it is not the sufferings and death of the Lord Jesus that are regarded as in themselves, or intrinsically efficacious for the covering of sin; but rather the moral qualities displayed by Christ Jesus in the descent to death, the obedience to the will of God He rendered even unto death. “The sacrifice required by God,” it is said, “was not that of so much pain, or even death itself, but a moral reparation in the offering of a great and perfect obedience.”

The “transactional” theory of atonement, as it is called, with its insistence upon “satisfaction” in the old penal sense, is considered obsolete now. It is caricatured as some monstrous growth of fanatical puritan times, with a hard legal conception of God with His outraged righteousness, like some glorified Shylock, insisting upon and obtaining its pound of flesh. That from the suffering Savior on the cross is wrung out a full measure of torment precisely equivalent to the desert of our sins, and that thus offended justice can now retire satiated and appeased by the blood of the victim! All this is derided as superstitious, and partaking too much of the nature of a material and non-moral transaction, to commend itself to Christian thought. It is a reversion, we are told, to the crude, semi-pagan ideas embodied in the Jewish ritual, and expressed in the sacrificial language of the Old Testament. Whereas, underlying the New Testament doctrine of atonement there is an altogether different conception of sacrifice. The express point of distinction, it is maintained, between the latter and the Old Testament ritual of sacrifice lies in this entire absence of a moral element in the sacrifices offered under the law. In regard to the sacrifice of Christ on the other hand, all the stress is laid upon the moral quality inherent in it. The thought of a purely objective expiation and external transaction is transcended, and the value and efficacy of His offering seen to lie in the holy obedience and submission to the will of God of which this was the crown and culmination. This, it is repeated, is the great truth which emerges in the New Testament as to atonement. Deeper than any mere expiation resulting or expiatory merit attaching, that in which the essence of Christ’s sacrifice consists is “not in His suffering, not even His death in itself, but obedience completed in the surrender of His life to the will of God.” It is explained that now, in the New Testament, if we revert to Old Testament terms at all, we must think of the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, signifying the presentation of the life to God, as the important matter, not the shedding of blood, signifying the death of the victim! It is not vicarious suffering, but representative submission ‘ that is the essential element in sacrifice!

For scripture evidence we are referred to the tenth of Hebrews. “It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore, when he cometh into the world he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me. In burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first that he may establish the second.”

Here, it is said, in this passage, we have the whole matter epitomized. This verse sets the atonement of Christ in opposition to the sacrifices of the law, and treats it as superseding them. There is the distinct repudiation of the entire conception of sacrifice as expressed in Jewish ritual. The notion therein associated with the blood shedding of the victim as something in itself of atoning virtue is absent from the New Testament conception, and the principle of vicariousness attaching to a sacrificial death emphatically ruled out. The performing of the will of God on Christ’s part and His submission to it His obedience is shown to be that in which true atonement lies.

The way in which the death of Christ under this theory (to complete our survey of it) becomes efficacious for us is not in the sense that it avails for us atoningly before God, as having borne our sins or as made propitiation for them. That is unnecessary, it is implied, for as Christ has revealed God’s attitude, there is neither hint of, nor room for, the thought of Him needing to be propitiated, or His wrath appeased. It is on our side mainly, not on His, that the influence of Christ’s death requires to be exerted. And on us accordingly all the moral influence of His perfect obedience and sinless penitence is brought to bear. By the sight of the loving Savior in the tenderness of His compassion taking on Himself the burden of His children’s [?] misdoing, and bearing on the cross the shame and misery of it in the face of the universe, we are broken down and drawn back from the far country of our sins to our un-estranged Father’s [?] ready welcome! Then as to the only aspect Godward they can understand it to possess, there is in that same perfect obedience and submission to death on the part of such a one as Christ Jesus, such a potency as to constitute it a complete and adequate moral reparation to God for all the sins humanity has been guilty, or is capable, of! “The impulse of divine holy love found its own level, its counterpart, its other self, in the perfect, sinless sacrifice of Jesus. That moral perfection, that moral equivalent to His perfect righteousness, which God craved and required in the creature, was realized in the Man Christ Jesus. In Jesus humanity was raised to the moral level of God. The total moral demand of God upon man was satisfied in man.” From all this it may be seen what the “ethical” theory of the atonement amounts to.

[J. T.]

(Continued from page 175)

(To be continued)

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

It may be recognized also that it is a theory to the production of which Scripture is called on to contribute but little. Its main concern for us being that contribution, we must again follow—remarking surely, however, how true Prof. Orr’s statement would seem to be concerning the aversion of these modern theories to everything of the sacrificial and expiatory in Christ’s death. It is abundantly evidenced from what we have quoted. It remains, however, that we consider briefly what is supposed to be Scripture evidence for it, and what measure of truth, if any, it makes a perverted use of. The Ransom and Substitutionary theories had both of them large elements of truth. “The Son of man came” not only to minister but “to give his life a ransom for many.” And “Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.” Nor indeed, whatever may be thought of the old Governmental Theory associated with the name of Anselm, can there be found absolutely no element of truth in this emphasizing of the ethical or moral side of that atoning work of Christ, this “finding of the essence of Christ’s sacrifice to consist in the yielding up of His holy will to the Father.” “Sin,” it is said, “has its essence in self-will, in the setting up of the human will against God, and Christ has retracted this root-sin of humanity by offering up to God, under experience of suffering and death, the well-pleasing sacrifice of a will wholly obedient and self-surrendered.” Whatever we may think of the expression, or whether this idea of the retraction of the root-sin of humanity is at all a scriptural thought, we certainly learn from Rom. 5:19 that “as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

Not, of course, that Christ’s work of atonement is at all the subject of Rom. 5:19, at least directly. Rather is it the larger, more general, question of the contrast of Adam and Christ in their respective headships, with the results accruing respectively to those ranged under such headships from the characteristic act with which the “one man” in each case is credited. That with which Adam is to be associated is the act of disobedience which proved so disastrous to the race. That which those who are Christ’s ever look back to as the ground of their being constituted righteous is His perfect obedience. Not at all in the sense of His keeping the law for us throughout His life, needless to say—for when in scripture is legal righteousness ever treated as vicarious?—but in that obedience “unto death, even the death of the cross,” which so amply fulfilled the will of God. It is, as one has said, the burnt-offering aspect of Christ’s work, the full sweet savor of that in which God was glorified. There was undoubtedly that in the sacrifice of Christ which had to say to the will of God flagrantly disobeyed, as well as to His character and honor vilely traduced by man’s sin. And, as constituting part of the God-glorifying character of what was accomplished when Christ laid down His life, His obedience unto death, even the death of the cross, is not to be forgotten.

And thus also as to Heb. 10. That scripture is fastened on, and rightly so, as the great exposition of what is called the New Testament conception of sacrifice. Now does this differ, radically so, from what one would gather from the Old Testament on the subject? There need be no doubt as to what that latter is. Crude, semi-pagan, material, or whatever else it may be reviled as, there is undeniably a definite and consistent doctrine of sacrifice apparent throughout the Old Testament. And even the advocates of the new theory are forced to admit that the primary thought underlying the sacrificial language of ritual is just this of vicarious suffering and expiatory death. From Abel’s more excellent sacrifice onward, the attention is directed always and unvaryingly to these as the essential element in the matter of atonement for sin. That is clear. What then of the claim that in the New Testament we come to something entirely different? On any right understanding of what it means for the Bible to be God’s Word, inspired of Him, this of course would be an impossible idea, this divergence of teaching on the important question of sacrifice for sin. But apart from that, does what the New Testament scriptures teach contradict the older revelation?

Take this tenth of Hebrews as a case in point. That the atonement of Christ is set in contradistinction to, and is presented as superseding the sacrifices of the law is plain; but in what sense? Is it in that these gave, and could give no other than, a wholly erroneous and false idea of how God could be approached, or could remit sins, whereas Christian teaching expresses the truth entirely unknown to and never hinted at by them? Or is it not rather the case that just what gave them value, and to the writer of Hebrews justified this extended reference, was that, appointed by Jehovah as they were, these sacrifices and offerings prefigured, and should have been seen to point out, that which has been fulfilled, and reduced to reality by what Christ has done. What says the opening verse of the chapter. The law had “a shadow of good things to come,” if not “the very image.” That would seem to imply surely that between the two systems there is that which calls for comparison as well as that which provokes contrast. To stand in the relation of substance and shadow there must be a resemblance, at least in outline, which would be quite incompatible with divergent ideas of such a primary matter as atonement.

Then examine the phraseology of the passage throughout. If the intention was to reject in totality the Old Testament doctrine of sacrifice, and to put aside the whole theory of vicarious suffering as worthless, we should imagine language entirely different from what the Jewish ritual had made familiar to be applied to what the death of Christ had effected. Yet what do we find? Deliberate intention to rule out the possibility of entertaining such a thought seems to be stamped on the chapter. Where could a more explicit reiteration of the very phrases familiar to one brought up under the Old Testament ritual be found? As one has said, “Instead of carefully avoiding sacrificial terms, because sacrifice is the thing repudiated, it emphatically reproduces them. ‘Offering thou wouldest not’—yes, but this is spoken with another sacrifice, another offering, ‘the offering of the body of Christ ‘ full in view.” Of which sacrifice it is distinctly testified also that it avails in that very expiatory sense adumbrated by the sacrifices under the law. “But this man... offered one sacrifice for sins.” “By one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.” “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once.”

Plainly that last, that “offering of the body of Christ once” is the point of the whole passage. “A body hast thou prepared me” certainly is brought in along with the thought of the sacrifices offered by the law being rejected; but it is not on the “body prepared” but on the “body offered” that the stress is laid and the vicariousness of atonement made to depend. While it is exactly what the trend of modern speculation threatens to obscure, this agrees perfectly with the uniform account of His death in scripture as an objective act of propitiation, in itself an efficacious ransom for sinners.

It is in light of all this also that we must hear His word, “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.” The question with the new theory as to the interpretation of this verse has been narrowed down as follows by one writer— “Was this, as many now teach, a performing in a life of perfect general obedience, into which obedience we enter by the submission of our wills to God, was this the substitute for the sacrifices of the law? or was it the doing of the will of God in one specific and sacrificial act—was it His body offered as upon an altar? a body broken?] and blood poured out like wine?” Beyond a doubt our blessed Lord’s obedience, His doing the will of God, comes into view in this passage, and that not merely incidentally, but of distinct purpose and as quite in the line of its reasoning. We may say that in its scheme of doctrine there are two things of central importance presented—the will of God, and the work of Christ. And it is quite clear that as surely as He to perfection performed the latter, so did He in fullness the former.

But, if we are to distinguish, on which let it be asked, are the requisite taking away of sins, the purging of the worshippers, or the perfecting of the sanctified made precisely to depend as foundation or basis?

The sacrificial work of Christ most undoubtedly. “He was once offered to hear the sins of many,” and “He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” No doubt all is to be traced to the will of God as its origin. The source of all is there. Nor are we to reason that Christ’s doing the will of God was simply His carrying that will into effect as regards our salvation. There is something far deeper than that in His, “Lo, I come to do thy will,” even His personal and positive obedience thereto, wonderful beyond all as that is in itself when we remember who He was that rendered it. And again, who shall deny that this self-devotedness of the Son of God to His will formed the great element of value, the moral quality if you will, in the acceptable sacrifice He offered?

Nor is this aspect neglected in the eminently typical ritual of the Old Testament. What else is it that is presented in the burning of the fat upon the altar so continually prescribed but the energy of a will devoted unto God, specially emphasized on one occasion at least as “the food of the offering made by fire unto Jehovah.” And again, as has been said, what is it that is expressed in the burnt-offering if it be not this unreserved devotedness, and to death, His holy will entirely self-surrendered, and nothing but the will and glory of God in view as motive and end. This was par excellence “the offering of sweet savor,” as it is in such devotedness of obedience unto death that God can have delight and find pleasure as that in which He has been glorified. “Christ hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savor.” And, as in Heb. 10 it is a question of an offering in which He can truly find pleasure and satisfaction, that aspect of the sacrifice is emphasized in which this is prominent. With what unmingled and infinite delight, may we not say, can God contemplate that offering of the body of Christ, when we remember that there and then, in presence of the declared failure of all that was offered under the law to give Him satisfaction, His own blessed Son, in the humanity He had assumed for that express purpose, accomplished all His will, and, in self-sacrificing devotedness in the place of death itself, not only satisfied, but glorified, Him perfectly even as to sin itself.

(Continued front page 192)

[ J. T.]

(To be continued)

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

If, as we cannot but believe, man’s sin and rebellion, the self-will that constitutes its essence. must be not only painful and highly obnoxious to Him in itself, but in its most revolting feature, to speak as a man, a reflection, a shame, a dishonor on His own great Name in the face of His own great universe, how correspondingly great must be the pleasure He derives from the perfect sinless sacrifice of His own beloved Son come, in the humanity prepared for Him, to do His will, even unto death! And, if we cannot speak of the root-sin of humanity being herein retracted, can we not say at least that the position has been retrieved, gloriously retrieved, as regards the apparent traducing of God’s character through man’s becoming partaker in that great and terrible revolt of evil so maliciously planned by the enemy? For if the enemy have plans, is God without plans also? Eternal counsels are His, and quite in the track of their working, we are assured, is all that has been accomplished here. The fall of man, the rebellion of the creature, the setting up of the human will against God, how terrible a spectacle! But the perfection and obedience of Jesus Christ, tested and manifested to the extreme limit of death itself, in its expression of devotedness and self-surrender to His will affords, according to these same divine counsels, a manifestation, a display bringing glory to God in surpassing measure. “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.”

It is right that we should remember what the old “transactional theory” may have in some measure obscured—that the suffering and sacrifice of Christ was no mere piece of bargaining! something in the nature of a quantative repayment! so much suffering for so much sin nor only, as it truly was the case, that in being once offered He hare the sins of many; but that there and then was accomplished a work in and by which not only was the Son of man Himself glorified; but God also glorified in Him, and that through His perfect obedience—who even of the laying down of His life did say, “This commandment have I received of my Father.” And this emphatically enters into what constitutes that propitiatory character of the work which theories of the atonement so consistently ignore. But there must be no divorcing of the idea of the true expiatory nature of the Savior’s sufferings from this perfection of devotedness to God’s will to make everything of intrinsic value to consist in the self-abnegation and obedience so strikingly culminated there.

Theories of the atonement come and go. Logical and exhaustive no doubt they have each appeared to their originators. But one and all they have foundered in the past, and none have succeeded in filling out the complete scripture doctrine on the subject. Where all have failed, that remains for us clear and consistent, higher and fuller than theory or creed can reach or express. Explained to us also there, solely yet sufficiently, as never in theological statement or creed, by the revealed character of God Himself, who in His great love would have us, delivered and cleansed from sin, brought to Himself in righteousness, to be holy and without blame before Him in love.

“Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried.” Facts sure enough they are, and “necessary to everlasting salvation to believe “; but how bald, how bare the statement of them! How open to any possible construction, and therefore worthless as definition, of what the import and significance may be of that greatest, most vital of all truths—the atoning work of our Redeemer! It was characteristic of the creeds to be vague and indefinite here, and indeed they are uniformly so. Sound enough in statement, as far as the statement goes as to Christ’s death; but fatally omitting all mention of what that death signified and accomplished. Is it not also a little remarkable that as we advance, beginning with the Apostles’ Creed, the statement becomes in the Nicene and Athanasian more and yet more meager. “Suffered for our salvation” eventually suffices to define all that advancing formalism and ritualism cared to retain. As forgiveness of sins became clouded over with uncertainty, and justification by faith so completely dropped out, what else could the doctrine of full and perfect atonement by Christ’s death be but ignored and recede into the background? Strange that modern infidelity should give indications of pursuing the same path. Christ’s death, His sufferings, in some way or other availing for our salvation is as far as they can pledge themselves to go. How different from such a clear and definite statement of faith as the following: “From Scripture I learn that this Blessed One, the Lord Jesus Christ, died for all, having given Himself a ransom for all, that He has made propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the whole world; that God being a righteous and holy God, the Son of man had to be lifted up upon the cross; that there He bore our sins in His own body on the tree, and was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him;... that He has obeyed even unto death, and wrought a perfect work upon the cross for us;... that as by one man’s disobedience many were constituted sinners, so by the obedience of one many shall he constituted righteous; that we are sanctified or set apart to God by God the Father through the offering of Jesus Christ once for all.”

In this study of the creed, were one to mark all that disapproves itself to the faith of plain people, reared on scripture teaching, and unlearned in, or unsophisticated by the lore of the schools, there should be no end. It is after all no wonder that, as one goes on, this exposition of Christian doctrine from the Presbyterian standpoint is found to fairly bristle with points of possible contention, or of unavoidable dispute. The influx of new thought, of the critical, dissolving, disintegrating spirit characteristic of our time is revolutionizing, as intelligent observers have all along predicted it would, the whole theological system of this interesting section of Christendom. As the evidence and product of this, in their modern preaching and lecturing, how much there is that is new and of foreign sound about it all! And in the instance before us, are we not being constantly arrested by the novel and strange in the interpretation given to an enunciation of doctrines on which Presbyterians in their measure used to be sound enough. We have seen it on the very elementary truth concerning the being of God, as to the question of the evidences to His existence. How the witness of nature to Him has been adulterated by the accommodation sought to be given to the hypothesis of evolution! How on the other hand the fact that among men such a thing as a universal religious sense, or God-consciousness exists has been so perverted in the interests of the so-called science of Comparative Religion as to give entirely false value to its witness! And with all this Revelation itself, as a testimony not only that God must he, but that He is, and may be known, left out of the sum of Christian evidences. While on the question of His Fatherhood, raised as a final item in connection with the first clause of the Creed, there is entire misapprehension both of the nature of the relationship, and of the plane upon which it is realized. Then, when we come to the second clause, speculation, modern philosophy, and theories of New Theology complexion have so leavened Christology that on both the deity and humanity of Christ very little that is really satisfactory can be gleaned. While again, on the contrary, it is just there, on the Person of Christ, that the malign influence of modern theology is most apparent. Nor is the great fundamental doctrine of Christ’s atonement immune from the contagion of novel interpretation, the surrender of valuable elements of the truth being here very marked.

And, were one to go on, the exposition would reveal in almost each several clause as it is taken up, most remarkable departure not only from scripture truth, but from the standards of doctrine professed in Presbyterianism as well. The first is no doubt the most sorrowful feature; but the latter also to thoughtful observers is indicative of much that calls for serious reflection. “Amidst the breaking up of conventional modes of thought and the felt insufficiency of the common standards of orthodoxy, if superstition does not take the place of truth... there is especial danger of the mind becoming weary and indifferent in the march after what is vital, and so taking refuge in the question, What is truth? as if it allowed of no definite or sufficient answer. This state of mind, in degree, may infest the church, as well as become the prevalent folly of the world.” But know this, O doubter, that truth will never be truth to thee nor to thy soul, until it is translated into action. Truth appeals to thy conscience, to thine affections, to thy duty, with all the authority of the God of truth. At first it deals with thee about ruin or redemption. It next claims to be formative of thy motives, to be the guide of thine actions, the director of thy thoughts, the animator of thine hopes, the overseer of thy whole inner as well as thine outer life. Truth exists not for thee, if thou refuse to it thine obedience and thine heart.” J. T.

(Concluded from page 208)

Atonement

In Rom. 5:11 and Heb. 2:17, the two words “atonement” and “reconciliation” should change places. We (believers) receive the reconciliation which is of “persons” as here (2 Cor. 5:20; Col. 1:21), or of “things” by and by (Col. 1:20).

Atonement or propitiation is for sin and sins, and made to God.

The Bible

I have a profound, unfeigned (I believe divinely-given) faith in the Bible. I have, through grace, been by it converted, enlightened, quickened, saved. I have received the knowledge of GOD by it, to adore His perfections—of JESUS, the Savior, joy, strength, comfort of my soul. Many have been indebted to others as the means of their being brought to God—to ministers of that gospel which the Bible contains, or to friends who delight in it. This was not my case. That work, which is ever GOD’S, was wrought in me by means of the written word. He who knows what the value of Jesus is, will know what the Bible will be to such a one. If I have, alas! failed in thirty years’ arduous and varied life and labor, I have never found it fail me. If it has not failed for the poor and needy circumstances of time, through which we feebly pass, I am assured it never will for eternity. “The word of the Lord abideth forever.” If it reaches down even to my low estate, it reaches up to God’s height, because it is from thence: as the love that can reach even to me, and apply to every detail of my feebleness and failure, proves itself divine in doing so—none but God could do this, and hence it leads me up to Him. As Jesus came from God and went to God—so does the Book that divinely reveals Him come from and elevate to Him. If received, it has brought the soul to God, for He has revealed Himself in it. Its positive proofs are all in itself. The sun needs no light to see it by.

I avow, in the fullest, clearest, and distinctest manner here, my deep, divinely-taught conviction of the inspiration of the Scriptures. While of course allowing, if need be, for defect in the translation and the like, when I read the Bible, I read it as of absolute authority for my soul as GOD’S word. There is no higher privilege than to have communications direct from God Himself.

My joy, my comfort, my food, my strength, for nearly thirty years—have been the Scriptures received implicitly as the WORD OF God. In the beginning of that period, I was put through the deepest exercise of soul on that point. Did heaven and earth, the visible church, and man himself crumble into nonentity, I should, through grace, since that epoch, hold to the word as an unbreakable link between my soul and God. I am satisfied that God has given it me as such. I do not doubt that the grace of the Holy Spirit is needed to make it profitable, and to give it real authority to our souls, because of what we are; but that does not change what it is in itself. To be true when it is received, it must have been true before.

And here I will add, that although it requires the grace of God and the work of the Holy Ghost to give it quickening power; yet divine truth, God’s word, has a hold on the natural conscience from which it cannot escape. The light detects the wrong-doer, though he may hate it. And so the word of God is adapted to man, though he be hostile to it—adapted in grace (blessed be God!) as well as in truth. This is exactly what shows the wickedness of man’s will in rejecting it. And it has power thus in the conscience, even if the will be unchanged. This may increase the dislike of it; but it is disliked because conscience feels it cannot deny the truth. Men resist it because it is true. Did it not reach their conscience, they would not need to take so much pains to get rid of and disprove it. Men do not arm themselves against straws, but against a sword whose keen edge is felt and feared.

Reader, it speaks of grace as well as truth. It speaks of God’s grace and love, who gave His only-begotten Son that sinners like you and me might be with Him, know Him, deeply, intimately, truly know Him—and enjoy Him forever, and enjoy Him now; that the conscience, perfectly purged, might be in joy in His presence, without a cloud, without a reproach, without fear. And to be there in such a way, in His love, is perfect joy. The word will tell you the truth concerning yourself; but it will tell you the truth of a God of love, while unfolding the wisdom of His counsels.

Let me add to my reader, that by far the best means of assuring himself of the truth and authority of the word is to read the word itself.

J. N. D.

Biblical Deluge and Modern Science

We constantly hear the narrative of Noah’s flood attacked, and denounced as untrue. We are told that it is contradictory to modern science, that it never could have occurred, and that it is a mere myth. And yet, there were never more erroneous statements than these ever uttered, for a long array of scientific and historical facts can be marshalled in order, which prove to demonstration that the Biblical Deluge is not only a great truth, but is in perfect harmony with the teachings of modern science.

Let us see the evidence for Noah’s flood which can now be brought forward.

First of all there is the tradition of a great flood, which in ancient times was firmly held by the great nations of classical antiquity, and is believed to-day by many savage and heathen races, while it was also held by the ancestors of these savages long before they were influenced by Christianity.

How did this tradition arise? There must have been a cause. It cannot have been an invention, because it is found everywhere and amongst all races. It cannot have been a rain myth, because it is held by barbarous races in lands where the rainfall is slight. Besides this, the tradition as it is held by savage races, and by ancient cultured nations generally, says that the flood was a punishment for man’s sin; hence the story could not have originated from the mere fall of rain. The only way to account for the flood story is to believe that some great diluvial catastrophe occurred, the remembrance of which has been preserved by many races of mankind.

When we are told that geology proves that the Mosaic deluge never took place, it is enough to reply that those who make this objection are strangely at fault in their geology. In the past and in the present, most eminent geologists have believed and do believe in the reality of Noah’s flood. In England we may cite the honored names of Dr. Buckland, Sir Henry Howorth, and Sir Joseph Prestwich, as those of leading geologists who have maintained that the Biblical Deluge was a great fact. The eminent Scotch geologist, Hugh Miller, held the same views, and the late Duke of Argyll, a first rate geologist, maintained similar opinions. In France the diluvial catastrophe finds many able supporters. In Canada the late Sir William Dawson, the first of Canadian geologists, constantly maintained in many of his books that geology proved that the Biblical deluge had actually taken place. In America, Professors Hitchcock and Claypole have held the same view. Lastly, Professor G. F. Wright, one of the most talented of American geologists, has, in a most able work, proved conclusively that modern geology not only testifies to the perfect truth of Noah’s flood, but also demonstrates the manner in which it happened.

From all this it is plain that if talented geologists in the past and in the present, have maintained and do maintain that the account of the Biblical deluge is in harmony with geology, it follows, that those who say that Noah’s flood is contrary to modern science are not only wrong, but are completely ignoring some of the facts of geology.

The facts of geology which prove the truth of Noah’s flood are found in the clays, sands and gravels of the Quaternary formation, and in the character of the remains of the animals which these beds enclose. The earlier deposits of the Quaternary Era are not referred to, as those were formed by ice and water during the Glacial Period, and it is only the later beds of the Quaternary Epoch that concern our argument.

Now, at the close of the Quaternary Period, the whole of the north of Europe, Asia, and America, was inhabited by lions, tigers, hyaenas, leopards, rhinoceroses, hippopotami, and elephants. These great beasts everywhere suddenly disappeared at the end of the Quaternary Period, and not a single trace of any appears in the northern hemisphere at the beginning of the next epoch. How did they disappear? The question must have an answer. The disappearance is sudden, universal, and complete. They were not exterminated by man—for he could not have destroyed them all suddenly—and there is no sign of gradual dying out. Pestilence could not have destroyed a whole fauna suddenly, and there are no signs of a change of climate, except in northern Asia. Moreover, the bones of these great beasts are accumulated in enormous masses, and are often piled upon each other in vast numbers, small and great, herbivorous and carnivorous, being mingled together in great heaps and in inextricable confusion. They herded together in enormous numbers to avoid some terrible catastrophe, and what could that have been but an overwhelming flood of resistless waters? Man was present at the time, as the presence of his bones and weapons proves, and was overwhelmed by the same cataclysm.

Next, we have the undoubted fact that since man appeared upon the earth, a vast accumulation of sands, clays, and gravels, have been formed, which, geologically speaking, belong to the latter part of the Quaternary Period. The beds of the former portion of the Quaternary Epoch—belong to the Glacial Period and are not now under consideration. The deposits we have alluded to are chiefly found in the northern hemisphere, and are full of bones of lions, hyaenas, tigers, elephants, and rhinoceroses; they are, in fact, the same great animals to whose sudden disappearance we have just alluded. Many of these beds are found spread out in great sheets on the summits of hills, and on the tops of extensive table-lands. These beds were formed by water, but not by rivers, for rivers run in valleys and do not flow along the tops of the hills. The beds of clay, sand, and gravel, cover hills and valleys in one vast winding-sheet. Some tremendous cause, therefore, must have formed them, which acted for a short time and then altogether ceased. Also, these beds often contain great rocks and boulders which are frequently a ton in weight, which proves that the water which deposited them rushed along with terrific speed. In many places in these beds, far away from any rivers, the deposits contain great masses of animals’ bones. These are often piled up in heaps, and the remains of all kinds of animals, herbivorous and carnivorous, great and small, are mingled together in the greatest confusion. In some places even, the bones of fishes and other sea animals are confusedly mingled with the remains of land animals. Man was present at the time of this catastrophe, for his bones and flint weapons are found in the sands and gravels, side by side with the remains of the great animals referred to. In England and in various places in Europe, these beds are known as “The Rubble Drift,” and in Siberia the bones, teeth, and tusks of elephants and rhinoceroses are found piled together in great masses in the frozen plains, and especially in the Liakoff and New Siberian islands in the Arctic Ocean.

Another proof that a great flood has occurred since man appeared upon the earth is found in the ossiferous fissures. In. many places in England and in Europe, the limestone rocks have been rent and torn into great cracks. These fissures are filled with earth, rubble, and broken stones, and the earthy deposits in the fissures are crammed full with the bones of lions, hyaenas, deer, elephants, horses, wolves, and rhinoceroses.

These bones are confusedly mingled in masses, the remains of herbivorous and carnivorous animals being crowded together in astonishing numbers. At Windy Knoll in Derbyshire, in an area of 25 feet by 18, no fewer than 6,800 bones were sorted, besides those cast aside. Man was then living on the earth, and was involved in the same catastrophe, his bones and weapons being found in a fissure at Plymouth, side by side with the remains of the animals referred to. As some of these ossiferous fissures are found on the tops of hills, it is plain that the animals must have ascended the hills in great herds, carnivorous and herbivorous animals crowding together in terror; and what could have caused them to seek shelter on the tops of the mountains except a tremendous flood, which rose above the summits of the hills and drowned the animals which had sought safety on these eminences?

Now, the catastrophe which destroyed these great animals, and heaped their bones together in masses, occurred since the creation of man. Not merely were vast multitudes of animals destroyed, but a whole fauna suddenly perished. Nothing like this has ever been seen on the earth. Very often pestilences sweep away great numbers of animals, but these murrains never destroy all the animals of one race entirely, over a widespread region. But at the time we speak of, the lion, tiger, hyaena, elephant, rhinoceros, and hippopotamus, suddenly and entirely disappeared from these northern lands, and were never seen there again. The way also that these great animals all crowded together in multitudes shows that some overwhelming catastrophe overtook them. In one spot in Oxfordshire the remains of no fewer than fifty elephants were found crowded together in one gravel pit! Similar instances have been found in other countries. There is no way of explaining such extraordinary facts except by admitting a sudden and overwhelming, flood of water. More than this, the race of men living at that time (i.e., palmolithic men) utterly perished along with the great animals, and no trace of them can be afterward discovered. How are we to account for all this wonderful array of scientific facts? It is plain that geological science proves that, since the advent of man upon the earth, a tremendous flood period or era of diluvial waters has prevailed over a large portion of the world. The Biblical account of Noah’s flood is, therefore, proved to be scientifically true, and once more it has been demonstrated that science, rightly interpreted, is in perfect harmony with the revelation of God.

D. GATH WHITLEY.

[Reproduced from “Friends’ Witness,” by kind permission of the Editor, as also of the Author.]

Brotherly Love and Love

Scripture says, “Let brotherly love continue”; and indeed it is so sweet, that the wonder is that we should ever let it drop. But we are such an unwise people, and the hardening influence of the world so much affects us, that even where there has been happy fellowship, coldness often creeps in. Sometimes brotherly affection will wither, just for want of a little expression, and our watchful enemy is only too glad to see it die down. Then, Christian, if you have love in your heart to your brother, do not hide it as a secret that must not be known. Refrain not from those small expressions of love, which will not only refresh thy brother’s heart, but keep love from dying in thine own. One can imagine how Satan may chuckle when he manages to estrange Christians from one another. Where you see this estrangement, you see the work of Satan; but where Christians are loving one another, you see the work of God’s Spirit, for “love is of God” (1 John 4:7). Do you see a Christian walking in the power of love? Then you see one who is under divine teaching, for Paul says of the Thessalonians that they were “taught of God to love one another” (1 Thess. 4:9). God is glorified and Satan defeated when love triumphs amongst Christians.

Scripture distinguishes between “love” and “brotherly love.” They are expressed by distinct words in the original. Love is “agape,” and brotherly love is one word, “philadelphia.” “Philadelphia” is rather friendly love; and the Authorized Version has tried to convey this by the expression, “brotherly kindness” (2 Peter 1:7). But it is more than that. It includes kindness, but it is love; only, love in the form which it takes in the intercourse of brethren. Perhaps the best rendering is Mr. Kelly’s, which is “brotherly affection.”

Peter tells us to add to godliness, brotherly affection, and to brotherly affection, love (2 Peter 1:7). That is to say, dry godliness—if one may speak so—won’t do; we must have with godliness, the warmth of Christian friendship, brotherly affection. How stiffly, hardly, with what grinding and creaking, the machine sometimes moves; perhaps won’t move at all, when a few drops of oil make it all right and smooth: so is love amongst brethren. Love surmounts the difficulties of the day, conquers coldness and apathy, and goes forth winning the hearts of the saints in order to serve them. Surely it is not without significance, in a book so full of symbols as the Revelation, that “Philadelphia” is the name of perhaps the most admirable of the seven churches. But then brotherly affection will not suffice alone, or it may degenerate into mere human sentiment, so there must be godliness; and with godliness, brotherly affection: then again, with brotherly affection, love: that is, love in its highest, broadest, noblest sense; love to God, love in the truth, love to the brethren shown in walking according to His commandments (2 John 1-6), love to poor fallen man. How perfect is Scripture!

Now love to the brethren is an evidence of divine life. First to ourselves, “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren” (1 John 3:14); secondly to the world, “by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another” (John 13:35). Thus, then, love amongst Christians is a positive testimony for God in the world. Do you desire to bear testimony for Christ, to preach the gospel? Good! it is a good aspiration. But all are not gifted for this. Yet there is a testimony which everyone can display—even the humblest: he is greatest who shows it most, and the most splendid gift is naught without it. It is love! Love “in truth,” manifested amongst believers, preaches Christ to the world.

Building a House for Jehovah

Now it came to pass, as David sat in his house, that David said to Nathan the prophet, Lo, I dwell in a house of cedars, but the ark of the covenant of Jehovah remaineth under curtains. Then Nathan said unto David, Do all that is in thine heart; for God is with thee” (1 Chron. 17:1-2).

It is natural that the soul that has been the subject of a great and wonderful deliverance, or that has emerged from a protracted trial into light and liberty, should wish to do, or bring, something to God in return. But its expression, if always imperfect, may even be offensive to Him whose glory is ostensibly the object of desire, as, for instance, in the case of Jephthah (Judg. 11:30-31), where the importance and advancement of self seem rather the motive spring of his vow.

Nevertheless, the gratitude of a thankful heart is always acceptable to God, and on this occasion of our chapter the desire of David was in part the result of that which the Spirit of God had produced within him, for his unaffected piety and devotion was intensified by the thought of what God had wrought for him; and this is divine order. To be worshipped, God must be known according to the revelation He has vouchsafed. The Israelite was entitled dispensationally to approach God as a worshipper, for in Judah was God known, and His name was great in Israel; but since the nation’s rejection of Christ, “Praise waiteth (or is silent) for thee, O God, in Zion, and unto thee shall the vow be performed. O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come” (Psa. 65:1, 2). For the present, iniquities prevail against them, but when they shall be purged away, it will not be Israel alone, but “unto thee shall all flesh come.” Now, however, it is “worship in spirit and in truth,” which God now demands since the revelation of Himself, through the Lord Jesus, as our God and Father, to whom also, through Him, we have access by one Spirit (John 4:21-24; Eph. 2:18).

The purposes of God for the blessing of Israel and the exaltation of David were as yet unfulfilled. David himself might be satisfied, but God was not. It was not David alone, but all Israel, who had occasion to rejoice, in the establishment of the kingdom and the installation of the ark in Zion; for the nation had deeply compromised itself with Jehovah by turning the ark of His strength out of its resting place at Shiloh to which it never returned (1 Sam. 4). The tabernacle itself without the ark was valueless, and they who, for private ends, thus lightly profaned His sanctuary were themselves rejected, and had to endure the awful experience of being without any visible link with Jehovah for a period of nearly 100 years.

From Psa. 78, which gives the divine history of this dreary period, we may quote verses 56 to 64— “Yet they tempted and provoked the most high God; and kept not his testimonies: but turned back, and dealt unfaithfully like their fathers; they were turned aside like a deceitful bow. For they provoked him to anger with their high places, and moved him to jealousy with their graven images. When God heard this he was wroth, and greatly abhorred Israel: so that he forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent which he placed among men; and delivered his strength into captivity, and his glory into the enemy’s hand. He gave his people over also unto the sword; and was wroth with his inheritance. The fire consumed their young men; and their maidens were not given to marriage. Their priests fell by the sword; and their widows made no lamentation.”

How literally were the solemn words of judgment upon Eli’s house fulfilled (1 Sam. 2:31-33; 22:17-19; 1 Kings 2:27). Yet Jehovah Himself would bring about their deliverance in the accomplishment of His purposes of royalty in David, and of worship in the temple built by David’s son. “Then the Lord waked as one out of sleep, like a mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine. And he smote his enemies in the hinder parts; he put them to a perpetual reproach. Moreover he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved. And he built his sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which he hath established forever” (Psa. 78:65-69). Now David had been made to pass through similar experience to that of the nation, as many Psalms plainly testify. So too was it with Him of whom David was, in a remarkable way, a type. For the rendering of acceptable worship to God, blessing must be realized, and the Blesser known. God has been pleased to reveal Himself as a Savior God, and in this way must He be known if the spirit of worship is to be evoked. “If thou knewest the gift of God” —nothing else appeals to the convicted sinner, and nothing so well suits the justified believer.

When the soul is established in this foundation truth of Christianity, the desire to do something for God may be rightly carried out, in accordance with the revelation of His will as revealed in the scriptures of truth. When Israel, as a nation, first experienced the power of God put forth on their behalf for deliverance and blessing, an exactly similar result was produced as will again be the case at the close of all God’s dealings with them. “Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto Jehovah, and spake, saying, I will sing unto Jehovah, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. Jehovah is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my fathers’ God, and I will exalt him” (Ex. 15:1-2). “I saw as it were a sea of glass, mingled with fire, and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass having harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvelous are thy works, Lord God Almighty, just and true are thy ways, thou king of the nations. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all the nations shall come and worship before thee, for thy judgments are made manifest. And after that I looked, and behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony of heaven was opened” (Rev. 15:1-5). This latter scripture presents not Israel as a whole saved and blessed and established on earth, but the martyred remnant, victorious over the beast, received up into heaven, into the most intimate association with the temple of God there.

The bringing up of the ark to the city of David had stimulated the religious fervor, of which it was the expression, but only, in part, did it realize a long cherished desire. “O Jehovah, remember David, and all his afflictions. How he sware unto Jehovah, and vowed unto the mighty God of Jacob; surely I will not come unto the tabernacle of my house, nor go up into my bed; I will not give sleep to mine eyes, or slumber to mine eyelids, until I find out a place for Jehovah, an habitation for the mighty God of Jacob” (Psa. 132:1-5). Jacob at Bethel had likewise a similar experience. “And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely Jehovah is in this place; and I knew it not. And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven. And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it. And he called the name of that place Bethel; but the name of that city was called Luz at the first. And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father’s house in peace; then shall Jehovah be my God; and this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee” (Gen. 28:16-22). The spirit of worship, however, in Jacob was restrained, and qualified by the worldliness which he allowed in his heart, proposing terms and conditions for God and himself to observe, occasioning long and severe discipline. But God preserved him even through this, and then called upon him to fulfill his forgotten vow. “And God said unto Jacob, Arise, go up to Bethel, and dwell there; and make there an altar unto God that appeared unto thee when thou fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother.... So Jacob came to Luz, which is in the land of Canaan, that is, Bethel, he and all the people that were with him. And he built there an altar, and called the place El-Bethel: because there God appeared unto him, when he fled from the face of his brother” (Gen. 35:1, 6, 7).

The ark of God dwelling under curtains was to David’s soul even as the altar of Bethel to Jacob. Has not the Spirit of God established such a connection in recalling “the mighty God of Jacob”? So, too, in Stephen’s defense, “David who found favor before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob” (Acts 7:46). All this points to the purpose of God for man’s blessing to be consummated by the man of God’s own right hand. That purpose of blessing had advanced considerably in David’s time, but it was still in the future. In promise, David himself, blessed saint and servant of God as he was, could be only a type of the coming One, and could best serve his own generation by the will of God, by directing the hearts of the people to Christ the Messiah—the true and proper hope of Israel. How sweetly and graciously did God dissuade David from his purpose by setting His own thoughts and purpose before him. If it is a question of building God a house, God must be the builder (Eph. 2:20-22; Heb. 3:3-6); otherwise what ruin as the result of man’s building!

We see in the history of David how disappointing is man in his best estate; but we see also how in times of man’s deepest failure God delights in His purpose of bringing in the Second man, the man Christ Jesus. And faith delights in this revealed purpose and way of God by which is secured the glory of God and true and lasting blessing for the creature, “So I answered and spoke to the angel that talked with me, saying, What are these; my lord? Then the angel that talked with me answered and said unto me, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord. Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of Jehovah unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, said Jehovah of hosts. Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain; and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it. Moreover the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundations of this house; his hands also shall finish it; and thou shalt know that Jehovah of hosts hath sent me unto you. For who hath despised the day of small things?.. for they shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel with those seven; they are the eyes of Jehovah which run to and fro through the whole earth” (Zech. 4:4-10).

“And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain. Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow” (2 Sam. 23:4-5). The heart of David was thus instructed, and made to rest in the presence of God. Then went king David in, and sat before Jehovah—the only safe place from which to regard the ruin and judgment of all that is founded upon the first man, and the stability, permanence, and brightness of all that Christ the King will establish in millennial days. We see, then, that if God has to disappoint the soul of a long-cherished project, or to take away something upon which one has counted, He more than compensates for it by that which He reveals. Disappointments and trials suffered in faith and patience are but divine preparations for the most exalted order of blessing. The known character and piety of David might have been deemed a guarantee of stability in the days of the kingdom as then established, yet almost his last public act was the bringing of the judgment of God upon them (1 Chronicles 21). Here again God in mercy interposed, taking occasion of man’s sin and its consequent judgment, to give a still further revelation of His purposes for the future government and blessing of His people. “Then David said, This is the house of Jehovah God, and this is the altar of the burnt offering for Israel.”

G. S. B.

Christ: Not Judaism, Nor Christendom

A Reply to the Author of a Recent Letter to the Bishop of Manchester. (Wertheimer, Lea, and Co.)

Sir,

Though I have not read the Bishop’s sermon to the Jews, I have a few words to say in acknowledgment of your letter, sent me by yourself or some other unknown donor.

You appear throughout to forget two things, which the scriptures you own do not fail to urge: the predicted and now fulfilled rain of the Jews as a people, and the sovereign grace of God equally assured to the Genesis tiles.

The law, the Psalms, and the prophets, are unmistakable that Israel were to break down as God’s witness so completely that He would disown them for a season. (See Deut. 31:29; 32:5, 6, 15-20; Psa. 42:53; 68:18; Psa. 68; Psa. 106; Isa. 1:9; 6:9-12; 8:14; x. 20; 65:2; Hos. 1:6-9; 3:4.) So, Ezekiel shows us at the beginning the cherubim of glory gradually departing when the first Gentile power executed judgment on Israel, and at the end the return of the glory when the last Gentile empire is judged and Israel are once more and forever blessed.

The same lively oracles are no less explicit that divine mercy should visit and bless the Gentiles during His disowning of Israel. (See Deut. 32:20; Psa. 18:43, 49; Isa. 8:16, 17; 9:1, 2; 49:6; 65:1; Hos. 1:10.)

These truths shine with light brighter than the sun in God’s oracles; and the plainest facts answer to them. For on the one hand, you, the chosen people, are expelled by God (none else could have done it) from your land, capital, and sanctuary, the only spot where you can sacrifice acceptably; and without sacrifice you surely know that your worship is at an end, as is your polity also while your land is ruled by the stranger. On the other hand, those who were the vilest slaves of idolatry and moral corruption, who knew not the true God and only dreaded demons, now rejoice in your scriptures as their own, and, while you groan, they worship and praise God as their own God and Father, having renounced the abominations of the heathen.

How comes this marvelous change? When your nation fell into revolting and persistent idolatry, not only in the people and in the priests but in the king of David’s line, God justly indignant as He was swept you away into idol-loving Babylon for no more than seventy years. What sin is so much worse as to account for your last dispersion during the last 1800 years? Do you not even, suspect? What but rejection of your own Messiah, Emmanuel? The greatest of your prophets lays precisely these two counts of indictment against you: first, idolatry (Isa. 40-48); secondly, rejection of the Messiah. (Chaps. 49-57.) All is not exhausted yet; but it is blindness itself to evade such a conviction of your sins. Yea, blinded by proud unbelief, you smote the Judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek-Him that was to be born in Bethlehem, yet to be ruler in Israel; and no wonder, for His goings forth were from of old, from everlasting (Mic. 5:1-8); and therefore has He given you up till the birth of God’s final purpose of mercy and blessing for Israel. For the day comes when they will repent and bow before the true Joseph who will then make Himself known to His brethren-that same Joseph, who even now sustains His guilty brethren, the sons of Israel, ignorant of Him, yet famishing without Him, who is exalted among the Gentiles and there has a bride, His church. I am as sure as you that this Man, whom Jehovah owns as His Fellow (Zech. 13:7) and whom you are yet to own as the Jehovah that you pierced (Zech. 12:10), will be the peace, and will fight against your foes as in the day of battle, King over all the earth. In that day shall Israel be blessed and exalted, and the Gentiles bow, and their kings minister to Zion, and your sun no more go down nor your moon withdraw itself.

You cannot suppose then that I envy, deny, or enfeeble Israel’s future glory on the earth under Messiah and the new covenant. How could I who look, as every Christian ought, to be glorified in heaven with Christ? I have no sympathy with the conceit of Christendom which arrogates your blessings, as if you had lost your place and the Gentiles had gained it forever. The Bishop of Manchester might be as slow to believe that Christendom is speedily to be judged for its apostasy, as you are that Israel suffer for theirs. The mass in Christendom now are no better than the mass of the Jews when Nebuchadnezzar or even Titus destroyed Jerusalem. But I see, in the scriptures we both acknowledge as divine, that your most fiery trial immediately precedes the deliverance of such Jews as are written in the book. (Dan. 12:1.) You are destined to receive as “the king” in Palestine the basest of impostors Dan. 11:36-39); and the last empire of the Gentiles, the fourth Roman beast of Daniel 7, will play its most guilty part in it, when it revives (as it will soon) for God’s final judgment. You both refused the true Christ; you are both to receive the Antichrist; when the Lord of glory will appear to the perdition of the beast and the false prophet and all their adherents, but to the deliverance of such Jews and Gentiles as will have been kept from this audacious blasphemy and wickedness.

It is a ruinous oversight of your own scriptures and of your actual history that God’s anger “is appeased.” Heavier punishment is yet in store for the Jew for his tin, belief. And what evidence can be imagined lower than yours for pretending to God’s favor as a people? “The gift of genius,” talents, learning, distinction, and, “last not least! the abundance of their wealth and prosperity 111” And the Jew flatters himself that “these are stubborn facts that outweigh a thousand quotations!” So naturally does slight of their own scriptures follow slight of their own Messiah and the loss of their place and nation, and also of eternal blessedness: for if He sits at Jehovah’s right hand, the true Melchizedek, what will it be for His enemies when He strikes in the day of His wrath? (Compare Psa. 45:3-6.) His glory measures His judgments, and they are guiltiest who having the word of God fail to read and understand it aright.

It is vain for you or any other to retreat from the testimony of God’s word (and I have cited only what you must and do own) into questions of translation or interpretation-the constant resource of unbelief of Rabbis on the one hand, and of priests as well as rationalists on the other. Any respectable version of your own is quite enough to convict you of defying God’s warnings, as you now despise the lesson of your own disconsolate condition-not only without a king and a prince, but without a sacrifice, without an image or statue, and without an ephod and teraphim. The prophet supposes, that you are no longer worshipping a false God; but he unquestionably predicts Israel’s abiding many days in this strangely abnormal state without the true God or His ordinances. Has it no adequate moral cause? Did God so cast off and punish His people (now Lo-ammi) without some sin far more flagrant than their far less punished idolatry of old? What was the sin? What does Daniel intimate in chapter 9: 26, 27? You may speak of “ solace and rules of conduct for this life as well as assurance and hope for the life hereafter.” But if you have not hearkened to the Prophet from among the Jews, like unto Moses, who was to speak all that Jehovah should command Him, Jehovah declares that He will require it of you. Your own Pentateuch then demands that you should hearken under the penalty of divine judgment; and now that the judgment is on you, we entreat you to pause and consider. Even before God gave you up, when you were in the land under your own anointed kings, you were ever disposed to be refractory, disobedient, and idolatrous. What have you done worse? Will boasting of your “ancient and glorious religion” mend matters So did they who perished under the avenging Roman.

Pardon me if I think that you talk with levity of the Messiah even in your sense, when you argue that whether He has come or is yet to come, “it does not, in the slightest degree, affect the eternal truths of our religion.” I grieve for you. This did not Abraham. Before the writings of Moses or the law, he waited for Messiah. So did Abel, and Enoch, and Noah. All their hopes turned on the Seed of the woman who should bruise the serpent’s head, though the serpent should bruise His heel. The common object of faith for all the godly before the law was not Judaism, but the coming Messiah. He was the center of the promises and, I admit, of blessings for the elect people, Abram’s seed, and in their land; but deeper than all and above all is the Seed in whom all the nations of the earth shall be blessed. Did you ever notice Jehovah swearing thus, after Abraham’s only son had been under the sentence of death as a burnt-offering till the third day when he was raised up as it were from the dew) by God’s intervention? After the figure of death and resurrection the blessing to all the nations was then solemnly proclaimed. (Gen. 22)

I bless God for every word of His that is revealed, from Genesis to Malachi, to speak now of nothing more; but I affirm that not one distinctive good in Christianity is derived from or is to be found in Judaism. Does not Judaism deny a suffering Savior, God and man in one person?. Does it-not deny that the infinite sacrifice of the true atonement day is already offered and accepted of God and efficacious forever for those who believe on Him and rest on it? We, have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God: is this no good, or is it found in Judaism? We have an altar, which is so far from being derived from Judaism that contrariwise they have no right to eat of it ‘who serve the tabernacle. So too by the Holy Spirit we were sealed after we believed the gospel, and in no way found it in Judaism. Our relationship, with God as our Father, with Christ as our Head, what have they to do with Judaism? They are founded entirely on the Messiah whom Judaism rejected and crucified, whom God raised and glorified in heaven, which is our characteristic place of blessing as truly as Canaan was for Israel.

If indeed you were sinless, one could understand the vaunt “Judaism is all-sufficient for us.” But a Jew ahem; less conscience than the heathen if he conceives that he can have remission of sins without blond of a sacrifice acceptable to God. You know that you have no such sacrifice; you ought to know then that, dying in your sins without blood upon the altar, you are lost. Your own Pentateuch declares that it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul. (Lev. 17:11.) Is not this a truth of your religion? Is it eternal or temporary? If eternal, where and how do you stand before God and His word which you own to your own condemnation? If you disown this cardinal truth of the law, what can save you? Without atoning blood, you are more miserable and more guilty than the most benighted of the heathen. Alas I rationalism possesses the Jews even more than Christendom.

It is a mistake however that the failure of Christendom arises from forsaking Judaism for distinctive principles of its own. As the apostasy of the Jews was by their abandoning Jehovah and His law for Gentilism and its idols, so of Christendom by judaizing. Christianity stands by faith of Christ dead, risen, and glorified in heaven, and the possession of the Holy Ghost now on earth thereby. But Christians soon grew weary of the cross here and glory in heaven with Christ. They preferred that place of earthly glory and power with the law as their rule which God had given to Israel; and so seeking they were ruined. It was salt that had lost its savor. I go farther than you, believing that when the Lord my God comes and all the saints with him (Zech. 14), He will judge guilty Christendom no less than Judaism. This is more serious than perishing by its own dissensions or any other human cause.

Judaism then is insufficient to supply even the first need of a soul awakened to feel the burden of its sins. The Jew must either stifle his conscience by denying that he has sins, or abandon the law of Jehovah by pretending to an atonement for his soul without blood. Thus, the modern Jew really gives up the hopes and promises of his forefathers. He looks for no daysman, he trusts in no kinsman-redeemer, he requires no intercession, but, like any other unbeliever, he pretends to have direct access to God Himself. And no wonder; for they have refused in unbelief their own Messiah, olio, though God over all blessed forever, came in flesh to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

You do not well to be angry if those who enjoy eternal life and peace in believing desire others to enjoy the same who are either insensible to their misery, or intensely sad, as I trust some of Israel are in their present desolation under the evident judgment of God. I admit that Jews might try to spread their Judaism or Gentiles their heathenism; and that Christians ought to compassionate efforts so futile for those who have faith. It is however no question of any right of ours, but of His authority who commanded His servants to preach the good news to every creature. It is one of the points of contrast between the law and the gospel.

Nor are you justified in drawing from God’s unchanging character that the Jew must remain what he was. Notwithstanding I myself believe that there never was a moment since God’s call of Abram that He had not in that line one or more faithful to His name. When the Messiah came and went out of the Jewish fold, the Jewish sheep followed; and so there has been an elect remnant of Jews outside Judaism ever since, without speaking of the Gentiles. I believe too that the day is coming fast when all of that people who refuse the true Christ will fall under Antichrist or otherwise perish for rebellion of Jehovah, and that then the nation all righteous, owning the despised Nazarene as their Messiah, yea their Lord and their God, shall be a blessing to all the families in the earth. But that day is not yet come; and whoever lives and dies hearing of the Lord Jesus Christ now but rejecting Him perishes forever. What would the most decided Jew think of the Christian’s charity who yet forbears-to speak of the only One who, as he believes, can save Jew or Gentile? It would be far more reasonable to doubt the charity and indeed the faith of him who could be silent when man’s salvation and God’s glory are at stake. It is all well to instruct and exhort and correct fellow-Christians, but this does not absolve from the duty of proclaiming the Lord and Savior. Neither the law nor the constancy of the Jew can save his soul, nor that “boundless charity” which he proposes to the Christian’s emulation; but what is the Christian to do who is sure that the Jew is perishing forever for the want of that Savior whom God has given in their rejected Messiah? It is evidently a question of faith and love; and he who has them not can be necessarily no judge of the matter.

Yours, W. K.

Courtesy of BibleTruthPublishers.com. Most likely this text has not been proofread. Any suggestions for spelling or punctuation corrections would be warmly received. Please email them to: BTPmail@bibletruthpublishers.com.

Christ the Truth

I have already endeavored to show the meaning of the Way; that Christ, and Christ only is the Way. But there is another thing, Christ is not only the Way to the Father, but He is also the Truth. Where is truth to be found? In Him alone. He Himself is the Truth. Thus the man who has taken the way, possesses the truth. He who has bowed to Christ does not want some new resource. Truly God is wise, and as good as He is wise.

Let me now try to unfold what truth is. Man in his natural state may ask, but eludes the answer. How is this? Because he is gone away from God, serves Satan in whom is no truth, and likes Christ less, the more he knows about Him. When He came into the world, people seemed to value Him at first; for they did not then know that He was the Truth, and were not yet proved by Him.

They were all looking for, and expecting the promised Messiah. The time spoken of by Daniel was fulfilled, and men were in a state of expectation. The famous prophecy of the weeks pointed to those days, and the Jews all knew, or might have known, that the time was quite near when the Messiah, the Prince, was to appear, though none understood that He was to be cut off. The very heathen were moved by the rumors of a coming Deliverer; they heard that the time was at hand that a mighty king should reign, and most remarkable changes happen for the world. Wise men came from the East to see the born King of the Jews. More than one hundred and fifty years before Christ, the Old Testament had been translated into the Greek tongue, which was at that time the usual means of communication, as French has been in modern times. This translation of the Bible was a sort of preparatory testimony. Thus the Jews were not the only people who were looking for the Messiah.

But He is much more. He is the Word, He is God, He is the light, which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. And men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil. Hence the early attraction soon faded, and gave way to fear and hatred; and as they desired not to know God or themselves, they sought to get rid of what convicted them by killing Him. They might kill, but they could not get rid of the Son of God; and as we have seen Him the Way, so He is the Truth. What is meant by it? Let us compare the law with Him.

The law is holy, just, and good; but still it is nowhere called the truth. The law is the standard of divine requirement from man; it declares what God demands from him who takes the ground of his own obedience as his standing before Him. The truth is the revelation of God, the manifestation of everything else, in Christ. It is therefore not requirement, but revelation. In fact, God Himself contrasts them; as it is written, “The law was given by Moses; but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” Was it not God’s law? Yes; but it was given by Moses, who was the channel of communication. But Christ was and is the Way; and this not only for God to come down to man, but for man to go to God—nay, to the Father. Besides, He is the Truth. He makes every one and everything known as they really are; and when we weigh what the truth is, we can see that Christ only could be the full presentation of it. God is thus revealed; and Christ, being the revealer of God, is Himself said to be the Truth. As Son, He brings out what the Father is. But He, the Holy One of God, shows me what sin is, what I am. In short, He manifests every one and everything exactly as each is.

God is never said to be the Truth, but Christ, being the image of the invisible God. Man is not capable of fathoming God; no man hath seen God at any time. Who is competent to know God? No man, nor even angel. The creature does not know God; but God can make Himself known to the creature. How? In Christ by the Holy Ghost. This is the reason why the Holy Spirit is also called the Truth in 1 John 5 Christ, the Truth, is the object presented in whom I can learn everything as it is; the Spirit of God is the inward power that makes the truth enter into my soul that I may have and enjoy it. Hence the necessity for the Holy Ghost to be the Truth as well as Christ. The spirit of man in itself is no more capable of knowing God than a beast of understanding the mind of man. The beast has its own creature instincts; but no beast, no creature of that order, can pass its own limits. No lower creature is capable of understanding man, and no man, as such, can rise to what is above his nature.

Yet, without the truth, how wretched one must ever be! I have sinned. How do I stand, and in what relation, to God? Are we doomed to be in utter uncertainty of the only thing that is of supreme importance? There are things that a man can come to, left to himself—dread and horror, hardness or indifference. But these fears are only the premonition of what, far more terrible and unending, will befall him if he lives and dies as he is. What is to become of his soul? My answer is: Christ is the truth; and Christ was here expressly on an errand of love, to glorify God, to save sinners by faith, to meet this dark and awful void, and give life and peace, with certainty, to the believer.

Do not take the ground of an unbeliever, and say that it is impossible to have certainty in this life. Perhaps it might be impossible for a Jew, no doubt it was for the heathen; but if God tells me anything, and I believe, is it certain or not? If God tells me His mind, does this give no certainty? Christ is God’s revelation of Himself to me. Do you say, I am a sinner? It is true, as far as it goes; but even so you do not know what a sinner you are, else you could not take it so quietly. You go to God about your sins then. Will He leave you in a state of uncertainty? No; Christ has come, the sent One of God, to do His will in the offering of His body; and by Him came grace and truth, not merely truth. And what grace it was! The Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, becoming a man; and not only so, but born of a woman! Adam even was not, never having been born, but made. He was not a son of man therefore, though son of God in a certain sense (Luke 3). He came into the world mature and formed to be its head; he had attained his full proportion when he came from God’s hand. Jesus was not merely a man, but the Seed of the woman, as no one ever was save He. He became a servant all that man is—except sin. It is not only that He did not sin, but He never in His life knew what sin was; He could always say that His meat was to do God’s will. “Lo, I come to do thy will.” But He was made sin on the cross; He suffered the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God.

Do I learn what sin is by prayer, or by looking into my own heart? No; but I see it in His cross. What did my sin cost Him? It brought upon Him, the Holy One, the horrors of divine judgment; and now He is become captain of salvation, having obtained eternal redemption. The same Jesus who gives me the truth of a sinner in myself gives me the truth of a Savior in Him. Where shall I find what a holy man is? Can it be Adam? The man who could not keep his hands off the fruit of the tree that God had told him not to eat—he a holy man! Why did he not listen to God? He disobeyed, and became unholy. Not that he was made so; for God made him innocent, and innocence supposes absence of evil, with liability to fall into it. But when Jesus was made flesh He was not only sinless, but holy, holy not in ways only, but in nature. “That holy thing which shall he born of thee shall he called the Son of God.” There also do we read, “A body hast thou prepared me”; and this is never said of anyone else. Why was this body so specially prepared? Because there could not be the least relic that defiles in the Holy One. The smallest taint of evil would spoil the sacrifice; the lamb for the burnt-offering was to be without blemish and without spot. When Jesus was born, although He was the Seed of the woman, there was no taint of sin in His nature; He is called that holy thing, for He was born by the power of the Holy Ghost. Thus He could take upon Him not merely all our sins, but sin itself. This is the truth?

If I want to see sin, I can see it by contrast with the Lord Jesus. He came and showed out all its darkness. “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin.” Christ is the Truth; so all is brought out in its own character.

But there is just the same result about God; Christ as the Truth clearly shows what God is. It is never said that Christ is the likeness of God, though with the greatest emphasis said to be His image. It would not be true to say of any man that he is like a man, although you might say so of an angel. Just in the same way Jesus is not said to be like God, because He is God. Here was One who was perfectly able to show what God is. It is the Absolute deigning to become relative. As long as God is only God, He is unapproachable by man; man cannot understand Him. But I must know God, or I cannot have eternal life; and this cannot be apart from Him whom He has sent, even Jesus Christ the Lord. Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, and He has brought me exactly what I want. God is the One who loves me, who comes down in the person of Jesus, Son of God and Son of man, to meet the need of a poor sinner. If, again, I want to know what the devil is, it is the same Jesus that brings it out. He, a murderer from the beginning, and a liar, is the one being who stands always opposed to the Lord Jesus. Jesus therefore brought out what the devil was as it had never been manifested before; but the Son of God came that He might destroy the works of the devil.

Now, have you got the Truth? You have heard the truth in Him; what is the effect on your soul? “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures.” The law makes me feel my shortcomings, but the truth makes them even better known. But if I am willing to know how bad I am, I want to be delivered. Will the law do this? When the law was given, it put man at a distance. Moses was to set hounds to the mountain; and if a beast so much as touched it, it was to be slain. This, no doubt, was a wholesome righteous warning; but the truth is, that the Lord Jesus came down from heaven to seek and to save the lost. And how are you to be saved? By submitting to the Truth; by coming as a sinner to the Savior of sinners. I cannot be saved except by the Truth. It is the Lord Jesus Himself who brings it all out to the soul, and in confessing Him Lord, I believe God, and set to my seal that He is true. By the grace of God my soul bows to the truth, and I can say in my heart, this is just the truth for me. I abjure my unbelief; I bow to what God says of His Son. It is God proclaiming what is true; and I believe He is as good as He says. I believe that He is forgiving my sins and making me His child on the spot. I have no desert; but Christ is my plea. I am willing to be nothing, that Christ and His cross may be everything for and to me.

But we must remember that the Holy Spirit is the Truth just as truly as Christ is. May He bring the truth home to your souls! Were you to live ever so long, and learn ever so much, it is only knowing better the Truth you receive at the start. Confess Jesus Lord, the only Savior, the Son of God. Confess all that grace has given you to know, and look well to it that your ways be a living confession of that Blessed One who is the Truth.

W.K.

Christ the Way

This was a momentous word for man—for every man, woman, and child. No words more encouraging were ever uttered, even by the Lord Jesus Himself, for such as felt the need of divine direction.

I have no doubt that there was more in them than the mere answer to the question. They meet the need not of one man only, but of all. Yet our Lord was not addressing a multitude of hearers, but the perplexed disciples; and this gives a definiteness of application. He is addressing a believer under Jewish prejudice, not an unconverted man. Not that I am going to confine myself to its strict bearing on the inquiring disciples, for there is in it the fullest answer to the darkest heart. There is divine help for those who know really but very partially. Their knowledge was scanty; they were not the wise and prudent of the earth; and Scripture takes pains to show this. They were not chosen for anything in themselves. It was manifest that they could add no luster to the gospel. “Not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called; but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world, to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world, to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are; that no flesh should glory in his presence” (1 Cor. 1:26-29).

Thus does God confound the pride of flesh, and show the utter folly of any pretension on man’s part to worth in the things of God, seeing that he is really nothing but a lost sinner. When Thomas asked the question about the way, the thoughts of the disciples were still hampered by the earthly expectation of Israel. But how different was their condition in little more than a month afterward! We do not hear again of Thomas. May it not have been because he was going on well? In that case there is not much to talk about. It is people’s intrigues and ambitious designs, their quarrels and fights, that make up the most of history, man’s attempts to circumvent or repel evil, sometimes successful, more often failing. It is the constant conflict of evil with good; and evil but too often prosperous. The time will come when good will always triumph; but it is not come vet. A poor thing truly is man the world. No wonder that God’s thoughts find their center in one person; and He is the object of God here and everywhere.

One person was always before the mind of God, and this was expressed thousands of years before He became a man. He was not only perfection, but He was the perfect Man, as well as God come down to deliver those who were most opposite to Him in every way. Here we see divine good in a man, and nowhere else. No man can be a Christian who refuses Him, or takes any other way. On the one hand, were He not God it would take away from God’s glory as well as destroy man’s hopes. He could not else have been the perfect Savior and Deliverer. On the other hand, it would have taken away all the means of our blessedness if He had not deigned to become man. But He who was God became man, is so now, and ever will so abide, though infinitely more than man. It is just as true that He is always God, even on the cross; and this is the pledge of sure and stable blessing for every soul who would hide himself by faith in Him, spite of all his sins.

Have you fled for refuge? Have you thus come to Him? Or are you thinking to try and make yourself a little better first? But remember, salvation is for sinners. He does not want people who are good (not that He could find them if He did); He is come to seek and to save the lost. It is they who need Him. Are you willing to take this place? It is a solemn thing to tell out all our sins to God; it is as much as to confess that one deserves hell-fire. Do not draw back when I press this. Does it make any difference to God’s thought of you? He knows it all before; but for you it is all-important to take the place of good-for-nothingness in His presence. Thomas was slow to believe; and so are very many. No man likes to tell out what he really is, but when he does he finds out what God is, and He is love. Indeed grace, and grace alone and exactly, meets the need of him who finds out that he is nothing but a sinner. It will not do to say in a general way, “Ah, yes, we are all sinners.” I must have to do with God about my own sins, and that in a particular way. It is neither faith nor conscience to deal with them all in a lump as it were. Do not tell me that you have done so; that you have been to God about your sins and come away empty. You deceive yourself as to this.

You have not been simple or truthful in telling out what you are, else you would have found all you want to meet your need in the Lord Jesus. His fullness meets all our wants. Could I say less when it is about Jesus? He did not come to limit Himself to any one people, or country, or age. His grace flows out freely to all. It is no longer only Israel, but any sinner at any time. When John said, “Behold the Lamb of God,” what was the effect? He tells us: “which taketh away the sin of the world.” Accordingly this is what the work of the Lord Jesus will accomplish; no particle of sin or of its effects will be left in the world. But that day is not come yet. Before it can come the wicked must be banished, that they may go to their own place. No man will be condemned merely because he is bad, but because he refuses the grace of God as shown in Christ. Wrath then comes on him for all his sins. The promise of salvation is to him who hears the word of God the gospel; and man is condemned because he refuses God’s remedy in it. Do not you then lose your time, and it may be your soul, in troubling yourself about God’s dealings with the heathen. The Lord will judge them; and He will do His work perfectly. What you want yourself is mercy, forgiveness, salvation. Therefore, I pray you, banish all thoughts of your own on such a subject; you do not and cannot yet understand God’s ways. Venture not to sit in judgment on Him.

There is nothing so presumptuous and inconsistent as unbelief, nothing so humble as faith. So those who would not scruple to discuss and condemn God’s dealings with the heathen, count it the height of presumption on a believer’s part to say, “I know I am forgiven, washed perfectly white, and free from all stain.” Yet this confidence is from nothing in themselves; it is founded simply on faith in the efficacy of Christ’s blood. It is due to what Christ has done, not to what we are. A man who knows he is a sinner gladly owns the Savior. His first desire is that he may be brought to God. How is he to get to Him? Here is our Lord’s answer, “I am the way.” Let us consider then a little what “the way” means in Scripture.

When man was first made, he was not as he is now. God made man upright. He was the most wonderful being that God had made. An infidel may talk (and there is plenty of such talk in these days) of man having grown gradually to the state he is now in, that he came into existence of himself, nobody knows how, out of nobody knows what. And this is science! Nothing is so utterly foolish as unbelief. But supposing the protoplasm was seaweed, we have still the difficulty, How did the seaweed come? and how did it so change? The very least object could not have come into being without the will and power of God.

But wonderful as the power of God in His works may be, and the more as we think truly of all He has made, much the most wonderful is man even now, though fallen; for he is still responsible as the image of God, if not His likeness. And this is why murder can only he wiped out by death; for man has destroyed the image of God in another. Yet there has never been a good man born into this world.

Man was originally made in the likeness of God, but Adam was fallen before his firstborn child appeared. Thus sin had come in, and so even Seth was born in Adam’s “likeness,” though in God’s “image” still. A brute has not a reasonable soul. Man is the only one of all God’s creatures here who is thus endowed. We therefore see that God did not make the world or man as we see them now; for, when they came from His hand there was not a single thing that He did not pronounce good, or very good. Then there was no need of a way, for whether man turned to the right or to the left, all was good; and there could be no need yet to say, “This is the way; walk ye in it.”

The use and importance of a way would be when that which may have been good everywhere. is so no longer. Evil has come in, and the world has become a wilderness. Such being the case, there is no way; and we need one. The world is nothing but a waste and howling wilderness, through which we cannot pass without a way. There is no rest here, nothing to satisfy the heart of man. He may seek to take his fill of the pleasures of the world; it is but a dram to render him insensible to the fact that he is miserable at the thought of facing God. Having a bad conscience through his sins, there is no one he would so like to get away from as God. He has perhaps some fear of Satan, but he is not so afraid of him as he is of God. What does this tell? That he is a sinner away from God. It is the sense of sin that makes him afraid. The same terrible being (Satan) first entraps a man into sin, and then whispers that he is done for; first entices, and then gives a sense of God’s judgment against him. Man then tries to drown his fears in pleasure. He will go anywhere, do anything, to get rid of the pressure of sin; he will occupy himself with, it may be, his family, his business, even his duties, as he calls them—anything that will keep him away from God. Then, it may be, he is laid on a sick bed, and he feels, “I must meet God in my sins”; and some especially come up to mind that had been long forgotten, but ah! none forgiven. For you cannot be forgiven a little here and a little there. Sin is not to be got rid of in this fashion, one at a time, perhaps when you feel sorry about it. Whatever they may say who sell masses, it is not so with God. But when and how does He meet this ruined condition? Man is lost, and the world is as much of a wilderness as the sands of Arabia to a traveler who has missed his way. Man has absolutely no resources as regards his sins. What then is to meet him in his need? Trying to make amends will not avail. Your sins are upon you, and what can you do when they confront you in the light of God’s throne?

But how does God meet your need? Jesus says, “I am the way.” Jesus is the Way, the only way to God the Father. Jesus is the Way in this world of utter alienation and departure from God. Man is the head of all the ruin as he is the head of the creation. Adam was the head of all before Eve was given to him; he had called all the creatures by their names. Eve’s place was in association with him. So the church has no claim but by association with Christ. He is the way; and can this way fail? Christ fail! What folly! He is the Way. I have nothing to do but to take the way. Crowds of different cases come, and no wonder; for no one that came ever went away as he came. Nor did Christ ever send a soul away unblessed—none that came as sinners and lost.

This is what man really is, a sinner ruined and lost. He has no resources towards God; he cannot diminish one of his sins. What is to become of him? Jesus says, “I am the way,” and it is sure, unfailing. The Son of God became a man in order that He might be the Way. He came to be a Savior, but a Savior only to those who believe. He will be Judge of those who reject Him. He has other offices too, but they are mostly connected with salvation. A man who will be saved is not brought into judgment. Men who have life and are saved have no sins upon them. How then and for what are they to be judged? “Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24). The word really is judgment, not “condemnation,” as it is translated in the A.V.

I do not wish to find fault with our translation, but let me prove that the word ought to be “judgment.” “It is appointed unto men once to die, and after that the judgment.” Here the very same word that is translated “condemnation” is used. “‘There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.” Here it is another word; and there is just as much difference in the words used in the Greek as in the English. What God declares is, that he that hears His word has everlasting life. It is a present thing. The believer again is passed from death unto life. What would be the sense of judging life, of judging what God has wrought?

But all men will give account of their deeds. “We must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ.” This is a very different thing from being brought into judgment by God. To be judged, a man must be a criminal. It is not always the case when there is an earthly judge, for if the grand jury bring in a true bill, the man, even if innocent, must be brought before the judge, and might even he condemned; but this would be caused by man’s infirmity. There could be no such thought in connection with divine judgment. No believer ever comes into judgment, speaking now of the judgment of the great white throne; and this because he has eternal life, and his sins are forgiven now. Are you rejecting this salvation?

God is now in Christ beseeching, entreating you to be reconciled on the ground of His acceptance of Him who was made sin. Your rejecting Him proves that you are not willing to be saved. He is ready to save you, to pardon here and now. But you have some secret reserve, something you are keeping back from Him. You either wish to serve sin a little longer, or you do not believe that God is as good as He is. You prove that you judge yourself unworthy of eternal life.

No man is saved because he deserves it. I implore you, put it not off, wait not for anything. Christ will not be more of a Savior to-morrow; and are you sure that you will hear His voice to-morrow? Is it not to be feared that you will be less and less inclined to receive Him? He is the Way and the only way. When we get to heaven we shall not need a way, any more than it was necessary in Eden. All is right there, and no way will be required above. When in heaven there will no longer be responsibility. Here it brings danger, failure, ruin; for now, on the ground of responsibility, as a man, you are lost altogether.

Henceforth it is really a question of faith. Do I rest on Christ, believing in Him? I learn that He has undertaken for me, that God has given me a Savior, and that He commands me to repent and take the place of one that is lost.

When a man tries to become religious, he is denying that he is lost; he sets himself to read and pray, to work out righteousness for himself. He says, David prayed three times a day, and I will pray four times; but will it help him? Do I think lightly of prayer? By no means, but when a man acts like this, he shows that he does not know his sinfulness and lost estate.

Suppose the case of one guilty of high treason and condemned to die. The king might say, “I know the man is guilty, but in my sovereign mercy I grant him a free pardon if he will only come and avail himself of it.” But the man obstinately refuses to come out; he will not credit such goodness, and the king orders the sentence to be carried out. So it is with man. He refuses to believe that God is willing to save, and why? Because he judges of God by himself.

Faith is sure of God as He reveals Himself; and He is not only willing, but He can afford righteously, to save. God saves on the ground of Christ’s redemption. It is not mere mercy. Grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life, for Christ was judged for our sins by God Himself on the cross. Hence He is righteous to forgive; for Christ has paid the penalty. God is not merely justified in forgiving, but glorified also. It brought far more glory to God than if He merely punished all as sinners; for every attribute of His is satisfied—His majesty, His love, His truth, His holiness. All the grace of His character shines out for every soul that comes, bringing out more of the infinite worthiness of His Son.

Be afraid then to stay away from the Savior of sinners, lest to-morrow find you in a more hardened state than to-day. All delays are dangerous; but what is so dangerous as to put off bowing to the Son and accepting God’s free salvation?

W. K.

Continuance in Divine Things: Part 1

“But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

“Every scripture is inspired of God, and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction, that is in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, throughly furnished unto every good work.”

There is no question that the words we have just read have a direct application to us at this present time, and that we may take them as a direct exhortation of the Spirit to our souls, as well as a needed instruction with regard to the blessed character of the word of God. We know that these words were addressed especially to Timothy; and Timothy was a man who, unlike Paul or Peter or John or James had, so far as we know, no direct revelation himself from the Lord. The apostles were men who received at firsthand from the Lord, as did the prophets also, and both, in the power of the Spirit, communicated what they received to the church of God. But here was a person who did not himself receive from the Lord; he received what he knew from the apostles, and, therefore, in this respect he corresponds exactly with ourselves, because what we have received of spiritual knowledge we have received from the writings of the apostle and prophets. I am speaking particularly with regard to New Testament truths of course, and therefore the exhortation here applied to him, the obligation that is laid upon him, may very well be taken home to ourselves.

EARLY DECLENSION AND PRESENT DANGER

It is for us to continue, to abide in the things that we have heard. Now we know that this Second Epistle to Timothy contemplates what was a very terrible state of things a state of things which was discerned by the apostle in his day, because the testimony by the early church to the heavenly Christ had been corrupted. The truth was there, but through the inattention of the saints, through their failure in responsibility, error came in and was mixed with the truth. This mixed state of things was foreshadowed; indeed it had already begun when the apostle wrote his First Epistle, and in the Second things had developed from bad to worse. The particular evil is not before me to point out now, nor the particular aspects of that declension and apostasy. But the peculiar difficulty then, as it seems to me, was the difficulty which we all have, a difficulty arising from the fact that wherever we go, wherever we contemplate seriously the things associated with the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we invariably find this one thing—that mixed up with the truth, intimately associated with the truth of God, there is that which is not the truth; and we, if we realize our responsibilities to the Lord, if we realize the danger to our own souls of such a medley, must feel what a grave difficulty this is.

There is no sane person who wishes to poison himself; there is no person who wants deliberately to run into danger; there is no person who desires to corrupt his soul with that which is not of God. But, beloved friends, the danger that we all must feel, either more or less, is this: that we may find ourselves in association with, or imbibing that which we in our simplicity suppose to be of God, and all the while there is that connected with it which is of the enemy, and which tends to ruin the peace and joy of our hearts, and to destroy our personal communion with the Lord Jesus Christ. I suppose we have all to some degree found this.

DELUSION AS TO THE PRESENT DANGER

It is a sad thing that there are persons who are living in what we may call a fool’s paradise, and who go on supposing that everything around us is all well. No, beloved friends, it is not well. A man directly in the world and not professing any allegiance to Christ may cry out, “What is wrong with the world we live in?” He believes it is the very best state of things possible, and everything is proceeding to a perfect felicity. A man of the world may talk like this, but we ought not to deceive ourselves; we ought to face the fact that we are in circumstances of considerable danger. We are usually thoughtful enough about our bodies; we would not risk injury to life or limb. As far as the body is concerned we are very careful, and take all precautions that such a thing as physical vicissitude shall not be. But is it not a fact that the soul is greater than the body? Is it not a fact that the new nature which I have by the Spirit of God, that new thing which is born of God, that this is more precious than my body? Is it not that which God has begotten in me by His word and Spirit, and which enables me to hold communion with the Highest and with Him who is on the right hand of the Highest? And if some error creeps into my heart and robs me of that enjoyment, is it not a danger? It is a danger, for while I have lost present communion, I am in a condition to lose still more; and I am sure you are all with me in feeling that this is a danger to which we are daily and hourly exposed.

SPIRITUAL DESPAIR

There are some persons who are imbued with such a sense of the extraordinary nature of the times in which we find ourselves that they think things are so hopelessly bad that it is not easy to take any precaution whatever. They say, “Let things take their course; let us go forward, and trust to God that all things will come out right in the end.” Now, in preaching the gospel we lay down the truth very emphatically to unbelievers who talk like this. It is the unbeliever who says, “Never mind about the future; let us go on; let us eat, drink, and be merry, for to-morrow we die.” But there are believers who, if they do not say the same thing, act in that manner. They say, “All the testimony is gone; the truth is overthrown; it is trodden under foot in our streets; and, therefore, all our responsibility is over, we can do as we please, we shall all get to heaven, and then things will be right.”

Now, beloved friends, such a spirit as this is wrong, absolutely wrong; it is a spirit of downright cowardice, to call it by no worse name. No, the truth is unalterable, and our responsibility with regard to it is unchanged. We are here in the world, and, as we surely know, in this holy book we have a sacred deposit. Did not God’s ancient people esteem the living oracles a great deposit? Was it not to them a matter of national pride that to no other people did God speak with His own voice, and communicate His words? And, beloved friends, as representing the church of God, we have that word just as it was given at the beginning, and ought not we to love it? ought not we to reverence it, and ought not we to seek to be bound and guided by it?

THE CHARGE TO TIMOTHY

Well, now, in the words that are addressed to his son in the faith by the apostle, we have what applied directly to Timothy (vers. 14, 15), and in the second place what was of more general concern (vers. 16, 17). In the first two of the verses Timothy is particularly addressed, but, as we have seen, the words apply to ourselves. The apostle says to him particularly, “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them, and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” Timothy learned from the apostles, and he had learned particularly the doctrine about the church of God, because it was in the apostles’ day that these truths were made known, and the apostle Paul was the specially honored instrument of God to make the revelation known that there was “one new man,” no longer Jew and Gentile, but the church of God united by the Spirit of God to Christ, the living Head in heaven. This and other things the apostle had communicated to Timothy, and Timothy was exhorted to abide in the sense of their origin and nature.

DANGER OF DRIFTING

In other cases we have an exhortation for him and others to hold fast what they had. Well, to do this we require a fund of energy. There is another exhortation to hold forth the word of life. This again requires energy. Here we are told to abide in the things that we have heard; this requires energy too, but energy of a different kind. It is more of the character of what we might call passive resistance, resisting the power of evil which tends to cause us to drift away from the truth. The truth never alters, beloved friends. The truth will never drift away from us, but we may drift away from the truth, and this is our danger. What we knew last year, what we knew yesterday we may even now be departing from: Insensibly we move, at first; the first step is easy and so near the right path that we scarcely hesitate to take it. But having taken it we have not continued in the truth. There was the truth, we had it in our hearts, we enjoyed it, but now we have left it. You all know to what I allude. I am not referring to any particular thing, any one special doctrine of the New Testament more than another, but I am certain of this, that everyone here must have realized in his heart that many things taught in the Scriptures are unquestionably from God. You have had them from the Scriptures, and they have come home with power to your souls. Suppose it to be, for the sake of an example, the truth of the Lord’s coming again. When it first dawned upon our souls that there was a promise here in the Scriptures of the return of the Lord Jesus Christ to this earth, and that His personal advent was imminent, and that we were called to wait for the Son of God from heaven, did not this truth come with a power that laid hold of our hearts and affections and moved our whole beings? We knew that it was of God; we knew that it was not a cunningly-devised fable. How are we to-day? Is it that we have stepped aside from the power of this truth, or are we abiding in the things that we have heard? We are called to abide in Christ; we are called to abide in the doctrine of Christ; indeed, we must abide, beloved friends, in the place and in the associations and in the enjoyment of the truths that God has made known to us.

LEARNING AND ASSURANCE

There is a distinction here which I think we should do well to consider. The apostle says, “Continue thou in the things which thou hast learned, and hast been assured of.” Now this phrase does not at all imply that we study the Scriptures and that we thus come to a mental conclusion that they are true. We must study the Bible in quite a different manner from that in which a man studies science. A man studies science to find out the truth, and anyone that is at all acquainted with the history of science knows that its pathway as we look back is strewn with the wrecks of exploded theories which men have had to abandon. For the moment they fought for their hypotheses with their lives, but time has gone on, other investigators have arisen, and what was believed to be the truth has subsequently been proved to be a false hypothesis.

But, beloved friends, in the word of God we have nothing of this kind. We do not come to the word of God as we come to the tentative theories of a scientific text-book. We come to the word of God as to a Book which is an infallible and unquestionable authority for our souls. We come to it as the word of God; we come to it as a book which has a paramount demand upon our whole persons, and coming to it in this way we receive it by faith; and such a spirit, I take it, is what the assurance means. It is one thing to learn the doctrine of Scripture. There are persons who learn the truth of God almost of necessity. It has been their fortunate circumstance to be in the immediate sphere where the proclamation of God’s special truth as revealed in the New Testament is continually ministered, and so the thing insensibly finds it way into their hearts. Did I say hearts? Let us hope so—into their minds at any rate, and they in this manner become acquainted with New Testament facts and New Testament doctrine. They may have learned the truth in such a way, but I take it the apostle meant much more than this by “assurance.”

You Must indeed first receive the truth in this way. God will not communicate anything to you or to me directly. We cannot expect a vision or a revelation. We have everything complete in the written word—everything that is good for us to know; and we are left in the world to learn these things. But, beloved friends, the question for each of us is just this: in learning scripture have we been fully assured of it, have we laid hold of it with our whole being, has the sum of our affections been concentrated upon the Living Person who is the center and subject of the revelation of God’s holy word?

CHRIST IN THE SCRIPTURES

It is, in point of fact, only the personal Christ that can lay hold of our affections. We do not reverence and worship the Book as a book. We worship the Book because therein is the medium through which we know our Savior and Lord, and coming to him as our Lord we have in the Scriptures His guide-book for us. We have the Book of His commandments, not grievous to us, but still they are His commandments; and He therein conveys His word of authority to us in that sweet and winning tone of love which finds its way into our hearts, beloved friends, and causes us to feel thoroughly assured that we are hearing the voice of the Son of God.

It is thus we are “assured” of the truth of God, and in no other way. And, my beloved friends, it is of no value whatever simply to become acquainted with a set of doctrines, however judiciously they may have been selected for us. We must come to the Scriptures, to the fountainhead of all wisdom, and learn our lessons at the feet of Him who can teach us as no other can. He taught Timothy, but He taught him Christianity through His apostle. The written word was not then, it was then the spoken word, but still it was the word of the Lord. “I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,” as Paul said. The Corinthians, like all the early saints, had the will of the blessed Lord through the lips of the apostles, but the apostles took care that their personality did not stand between themselves and their Master, and thus those to whom their communications were made were under no delusion at all. They looked through the apostles to the living God, who was giving all things through His servants.

Well, we see that there is the need of this personal assurance in the heart, and, my beloved friends, if you will allow me to say so, I think that the spot where declension invariably begins, where the sense of tiredness with the things of God commences, is invariably in the heart. We then lose our appetite for divine things, and it becomes the more difficult to abide in the things which we have learned.

THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE THINGS

The apostle here, in exhorting Timothy to abide, gives two reasons for his continuance. “Knowing of whom thou hast learned them,” is the first. What was the origin of this truth which he had known and was assured of? He had received it by apostolical authority; he received it on the word of the apostle, who had transmitted to him the word and the will of the Lord, and therefore Timothy had a divine warrant for what he believed to be the truth, and this was the reason why he should not depart from it. He was not told to cleave to a system on the ground that it was hoary with antiquity, that it had a splendid retrospect, and could call up miraculous deeds in the past. There was no argument of this kind, no sensual appeal in any way, but the ground was simply this—the authority of the word of the Lord. And, beloved friends, I do not think we need anything further than this to-day. We are in a day of extremest difficulty, and the question, “What is truth?” is the question that is being generally canvassed, both in the world and in Christendom. But we need not to argue about the matter. We have simply to open our ears and learn, by coming to the Scriptures. Here we have the truth from the Lord Himself. Now, having received that word, having had it directly from the Lord Himself through His word, how can we do other than abide in it?

Beloved friends, what shall we say in that day when we must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. The Lord has His claim upon us; we are in the world for Him. He has opened our eyes to see a little here and a little there of His revealed truth. But however little it may be it is precious, too precious to surrender; and in view of the fact that we received it from Him what shall we say to Him in the day of account if we have allowed ourselves to slip away from it? It is not that we run away from our duties; it is not that we make a violent effort and simply bolt from our responsibilities. No, beloved friends, but we slide, we move just gradually along in the contrary direction; the soporific influences of the moment creep upon our hearts and cause us to leave the positions assigned us as soldiers of Jesus Christ in the great campaign; and so we become the victims of the great enemy of our souls.

No, it remains that we have to abide in the things which we have heard and been assured of, knowing from whom we have learned them. The theories and views of men can never stand the light of the judgment-seat, but what we have from the Lord we know that He will stand to in that day. If He has told us this or that, we know that He will never charge us with holding it for Him. He has given it to us; it is for us to produce it unsullied in the day that is to come.

[W. J. H.]

(To be continued)

Continuance in Divine Things: Part 2

(Continued from page 141)

The Authority of the Old Testament

But it was only a part of the whole body of truth that Timothy had received from the apostle. There was more. There was also that which he knew from the Lord from a babe. Timothy had the very excellent advantage of being brought up by pious instructresses. His mother and his grandmother instructed him from the nursery in the truths of the Old Testament, and so we have the authority of the Old Testament fully maintained here by the apostle. The apostle Paul, although himself the medium of a very great revelation, was not jealous of Old Testament claims. He placed it side by side with the New. They are the holy writings, and they were those which Timothy had known.

“Oh, but,” you say, “was not the New Testament quite different from the Old? Had they not to abandon Judaism, and turn away from Mosaic institutions and ceremonies?” Most assuredly they had. They had that which was better, but that which was better was exactly in accordance with that which was of old. There was no contradiction. The Old Testament contained the essence of the New. There was one thing wanting to bring to light the hidden secrets of the Old Testament. What was it? The Lord Jesus Christ Himself. As He said to the Pharisees, “Ye search the Scriptures” (the Old Testament Scriptures), “for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:30). On that memorable walk to Emmaus, when the Lord revealed Himself to the hearts of the two coming away from Jerusalem with all their hopes and cherished ideas dashed to pieces, then He opened their eyes, opened their understandings, and unveiled to them those Old Testament scriptures which testified of Him (Luke 24). As soon as they learned that the law, the prophets, and the psalms witnessed of the sufferings and glories of the Messiah their difficulties all vanished. For He is the key to all such closed doors.

And so Timothy, having the Old Testament scriptures and being then brought by faith to the knowledge of Christ, had nothing to surrender, nothing to unlearn. He had rather a new field of truth for his soul to revel in where he now saw that the Lord Jesus Christ was revealed in a variety of ways, His beauties being brought out by the law, by the types, as well as by promises and prophecies, in those varied characters which we also have found in the Old Testament.

Therefore it was that he had these precious things from a child, and if he did not abide in the things which he had learned he would be giving up that too. You cannot abandon one part of Scripture without the other, because the Scripture is an undivided whole; it is a complete unity. As has been said, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old, and the Old Testament lies open in the New. Put them together, and you have a perfect revelation from God. Separate them and you are in a fog, a mist, and you cannot understand either one or the other. And Timothy was to abide equally in what was of the New Testament, and in what was of the Old.

INSTRUCTING CHILDREN IN THE SCRIPTURES

There is just another point in connection with this subject, beloved friends, that one cannot help noticing in passing, and it is that these holy Scriptures which God gave by personal communication through the Holy Ghost to the prophets of old, that Book with all its holy splendor, with its profound and illimitable wisdom, could be communicated to a child. “From a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures,” and I now ask you whether we have not to-day a responsibility in this respect. What was true of the Old Testament is true of both Old and New; and if Timothy derived an incomparable advantage from the instruction he received in his most early childhood—instruction in the Scriptures—ought we not to see to it that the children of this day, our children particularly, the children of our families, of our households, are in like manner instructed in the truths of Holy Scripture?

Beloved friends, it is a grand mercy of God that such a book as the Scripture, which is so profound that the most agile mind is baffled by its instructions and revelations, can, as we gather here, be taught to a child, while by teaching it to a child we are conferring upon it a priceless boon. And, looking to the fact that all around us is a sea of confusion and error, and that in public and general schools that which is not of God is communicated, along with, if not instead of it, ought we not to be the more careful that the children who are under our particular care should be instructed in what is true and what is of God? What is of God is true, and the communication of truth is the best preservative against error.

There are some persons who say, “Let the children grow up; let them get to years of understanding; there are parts of the Scriptures which I do not understand myself, and how then can I communicate them to my children?” But, beloved friends, here we have the fact that these holy women of old, Eunice and Lois, took the little babe Timothy, and they sowed the seeds of life, while they communicated to him those holy writings which when he was advanced to the superior knowledge of Christianity he had not to surrender, but still to maintain. They were still to be a guide to him. Therefore we ought—and it is our serious responsibility—to instruct our children in the truths of Holy Scripture, since they are able to make them wise unto salvation.

WISE UNTO SALVATION

One may notice, further, that the apostle does not assume that Timothy was already wise unto salvation. Why is this? Because, I think, he needed, as we need, the wisdom for the moment; the wisdom that we had last year is not enough for to-day. We are continually finding ourselves in fresh predicaments, and in these predicaments we want something that will instruct us for the occasion. “Able to make thee wise.” What does this mean? A wise man is a man who not only acts rightly—it must be that he acts rightly, of course—but the wise man is he that acts for God; the wise man is he who is controlled by the mind of God. What is the wisdom of the world? It is the wisdom that in its prospect and retrospect is bounded by this world; it never looks beyond the confines of this present age. What did the wisdom of this world do? It crucified the Lord of glory. They looked at Him, the despised Nazarene, as of no worth; indeed, as a danger to the state and to their religion, and they crucified Him. This was the wisdom of the world. They looked at the Lord Jesus, and this was all they saw!

What is the “hidden wisdom”? What is the wisdom of God? It is the wisdom that comes from above; it is the wisdom that enables us to look at the petty things of this life with the eyes of God, that is, as revealed in His holy word. It is a great thing to be able to do this; it is a great thing to have the heavenly light upon the earthly path, and, beloved friends, herein is the value of the Scriptures. Why do we make mistakes? I think, if we were honest and sincere with ourselves, we should confess that invariably each mistake which we have made in the past was made because we did not carry out the simple instructions of scripture. We go wrong because we act according to the light of our eyes. Beloved friends, there is nothing in a man’s life—you know this as well as I do, but allow me to remind you of it—there is no slight circumstance in our daily lives, whether in the home or in business—there is nothing but we may have the light of God’s truth upon it.

The Holy Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation, and that salvation, I take it, means more than the salvation of our souls. Do not let us narrow down the large words of scripture, nor take these grand and comprehensive terms, and just whittle them down to some little miserable definition to which we are pleased to reduce them. No, beloved friends, we want to have the exact words of God as given to us, and as we meditate upon them and consider them we shall find that we comprehend in them things that we have never dreamed of before. We need salvation every day; we need salvation from the tendencies in which we find ourselves, and into which we thrust ourselves often through our own folly. What dishonor we sometimes bring to the name of the Lord Jesus through our wanton foolishness, because we did not think soon enough, because the suitable text of scripture did not come home to our souls, nay, because we acted before it came home; we were in too great a hurry, and did not wait. Beloved friends, do not let us be in a hurry; hurry is not of God; hurry is of the world. When we leave the turmoil of the streets and find ourselves in the peace of the sanctuary, how all there is calm and quiet; not a footfall there in the presence of God; all is holy hush; all about us are signs of the greatness and majesty of Him in whose presence we are. No, beloved friends, there is no haste there; and “he that believeth shall not make haste.”

FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS NEEDED

The Scriptures are able to make us “wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” Now I think “Christ Jesus” is the key to all our difficulties. There are many persons who burden themselves with immense trouble because of the difficulties they find in the Scriptures. They have a long catalog of them, and they are always dwelling upon these difficulties. When you meet them they confront you with such a long list of questions upon this, that, and the other, that you feel you want a big encyclopedia to consult, and that then you would not find the answer to their posers. They ask you, and you say you do not know, and they ask somebody else, and they do not know, and so they spend their time feeding upon these husks. No, beloved friends, there are always difficulties in Scripture, and there always will he. A man who has not found any such in the Scriptures is a poor specimen of a Christian indeed. Of course my difficulties arise because this is the word of God, and because of my little mind, my little heart—oh, my beloved friends, you cannot put the ocean in a teacup—and the word of God is altogether beyond me and my feeble comprehension, and there will therefore always be difficulties. But there is a golden key which unlocks a great many of the more practical difficulties, and this key is Christ Jesus—as it is put here, “faith in Christ Jesus.” It is not, of course, the personal faith for salvation, but the faith that sees Christ Jesus, and the honor and glory of Christ Jesus in connection with the things of this life. Why am I here in M—? Why am I doing this, that, or the other, if it is not that faith in Christ Jesus is the prompting motive?

Depend upon it, there is never wisdom in our conduct, and we are not wise in being here to-night, without that faith in Christ Jesus which will enable us to solve the difficulties of this life. I do not say of scripture, but of this life—that is, difficulties as to where we should be and what we should do for God. There are always new vistas opening before us, and they look, oh, so pleasant from a distance, and the question arises, are we to go there? There are so many allurements; there is even the name of Christ outwardly connected with it; there is a great field of service connected with it; there are many holy things and associations connected with it; it all looks, oh, so pleasant and inviting. Is it that distance lends enchantment to the view? What may I do? What is it that will give me light on the way in my difficulty when there are so many voices calling me in every direction, and many using the name of the Lord? What am I to do? There must be personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for the guidance of His word.

[W. J. H.]

(To be continued)

Continuance in Divine Things: Part 3

Guidance in the Assembly

There was one question of this nature asked here this afternoon. It was how a person might know in the assembly whether he was directed by the Spirit of God to take an audible part. I think that this principle we have here solves the difficulty: it is “faith in Christ Jesus.” When we are together in assembly the Lord Jesus Christ is there; He is Lord, He is Lord of all, and how much more when in our midst. Beloved friends, He is the Lord of the blasphemer; is He not then our Lord? The day is coming when the scoffer shall bow to Him; ought we not to bow to Him now? and if I am in the assembly and I know the Lord is there, this very fact, which can only be realized by faith in Christ Jesus, this very fact will bring me to my proper place and cause me to assume that right and reverent attitude in His presence which becomes both brother and sister.

There are a great many brothers and sisters who think that in an assembly meeting it is only the brothers who have to be led by the Spirit. This is quite a mistake. Brothers have to be led by the Spirit to open their mouths, but the whole assembly must be led by the Spirit to open their hearts to the Lord, and the Spirit is there to produce in the hearts of those assembled all that which is suitable to the occasion.

There is one infallible guide whereby we may know that which is of the Spirit. If the “Spirit is truth” (1 John 5:6), and if “thy word is truth” (John 17:17), there can be no contradiction between them; so that what is of the Scripture is of the Spirit, and what is done to the glory of the Lord who is in the midst is of the Spirit also; and Jesus Himself is the Truth (John 14:6).

THE INSPIRATION OF EVERY SCRIPTURE

We now come to that which is general (vers. 16, 17), but our time is gone, and I can only refer to it briefly. But do not let us forget the previous exhortation; here we have what is true of the Scriptures as a whole and of its parts. The apostle had already mentioned the holy writings which were of Old Testament times. Now he comes to that which is general, because at that time there were some of the New Testament scriptures which had not yet been written. They had not then been communicated in the way of writings, and therefore these were not yet “scripture.” Hence the Spirit of God caused the apostle to write that which should be of the greatest comfort to us in these days.

“Every scripture,” he says, “is inspired of God.” Now we know that it is a common article of the creed of Christendom—at any rate, it was so once—that the Scriptures, are inspired of God. But, beloved friends, we must not think only of the general fact that Scripture is given of God. We need to have the truth about it in our hearts, and the truth about it is that in the Scriptures we may be absolutely certain that we have the voice of God to our souls. There are many persons who have tortured their minds and the minds of other people as to an adequate definition of what inspiration is—where it begins, where it ends, what it really involves, and so on. Beloved friends, we can afford to leave all these inquiries and confine ourselves to the single fact that when we open our Bibles and read our Bibles, there we have that which is of God. God has infused into it that which is of Himself, and which gives it a character which nothing else has.

We may see an illustration of it in the formation of Adam. God formed the body of the first man out of the ground, and there was a shapely form—not of some hairy uncouth savage, as many persons think nowadays—but of a handsome man, a man that God had designed to occupy a place of sovereignty in His world below. But there it was, a dead, inert mass, beautiful to look at, but a thing without life; no motion, no sound, just simply a part of this lower world—dust, a grand and beautiful body of dust, but dust only. Now God communicated from Himself to that inanimate mass; “He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” Thus were the soul and spirit communicated by the direct inspiration of the Almighty, and thus man was placed at a tremendous distance from the rest of the world. The beasts that perish have their soul and spirit; they return to the dust from which they sprung. Man received his originally from on high. This constitutes the difference between man and the lower creation.

And it is even so with this holy Book. People will tell you that the works of Shakespeare, as well as the older writings of Greek and Latin poets and philosophers, have their measure of inspiration, and so they put the Bible a little way above such books, but only just a little way. By and by they bring it to the same level, and presently it goes into the waste-paper basket—no use at all.

The great truth is that we have something here which is different in kind and nature from every other book on the face of the earth; and the essence of the difference lies in this: it is inspired of God; and though I may be the simplest person on the earth I can come to it and get divine direction. I may be only a little child just able to prattle, but I can be instructed in my measure in the truths of Scripture. That blessed and holy Visitant from heaven above, the Lord Jesus Christ, when He was here, was pleased to take the babes in His arms and bless them, and the heavenly light and radiance in Him did not distress or awe the infantile minds.

Oh, beloved friends, it is a great mercy of God that we in this day of great errors have our Bibles, that we have that which is inspired of God, and nothing can wrest it from us. We have it; but the crucial point is whether we make that use of it which we ought to make. It is profitable—profitable in a fourfold way—but as declared here, particularly to Timothy, it is so especially “that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto every good work.”

THE MAN OF GOD

Now, you notice that this term “man of God” occurs here, and also in the First Epistle. I think it is a word we might retain in our minds as a term to meditate upon, and to consider what is its special significance in the connection in which it is used. We find the term also in the Old Testament. We see that at a particular period it was applied to the prophets of Israel. It was used at the time of their declension, their national declension from the worship of Jehovah, and when they had been carried away into the baseness of idolatry, and the whole ten tribes were involved. The prophet of God is called the man of God. Why? Because he was the man who stood for God in the midst of the mass which is characterized by error. He stood for God, and, if necessary, stood alone.

There is, according to prophecy, a man coming who has an evil title, “the man of sin,” who shall sum up in himself impiety in all its worst forms. He is the man that will stand for sin. But we are called to-day, every one of us, like the prophet, and like Timothy, to stand for God. Oh, beloved friends, it is a privilege surely to be on God’s side, and to know that we are in the current of God’s thoughts in a day of general departure and declension. We can see error all around. Some persons say, “You should not talk about these things; they do not create any pleasant feelings in our minds.” Of course they do not, they are not intended to awaken a pleasant feeling; they are intended to arouse in us the very reverse—a revulsion of feeling so that we should never be ensnared by the evil tendencies.

There are those who are entrapped. You do not want to be entrapped, do you? Be, on the contrary, a man of God. Do you ask how you can be a man of God? Only by cleaving simply to the scripture. Do not attempt it in any other way. There are persons who look round upon the divisions of Christendom and they throw up their hands in horror in view of the number of the sects. Some persons we know have been the evil instruments of making more sects. Cannot we reduce them? If there are, say, five hundred, can we not make four hundred and ninety-nine by bringing two sects together, or even reduce them to four hundred and ninety-eight? Beloved friends, even in such a case we should not do very much good after all. No, we are not called to do this. It is not for you—if I may still keep to the figure five hundred—it is not for you to select (say) number four hundred and number four hundred and five, and join these two together and let the others go their way. If you wish to do the work of reunion you must aim to bring all the five hundred together. This you will never do; it is too late in the day to attempt it.

How to Consult the Bible

What we have to do is to be men of God, and the only way in which we can be perfectly instructed in these perilous times is by having the word of God before us, and by coming to it as an inspired communication to our souls. Depend upon it, the reason why we do not profit by the word of God as we might is that we do not come to it in a practical way. By a practical way I mean coming to it for light upon particular points of conduct or service or association. There are persons who, having a difficulty, say, “I will lay it before so-and-so, he may help me.” They write, or wait till the brother comes, who sends it on to another, and so the question goes round, and when it returns eventually, the question is exactly where it was before. We should, of course, seek to help one another. I am not saying a word against that, but, beloved friends, you will never get useful help from other persons unless you go directly yourselves to the word of God.

It is an absolute necessity in these days to have direct recourse to the word of God. It may be upon a personal matter, or it may be upon a church matter, and we ought to remember the distinction between the two things. We have a personal relation as children of God, and the Scripture gives us light for that. But in the face of the terrible confusion and the wreck and havoc that have been wrought in the outward testimony of the church of God, we still remain members of the one body of which Christ is the Head. Now, as members of that body, have we not a particular responsibility? Is there anything that the Lord, to whom we are attached by this loving tie, is there anything that He would have us try to do for Him while we wait for His coming? I know of no other means of obtaining the answer to such a question save by reference to Holy Scripture. There you have that which is inspired of God, which will teach you all that is good for you to know, and which will instruct you in all good works. May God bless His word to this end.

W. J. H.

(Concluded from page 155)

The Dealings of God With Peter: 1. In the Gospels

My object, as you know, is not to enter into all the particulars that might claim our attention and our interest in such a scene as I have now read, but the Lord’s dealings with Peter—the special teaching of God’s Spirit in that which concerned His servant on this occasion. Now, on a previous one, the Lord had manifested His gracious power in a kindred scene—not, it is true, in a storm, but in the very neighborhood of the shore, after a fruitless night of labor where they had toiled much and caught nothing. And the Lord had then shown not only His absolute power on behalf of His own people, but His perfect knowledge. For it was not merely that there was a shoal of fishes caught, but there was the direction of the Lord. There was the telling them to cast on the right of the boat; and it was found therefore, as Jesus had said, and as the apostle (he who was about to be an apostle) now learned, “at Thy word.” It was against all appearances, in the face of an experience which would have made him utterly doubt the possibility of such a thing; but it was the Lord, and it was the Lord honoring His word—the Lord who showed boundless resources, and that these resources were not only at His command, but according to His word to His own people. And this, accordingly, was the starting-point of Peter as a fisher of men.

Here we have another scene, not by the shore, but on the lake, which was now a scene of boisterous wind, and, as it is said, “the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves; for the wind was contrary.” It is a picture of what the world is for the servants of the Lord in His absence. He was on high on the mountain. He was there in prayer—just what He is doing now. He is in the presence of God interceding; and, meanwhile, His servants are here, and all is against them—all outward circumstances—for there is one who is in power allowed for a season, and his uniform effort is to oppose and thwart the servants of the Lord. Hence, therefore, they, being exposed on the lake, were an object against which Satan raged. “And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled.” The very thing which if believed in is the spring of the deepest comfort, when it is merely a question of sight, even if it were Jesus, is turned into an occasion of fear! So little can we trust ourselves, so infinitely are we indebted to God and His word. I say that the word revealing Jesus is a totally different thing from our own thoughts, our own sight, even if it were so. So we know it was when the Lord was here below; not perhaps terror as on this occasion, but certainly indifference, stupid wonder sometimes, at the miracles that He wrought, but always only one feeling of the heart after another. There was no divine link. The only spring of divine association is the word of God.

Well here there was nothing of the kind. They “saw him walking on the sea,” and “were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. But straightway Jesus spake unto them.” Here was His word. “Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer, it is I, be not afraid.”

This draws out Peter, who showed what, alas! he often showed—he showed confidence in his own feelings about the Lord. He was right, of course, as to the Lord; utterly wrong in acting upon his own thoughts and feelings. So now, when the Lord had brought out this comfort, nothing seemed to him a more simple thing—with that fervor and readiness that was his character—to act upon it. So he says, “Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.”

Now there, I need not tell you, it was what man never ought to venture—a going before the Lord. All blessing and power, in acting where the Lord leads, but what a thing, after all, for man to wish to lead the Lord! It was really this which Peter, through his haste, was doing. “Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.” The Lord acts, however, upon His word. He would test him. It was needful for Peter. And it is exactly what the Lord is doing now with us. It was what He did with Israel in the wilderness, but then He shows what is in the heart. It is not merely a question of evil, but there may be that which seems ever so good, for what could be better than to go out to Jesus? Yes, but there is all the difference whether it is the Lord, who, from His own heart, bids me come, or the Lord who acts upon my own impetuosity, and who puts me to the test, if it is my own thought, my own haste. It was so, certainly, with Peter, and this, accordingly, was what Peter had to learn—the blessedness of waiting, the danger of dictating, of drawing even upon the Lord according to his own thoughts. So the Lord answers him: “Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water to go to Jesus”; for undoubtedly that word “Come” for the moment filled his heart. It was faith. It was faith to act upon the word of the Lord, but inasmuch as it was not only faith, it was mingled. It was Peter’s word, and not simply the Lord’s word. “If it be thou.” Was that simple faith? “Lord, if it be thou.” Assuredly not.

With the faith, the unmingled faith, that God gives a soul, there is no such thing as “If it be thou.” There was clearly, therefore, the mingling of Peter’s own mind, Peter’s own thoughts. A question was involved in the very way in which he speaks to the Lord: “Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee upon the water.” Was it His will? He had not thought of that. It was Peter’s will; but, nevertheless, there was reality in Peter, and this is exactly what we find on the occasion. It is a mingled scene; it flowed out of a mingled source.

And this is one thing that we have often to learn, beloved friends, of one another. It is the commonest thing possible, especially in the younger days of every Christian. And it is precisely where we have to take care of our thoughts and our theories. “There may be reality of faith, but there may be much more than faith, too, and it is wisdom never to disown faith. But, on the other hand, it is wisdom also to discern that there is something besides faith.

So in this very case. There is faith in so far that Peter does go at the word of the Lord, and does, therefore, walk on the water. There would have been no such thing if there had not been faith; but still, I repeat, it was not unmingled. There was enough of Peter himself to enfeeble his walk on the water, and this shows itself quickly, for when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and, beginning to sink, he cried, saying, “Lord, save me.”

Now there at once an unskilled soul, in dealing with another, would say, “There is no faith there whatever. There you see he is sinking. He is crying, ‘Lord, save me.’ He never knew that he was saved. He never had faith.” It does not follow by any means, but it was quite evident that there was this trouble in the heart of Peter, and, accordingly, the Lord dealt with what was simply of Peter, while at the same time He stood faithful to His own word, for He had bid him come, and He would not revoke it. He does not change, but inasmuch as Peter had been too forward, and his own will was concerned in it, the Lord would judge the will, but He would strengthen the faith. And so He acts in the perfecting of His own grace. For He allows Peter to learn the folly of being before the Lord. He allows him to prove that even His own word, “Come,” was not enough unless there was faith in it. Peter could say in his First Epistle, “Kept by the power of God.” Yes, but “through faith.” And supposing there was something besides faith at work—feeling, desire—for, no doubt, Peter thought that nobody else in the boat could go out but himself; well then, I say, there was something to judge, and this was in the very fullness of the love of the Lord Jesus to Peter. For Peter would have to do with others as a fisher of men, and if Peter had walked bravely on the water, and there had been no sinking, do you think that Peter would ever have known the weight of his own word, “kept by the power of God”? Certainly not.

This then was an incomparably valuable lesson, a lesson that he learned from the Lord personally, but a lesson that was only better known when the Lord was no longer there in person, when the Lord was away. Indeed, it was particularly for that time, for the whole scene in its force rather refers to the absence of Jesus. No doubt there is a linking on of the present with that which will be by and by, and I suppose that the end of the chapter shows most clearly that view. Taking the scene as a picture of what is coming, no doubt it does show us our Lord when He rejoins those from whom He has been separated; when He comes back again, and not only joins Peter on the sea, but joins the others in the ship. There will be a coming to the “desired haven.” There will be the return of the Lord. There will be the blessedness that will follow His return. “And when the men of that place had knowledge of him, they sent out into all that country round about, and brought unto him all that were diseased, and besought him that they might only touch the hem of his garment, and as many as touched were made perfectly whole.” No doubt there will be this, not merely in a little testimony as then, but in power when the Lord returns in His kingdom, and He will be welcomed in the very place from which, on the contrary, He had been rejected. For it was at this very spot that there had been the desire expressed, and expressed strongly too, that He would depart from their coasts. It is the return of the Lord, then, which finishes this part of the chapter.

The eighteenth chapter takes up another line of truth, but it brings us, as far as a figure can, to the return of the Lord by and by. Only we have evidently a very great advance in the position of Peter. When Peter left the ship we have what, as nearly as possible, shows the place of a Christian; what ought to be the pathway, indeed, of the church as a whole. That is an abandonment of every prop of nature, and the going out to Jesus where nothing but divine power could keep him. But I repeat that is only through faith. Now that is the grand lesson, that it is not even Jesus only, but it is through faith. And where therefore Peter allowed other things to occupy his mind, when he saw the wind boisterous, that was not faith. “When he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.” Certainly that is not the triumph of a Christian man. A Christian man is characterized always by this, “receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.” A man who does not maintain with simplicity and with constancy the happy enjoyment of the salvation of his soul, so far gives up the principle of a Christian man. Of course I do not the least mean that there are not very true Christians who have been bewildered and perplexed and misled as to the salvation of their souls. I am very far from saying that they are not Christians if they have not that constant enjoyment, but I do say they are off the ground of Christianity. I do say they have never known it, or that they have let it slip as Peter did here. And the source is the very same thing, for people have tried to have the joy of salvation by thinking of salvation. They never will, never! It is by Christ before them, by Christ as one that we are entitled to look upon and rest in and enjoy. And indeed this characterizes, as we find afterward, in this very Gospel, not merely Christ as an object now, but Christ as an object of hope by and by. “They went forth to meet the bridegroom.” That is what we are called to, that is, from the very beginning, and that is what God now has brought back again. We go forth to meet Him. We do not belong to an association. We do not belong to a society, and nothing on earth, no person, no thing upon earth, has a right to us. Jesus only. Consequently therefore if He says, “Come,” we go, and if this fills the heart it does not matter whether there are the waters or not. And it makes not the slightest difference that the waters are boisterous, for I need not repeat the remark, familiar to many, that the waters might have been as smooth as glass, but they would have been just as difficult to walk upon. It is not, therefore, in the least a question of smooth or rough, but of Jesus; and of Jesus (I repeat) as one that the heart was occupied with Jesus again, as I have said, as one that is coming back, for we have that too. It is not merely as one now, but as one that is coming, and coming to receive us into His own glory, into His own joy.

Here then we have this most weighty lesson impressed upon the soul of Peter—that even in the presence of Jesus, where the circumstances of trial and of danger, instead of the word of Christ, filled his mind; his heart was utterly powerless, and he was in far more imminent danger than those that were in the boat. No doubt he despised them! They did not dare to go out to meet Jesus! But where was Peter now? Hence you see he was, after all, comparing himself. He was looking at these things, and looking at himself upon the water; he had forgotten Jesus really, and therefore in this agony he cries out, “Lord, save me,” and the grace of the Lord at once meets him. “And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith.” Ah, there was faith then, but it was little faith, and this little faith now became manifest. He thought he was a man of great faith. Now here was exactly the lesson that Peter had to learn. “O thou of little faith.” It was himself. It was not Thomas. I do not say that Thomas’ faith was not very little, but still, it was not Thomas, it was not John, it was no other, it was Peter. He never thought of it. On the contrary, he was quite sure that he was a man of great faith, and now he has this most wholesome lesson. How humble he would be! How tender with others! He would remember that there was One who had searched the heart and the reins, who had said, “O thou of little faith.” And I have not the slightest doubt that the very fact that the Lord pronounced, “O thou of little faith,” was the means of his growth in faith. For the thing that hinders us, brethren, at least one great source at any rate, is our conceit of ourselves. We do not think we need to grow; we forget that. We forget our lowliness, and I would speak now, spiritually too, for that was the point. It was not little in any circumstances that belonged to Simon Barjona. It was the little faith of Peter. And so the Lord shows also that which characterizes little faith—doubt. There is not a word in the Bible to create a doubt, not one. The Spirit of God never put a doubt into the heart of man. Doubt is of Satan, or of man himself under Satan, if you please, never of the Spirit of God. There is everything to search, everything to humble, to exercise, but to exercise faith; because, beloved friends, what is the root of doubting? Depreciating Christ. Do you think the Holy Ghost ever depreciates the grace of Christ towards even the man of little faith? Here you have the contrary. To whom did Christ manifest His grace more? To the man of little faith most of all. “Wherefore didst thou doubt?” They come into the ship, the wind ceases, they arrive on the other side, and, as I have already pointed out, with that result of blessing in the very place of His rejection. [A. T. K.]

(To be continued)

The Dealings of God With Peter: 10. In the Acts of the Apostles

Acts 3-9

We have had the remarkable discourse of the apostle which followed the gift of the Holy Ghost. There we found not merely the proof of Jesus as the Messiah, instead of being weakened by the cross, confirmed; and that rejection, and, consequently, His departure to heaven, instead of being a stumbling-block, contrariwise the fulfillment of the most distinct and weighty prophecy in the word of God. But now, in this third chapter, we have the apostle not so much explaining what was new and essential to Christianity, but showing us a remarkable dealing of God—the tender mercy that still yearns over Israel. For this fresh discourse of Peter is strictly suitable to one that was not only an apostle of the church, but an apostle of the circumcision. This the Lord indicated long before, and it becomes more and more manifest that Peter was peculiarly one in whom God was mighty towards the circumcision. He that was to manifest the power of God to the uncircumcised had not yet appeared. Hence a striking miracle wrought by Peter and John his companion, and wrought, too, in the temple itself, gave an opportunity for the apostle to open out an appeal to Israel; and it is strictly so.

There is nothing now in this chapter about the gift of the Holy Ghost; there is nothing at all about their being baptized when they took the place of confessors of Christ; but he explains to them with great care that it was by no power or wisdom of theirs that the great deed was done. It was God putting power upon the Man whom they had despised and the nation abhorred. Solemn circumstances! A terrible fact to face! The Jews, the people of God, and the God of Israel, were totally opposed; and they were opposed not merely about something in their own moral ways; they were opposed about the One that God had raised up—raised up and sent to bless them. How awful, therefore, must their guilt be, that it was not merely failure. Even those that are most faithful fall, but here it was a blank and distinct rebellion against God, and rebellion against God when He had raised up the Messiah. Hence, the very object of it was to arrest the conscience of the Jew, but in doing so there is a most characteristic appeal of the apostle Peter which I cannot but say a little upon in passing.

He charges them with denying the holy and the just. What, Peter? Had not Peter denied the holy One and the just? The very thing he had done himself! Now, of two things one must be true. Either Peter was a man extremely insensible and dull in the matter of his own sin; or, on the contrary, God had so completely purged away that sin that Peter could speak as calmly and as triumphantly as if he had never been guilty of it. And that is exactly what God does, and I have no doubt that God was using this very thing—that God was bringing out that great truth which we know as an essential one of Christianity, but which was of peculiar moment to bring out for a Jew, because a Jew, having the law, would always be in danger of thinking that there must necessarily be some painful remembrance of what had been done against God by the law’s knowledge of sin; and, accordingly, there would be, as they must have reasoned, a continual keeping up of the remembrance of delinquency, even if forgiven.

Now there is another thing that God is occupied with, and that is, not man and his sins, but Christ and the perfectness with which He has blotted them out from before God; nay, more than that, the perfectness, too, with which He has purged the conscience of the believer so that it is not hardness or insensibility for a man to speak calmly of the very sins he has been guilty of himself; but it is the triumph of faith to be able to look at them without a blush—to be able to speak of them without a blush—to be able to declaim against, and to charge upon the conscience of others, without the smallest wincing, the very thing which had been once his own shame, once his own sin, and that publicly before all, and that not very long before.

Now that is the fact as to Peter. You know very well that his ardor and, I must add, self-confidence had encouraged him to follow the Lord when He was apprehended, and to find his way among the servants, public and private, of the high priest; and there it was, when they detected by his language, if by nothing else, that he was a Galilaean too, and charged him with being one of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, that Peter there and then fell, and fell repeatedly, and fell, too, in the most solemn manner. And yet, beloved friends, that is the very thing that he here speaks of, and puts upon their conscience, as if he had never been guilty of it along with them.

I refer to this as a beautiful illustration of, what the apostle Paul calls in the Epistle to the Hebrews, “the worshippers once purged having no more conscience of sin.” Of course that does not mean that conscience did not feel, but that now conscience is clear—so completely clear that one could speak with this perfect freedom and, in fact, lay it at the door of other people. Surely Peter would not have denied it himself for an instant, but Peter was bound there and then not to be speaking of what he had judged himself for already, and what he was completely clear of before God. Now he had to do with them, and he had also to do with them as a witness of Jesus and of His redemption.

Well, this discourse of Peter, which we have before us now, does not merely bring out the power of the blood of Christ, but further, there is another thing that I must draw your attention to, and that is, the manner in which he presents the coming of the Lord Jesus. He never speaks about the Lord taking us to heaven. It is His coming to the earth that occupies Peter. Indeed, this is the way in which, habitually, the coming of the Lord, wherever it is treated in the Acts of the Apostles, is named. For instance, in the first chapter that same Jesus should “so come in like manner as they had seen Him go into heaven.” That does not mean His taking us there, but His coming thence Himself. It does not bring forward our accompanying, but it is the very same time; it is when we do accompany Him; when we follow Him out of heaven. In short, it is His coming into this scene—the world—His coming back again. So here, in addressing the Jews, he puts that before them. He says, “Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.” We are all familiar with that change— “so,” not, “when.” “And he will send Jesus Christ which before was preached unto you.” Mark that. “Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things.” That is the point. It is not the removal of the saints to heaven, but it is the restitution of all things on the earth.

Now you must not suppose that that is any defect in Peter. Not only was it no defect, but it was exactly the right doctrine at the right time. You see that he was addressing not the children of God that were looking to follow the Lord into heaven, but he was speaking to the Jew, and he was showing that the coming of the Lord already—His humiliation, His suffering here below, His cross—had not taken away in the least degree the hope of Israel. Here is the hope of Israel. It is as fresh as ever. It is as fully maintained by Peter as by Isaiah. It is even more clearly presented by the apostle now than it had ever been by any Jewish prophet before. And you see the propriety that the apostle of circumcision should follow in the steps of, but should, at the same time carry forward the hope of, the prophets of the circumcision. All is harmonious in the word of God. He that was called for another work, who is to be taken out of Israel for the purpose of making the grace of God so much the more conspicuous to the Gentile, will come before us later on. I do not say that I shall take up his doctrine and his history in this course, though I may just look at it in passing. Our proper theme is Peter. I am merely now showing the consistency of the preaching of Peter with the place which we have seen assigned him by the Lord Jesus. I am showing, too, how he was being guided of God as being the foremost man at that time in file testimony of God here below. But how blessedly and simply, too, but convincingly, he was made the instrument of bringing forward exactly the right word of God for that time and place.

He tells them to repent and be converted, and this has always a great place as said to Israel; not by any means that repentance is withheld by the great apostle of the Gentiles. It would be a terrible lack if they had been called to repent, and we had been called only to believe, but it is perfectly true that faith gets an exceedingly marked place in the call to the Gentiles, and that repentance has an equally strong and prominent place in the call to Israel; only you must remember that he who repents always believes, and he who believes always repents. Still there they are—in the one case repentance being the prominent thing, and in the other place faith. And why so, seeing that they were both found in both? The reason was just this: the one had had the favored testimony of God, and had been false to it; therefore they are to repent. The other people had had no testimony at all, and they are called to believe. That is not that they were not called to repent, for I repeat again that there is no soul ever brought to God without repentance. It is not merely without faith, but without repentance. That is to say, that Gentiles are just as truly sinners as the Jews, only there is this difference—that we are never called “transgressors” like the Jews, nor are the Jews merely called “sinners” like us. “Sinners of the Gentiles,” “transgressors in Israel.” This you will find to be, if I may so say, the technical or the great difference between the two; and it is connected with this very point that I am now pressing; that is, that repentance has a conspicuous place in the call to the Jew, and faith has a conspicuous place in the call to the Gentile. Only, I repeat, both elements are in every soul that is born of God.

Well, this discourse has another point in it which I would say a word upon, for I am obliged to choose in so large a subject. It is not strictly correct that the apostle presented our Lord as God’s Son, as in our common version. It is said, for instance, in the 13th verse, “The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus”; and again, in the last verse, “Unto you first God having raised up his Son Jesus.” In both these places it ought to be “Servant.” He does not mean Son. It is the word that is translated “servant” in the Greek version of Isaiah. “My elect, my servant, in whom my soul delighted,” and so on. It is not the proper word for son. I shall show the importance of this presently. It is Messiah; that is the point. And, as Messiah, the Lord Jesus is not prominently mentioned as Son. I do not the least deny that Son is recognized. For instance, in the second Psalm, “Thou art my Son.” That does not mean servant. It is Son, and therefore it is perfectly true that we do find the Sonship of the Lord Jesus connected with the Messiah, but it is not at all the characteristic way of speaking of the Messiah; whereas, when the apostle Paul comes forward we shall find that “Son” is the very foundation-stone. Indeed, it is because Peter in the Lord’s ministry had confessed Him to be the Son of the living God that the Lord Jesus said, “Upon this rock.” I was right, therefore, in saying that it is the foundation-stone—the foundation-rock on which the church is built. And, immediately after, he reveals His intention to build the church.

Well now you see it is not a question of the church being brought out clearly yet. For that, Paul was raised up. Peter is still pleading with the Jews. He is still calling upon the nation to repent, and he is telling them that if they do repent God will send His Son, His Servant, His Messiah. That is the meaning of it. He would raise up His Servant, this Messiah, who would bless them, and he would bring in a new covenant and all their blessings. They refuse this, and accordingly this is what I am about to trace—the history of the refusal of the testimony of the Holy Ghost, as the Gospels show us the history of the refusal of the Lord Jesus.

When Peter was still preaching to them on this very occasion— “As Peter and John spake unto the people, the priests and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came upon them, being grieved that they taught the people and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.” All their system of thought, their unbelief, properly speaking, was in danger, for at that time the prevalent notion among the leaders of Israel—not the Pharisees—was that there was no resurrection. Those that took the lead at that time were Sadducees, and they felt most deeply the proclamation of the truth that there was a man risen from the dead and gone to heaven. It overthrew their whole system. They were moved, therefore, that they preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead. It was not only the resurrection, but it was aggravated by this—a resurrection that had brought the power of God into the world as it is now. A man was raised from the dead and gone into the heaven in the midst of them. Why, it was clear that if that was the case it brought the power of God very close to them. Where had this mighty deed been done? In their midst—in Jerusalem itself, in their own day. It was not done in a corner; it was not done in some recess of the earth; it was not done where nobody had seen it and nobody had heard anything about it. It was in the midst of an armed band. It was in the midst of a nation that had been fully warned against it. That deceiver, as they said, had told them that He was to rise in three days. They were, therefore, fully aware of what they were to expect. All that made the miracle so much the more mighty as a testimony of the present power of God in dealing with this very world. He had risen from the dead, we may say, before their very eyes, although they did not see it. But still, there they were, guarding the very spot, and if it had been possible to see it, it must have been seen. But no, it was of that character that God would not give it to be seen except by chosen witnesses. They saw the Lord after the flesh; they never saw Him after He rose from the dead. Well, but still there was the fact. They were grieved about it; and hence they come down and lay hands upon the apostles, and put them in hold until the next day. This did not arrest the work of the Lord.

Many believed. The number of the men was about five thousand.

Well, on the morrow we see they hold their council. They were gathered together; “Annas the high priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost.” It is clear that Peter was the man of that time. He was the man that God was using at that hour. Filled with the Holy Ghost, he said, “Ye rulers of the people and elders of Israel, If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole, be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead.” And you will observe that he does not qualify it here. Now that he has these guilty leaders before him he does not say, “I wot that through ignorance ye did it,” for now you see they were making it most palpable and manifest that there was a will—a wicked will. Accordingly he does not allow of any excuse, and it is always so with God. When He meets souls at first He meets them as they are, with nothing but grace, and when they proceed in rejecting Christ it is no use denying that there is a rebellious will. And so it is here. “Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.” And he quotes the well-known 118th Psalm, “This is the stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.” It was only accomplishing their own scriptures. But he adds, “Neither is there salvation in any other.” Here was the One they were rejecting above all! “Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.” And the Lord had brought in that great truth that it is in vain to look for salvation above the heavens. It is under the heavens; it is here on earth. The Son of man has on earth, as Christ says, power to forgive sins.” That is what He brought down from heaven, and here it is that this name continues to go forth. The Holy Ghost gives it currency and power to go forth here alone. It is not there, it is here, that a man must lie saved if saved at all. “So when they saw the boldness of Peter and John”

[W. K.]

(To be continued)

The Dealings of God With Peter: 11. In the Acts of the Apostles

Acts 3-9. (Continued)

But mark another thing which is very interesting. Although Peter was filled with the Holy Ghost, although he spoke with this most convincing power, they could see that he was an unlearned man. Inspiration did not give the appearance of learning. Inspiration gave divine power and kept perfectly from error, but it did not hinder the character, the style, of the man who was inspired. This is of immense importance to us, because unbelief builds a great deal upon a certain style. For instance, you find the style of James, you find the style of Peter, you find the style of Paul. To be sure we do, and that is the perfection of inspiration. Inspiration does not mean God speaking to men. Inspiration means God speaking by man to men, and therefore you see that it is not only that you have God speaking, but you have God speaking by the man, and the man gives his own style to the word of God that is spoken. It is never called the word of man; it is the word of God, but still it is the word of God by man, passing through a human mind, a human heart, and a human mouth, it may be, to men.

Well, accordingly, there is a certain style which is impressed upon the word of God, only the Spirit of God takes care that there shall he no error; and so it was upon that day. They saw the boldness of these men, but further, they perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men. It was not that they were ignorant of the truth. They were ignorant themselves. It was not that they were unlearned in the Scriptures. It was Caiaphas and Annas and these others who were unlearned in the Scriptures; but still, judged by the mere standard of education or letters among men, undoubtedly Peter and John were ignorant and unlearned men; and their being filled with the Holy Ghost, I repeat, did not in the least set this aside. It did what was infinitely better. It showed the power and the grace of God, so to speak, made perfect in weakness. It showed that, although there was this ignorance and want of learning after a human sort, there was what manifested the Holy Ghost; and they were being used with divine power both for the blessing of the believer and for the conviction of the conscience of the unbeliever. “So they marveled,” it is said, “and they took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus.”

But then there is another thing. There was the very man that had been made strong, and they could not get rid of this evidence. They had him before them, but he was there who was the witness of the power of God. “Beholding the man that was healed standing with them they could say nothing against it.” You see it is not ignorance which is the terrible and damning thing in men’s hearts. It is will that desires to expel the testimony of God, the grace of God, and the power of God, if they could, out of God’s own world. That was their case, then. But God made them feel it.

“When they had, therefore, commanded them to go aside, they conferred among themselves.” And they let out their conviction of the fact. There was no doubt of the miracle, “but that it spread no farther let us straitly threaten them.” So we see the blindness of unbelief following, for how absurd to suppose that God had wrought in this way, and that it should be kept hidden, or that the persons who were the instruments of the power of God should conceal such a thing, or that that power was not to work in other ways similarly. “Let us straitly threaten them that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. And they called them and commanded them not to speak at all, nor teach, in the name of Jesus.” But this only brings out the divinely given courage and wisdom of the servants of God, for “Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God.” What a position! And these were the servants of God! These men claimed to have God’s own authority in the world. “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God” —that is what it came to “judge ye; for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” All that then remained was to threaten them further, and to let them go. And when they did go we find a new thing. They went to “their own company,” and there it is for the first time that anything of that kind is mentioned in Scripture. And it is a very important truth, too, that now Christians had their own company. Before the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus, there was nothing of the sort. Their own company would have been the Jews. Now there was their own company separate from the Jews, and the people who were most opposed, most hostile, to their company were the Jews; so it was clear that God had wrought in some entirely new way on the earth. He had given a new relationship, new affections. What was the center of this? Christ; that was what made the difference. Jesus, the rejected Jesus, the exalted Christ.

There, however, they find themselves, and they raise their voices to God with one accord, saying, “Lord, thou art God which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is; who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things.” They applied the 2nd Psalm. “And now, Lord, behold their threatenings, and grant unto thy servants that with all boldness they may speak thy word.” And so they did. After that they had prayed there was an answer given of the most conspicuous kind. “The place was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and they spake the word of God with boldness.”

You must distinguish, therefore, between the gift of the Holy Ghost and the filling with the Holy Ghost. The gift of the Holy Ghost, once given, was forever given. The filling of the Holy Ghost depends upon circumstances, and upon this circumstance above all others—that nature is denied any place practically. When that is the case the Holy Ghost fills the soul that is emptied enough of self to look to God to fill it. It is our own thoughts, our own will at work, that hinders our being filled with the Holy Ghost. But now here they had learned how completely it was a question of God and of God’s grace; for what were they? And yet they could see now what were the high priests, what was all Israel. Enemies of God; enemies of Jesus! They therefore felt how Christ was everything to them, and the consequence is that they were filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness. That was the effect of it.

“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul.” There seems to be a fresh impetus given to all those spiritual affections that had been found even before. There was a fresh start. “Neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; and great came grace was upon them all. Neither was there any I make that remark because it shows the great among them that lacked, for as many as were possessors of land sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles’ feet, and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.” There was a remarkable form that the grace took as an outward sign. It is in the very thing which a Jew would have been as unlikely a man as any in the world to part with, for the Jew certainly has never been considered remarkable for this kind of readiness to lay down all that he has in the world. But that was exactly what the Spirit of God wrought within them. He had come to give men another being, another relationship, and that was the effect of it. The earth was nothing and the things on the earth were nothing.

And you must remember, along with this having things in common, that all the Christians in the world were there together in that one city. When God extended the testimony to other cities we never find anything of the sort. There never was what was commonly called community of goods when God began to work in the cities of Juda, and still more among the Gentiles. It is when they were all in Jerusalem. We all understand it. They were a family; they felt that they were one family; but when it came to God’s working here and working there it is clear that the day for community of goods was passed, and so there was a modification entirely of this remarkable display of the grace of God when the testimony extended to other places. Otherwise it would have been mere independency.

Now, there is no principle more opposed to the church of God than what is commonly called “independency” and “congregationalism.” Nothing. There is no one thing more opposed to it, because the having, in our own little circle, that which is the boundary of our affections and our duties cramps the church of God and hinders our sense of oneness, which is the essential truth of the word of God. There is “one body” all over the earth. We see therefore that, while the members of that one body were all in the one city, a state of things was suitable in the hands of the Spirit of God which was quite unsuited when Christianity became propagated and found in other places also. I make that remark because it shows the great folly of those that think, “Oh, how nice a thing it would be to have community of goods now.” The same kind of thing has entered into the heads of people at various times. It is true that they have carried it out in a very imperfect manner. There is another thing, too, that ruins it, and that is, making a law of it. Now there was no law in Jerusalem. Nobody asked them. It was a thing spontaneously done, and it was done, too, only by those who really had faith to do it. And it was there that Satan hindered. He put it into the heart of a man and a woman there to pretend to give up all their goods when they did not do so. And the story of this is the next thing that comes before us.

We have seen the hostile power of the world, and the world was defeated, but now we have to face another thing. Evil creeps into the church. But is there not power to meet it? There was ample power then, and so it was that the moment it appeared it was met by the superior power of the Holy Ghost. That is what I am going to show you as the great feature of the fifth chapter of the Acts. It is power of every variety meeting the effort of the devil to hurt the church of God. Now the first and most serious thing of all was the corrupting of some that bare the name of the Lord. And what showed the serious character of it was this: it was not merely an impulse, it was an agreement. It was deliberate deceit, and it was deliberate deceit of the very worst kind, because it was deliberate deceit to get the credit of superior grace without reality. This is what comes out, then. A certain man named Ananias —and this is confronted with what particularly marked a good man just before, Barnabas, that son of consolation—that man who in word and deed comforted so many desolate hearts—and a Levite too. No doubt things were only confused, too, because it was a strange thing that a Levite should possess lands and houses. And no doubt lie felt it; and accordingly it was such a happy opportunity to lay them down for Him who had died for him; to lay them down for those who were dear to Him. And so he did. He brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

“But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it.” They had time, therefore, to think what they were about. They were perfectly aware. It was no sudden impulse; it was a design. Just as if God were not looking upon it and quite aware! God was there; not now merely God in heaven, and not merely God in a vague way upon the earth, but God come down in special grace in the person of the Holy Ghost, to take His place with His people here below. It was an entirely new thing. It was not merely the vague sense of God delivering earth, but there was the dwelling of God—the special dwelling of God—in the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, who had now come and made the church His dwelling-place. So this aggravated the devil. “Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?”

I will make this remark, which I think to be one of practical moment, that all sin now, properly speaking, is sin against the Holy Ghost. I know there are many people who are dreadfully afraid of that term— “sin against the Holy Ghost.” They very often think and fear that they have sinned against the Holy Ghost. The fact is that every sin which a Christian commits is sin against the Holy Ghost—every sin. You will tell me, then, what a dreadful case that makes out. It is a very serious thing, but what you probably have got in your own minds is not sin against the Holy Ghost, but blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Now the moment that you distinguish between sin and blasphemy it at once delivers you from a great deal of uneasiness which has no foundation whatever. What is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost? The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is the sin of a man that not only gives way to utter unbelief, rejects Christ, rejects the gospel, but imputes it all to the devil, imputes it to Beelzebub, that is, denies the Holy Ghost to have His part in that which is all part of that wonderful working of the spirit of grace founded upon redemption in our Lord Jesus Christ. If I impute the word of God—because it is all a part of the same great system of divine grace which He has now wrought in Christianity—if I impute the word of God to the devil it is clear that I am given up to the most hateful and abominable rebellion against God, and therefore it is plain that I am destroying all possibility of salvation for my soul. This is what people forget to be that which is meant by blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and it is plain that persons who are so found are lost. It is plain that they cannot be forgiven.

But this is clearly the last result of unbelief, and never can be found in a Christian person or anything like it. A person may be troubled with bad thoughts; that is another thing altogether. But these people were people that were not troubled at all. They were people that gloried in their wickedness; gloried in it; had no conscience about it whatever. They had got fully hardened and seared by Satan. I repeat that no sin now is what it was to a Jew. A Jew’s sin was sin against the law. It was transgression of the law. But that does not define a Christian’s sin. A Christian’s sin is sin against the Holy Ghost, because the Holy Ghost has taken up His abode in the Christian, and, consequently, whatever sin he does is a disrespect to and a grief to the Holy Ghost. Hence a lie now is not merely a lie. In this case it was a very formal and deliberate one. Peter, therefore, brings out that which made its character to be awful: it was a lie against the Holy Ghost. “To lie to the Holy Ghost and to keep back part of the price of the land.” And the consequence is that he laid this upon him—that it was not to man he lied, but to God. God was there, and he had acted as if God was not there. So Ananias, on hearing these words, expires, and great fear came upon all.

What added to it was this: the wife came in not long after. The young men, in fact, had only returned from burying the husband when the woman came in, not knowing what was done, about three hours after; and Peter said to her, “Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much. And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Behold the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.” So she fell down also, “and great fear came upon all the church.”

(To be continued) [W. K.

The Dealings of God With Peter: 12. In the Acts of the Apostles

Acts 3-9. (Continued)

This is the first time, certainly, when the expression “the church” is applied. At the end of the second of Acts the occurrence of the word is doubtful. It is very probable that it is not correct there. In that place “the Lord added together,” is the true reading. I make this remark because it will show the great importance of having as correct a translation of the Scriptures as possible. I think that those who desire intelligence in the word of God ought to possess such a translation for their own private reading. I do not say that they should have it for use in the meetings, as the less said as to points of this kind, especially at a worship meeting or anything of that kind, the better; but I conceive that here I have the object and purpose of seeking to help the children of God to know the truth as much as possible, and therefore I do not scruple to speak of this, though I do not like it. If we all had the truth of God presented to us in the correct and hest form there would be no need to dwell upon these things, but, unfortunately, we have been accustomed to an imperfect translation, and consequently it is necessary to show, in certain cases, what is really the truth. In the second of Acts, then, the expression is, “The Lord added together such as should be saved.” Those persons composed the church, but now He calls them the church. “And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.” It was not their own company—those that were destined to salvation, going on in unbelief, and despising the testimony of God; but those that bowed to it, and had repented, and had believed the gospel. Now they were brought together, and by the Holy Ghost they formed this dwelling-place of God. They are called, therefore, the church.

“And upon as many as heard these things.” It is evident the power of the testimony affected many outside. “And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch. And of the rest durst no man join himself to them.” You see God guarded them, kept off those that ought not to be there. “But the people magnified them.”

“And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.” They were not afraid of multitudes, you see; they rejoiced at it, and indeed I often marvel how those that love the saints of God seem to think that there is some peculiar virtue in what they call “twos and threes.” Now do not misunderstand me. I think it is an exceeding mercy when God has only two or three, but I cannot sympathize with the feeling that prefers two or three to two or three hundred. I should have thought that love would have desired the best blessing upon the largest number, and that love would have desired that those who are as dear to the Lord as ourselves should not be wandering about like poor sheep without a shepherd in all kinds of sorrow and trouble. Do you think that we are the happier because other people are strangers? Do you think it is a Christian feeling to desire that we should have a little less trial? No, I believe not. I believe that love likes the trial of those that it loves; that love has pleasure in bearing and forbearing. It may be tried at a time, of course, for we are poor and imperfect creatures; but still there is something very sweet in sharing the sorrows of those that God loves and that we love; so that while we are thankful that there are two or three here and there, still I think we ought to rejoice more than all in that He not only saves, but gathers and puts in the true place. Do we think it is the true place, or do we think it is only the true place for ourselves? If so, then you are a sect at once; but if you believe that it is God’s place then it is God’s place for all God’s children. We may not deign to use any improper means, or trouble ourselves because people do not come, for that is the Lord’s matter; it is the Lord’s great work, not merely ours. We are under Him; we are mere journeymen. He is the One that carries on the work. I say, then, we ought to rejoice the more that there is divine blessing whether in saving or gathering.

And so it was here. This multitude of men and women, I have no doubt, were a great comfort to those that had the feelings, the sympathies, the grace of the Lord, strong in their souls. And what is more, there was mighty power that accompanied it this time, and one remarkable fact which I do not think is mentioned about any other person is that the shadow of Peter healed. just think of that! We never heard of that about the Lord. We never heard that the Lord’s shadow healed people. Perhaps you think that I am exalting man against the Lord. I am exalting the words of the Lord, who said, “Ye shall do greater works than these, because I go to the Father.” Now I say that that does exalt the Lord, and exalts Him particularly because people may have thought that the Lord was only, so to speak, like a great magnet that could affect only what was near it. Not at all. Because He went they did greater works than His. That is to say, it was the power of the Lord showing itself perfectly superior to everything of nature. Distance and time had nothing to do with it. It was Christ.

And this, accordingly, fills the high priest and his party with great indignation. The more that grace and truth wrought, the more they hated; and they laid their hands again on the apostles and put them in the common prison. But as this is not very particularly said to have happened to Peter till the latter part of the chapter, I need not dwell upon it. Still he was one, but it is only in the latter part that he comes out distinctly.

They put them, then, in prison, but the Lord stretches out His hand. The Lord sends His angel, who opens the prison doors and brings them forth, saying, “Go, stand and speak in the temple all the words of this life.” The effect of that is increasing boldness, for now it was made extremely simple. Before that, the apostles had acted on their confidence in the Lord’s will, but now they had got the positive word of the Lord. It was not merely an instinctive consciousness of what He wished, but it was a certain, positive word. The Lord sent His angel and said, “Go and speak in the temple.” The very place was given. “Go and speak in the temple all the words of this life” —unrestricted testimony of what was needed by souls. “And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning.” And quite right. “They entered the temple early in the morning and taught. But the high priest came and they that were with him.” They met too. “But when the officers came, they found them not in the prison.” And when they were troubled at hearing the tidings, one comes and tells them that the men whom they were seeking were standing in the temple and teaching the people. So they come and bring them before the council, who put the question, “Did not we strictly command that ye should not teach in this name? and behold ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” Thus it was. There was the burden of a wretched and guilty conscience.

“Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said.” Not now, “Judge ye.” Now he judged. “We ought,” says Peter, “to obey God rather than men.” Now there is an uncompromising declaration of their obedience to the word of God. “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom ye slew and hanged on a tree: him hath God exalted at his right hand” —(oh, how blessed) — “to be a Prince and a Savior” —not a Prince and a Judge. That He will be by and by, but, meanwhile, “a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are his witnesses of these things.” But there was another witness. “So is also the Holy Ghost.” I draw your attention to the manner in which the Holy Ghost is spoken of as a living divine person that was there, not merely in them, but with them. So is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey Him. So they were exceedingly wounded with this, and they were only stopped from violence—from the last act, I mean, of violence—by Gamaliel, the teacher of Paul, a remarkable man who at any rate speaks the words of sobriety.

I would just rehearse in a few words the substance of the chapter. Here you see we have divine power in the church the Holy Ghost adequate to all evil. The offenders fell dead on the spot. We have providential power in the angels, superior to the power of the world. And here we have God’s indirect working by men in the world to arrest what was contrary to His will. Thus, you see, there need be no fear whatever where the church walks in the fear of what is unseen. God guards, God acts. This is what we have to build upon and go forward with. We need not be in the least afraid. God has His Gamaliels now, as He had then, in the midst of wicked people, surely, and although there be not a putting forth of the same kind of miraculous power as we find in the angel’s opening of the prison doors, still God knows how to do a similar kind of thing and to bring about the same result in a way suitable In the present state of His testimony. But, above all, there is the exceeding comfort that the highest and deepest of that power is ours now, as surely as then—the Holy Ghost dwelling in the church of God.

I need not dwell upon what follows. I shall pass over it, and say only a few words upon another scene. We need not speak of the choice of the seven men. Peter is not particularly mentioned. Still less need we speak of Stephen’s discourse. Now a new witness comes forth. I may observe, therefore, that the title of this book is clearly a mistake. It is not the acts of “The Apostles.” It is the acts more particularly of two great apostles, and besides that of one of the deacons, as we see one of the seven men, quite as much as any of the apostles. Not even James figures as much as Stephen. I mention that, not as a criticism on the word of God. You must remember that the titles of the books are not inspired. Those titles that we read at the beginning—as, for instance, “the Epistle of John,” “the Epistle General of James” —were not given by the Holy Spirit. That is merely what men have said. I make that remark because we are perfectly free to criticize what men have said, though we must always bow to what God has said. Therefore you see the book takes in more than the apostles, and by no means the acts of all the apostles.

But coming to the eighth chapter, we have a very special scene. I pass by Philip’s work. We have a good deal that he did. It is not merely Stephen, but Philip also, who was another of the seven men, and Philip was a true evangelist, and, what is more, too, Philip had not lost his place of evangelist when we find him very late in the book of Acts. That is an important hint that those who begin as evangelists should not lose that place later, and should not grow weary of the work, or give it up for another. Philip is still called an evangelist later on. Indeed, it is then particularly that he gets the name. Well now he is evangelizing, and great was the blessing. Why, whole towns of Samaria were won by the gospel. What had never been done by any of the prophets —what had never been done by the twelve apostles when they went forth during our Lord’s ministry, or by the seventy—was now done by that one, single-handed, and yet Philip had been set apart by the laying on of hands merely to take care of the tables and to look after the poor in Jerusalem. But God called him to another work, and this was his work. Indeed, it was a great time of evangelizing. The church scattered abroad were preaching, and the Lord was with them. But Philip was peculiarly blest, and he baptized. I observe that he baptized men and women. We do not hear of his baptizing others, but he baptized men and women, and we do not read farther.

We read of another thing, for certain, and that is that the Holy Ghost was not yet given. Now that was very striking—men converted, men baptized, but not yet having received the Holy Ghost. What a mistake to confound the gift of the Holy Ghost with their being born of the Spirit. I do not know anything of more consequence in its place to note than that fact. There was the very reason why the Holy Ghost was not given them. Samaria had always been a kind of rival of Jerusalem, and if they had got the Holy Ghost apart from the heads of the work in Jerusalem they might have tended to become independent and to say that they were just as good as the church in Jerusalem. We know very well that that is a sufficiently ready tendency, spite of the plain word of God against it. God will make known fully that it is one body and one Spirit; and so when the church at Jerusalem heard of this mighty work at Samaria they sent down Peter and John—two of the most honored men there—and when they came, they prayed, and the Holy Ghost was given. There was a reason as we see, therefore, for that peculiar act. In other cases there was nothing of the kind. There was no laying on of hands or praying on the day of Pentecost. There was down at Samaria.

Well, but another thing occurred. There was a man that Philip had baptized, and when he saw the Holy Ghost given he offered money. There was nothing that he valued so much as money, except that it was to gain influence in order to gain more money. So he thought he would give a little to get more, and he considers that, because he valued money, so would Peter. But that very thing detected the state of his soul, and that which Philip had failed to find out, Peter saw at once. But you observe that it was not any special power. You must not confound what is called the discerning of spirits with this. The discerning of spirits has to do with detecting had doctrine—what is taught. But Peter waited till the conduct of the man and the language of the man showed that he had no part or lot in Christ; and accordingly here we find him, then, betrayed, and the apostle pronounces the most solemn judgment—I conceive even more solemn than that which befell Ananias and Sapphira. Ananias and Sapphira were judged in this world; it was “sin unto death.”

Simon Magus was judged for eternity. Simon Magus was judged in terms that left no hope for his soul at that moment. I do not say that God might not interfere afterward. He, at any rate, asked them to pray for him, but it is quite evident that he had no confidence in God. It is not a question of looking to God about his soul. He looked to them, and you will find, often, that people who have no confidence in God have great confidence in the prayers of God’s servants. It is a common thing in unconverted people. They have not confidence in Christ, but they would have a great deal of confidence in your praying for them. That, you see, finds its example in these early days.

I need not, then, do more than just glance at another thing, and that is that Peter has been found in an active testimony at the end of the ninth chapter, where he raises a dead person and heals a sick man, and is most diligent in visiting the saints. But the next opportunity will afford me occasion for bringing out a still more wonderful account that the Holy Ghost has given us of that which was allotted to this blest servant of the Lord.

(To be continued) [W. K.]

The Dealings of God With Peter: 2. In the Gospels

Well, this is the first great lesson that followed the public call of Peter. I shall now take you to another and different scene in the end of the sixth of John, where the Lord had brought out Himself, and Himself, too, in a very wondrous way—as the bread of life come down from heaven in contrast with the king that man would have liked to make Him; for they thought He was just the one for them, a king that would provide bread for his people; and so they caught at it at once.

They might have quoted scripture for it. For had not scripture declared that Messiah would feed His people with bread? Yes, and it would have been such an excellent thing for them—bread without working for it! and so they thought that this was the king that would do for them. They therefore sought to make the Lord a king, and the Lord therefore goes away from them, because, although He was born King of the Jews, and although He was proclaimed King of the Jews a little after, and although it was impossible for him to deny and not confess that truth, let it be who it might—Pontius Pilate even, that asked, without the least concern as to the reality of the answer—nevertheless, the Lord showed that He knew from the very beginning that He was come, not to reign, but to die; to reign, no doubt, by and by, for there is no truth of Christ but what will be verified. There is no seed but what will really produce fruit, even though it fall to the ground and die first; but still in that very way it is so. It all must go through death and resurrection.

And so the Lord Jesus shows here that it is not first bread, but first suffering. Hence therefore He expounds a grand truth of His person, and what He had come to do, in contrast with Jewish thoughts—that it was not to reign as they expected, although His was the title and He was really the King of that people. But then His own would not have Him— “his own received him not.” His own received Him not, because they were sinners, and after all it was impossible that He could reign over a realm of sin and of sinners. Thus one can see the perfect suitability of it that so it should be, but nevertheless God allowed it to come out as a matter of human responsibility. They would not have Him, not that He would not have them, but that they would not have Him, and it turns out after all that there was a moral unsuitability—total unsuitability—between such a king and such a people.

Well then, what does the Lord lay down? He was come to be a servant, and consequently He comes down. He comes down from heaven, He becomes a man, He is incarnate. But that is not all. When they stumbled at that, He says, “I am come to die,” and He puts this too in the very strongest way, for He says that it is not only that He must be accepted as thus coming down from heaven, and becoming a man to serve, but further—that except they ate His flesh and drank His blood they had no life in them; and yet further, that whosoever did eat His flesh and drink His blood had eternal life, and He would raise him up at the last day. Clearly not that which men have been talking about of late—a question about sacrament or mass or anything of that kind. It is Himself, beloved friends; it is Himself; but then it is Himself dying! And there, indeed, is the great delusion of men—using something that is a mere sign of Christ to do the work of Christ Himself—an idol made out of an institution of the Lord, and consequently it becomes a “saving sacrament,” call it what you please.

No, there is but one Savior, and this is what He really came for, and this was worthy of God and of His Son—to be the Savior first. He will reign by and by, but He would save men from sin; for what would be the good of the kingdom first, and then men turned into hell afterward? No, He would save them from sin first. He would save them from hell, and then reign; and so He will, and this is the way. Accordingly then, He substitutes Himself, coming down and dying for sinners in this world, giving His life, as He says, for the world. It was not merely a question of the Jews, but He gives this life for the world. He substitutes this for the earthly expectation of Israel that He was to reign over them now. Not so; this was His real work, and He closes it all by His going up to heaven as the Son of man.

And it is a singular thing that these are the two things that a Jew cannot endure. He does not believe either in God’s coming down, or in man’s going up; he denies both. It is precisely what tests all the thoughts and feelings of a Jew, and I expect that it will test Christendom too very shortly, because they are rapidly falling into the same pit of unbelief that Israel has fallen into already, and they will very soon, to their own eternal ruin, give up as a public profession, through Christendom, either that God came down to the earth, or that man has gone up to heaven. That will be the apostasy when it comes. But this chapter is full of it, and the effect of bringing this out was that from that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him. Is it not so? “Many of his disciples.” It was not merely the multitudes, but many of His disciples went back and walked no more with Him. And what had the Lord done, and what had He said? He had brought out His incomparable grace. He had brought out an infinitely deeper truth than if He had brought in the kingdom and given them to sit one on the right hand and the other on the left, if it had been possible to give the best place to every soul in the kingdom, which, of course, could not he. If it had been possible, I repeat, for every man of them to have the best place, what was that compared to His coming down and dying for sinners, giving eternal life, and raising them up at the last day? Nevertheless, it was such a shock to all their expectations that many of His disciples, from that time, went back and walked no more with Him.

“Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?” And who answered? Simon Peter. And now, you see, he that was of little faith had become, I may say, of great faith. The lesson was learned, and he showed it, for when the question came the answer—the ready answer of his soul—was, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” He does not now say “I.” He does not now say, “Lord, if it be Thou.”. “Lord, to whom shall we go?” There is no “if ‘‘ now. “Thou hast the words of eternal life.” No hesitation in his soul. Ah, there is faith. There is not little faith now. There is no mingling of doubt now. There is no question. before Peter now, and what is more remarkable too, there is no such thing as that egotism that mingled with the former case, but he says, “We believe and are sure.” He puts them all with himself, “We believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.”

I am sorry on such an occasion as this, beloved friends, to bring in a little word that must correct our English Version. You must carefully remember that the English Version, after all, is not the word of God in the fullest sense, or strictest sense, of the word. That is, you must always leave room for an occasional spot or speck where man’s carelessness has a little obscured the fullness of the truth. Now, if you look at any careful, any exact, presentation of the true text and translation of the N.T. you will find it to be this, “That thou art the Christ, the Holy One of God.” “The Holy One of God” are the true words, as I believe, in this particular place. I do not think, therefore, it is the same thing exactly as we have in Matt. 16. It is a different confession of our Lord Jesus, and I will endeavor to show the great beauty and appropriateness of that which Peter says here; for mark, beloved friends, there is no anxiety now. There is no such thing as, “Lord, save me”; no such thing now. Now he is filled with Christ. He has not a thought of himself or anything else, and this is the true way in which souls enter into perfect peace with the Lord.

And again, if there is any one thing that is terrible to a sinner it is the holiness of God—and the holiness of God where it is brought fairly by faith before the soul—where it measures the believer, because the believer alone truly feels what is in those words, “The Holy One of God.” I grant you, it is not only believers. What will help to make it a little more distinct is this. We have others that say, “The Holy One of God.” It was the confession, if I can call it so—it was the expression at any rate—of the demoniacal man, the demoniac that first met the Lord when He began His public ministry. This ministry of our Lord was, as you know, first entered upon at Nazareth, where, according to His wont, He entered into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and there was given Him the book of Esaias the prophet, in which was the scripture that showed that He was the One according to prophecy that was to bring in the acceptable year of the Lord; and He shows, therefore, the exceeding grace of God. It was no question now of judgment, no mingling of the two that man so much likes, but that it was to be unmixed grace.

But then there is another thing. Satan has got power here. Therefore there follows in Luke, when he gives the ministry of the Lord, His confronting the man with the unclean spirit in the synagogue at Capernaum on the sabbath day also. It was to be brought evidently before man—the power of Satan in this world, the power of Satan in man and over man. And then we have in the fourth of Luke (I may just refer to it for a moment in order to compare it) the demon crying out with a loud voice, Let us alone.” Mark it well. “Let us.” It is a very solemn thing how a spirit, whether it is an evil spirit or the Spirit of God, identifies himself with the man in whom he dwells, just as he who has the Holy Ghost has Him adapting Himself in grace to the man. So, though it be His own guidance, it is, nevertheless, the man’s guidance. Although it be He that works all that is good and sweet in the man, it is the man’s work. It is what the man does after all. All the in which we find this man, the demon, does; but fruits of the Spirit are not merely the fruits of the Spirit, but they belong to the man. They characterize the man, so much so that we are ourselves said to be “in the Spirit.” As the apostle says, “Ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.” That is, He characterizes us so completely that it is no longer the flesh but the Spirit, if the Spirit dwell in us. Well, just so here. The man says, “Let us alone; what have we to do with thee.” It is not, “What have I,” merely; “What have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us?” That is what they felt. That was the dismal fear that was produced. And mark how Jesus is addressed. “I know thee, who thou art, the Holy One of God.” Nothing more awful to contemplate, nothing that so brings their utter and everlasting doom before them, for they at least believe—and with what effect? The demons believe and tremble.

Now that is not at all the intention with a soul that is born of God. Faith is not intended to make us tremble, but to make us happy; to make us at perfect peace, because if I see Jesus by faith I have Him as my life. I could not have Him by faith without His being my life also, and I could not have Him as my life without having His righteousness now. I speak, of course, supposing now the work done: that is, the Christian has all that he sees in Christ. Everything that is in Christ is in his favor. What He is as the Son of God, what He is as the Son of man; everything is in his favor. He could not do without one single thing that he knows to be in the Son of God. If He were not the Son of God it would not be eternal life; and if He were not a man it would not be righteousness. But you see the whole thing then—all that Christ is in His person and work—all descends in blessing upon the head of a believer. In his case, therefore, we find the very reverse. “We believe and are sure.” Was there any trembling there? No, when Peter was not occupied with Jesus, as we saw, when he looked at the danger, the circumstances in which he was, he was full of anxiety; he was afraid. But not so now, and yet, beloved friends, he confesses Christ in the very same terms in this latter case it was awful alarm. It was the pangs of coming judgment that filled the soul, “Art thou come to destroy us?” You see, the power of Satan was to drag down the man into his terror, just as the Holy Ghost would lift up man into His sense of what grace is now in the Lord Jesus Christ. So Jesus rebukes the demon, turns out the demon, and the man is settled in peace and deliverance. But in Peter’s case we have the very same thing—the Holy One of God confessed—and yet instead of an anxiety it is the very thing that fills the heart with joy.

If we had only the sense of our Lord Jesus as the gracious One, there would still be something lacking for our souls; if we had no thought but “the day is coming when I shall see Him as the Holy One. What will it be then?” Nay, but I know that I cannot separate it. It is the holy One just as much as the gracious One now. He is the one that never admitted—always refused—evil of any kind; and that is my comfort, that it is the one who loves me best, the one that sees me through and through, the one that caused others, it may he, to doubt; at any rate, they do doubt, because there were such words of grace as never were heard before, for the Lord had never given utterance to words so full of grace as in this very discourse at Capernaum, because of which His disciples—many of them—left Him. But Peter, as now showing the simplicity and growth of faith, instead of trembling, instead of being enfeebled, instead of his going along with those that had departed, on the contrary, confesses Him that He is the Holy One of God at the very time that he says, “We believe and are sure.” There was no flinching, there was no hiding, there was no danger that that Holy One would detect or which he would cast them out from His presence. The very reverse. Peter had said, even before, “Thou hast the words of eternal life.”

Now this then is the next thing that I believe the Spirit of God would have us to see in His dealings with Peter. That is, that now, when he has Christ Himself before him, and Christ Himself in the very character that fills the demon with the sense of coming destruction, Peter stands before Him without a doubt. There is nothing so awful as divine holiness where there is sin, and sin without grace to meet it; but here the very contrary. The Lord had been bringing out all His grace, and for that very reason Peter stands in the presence of all His holiness, and he stands there with not a doubt upon his soul. He stands there confessing Him, and confessing Him with words of unusual strength.

Further too, there is a grace that takes in others, for instead of merely confessing himself, he joins others in the confession of the very same truth. Indeed, Peter knew that he had not Christ for himself; that if he had Christ, the others had also. The Lord, it is true, at that very time cautions him. The Lord brings in the solemn thought that he may have gone a little too far there. “Jesus answered, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for he it was that should betray him.”

The Lord therefore does show not merely that there was eternal life for those that believed, but that Peter did not know that one of the twelve was no believer at all. But as far as the strength of Peter’s words went, it was all right and all true; that is to say, that those that believe have this blessed portion in Him, and that, even as for His being the Holy One of God, so far from its being a question, or an anxiety, on the contrary, it is coupled here with the strongest and fullest confession of faith that Peter had made up to that moment.

Now we will go to what I may call a kindred confession, but not the same, and we must return to the sixteenth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew for it. It was a time when unbelief was coming out, only here it is not the disciples; it is not that circle only that is judged; but the chapter shows us unbelief everywhere until we come to the disciples; and the Lord Himself put the question, “When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.” That is, there was the usual answer of men, the uncertainty of human opinion. “He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?” because the very uncertainty of men brings out the faith of God’s elect, and therefore there is no time at all that is not turned of God for good to the believer. When things are bright and happy, how happy for the believer! When things are most dark, how happy for the believer! Of course, not the darkness of the time, but the preciousness of having Christ in the darkest time. I say then that it matters not what the time of uncertainty may be. If the soul is simple, it is always well. And so here. “Whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

The Gospel of Mark also gives this confession, but there it is merely “the Christ.” He does not say a word about His being the Son of the living God, and this helps much to show the force of its connection, because where He is only confessed to be “the Christ” there is not a word said about building the church; not a word. But where he adds to “the Christ” that He was “the Son of the living God,” the Lord answers, “Blessed art thou.” Peter could bear now to be personally and peculiarly blest. He had shown that by the grace of God he had risen above occupation with himself, and drawing attention to himself. And it is precisely when one is thus delivered from self, as far as it goes, that the Lord can put particular honor. Not otherwise. “Thou art the Christ,” says he; and the Lord’s answer is, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” Could Peter have borne that on the night on which he sank in the water? No, not at all. But Peter was no longer “thou of little faith.” Now the Lord could tell him that this was the very special revelation that the Father had made to him. He could bear it. But He adds, “And I also say unto thee.” It is not only that the Father had revealed that, but the Lord adds His revelation also to Peter. For it is not, “I say also,” but “I also say.” Indeed, that is the true, real force of the verse. My Father hath revealed it, “and I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.”

What was that? It was Christ confessed, not merely as the Christ, but as the Son of the living God, so that where the Son of the living God is not brought out there is no building up of the church. Where the Son of the living God is confessed, He says, “Upon this rock I will build my church.” And so indeed it is. Christ was the One in whom the promises were to be accomplished. “The Son of the living God” is the one who is proved to be so by resurrection of the dead. I do not deny that by that very same resurrection the promises are secured, but this I do say, that what proved Him to be the Son of God, even before the promises are accomplished, was this personal glory that broke through the last stronghold of Satan—death—nay, that which was God’s judgment upon man, upon the first man. Now there is another man, but He is much more than a man. Man simply and as such could not conquer Satan. There was always one who was more, although He was to become a man. The seed of the woman no doubt should bruise the serpent’s head, but then that seed of the woman was to be the Son of God. All scripture will show it, but there never had been in any scripture a confession, on the whole, so full as this very one that Peter had pronounced. “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

It was a great epoch spiritually in Peter’s soul, for the Lord knows how to bring out and how to own what His own grace produces. It was the fitting time. He had said this word, and it was a word of which the Son of God Himself took most especial notice. He does not say, “Oh, it is only the Father.” Yes, but it was His Father that had done it through Peter’s lips, and the Son therefore owns this as a most weighty thing—that before the resurrection, before the death, there was the confession of that power in the presence of the Son of God that would break through death, and so, accordingly, lay a groundwork for another thing that does not belong to this creation at all—not merely an individual blest—not merely that. Individuals had been blest before, but there was to be a divine building, there was to be a new thing formed upon earth, founded upon death overcome, founded upon resurrection-power that had broken through all that Satan could do—yea, even God’s judgment; deliverance (mark it well), deliverance from the judgment of God in this world. Now that is the church. The church is that body which owes its existence to this glorious person and fact that the Son of God, in order to the giving the church a being, has broken through the power of Satan in death, and the consequence is that the church is intended to live in this constant confession of victory—victory over death and judgment, and victory only through that one person, the Son of the, living God.

Well, “upon this rock,” says He, “I will build my church,” and nothing can be more solemn than that. The very thing in this world that Satan has forged, and which takes its stand upon this verse more than any other, is of all things most distant from it. For there is no one thing, as you well know, no one body under the sun bearing the name of Christ, that has so completely denied this very truth as that dreadful imposture, that spurious woman and most corrupt that makes the earth drunk with the wine of her cup, and that has stained herself with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. No doubt, because they have found that it answers their purpose; no doubt blinded by Satan’s power, they have given up this truth, and they make the thing a question of merchandise, a question of masses and money, of priests and ordinances, and after all no salvation, no victory over death or judgment, but the very contrary, the constant sound of wailing and lamentation, and everything that would betoken fear and anxiety and question, to keep souls in thralldom and bondage, if peradventure there may be a little more money. Nothing can be more thoroughly opposed to the truth of God than that very body that has attempted to take its stand upon this very verse. I mention it as a singular instance, though, indeed, the same thing is true of all scripture. You will find that whenever men boastfully take their stand upon anything without Christ there is nothing that more completely opposes them, and nothing that they more completely mistake, than the very scripture which they misuse for their own purpose. And hence you will always find, if you have to do with those who are not led by the Spirit of God, that the scriptures that they adduce are the very best answers to their pretensions. Take the scripture that they misuse and you will find that it is the most powerful engine against themselves. And so here with popery which I have just been referring to.

There are other scriptures, but this is the grand point for our own souls. Peter takes his stand upon this, and a remarkable thing, too, is the manner in which Peter brings out the church. Although he does not call it the church in his own epistle, what he speaks of there more nearly answers to this than, perhaps, to what you will find in any other part of the New Testament. When the Lord says, “Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” it is clear that although it be not the body as such, upon the other hand it is not that which man builds. It is what Christ builds, and there is that peculiarity of it, because when in scripture Christianity is presented under the figure of a house or a building you get, as a usual thing, what may be corrupted; you get what does not necessarily suppose life. But that is not the case with what the Lord calls “My church.” Nor is it the case with what Peter describes in his epistle, “To whom coming as unto a living stone, ye also as living stones.” He does not suppose a dead stone to come. He was evidently filled with this truth that the Lord gave his soul upon that very day, “Upon this rock will I build my church”; for it is evident that what Christ builds always must come to its fulfillment according to the purpose of God. “Upon this rock,” then he says, “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” so that although it be the building, it is only the building viewed as built divinely. It is not the responsible thing that man is occupied with, and where man’s weakness comes in by building on the foundation what is not worthy and not suitable.

Here it is very different. “And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” So He did. Peter opened it on the day of Pentecost to the Jews, and afterward to Cornelius the Gentile. It is the same thing. “And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Peter had this place, though not exclusively. As we find in the eighteenth chapter, the disciples bind and loose. I do not say the apostles, but the disciples. But the disciples had not got the keys of the kingdom of heaven. No, nor the other apostles either; not at all. You remember that it is not the key of heaven. There is no more profound mistake than to confound “the kingdom of heaven” with “heaven.” The kingdom of heaven is the rule of heaven over the earth, and therefore there may be all kinds of mistakes and all kinds of things that are not according to God. We must not confound the kingdom of heaven, therefore, with Christ’s church. The kingdom of heaven is what He governs. The kingdom of heaven, therefore, is the scene of profession, and consequently there may be all sorts of things there that are far from Christ; tares as well as wheat. And so Peter, I say, opened that kingdom on the day of Pentecost. But the other part was not exclusively Peter’s, though Peter has it put here in a personal form.

Then Christ charged His disciples that they should tell no man that He was the Christ. That was no question now. There was no question of His being Christ; He was going to die.

W. K.

(Continued from page 196)

The Dealings of God With Peter: 3. In the Gospels

Matthew 17:1-8, 24-27

No man, after such a blessing as the Lord had just pronounced upon Peter, ever received a sterner rebuke. “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona,” so soon to be followed by, “Get thee behind me, Satan.” So serious the place of a Christian—of a believer at least! so true the One who watches over us in love! Whilst there is the fullest value even for that which nothing but His own grace had given, and the deepest encouragement, yet how stern and unsparing is the Lord in letting Peter see what his thoughts, what his feelings, were; what Peter’s heart was thinking about! And what was it that had drawn it out? Peter had owned the glory of His person. It was of God, God’s teaching, without question, and the Savior owned it at once; but that very Peter would turn Him away from the cross! Should that be? “Get thee behind me, Satan.” The Lord Jesus came to die, and to die, too, in all the depths of it. For as to all the externals of the cross, they were indeed—deep as they were—but the outward form of that which only God could estimate. They greatly err who look only to what man was the instrument of in the cross of Christ—most true, most real as it was. But here the Lord was particularly looking at the cross as rejection; yet the path of that rejection led straight into the glory in which He was coming by and by. And the Lord accordingly, in the beginning of the seventeenth chapter, would give a view of the glory, and amongst others, to the very disciple that would have stopped His way into, as Peter thought, a suffering that was unworthy, but in truth that which was the foundation of His glory. For we are not here to look at His glory as Son of God; there was no foundation for that, it was its own foundation. That was truly divine, essentially divine. But here it was conferred glory. It is the kingdom; it is what God has given. As it is said in another place, “Wherefore God hath highly exalted him,” so, by and by, He will be exalted in the kingdom; and the Lord would give a view of it that it might be not only a prophetical testimony, but, as the apostle Peter says, and he is the one that does say it, “We have the prophetic word more confirmed,” that is, we have what was said by the prophets shown out in a reality. It might he only one that passed away; but still to have the sight of all the great elements of the kingdom brought before them in this life was an immense support to faith, an immense cheer, especially to one who must have felt deeply the rebuke that His Master passed upon him.

So “after six days, Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them; and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. Then answered Peter.” And this you know is the particular object that I have before me now—the dealings of the Lord with His servant, as manifesting His own grace and truth (no doubt bringing out the need of it on our part, bringing out weakness, wretchedness, pettiness, vanity, pride—the carnal mind in so many forms, but) the grace and truth of One that had unfeignedly met every failure of His servant; One therefore that would encourage our hearts and instruct us and strengthen us against the very same things in which he had broken down. Do we think we need it not? We are upon the very verge of similar failures. There is nothing that so surely brings a fall as the unbelief that does not believe it possible.

“Then answered Peter and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here.” And was not this then, a pious thought and sentiment? “If thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.” It was a disciple’s way of magnifying his Master, but there is only one that is trustworthy—God’s way. It is not enough to have God’s end; we must learn God’s way. Now there was exactly where Peter’s haste betrayed his weakness, and where we are apt to fall precisely in the same way. “Let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.” He evidently thought it was no small honor for his Master—a man—though the Son of God. But he thought it no small honor for his Master to be on common ground with Moses and Elias, the head of the law, and, we may say, the chief of the prophets. Doubtless He was the Messiah. But were they not glorified? At once, “while he yet spake, behold a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud.” For this was no ordinary cloud—not a dark one, which is an ordinary one—but a bright one: it was the cloud of Jehovah’s presence. “A voice out of the cloud said, This is my beloved Son.” It is not merely a question of the kingdom. The kingdom alone would always leave the soul, as the law would, with thoughts altogether short of what is due to Christ. If I look at the law, I think of duty, and I see the Lord merely as a fulfiller of duty. If I think of the kingdom, I see glory, but a glory that others share along with Him. But the Father would not permit it. He breaks the silence from above, and says, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.”

Now, it is not merely that the Father was thus maintaining the glory of the Lord Jesus at the very time when one who ought, most of all, to be exalting Him was really depreciating Him—most unintentionally, because there is no putting of the Lord with any other that would give Him His just place. The very thought of placing any, however excellent, on a level with the Lord Jesus is reprehensible. Certainly Moses and Elijah were most incomparable among (I will not say the sons of men, but) the children of God. Elijah that had gone up to heaven in a chariot of fire! Moses whom Jehovah had buried, about whose body even the archangel had fought with the devil! Certainly, the man that had been with God without food for forty days and nights, and the man that had closed his career on earth thus to be in heaven, these were men to speak of, if of any. But this very thing brings out the supreme glory of the Son; and this I will say, beloved friends, that a more instructive principle there cannot be. You will find, if you search, that almost all failure, both in doctrine and in conduct, is attributable to this—low thoughts of Christ. I do not mean now thoughts that are evil, thoughts that are untrue, but I mean that the power of faith is always the taking in and subjecting our souls to the glory of the Son of God. This is the faith that overcomes the world. It is not merely that He is the Christ, that He is the King of the coming kingdom. Perfectly true; but He is the Son, and if the kingdom brings in the heirs of the kingdom, and those that enjoy the kingdom, the Son brings in God, and God as He, the Son, knows Him, and as the Father knows the Son; and there is none that comprehends the Son but the Father. And it is remarkable He does not say, “To whomsoever the Father will reveal,” but, “Neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal.” The Father does not reveal all He sees in the Son. And I am persuaded that the reason is this—t hat there is a depth in the very fact of the Son of God having taken manhood that transcends all possible knowledge, except of God the Father; that there is therefore a depth in it, and a secret, too, that He will not have broken. And there is where the prying mind of man loses itself. He desires to know that secret, and, consequently, unable to loose the knot, he cuts it in some violent method of his own mind—the source of all heresy. But I was not speaking of it merely in reference to heresy, but also as to the appreciation of Him day by day; for what a strength it is where His glory is before our eyes, and where each question that arises just exercises our hearts in answer to the Lord—Himself the answer to all difficulties—the Son of God!

Well now, that was where Peter failed. He thought to exalt and enhance the glory of Christ, but he was altogether beneath God’s thoughts.

“This is my beloved Son”; and how did He show it? He says, “In whom I am well pleased.” It is not merely He. Peter was thinking of his being so pleased with the Son that he would like Him to be with such wondrous men as Moses and Elias. It is, “In whom I am well pleased”; and why so? Why so? Just because He is His beloved Son; that is, it has not any connection with Peter at all, but with God Himself in this relationship out of all time, that is, infinite as God Himself is. “Hear ye him.”

And there comes in another point, beloved brethren, that I wish to trace, and that is that this is really what was about to be unfolded in the New Testament. What is the New Testament? The New Testament is the evolution—if I may say so—of this little word, “Hear ye him.” It is God unfolding the glory of the Son to us. All that He was, as revealed in the Gospels, the Epistles, or whatever part of the New Testament it may be, is precisely this very thing that was summed up in these few words, “Hear ye him.” That is, whatever might be the blessedness of Moses and Elias, of the law and the prophets, they have their place, but their best place was to bear witness of Him. And now it was not merely a witness of Him. It was Himself; He was come. And one, therefore, who had an adequate sense of the glory of the Son of God would not care to be listening to the servants about Him, now that he had an opportunity of hearing Himself. “Hear ye him.” Accordingly, “when the disciples heard it they fell on their faces and were sore afraid; and Jesus came and touched them and said, Arise, be not afraid. And when they had lifted up their eyes they saw no man, save Jesus only.” There it is, that the Father leaves, as it were, the disciples in the presence of Jesus only; and the greatest possible honor, and also the proof of the value of Moses and Elias was this, that they bring out the superior glory of the Son of God; they make way for it. They are finger-posts to direct to Him, but then there is no greater mistake than to be occupied with what merely directed to Him; it is Himself. The New Testament, then, is the revelation of that which the Father has to tell us of the Son—not all that He knows, but all that which is for His own glory in making known His Son to us.

The foot of the mountain showed a very different thing. There was the power of Satan, and such a power of Satan that baffled the disciples. We have this accordingly brought out very clearly in the man that they presented to the Lord. “I brought him to thy disciples,” said the poor father, “and they could not cure him.” And the Lord utters words of unusual severity. “O faithless and perverse generation! how long shall I suffer you?”

My object is not to dwell upon any of these intervening portions. I just touch them as I pass along, but still it is most serious to observe this as we pass—the inability, and I do not know anything more characteristic of our weakness, and that more shows its character at this present moment than the same thing—the inability, not of Christ, but of the disciples, to avail themselves of Christ for what came before them. And why was it? What was connected with them then? Unjudged power of nature, confidence in self. “This kind cometh not out but by prayer and fasting.” “Prayer and fasting” is evidently used as expressive of the nothingness of man, but the nothingness of man that expects God and counts upon God. “How long,” said the Lord, “shall I suffer you, or be with you? How long shall I be with you?” Unbelief, and particularly in the disciples, is of all things the greatest pain to Christ. We often think of the unbelief of the world. There is another question nearer home. What do we think of our own faith? What have we to say about it; our power of bringing in Christ to solve every difficulty? I do not know a more distressing thing at the present moment than the mass of unsolved difficulties everywhere; and the very persons that make the difficulties most are the Lord’s own disciples. It is not merely evil. There is always power superior to evil, but when the disciples themselves fail to look to Christ, and have objects of their own that complicate the bringing in of Christ to meet the difficulty—oh, how sorrowful! The Lord gives it as a reason for leaving the world. There is but one comfort that I know, and that is that this is to us, or may be to us, so much the greater token that the Lord must soon undertake all Himself, because there is so little power to bring Him in. And if that be comfort in the thought of Christ, what a condemnation of our little self-judgment, and consequently of our oftener making difficulties than solving them!

Well the Lord is now seen in another point of view, but also Peter is seen too; and indeed, it is Peter who gives occasion for the Lord to show Himself in a new way, and in a new dealing with His servant. “And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute-money came to Peter and said, Doth not your Master pay tribute?” Now here again he was jealous for his Master. He was jealous for his Master when he thought it would be an excellent thing, and a most suitable, to make three tabernacles—tabernacles for Moses and Elias as well as for Him—a tabernacle for Him along with them. And so now he, as it were, said to the collector of tribute that his Master was much too good a Jew not to pay tribute. He said “Yes.” What does the Lord do? Before he says a word about it, the Lord lets Peter know that it was all known to Him. How little he had thought of that. How little the Godhead of Jesus had penetrated the soul even of the man that said, “Son of the living God.” How little he knew of his own confession! That is often the case. It is humbling if we think of ourselves, but at the same time it is a ground of encouragement and patience with other people. You must not expect people to know, though it is often a very startling thing how little we enter into the patience of our Master, and we are surprised that persons should so little understand, for instance, the very place where they are, the very worship into which they are brought, the very truth that they are supposed to live for. But here I find the same thing. Here I find that it is all full of it; but the fact is that we are not conscious ourselves that it is precisely in the same way that we break down, not perhaps in the same particular, but in the same principle. And you will observe that it is a very different thing to judge another’s trial where we are not ourselves tried at the same time. Wait till we are. We shall see how far we know how to bring Christ in ourselves. I do not say it to make light of such a thing. It is a very grievous thing, but it really is the grand secret: that is, the readiness to answer from self instead of from Christ, instead of from God’s side of Christ. We look at our side. Peter was jealous lest his Master should be thought not to pay the tribute. The Lord shows him He knew it all; He was God.

“Jesus prevented,” or “anticipated him” —that is the meaning, for of course this is in old English— “saying, What thinkest thou, Simon: of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? Of their own children or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers.” What an answer! Was the Lord a stranger?—for this is the temple tribute. Who was the Master of the temple? Was Jesus a stranger to him? “Of strangers” the kings of the earth take tribute. Of whom therefore does Jehovah take it? “Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.” Not the Son. No, He does not say the Son. He says what is infinitely better, at the very time when there had just been this overwhelming conviction on the mount. Peter in his zeal for his Master was after all depriving Him of His just title, forgetting His divine glory. How slowly we learn the lesson! “Then are the children free.” For this, beloved friends, is really what Christianity means, and what the Lord was to bring out still more clearly before long—that the grace that sent down the Son of God did not merely send down one to be a propitiation, or even to be life, but that we too might acquire a new relationship according to His—that we might know the place of the children of God. “Then are the children free.” He does not merely, therefore, claim it for Himself. He did not need. But He asserts it for those that are His. How astonishing to Peter! He had forgotten it; he had no thought of it. Yet was he born of God, and he was slowly learning what it meant; about to learn it far more blessedly soon when the hindrances should be taken away by the grace of Christ, and the place of deliverance was about to dawn upon his heart.

“Notwithstanding,” said He, “lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money.” The last place in the world to find, except for God! And that is the very thing He showed—that it was One who had the power of God as well as the knowledge of God; that it was One who was very God, although He was here a man upon the earth. Let Peter’s soul be filled with this. How his heart would turn back to it another day! know it far better when he looked back upon it, when he read it as the word of God, than when it was merely passing then before his eyes! There is no greater mistake than to suppose that if we had been living in the time of our Lord we should have understood our Lord’s words better than now. The very reverse. The written word in this, as in other respects, has a higher place than the spoken word. Just as the written word has a mightier testimony, so also the written word has a permanent place of correcting our thoughts, of deepening even what is true as well as correcting what is mistaken, and the Spirit of God is pre-eminently with it. Hence, therefore, I do not hesitate to say that, far from being worse off, we are better. Peter himself was better off when Peter was not merely regarding the words he had listened to, but when he read them as inspired of God for his use and ours.

Well here, then, I say, we have just the very same thing: that is, we have human thoughts of Christ corrected by divine, and at the same time in the doing of this a marvelous outburst of the divine glory that shone upon Peter’s soul more fully than had ever been the case before. We have had, then, the kingdom. Here we have what much more belongs to Christian relationship—the children.

[W. K.]

(To be continued)

The Dealings of God With Peter: 4. In the Gospels

(Continued from page 234)

The chapter that follows, as the one before, shows us the church, the one founded and the other in its practical operation. I do not say the body, but I do say Christ’s church. He says, “On this rock I will build my church.” But I only refer to it to show how all these three things are brought here together, and are quite distinct. The church is as distinct from the kingdom as both are from Christianity and salvation. Christian relationship is involved in this very scene.

“Then are the children free” —the place of association with Christ in a common relationship before God; always remembering that, while He has brought us by grace into it, He has that relationship in His own eternal right, and that He is not merely one that is born of God, and He is never said to be so. We are. He consequently is never called a child of God. He is called Son. We are called sons, too, but we are called children of God in a sense in which it is never said of Christ. John’s great point, I may observe, is that we are children of God. Properly speaking John never calls us sons of God. There are one or two places in the epistles or in the gospels where our version makes us out to be the sons of God in John’s writing, but it is a mistake. Our translators did not understand the difference. They thought one word as good as another. They were mistaken; there was a very great difference. A man might be adopted as a son without being a child in the family. We are not only adopted sons, we are children of the family. We are born of God; and here you see, as connected with this, the Lord Jesus shows us this place of sharing His own exemption. But then look at the grace in it. He that had this divine power said, “Notwithstanding, lest we should offend.” And there is one great point of our weakness. We do not know how to carry our privileges. We learn, for instance, about a church, we learn about grace, we learn to talk about both; but I would ask this—have we, and do we, carry with us, especially in the time of trial and grave action, the spirit that becomes those that are brought into such a place?

And more particularly now, when it is not only the church unfolded, but the church recovered, when we had basely forgotten it, when we had shared the sin of Christendom in going after all the institutions that they were pleased to make out here below—things fashioned according to the will of man for man’s own purposes, if not for man’s own glory. God has graciously recovered it, but have we not used it to adorn ourselves; and have we not used it oftentimes with a hard spirit towards those that have not had one hundredth part of the advantages that we possess? Is that grace? I do not believe it, and I am persuaded, therefore, that there ought to be a lowlier tone while holding fast the depth of grace that the Lord has shown to us, but a deeper sense of our own shortcomings, for the Lord surely judges us according to what we know, and not according to the ignorance of others. And do not we feel, beloved brethren, that there are many children of God at this moment that walk more faithfully and more humbly, according to their little light, than we do according to our much greater light?

And ought we not to be humble? I am sure we ought.

Well, here now was one in whom there was no question of failure at all, but there was failure in Peter, and he would show Peter, too, that the very fullest consciousness of glory, the very fullest consciousness of nearness to God, goes along with a consideration of others, and of other’s ignorance, too. They did not know the glory of the Son. They saw that He was a man; that He was a Jew. Well, the Lord did not stop to argue it, or to prove it with them. It is grace giving the knowledge of it to those that have faith; and now Peter was in the secret of it, and Peter was given to know that he, too, had a little of it, for the Lord was not making it known for His own glory. He had it from everlasting to everlasting; but now He was letting Peter know a little of it, and at once He shows the grace in which this glory acts here below in the midst of an unbelieving world. “Lest we should offend them, give them all they claim.” The Lord did not come to assert His glory, or to claim the obeisance of those that had not faith, but to teach those that had faith to walk in the power of His own grace as those who behold His glory. This then will suffice for the seventeenth chapter.

On the eighteenth I need not dwell, though there is just one point of importance that may claim a moment. “Then came Peter to him” (ver. 21), “and said, How oft shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Seven times?” He thought a great deal of that, but Jesus enlarges the sphere infinitely. “Jesus said to him, I say not seven times, but seventy times seven.” Here you see it was not merely grace with unbelievers who do not see his glory, but with a failing brother—the very thing in which we are apt ourselves to fail, because how often one hears, “Well, if he were not a brother one could understand better.” But this is a brother, and a very offending one too. What is the measure? What is the limit of grace? “Till seven times?” Until seventy times seven. It has no limit.

In the nineteenth and twentieth—the connection of the two the Lord throughout is vindicating the relationship of nature. By “nature” I mean the relationship which God has established here below. The Lord had suffered men to derange it somewhat. It was not true, as they said, that Moses commanded a bill of divorce. It was constantly used when a poor unhappy Jew wanted to be rid of his wife. “Moses suffered this,” He said, “because of the hardness of your hearts.” That is, the law was a state of things where man was on suffrance. It was not perfection; it was not the image of the mind of God at all. Christ is. Man was made after it, and soon failed. Christ really is the image of the invisible God, and Christ alone. And Christ, accordingly, brings out God’s glory in these things, and He shows how it was at the beginning. God did not make a man and two women, but “male and female created he them.” It was evident, therefore, from the very formation of man what God’s mind was.. And so another thing. He takes up the case of little children, slighted constantly by rabbis. They did not like the trouble of them, but the Lord paid special attention to them. I do not know anything that brings out the tender grace of the Lord more than this. He laid His hands upon them, and rebuked the disciples because of their spirit about them. And, further, He appreciated a fine character—the young man—even the man that did not follow Him, but liked his possessions too well. Yet the Lord looked upon him, as we are told in Mark, and loved him.

Well now, I say there we find nature in various forms, and the Lord’s feelings about it; but the whole point of the chapter is something superior to nature. It is not, therefore, that a Christian ought to speak slightingly of anything that is of God even in the creation. There is no reason for it—no ground whatever. You constantly find that when men are on a ground of rivalry they abuse one another; but if you are brought into an entirely different and higher ground altogether it is no question of finding fault—you are completely out of the scene. Well, that is the place into which the Christian is brought now. It is not lowering the relationships of nature, or speaking unbecomingly of anything of the kind; but you are brought into a new place altogether. So the Lord shows at the close of the chapter. He said, therefore, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven, which astonished these disciples who had regarded riches as a great sign of God’s favor. “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” But then, He explains, when they ask, “Who can then be saved?” because they thought that a rich man had far less temptation than a poor one. A poor man might be covetous, a poor one might forget God in the extremity of need. They thought a rich man would not have such temptations. No doubt it was a very poor and low view. “Who then can be saved? But Jesus said unto them, With man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

This then is the real truth of salvation, as it is, I may say, of everything Christian; for if it is not of God it is not Christian. The whole thing is founded upon what is not of nature—what is divine, what is heavenly; and that comes out far more in the epistles than even here. But the Lord brings it out as far as they could bear it themselves. “Then answered Peter, and said unto them, Behold, we have forsaken all and followed thee; and what shall we have? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye that have followed me in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne”: that is, it is not following—in the regeneration, but it is “in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” The regeneration means that new state of things that shall he brought in at the coming of Christ. The washing of regeneration now is in view of that state; that is, it is really a new condition, only not now brought in. It is only testimony; it is the washing; it is the word of God, and that which belongs to the word of God connected with it that supposes a new state of things; but it will be only displayed then. Well, when that new state shall come— “When the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” That is, you have the Lord fully acknowledging all fidelity. No man has ever done anything for the Lord for which the Lord will not—if I may say so—pay him back the capital with the best interest. “Surely every one that hath forsaken house, or lands, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake.” He does not here say, “For the gospel’s sake”; but it is so in Mark where it is wanted. There He brings the most comforting thing. He says that, instead of the gospel being a lower thing, it really is bound up with Himself. Here He says, “For my name’s sake,” and there He says, “For the gospel’s sake.” It is of all importance to bring in what Mark does—the word; but here it is the Christ, it is Himself. It is the Son of man, the rejected Christ; for that is the point of it. Those that follow Him in the day of His rejection will be with Him the sharers of His glory in the day of His power; “in the regeneration when he shall sit on the throne of his glory.” They shall receive a hundred-fold and shall inherit everlasting life.

Do we believe it, beloved brethren? I do not say that when our souls are fairly brought in contact with it we do not bow; but what I mean by believing is this: have we it as a living truth before our souls every day? No man, then, that has lost for Christ’s name sake but shall receive a hundredfold and shall inherit everlasting life.

“But many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first.” There is a solemn word. “But many that are first shall be last”; and I will tell you who particularly: those who think much of their losses and talk much about them. They are the very men that get weary of this trial, and the reason is plain. If they were filled with Christ they would not be talking about what they have done, and what they have lost; and I say that such persons, though they may not have been first, shall be last. But, thank God, He will always fill up. “The last shall be first.” A serious thing for both sides—blessed in one, but very humbling in the other.

But then the Lord adds another, because that would not give the full truth, and there is nothing more remarkable, beloved friends, than this in the word of God—the care to keep us from being one-sided. There is hardly a more common, or a more serious, danger, and I shall be so if I am occupied with that which clearly Peter was. “Behold,” he says, “we have forsaken all and followed thee. What shall we have therefore?” It was clear that Christ was not all to him at that moment. He was thinking about himself. But the Lord brings in another word. “For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a householder, which went out early in the morning to hire laborers in his vineyard.” And then we find him hiring at different hours of the day, on which we need not particularly dwell now. “And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour they received every man a penny,” or what we should call a shilling, if I may so say. That is, it was at that time a sort of day’s wages. That is, what was supposed to be necessary, and what was given for a day’s work of this kind. “When the first came they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. And when they had received it they murmured against the goodman of the house, saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us which have borne the burden and heat of the day. But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong; didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way; I will give unto this last even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?”

There is the secret. It is not merely a question, therefore, of righteousness in God. God is righteous, and He is not unrighteous to forget the work of faith and labor of love, but He always reserves the sovereignty of grace. He claims to be good, for He is good, and He knows therefore where to show this goodness; and further He will ask no man’s leave to show it. He will show it because He is God. If He is God He is good, and so He condemns these men. They were found out—the covetousness of their hearts. They were thankful to get their day’s wages for their day’s work, but the covetousness was stirred by men that had only labored for an hour. And why so? Because they could not enter into God’s title to be good—not merely to be righteous. The Lord stands to His righteousness as a question with them, but the Lord stands to His goodness as a question of whom He pleases. So He says, “Is thine eye evil, because I am good.” “So the last shall be first.” You see its reference now. It is not the first last. There was man’s breaking down, and man’s breaking down because he was a little presuming; but here is grace triumphant. “So the last shall be first, and the first last; for many be called but few chosen.”

Thus it is that the Lord meets what was in Peter’s heart, first bringing out the righteous ways of God, the full remembrance of everything, let it be soever small, that has been done for His name’s sake, even to a hundredfold repayment. But God never renounces His own title to sovereign grace. We have these two things—the one as a reward for labor; the other sovereign grace that will show the goodness of God where He pleases, when He pleases, and how He pleases. And may our hearts delight that so it should be, for He that delights in goodness will have his own heart formed accordingly. He that rises not above the reward will find that he has made but a losing bargain for his own soul. I do not speak merely of the future, but I do say that it is to take the very least and lowest way of God in His dealings. No doubt God acts always worthily of Himself, only our Wisdom is to enter into the deepening views that the Lord, and the Lord alone, could give at that time. Afterward God forms others according to Christ, and we have it wonderfully in His blessed apostle Paul, and in Peter too, but I do not enlarge now.

May the Lord bless these lessons of His own grace, and His own truth, for Christ’s sake.

[W. K.]

(To be continued)

The Dealings of God With Peter: 5. In the Gospels

John 13:1-11

What I hope to present to you tonight I may characterize in two or three words, the instruction and the warning. Here we have the instruction—the most weighty, practically, that the Lord had as yet set before Simon Peter. Undoubtedly there was that which was needed previously. His personal glory had been dawning more and more upon his heart. Correction, too, there had been before now, but here it is more the positive instruction that a saint wants as such upon the earth, and Simon Peter gave occasion for the Lord’s bringing it out just because he was so ready to give his opinion. Now, our opinions are always wrong. We never rightly can give an opinion, especially when we think to Whom, as in this case, we are giving it. Giving an opinion to Christ! Yet it was really that. No doubt it flowed out of a human sense of what seemed to him the incongruity of the Lord’s stooping down to wash his feet; but the truth is that it was always a question of the Lord’s stooping down. That was no new thing. That was just what characterized all His work here below. His appearance in the world, His coming here, His presence, His whole action—what was it? It was the service of love. No doubt it was here being brought out in a very distinct and evident manner. The service of love is always in action. It is not always so manifest; and it was the manifesting of it to Peter. Little did he know that he needed it, but. the Lord brought this all out—the depth of the need, and also the character of the need, for there is exceeding instruction in these few words of our Lord Jesus. But then we must have it settled in our souls as the first great lesson that comes out in this instruction of the Lord, and that is, that all our blessing flows from distrusting our thoughts, our words, our notions of what is suitable to Christ. All our blessing, I may say, is in appropriating Christ’s words. There is spirit, and there life; and what we are just learning now is to value them principally, to have perfect confidence in them, and to judge, therefore, all that rises from ourselves, all that comes from another, by this only standard.

Well, it is introduced in a way that is exceedingly striking. We see at once that it shows that it is the character of what belonged to the whole ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ in this world. “Before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end. And supper” —not “being ended,” for it was not begun. We must remember that this is not the thought. I daresay some of you are familiar already with it, but it is well to state it now, for no doubt there are a great many here that have never thought about it or its importance. It is really, “Supper time being come.” That is the true force of the word. Their feet were not washed after supper, but before it. Any one can see that upon the very face of it. It was always the custom, and the Lord did not depart from that. The only thing that was so singular on our Lord’s part was not that the feet were washed, but that He was the washer. That, indeed, was singular—that it should be He. If He had been only the master and they the disciples, it would have been different; but we learn who He was: “Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God and went to God” —Himself the Holy One, as holy when He went back from a world of sin as when He came into it from God.

And this was just exactly what filled His heart—the last resort of the devil, the last depth into which man’s heart could be drawn by sin, being before His eyes. “The devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him.” There was what Satan was goading on the hapless man to do. But here was what filled Christ at that very time. “Having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them to the end.” He was going, but He was going in the same unspotted holiness that belonged to His nature as divine, and which was suitable to the One to whom the Father gave all things; for we have both His intrinsic glory and His conferred. “He riseth from supper and laid aside his garments, and took a towel and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a basin.” For you must remember that what is referred to here is the washing of water by the word, and only this. Washing by blood is a most important truth, but it is not here. It is supposed at the end of the chapter at least the work is supposed on which the washing with blood is founded. But in the early part of the chapter there is no allusion to any washing whatever but the washing of water.

Now I dare say that it may, perhaps, have not occurred to all, because we have been too apt to think that there is just a distinction between being washed with blood at the beginning and being washed with water afterward, but that is only part of the truth, for the fact is we are born of water just as much as we are washed with water. When we are first brought to God we are born of water and of the Spirit, and this is alluded to as the groundwork of what the Lord was doing now. Of course, it was not a question for the disciples to be born of water. They were already clean, as the Lord tells them, but not all. There was one that was not born of water; the very one of whom Satan, therefore, took advantage, and the more so because he was so near Christ. For there is nothing that so precipitates man’s destruction, who has not got life from God, as being near Christ; for when one ventures into the presence of Christ not to receive life, but to prosecute one’s own will, one’s own plans, one only becomes the prey of Satan, and in the form too of direct antagonism to the Son of God. That was the case with Judas Iscariot. He had no such intention, but the truth is—man is never master. The very time that man seeks to be his own master is when he is most of all a slave of Satan. It is simply a question of whether God is master of me, or Satan is, but I am never master, never, nor intended to be. Contrary this is, of course, to all truth before a man is converted, but still more that which one’s soul abhors when one is converted; because, if I am converted, what is it to do? It is to serve the living and true God. It is to be a servant, no doubt, to be a child, to be a son, but only the better to serve. There is no such service as the service of the child. Here we have it in all its perfection in our Lord Jesus Christ; and so now, out of this intimacy of love and this height of glory, He takes the basin and begins to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel wherewith He was girded.

Well, Simon Peter was astonished, but why? Simon Peter, will you never learn? Will you never learn to be quiet? Will you never learn to distrust yourself? Now is not that one of the great things, beloved friends, that we have got to learn? Is it not a thing in which we have constantly to challenge ourselves, because this is the very thing in which we have been so often wrong? Yes, just because we so little know what it is to walk in the consciousness of the presence of God. We are in the presence of God; we are brought there; we are walking in the light; but it does not follow that we are consciously there. And there is just the very difference, and there is where spiritual power depends upon it, because levity in the thought of our being brought into the presence of God to me is much worse than the case of the poor Christian who does not know that he is brought into the presence of God. For a man to take up the idea that to be brought into God’s presence and to be walking in the light is just a mere sound, a mere privilege, a mere thing about which to say, “How near I am, and how blest I am!” —what a wretched state! No, it is meant to exercise the soul before God. It is meant to be a thing to recall us to what we are doing, what we are saying, nay, what we think, what we feel, because God necessarily notices all, and God will have us to take notice of all. It is the effect of the light of God consciously felt that we take up for the Lord, in desire for His glory what passes within us.

Was this so with Peter? He had no thought of it. No doubt he is much more excusable than we, because he had no such knowledge, and, as yet, no one had. The fact is that it is redemption that brings to God in the way of which I have been speaking, and it is the Holy Ghost given since redemption that gives us the consciousness of it. “At that time ye shall know,” as the Lord says, “that I am in the Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” And so it is as to this consciously walking in the light of which I have been speaking.

So Peter, then, turns to the Lord with this word, “Lord, dost thou wash my feet?” It did seem such an inversion of all that Peter thought natural. To be sure it is. It is super-natural, and we should get that settled, beloved friends, in our souls; that we are brought into what is supernatural every day, that it is not merely for a little moment on the Lord’s day morning, if even then it is realized, but that we are brought into this atmosphere habitually, and that we are intended to be acting upon it when others, perhaps, only know that it is a Christian man acting righteously. But it is not that. A Christian man will not act righteously by merely intending to act righteously. A Christian man only acts according to God when he is acting upon His holy principles. Now it is not merely a question, therefore, of righteousness; it is a question of Christ. A Jew was bound to act righteously, but we—we have Christ, and, more than that, we have the Holy Ghost, now that Christ has died and risen, to give us the consciousness of this association with Him. But Peter did not know this, only it was certainly a forgetfulness. I am bound always to assume that whatever the Lord does, whatever the Lord says, is the only right thing, the only thing that is worthy of Himself, and there was where Peter was wrong. It was not a mere question of intelligence, but surely there ought to have been this, just as in ourselves who are still more inexcusable if we fail. But even Peter ought to have started with this. I do not say it proudly, and God forbid that we should speak disrespectfully of Peter, because you must remember that we are just as much called upon to have respectful feelings and language about the dead as the living. I have not the smallest sympathy with persons that talk slightingly of those that the Lord has put honor upon, no matter where or who they are.

Well now Peter ought to have said, “If the Lord stoops down to wash my feet, it must be because His love is concerned, His glory is concerned, the will of His God and Father is concerned, and, more than that, it is needful for me”; because all our wants only give occasion to bring out the Lord’s grace and to manifest His glory, and who, then, would wish to be without that? It is not, therefore, a question of whether it suits me. I am sure I need it, but it is not a question of whether it suits me, but whether it suits Him. “Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered, and said to him, What I do, thou knowest not now.” Peter had not learned his lesson. The Lord was instructing him. “What I do, thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter.” But still he is dull, and he is guilty of what is even worse now, for he could not wait. There is where we fail most of all as Christians—that impatience, that haste, and yet, beloved friends, it is not for want of God’s telling us. “He that believeth shall not make haste.” This is not merely a New Testament truth, but an old one that ought to have been very familiar to Peter. It was familiar enough in the scripture, but it was not familiar to his soul. He did not apply it to himself. He forgot it where he ought most to have remembered it; where it was Christ that had him in His presence. He therefore says, “Thou shalt never wash my feet.” Rash man! Christ—Christ bend down to wash his feet! And Peter say to Christ, “Thou shalt never wash my feet”! Did not the Lord know better? Why should Peter hinder? Did Peter know? Clearly not. The Lord had just told him, “Thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter.” As a humble man he surely ought to have bowed.

But that is where we fail too, and I do not believe that we judge sufficiently our failure to take in the light of the word of God. For God constantly speaks to us, speaks to us every day it is to be supposed, and we read His word, and what is that but that He is speaking to us in His word, and are we not brought sometimes to this very thing? No doubt it is so, without out uttering words, for we would not say that we find any fault in the word of God, but still, we constantly show our want of reverence for the word by turning away from that which we do not enjoy, instead of looking up and remembering that what we do not know now we shall know hereafter. The Lord is teaching, and the very portions too that we turn from sometimes in our stupidity and want of deference to the Lord—want of confidence and thorough faith in the value of every word He has written—may be the very thing I most want in conflict with Satan. Certainly, it was what Peter wanted, and wanted very soon, as we shall see. He says, “Thou shalt never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I wash thee not thou hast no part with me.” At once he turns round, and from having wished that his feet should not be touched by our Lord, should not be washed by Him, Peter now says, in a kind of despair at what he had said, “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.” But the Lord puts everything in its place in the next few words. “He that is washed” —and He changes the word. This washing is not exactly the same thing as washing his feet. “He that is bathed” (as it is familiarly known), “He that is bathed” (washed all over—the whole person). Now that is when we are born of water and the Spirit: that is the mighty work of God. But when we are converted it is not merely that we receive Christ, or rest upon His blood—that is perfectly true—but the word of God enters our souls and deals with us as altogether unclean before God, and consequently there is a new life that is given that judges the old.

Now that is the bathing that is referred to here. The old man is dead. It is not merely dealing with a particular sin, but it is the whole life of sin; nay, more, it is the whole state of sin. The man is born again. He has got a new life, and this is so true that the old one he is in due time taught to regard not as himself at all. That was himself, but now, “Not I, but Christ.” He is born anew, born afresh, and this so completely that he is entitled to treat the other as a thing only to be dealt with, to be mortified, indeed, to treat himself as dead to it; for you see this word that enters is a quickening word. It is Christ Himself, and not merely Christ’s blood. It is Christ Himself judging whatever is of Adam, whatever is of man. It is Christ Himself therefore giving a life that is according to God; that can appreciate, that can understand, God; that can feel according to God. Consequently, it is the root of all that is according to God, on which the Holy Ghost acts afterward in the Christian; that new nature which is begotten of God.

This then is what the Lord refers to here, “He that is washed.” But then He goes farther, “Needeth not save to wash his feet,” and whether it be the bathing of the person, or the washing of the feet, you must remember carefully, and it never was of greater moment than now to remember it, that it is water and not blood. The blood is most true and absolutely necessary, for “this is he that came by water and blood, not by water only, but by water and blood.” The two are most true, but here you have only the bathing on first being brought to God, and next the application of water afterward by the word to deal with whatever impurity there may be acquired in our walking through the world.

Hence this is what our Lord was insisting upon with Peter. Peter took the ground that, because he was of God, he did not need to have his feet washed by Christ. Christ, on the contrary, insisted that unless He washed him—washed his feet, that is, even as a believer, as a disciple, as one that had new life, “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.” I refer not to the original washing, but to that which is done day by day in our passage through this world; that is, it is not merely a question of life, but of having a portion with Christ. It is not merely a question of having it by and by, but of having it now. He was going on high, and there is one of the wonders of Christianity: it gives the believer a present part with Christ. No doubt that is just the token and loving pledge of an eternal part with Christ; but I do not think that it is merely the eternal that is referred to here. Rather it is the letting us in now, and the making good now of what is eternal in its own character and consequence. And that again is another truth that characterizes Christianity very much more largely than this particular part of it—that is, that we are even now, according to its own nature, associated with Christ before God. He has gone there, but He would not go there till our sins could be forgiven by virtue of His blood.

But more than this, He would secure our having a present enjoyment, a present fellowship and communion with Himself where He is gone into the presence of God. And I do not believe that we ever have the proper measure for our walking, the standard of what we are to cultivate, unless we enter into this, that it is not merely a cleansing for our heart—the Jewish people will have that by and by in the millennium, and will have such a cleansing as will suit them as God’s people on the earth; but that is not what characterizes the Christian—it is the practical cleansing, to have communion with Him where He is gone, suitably to God and His presence while we are here on the earth. That is the meaning of the washing of the feet, and the object of it. “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.” It is not exactly “a part in me,” for that he had. Life is, as far as that goes, a part in Christ; but the Lord will give us more than that. In virtue of our having life, or along with it at any rate, He will also give us this proof of His own perfect love and desire. For there is nothing that shows the perfection of love more than this—the One that loves us entering the highest and most glorious place that is conceivable, and fitting us for present association with that place where He is gone; and this is what Christ would give us the sense of while we are passing through this world. No wonder Peter could not understand it then. His fault was impatience, not his want of intelligence, but his want of confidence in the Lord and of waiting to learn.

[W. K.]

(To be continued)

The Dealings of God With Peter: 6. In the Gospels

( John 13:1-11 Continued)

This then is the great instruction that the Lord was giving His servant at this time. “He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit,” every whit; and that cleanness every whit, I repeat, is not merely the effect of being washed with blood. Washed with blood meets what our sins are; what we want as having sinned before God—before God. But it does not meet all that we want as giving us communion with God, and there is where the word comes in, and the importance of the word, and of the Holy Ghost’s applying the word. Because God will bring us to a common mind with Himself, and a common hatred with Himself of the evil that characterizes ourselves. God will give us a settled sense of it so that we hate it according to His own hatred of it, and that we, too, consequently, have an entrance into the good into which Christ has gone, because that was the effect of it. It is all founded upon the going in there where there is no evil, and we are brought into association—in short, have a part with Him now—by this very cleansing which deals with every impurity that is contracted every day.

Now this has, as I might almost say, dropped out of Christendom (I dare say there are some here that know a little of what is commonly taught), for I really could not tell, and I have read not a little on these subjects, but I really could not tell of any person, or of any work, that has ever set forward this most important truth. In short, the great mass of God’s children at the present day are just where Peter was then; that is, they have not the sense to see, they have not the sense, by the Spirit of God, to see the greatness of the love of Christ in giving them a portion with Himself where He is now. They have no thought of it. Consequently, you find that they are very little fitted for it by and by. This, on the contrary, falls in completely with what we find in the Epistles; that is we are “made meet for the inheritance of the saints in light.” But supposing there comes in something that is inconsistent. Well there is the washing of the feet.

There is the dealing with whatever is practically inconsistent with it, and bringing our souls back, restoring us to communion, that is, that there should not be an inconsistency between our standing in Christ and our practical walk here below; nay, nor our thoughts or feelings, because there is power. Quite granted that our hearts naturally are a fountain of all evil; but then there is such a thing as the heart being purified by faith. There is such a thing as the Spirit of God filling the inner man with the thoughts of Christ, and it is in this way. It is not by changing the evil, it is not by removing the evil yet—that will be at the coming of Christ; but it is by giving power to the good. It is by strengthening the new man, and feeding and filling the new man with God’s grace, God’s truth, with Christ, in short, practically. It is all this that fills, and, consequently, strengthens the new man.

And so it is that one is divided, as the apostle says, into “spirit, soul, and body” —constituting the whole man. It is not, I repeat, the extinction of evil, or the disappearance of it, but it is judged. Our old man is crucified with Christ, and a person knows the force of another word of the apostle Paul—that is, if Christ be in you, what then? Why, he tells us that in that case—in the eighth of Romans—there is this treating ourselves as “dead because of sin,” and “alive because of righteousness.” The Spirit is alive, you see, as he says; that is, the body is dead because of sin, and I am entitled to treat it as a mere instrument. If I allow the body to be active, and to have its way, it is always self, because then it guides me, then it takes possession of me, carries me off with itself, so to speak; and that is just what one is not to do if Christ be in you. “If Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin.” If I do not act upon my being dead with Christ, but allow it activity as a living thing, then it works its own way and serves sin, because that is not changed. And, on the other hand, if I do treat it thus as dead, the Spirit is life. It is not only that I have got life in Christ, but the Spirit is life. The Holy Ghost acts in practical power, and He is life because of righteousness, and it is only thus that there is this practical working either in the having done with sin or of the righteousness of God below.

Well here, then, we have this great instruction from our Lord Jesus. At the end of the chapter we touch upon what I shall a little unfold from another scripture—the warning. The Lord introduces it after He has brought out His own death. When Judas is gone, the Lord has the whole scene before Him. “Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.” It is not merely the Father, but God, and God, as such, being glorified always supposes sin judged. It brings, therefore, the death of Christ in the judgment of sin—the solemn judgment of sin—before us. “If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him,” which He did by setting Him at His own right hand directly after His death and resurrection when He ascended to heaven. Instead of waiting for the kingdom and bringing in the Jew, He glorified Him straightway. All this, you see, is essentially connected with what is peculiar to Christianity. And then He tells them, “Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me; and, as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go ye cannot come, so now I say to you. A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”

Peter again, too, quick to speak to the Lord, says, “Whither goest thou?” Jesus answers him, “Whither I go thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterward.” How gracious! How gracious to tell him of his incapacity before His death, and of that following which will be a most sure consequence, brought by the gracious power of God and made true to his soul. “Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake.” It was not that he was insincere. I doubt whether there ever was a sincerer soul than Simon Peter. And it is not in our insincerity, it is not there that our folly lies, but the very contrary, because we trust self in some shape or another. “Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice.”

I will turn, then, to a further warning—a truth that the Lord presents to us of very great moment —that we may have it fully before us. In the 22nd chapter of Luke, and the 31St verse, “And the Lord said, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee.” You observe the change. “Satan hath desired to have you.” It was not merely Simon, although he addresses Simon, but he desired to have them all. “But I have prayed for thee.” Why “for thee”? Why not merely “for you”? Because Satan was making a dead set at Simon, and what gave Satan the opportunity was this—Simon’s self-confidence. Confidence in what, beloved friends? In his natural character? Not at all; no, but in his love for the Lord. If his confidence had been in the Lord’s love to him it would have been a very different matter. Had that been actively—been distinctly —before his soul, he would have weighed the Lord’s warning; but he really was so sure that he loved the Lord so much, that, no matter what the trial was, he could go through it. He did not believe the others could. We may be tolerably good judges of others, beloved friends; we are very had judges of ourselves. Cannot we see that in Simon? Can we see it in ourselves? “I have prayed for thee,” said He who had all truth and whose love was going out, and most of all, for the man that was most dishonoring Him. Why so? Was dishonor a light thing? No, but His love was great and most real. And by whom and for whom is love most brought out? Where there is most need—the deepest need. “I have prayed for thee.”

And mark, Simon Peter heard it from His own lips before he went astray. If he had not, we have no right to say that he would have been restored as he was. We know that he was, restored, but God uses means, and one of the great means of restorative power for our souls is the love that we knew before we went astray. There is nothing that gives the heart more of rebound back to the Lord, and of horror at ourselves, than the very fact that the Lord told us so fully, so distinctly, before we went astray. “I have prayed for thee.” Do you think that Peter forgot that— “I have prayed for thee”?—because it would not have done if He had said, “I have prayed for you.” That is all true about you generally, but it is “thee” — “I have prayed for thee.” No, he never forgot it. He never forgot it in the hour of his need. I do not say in the hour of his wanting it; I do not say in the moment of his sin; but I do say that, when the horror of the sin filled his soul with despair, these words would he, and no doubt were, brought up by God’s Spirit before his soul. “I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not.” Neither did it. His faithfulness did, but not his faith. We have no reason to believe, beloved friends, that he wavered as to the Person, or that he wavered about Christ’s great love to him, but—Peter was occupied with man. This we shall see another evening, for I am only going to speak of the warning, to-night.

“That thy faith fail not,” then, is the word; “and when thou art converted,” that is, turned back again to the Lord. It is the very same word that is used about one’s first turn, only Scripture does not limit it to that. The word “converted” is very much, in our common language, applied to the first turning to God, but we must remember that in Scripture it has a larger force, and means the turning again, even if one has gone astray, and that is exactly the meaning of it here. This is, therefore, what we commonly term restoration of soul, rather than conversion, but it is the very same word which applies to both. “When thou art turned to me” (if you please, or any word that would express that, just to vary it from our common usage) “strengthen thy brethren.”

The very fact of his being an object of such grace, and that power which drew him back again, would give confidence not only to him, but to them. He would be an instrument suited to the Lord, so little is it true that God does not restore a man—that you are not to trust a man who has once broken down. Why here is the most honored of God. We must not suppose, beloved friends, that saints are like horses. If a horse once falls he breaks his knees, no doubt. But is it possible that I have such a poor conception of divine grace as to think that? I dare say the figure has been very often used just in the opposite way. One would have thought that these words of our blessed Lord would have arrested the lips that said so. Not so; not so. Peter not only broke down then, but he broke down in another sense as seriously, for he failed as completely about the Gentiles after he had had a special commission to open the door to the Gentiles. He failed as completely about that as he failed here about Christ; but, for all that, there was no person—unless it be the apostle Paul himself—that was more used of God in strengthening his brethren. I think it a serious thing to weaken the spring of confidence in a soul that has slipped aside. I do not say that in order to weaken the gravity of slipping aside; but I do say that we must be zealous for the grace of God, and we must be faithful to the word of God; and we must take care that we do not, therefore, enfeeble a manifest truth of God that comes out as, for instance, in this very case. “When thou art converted’’—or, restored— “strengthen thy brethren.”

Now that is pre-eminently what we find in the Epistles of Peter—all through them both, I should say. Of course, they are not confined to that, neither does it refer to what he wrought, but it is a general reference to the character of his ministry. It was not only a confirming ministry; it was not only one that converted souls, but, as far as his brethren were concerned, it was one calculated eminently to strengthen, and this most clearly from the way in which God had taught him the grace of the Lord Jesus. No doubt it is a better thing to be strong in the grace of the Lord Jesus, so as not to slip aside; but the next best thing is that we have so profited by a slip, if we have been careless and unwatchful, that we have drunk more deeply into the grace of God than we ever did before. And surely, out of that, we are able to strengthen one another. So it was here. “He said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison and to death. And he said, I tell thee, Peter” (for here we resume from where I left off in John) “the cock shall not crow this day before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me. And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now he that hath a purse let him take it, and likewise his scrip.” It was no longer to be miraculous power, or miraculous opening the door of any one for them. There was no longer to be that. There had been that in their previous testimony. I do not believe that sending them in this new form of testimony was lower ground. There was less of wonder about it, but I do not believe, beloved friends, that the walk of faith is less because it is not clothed with miraculous power.

Why, look at the Corinthians. There were plenty of miracles there. Were they spiritual? Far from it. It is, therefore, a complete delusion to suppose that miracles of themselves show spirituality. I should say, on the contrary, it requires a great deal of grace to carry the power or miracle, so to speak—a great deal of grace—and that is precisely what I should gather from it, and I have no doubt that it is one of the reasons why the Lord did not continue miracles long—because the state of the church would not bear it. He, at the same time, did show that even in that state, a bad state in a particular quarter did not hinder miracle; but certainly it in no way implied spiritual power in the use of miracle. It was, therefore, a very good reason why, and 1 have no doubt there were moral reasons which God, of course, could alone adequately judge of, why He withheld them longer. But, however that may be, now they were to be cast upon God’s caring for His people in more ordinary ways. It was to be no longer a going in the name of the great King, and the disciples armed with power in every possible way as the vouchers of the King’s presence—the Messiah’s presence. They had had that. “But now,” He says, “he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” But to guard against any thought of this being meant in a mere literal way—to show that it was meant only as the sign of the ordinary safeguards and means of daily life—this comes out. “And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.”

Now that very thing shows that He did not mean it literally, because two swords would be a very poor provision or eleven disciples—that is quite evident. If it had been eleven swords one could understand, but the fact of the Lord saying that two swords are enough shows at once that it was quite a mistake to interpret it in the mere literal sense; and we see that those who took it literally made a very bad use of it in a little while, and Peter is the very man.

But that is not what I am going to draw your attention to now, but this—that when the Lord leads them out to the mount of Olives, and the disciples follow Him, when He was at the place He said unto them, “Pray that ye enter not into temptation.” This is a very serious thing. It is just as true as another word that we might not be able to put along with it, and that is, “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation.” No, it is blessed to fall into temptation, but it is never blessed to enter into temptation. There is all the difference between entering into temptation and enduring temptation. And there was exactly what Peter had to learn most bitterly—to enter into temptation. Now the man that endures temptation is the man that prays before the temptation comes. He does not enter into it. When it comes he is blest; he endures. Peter did not. Peter entered; that is to say, that the entrance into temptation shows that there is a want of sense of danger—a want of sense that I need God, that I need God now. No doubt there is. But if the Lord tells me that temptation is at hand, and I do not pray, it is evident that I am not depending upon God; and so, instead of falling into temptation, the temptation, on the contrary, if I may say so, falls upon me, and, more than that, I enter into it instead of enduring it. The endurance of temptation is when the person suffers, and suffers because he does not yield. The entrance into temptation is when he does yield because he does not pray; because he is not in. dependence upon God, for there was exactly what was now coming out. “Pray that ye enter not into temptation.” He did not pray, and he did enter into temptation.

How different was it with the Lord! “And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down and prayed, saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless, not my will but thine he done. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.” Now there was the Savior — “And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly” the only one that it might have seemed temptation could not affect, temptation could not ensnare. And so it was most true: there was nothing that was assailable by temptation inwardly, nothing whatever; but, for that very reason, He knew what it was to suffer being tempted. Peter did not. Peter, on the contrary, gratified himself, as we shall see, when I come to show his fall; but that must remain for another night. I am only going to speak of the warning, as well as the instruction—the instruction that was so soon before, the warning that so soon followed. I shall show that the fall just as quickly followed, and the restoration in due time. But in the Lord’s case there was the depth of entrance—not into the temptation. He did not enter into temptation, but the Lord weighed it all, felt it all. The Lord had all the bitterness, all the sense of it, but a thing outside. And how? Because He took the gravity of it. He felt the reality of it in His own spirit before God. He always did, no matter whether it was a question of a temptation that was presented to Him by the adversary. And He had gone through that before. There had been temptation in the pleasant form. There was the temptation to seek that which God had not given, and the Lord refused. But now there was temptation in a totally different form—the endurance of what was most painful. And what was anything that could befall Peter compared with that which was before the Lord? For it is the greatest mistake to suppose that it was merely death. It was such a death as He alone could know, and the Lord therefore does go through the whole scene in spirit with God.

“And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was at it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow.” But this was not the sorrow of grace: this was really selfish sorrow. They were sorrowing at what they were going to lose; at all this distress that was coming on. It was not the true sorrow of grace that felt the seriousness of the moment, and that took warning from the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. “He found them sleeping for sorrow, and said unto them, Why sleep ye? Rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before.”

Now it is not my intention to-night to go farther than that which I have now presented to you; but I believe that we have here the very thing that resulted in the speedy fall of Peter. We shall see the character of that—the way in which grace met and surmounted it, and restored this beloved one to God, and that will close the discourses that I am about to give upon this subject.

[W. K.]

The Dealings of God With Peter: 7. In the Gospels

Luke 22:50-62

I have chosen the account that is given in the Gospel of Luke rather than that of Matthew or Mark, because the Spirit of God presents it very particularly in its moral links. In John, on which I shall dwell afterward, all turns upon the person of the Lord Jesus, and we shall find, I think, this difference, when we come to look at it. But here the human heart is opened more; there the glory of the One who was making Himself known. Now the results of what we have already had before us begin to appear. The temptation has come, and Peter enters into it. We always do enter, where we are not found in prayer before the temptation. Then we are surprised. The Lord, on the contrary, had been in prayer, and He only makes the difficulty and the trial, when it came, an opportunity of manifesting the grace of God. Hence, therefore, when one of the persons that came to take the Lord—one of the servants of the high priest—presented himself, he became an object for one of the disciples. This was Peter. His very love for the Lord—his indignation—broke forth. It is not that the others were not just as ready to fall as Peter, for that is the solemn thing that appears. Our very love for His person, our very fervor of spirit, instead of being a preservative power, where there is not self-judgment, exposes one to go farther astray. Here it was, first of all, in the shape of violence. “He smote the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear.” Thus the Lord’s warning fell entirely powerless upon Peter; and in such a state of mind—and that is the importance of it—one perverts the word of God.

I do not doubt myself that Peter thought the sword was in his hand for the purpose. Had not the Lord spoken about taking a sword? And so, you will find, we are as dependent upon God for the use of His word. We cannot do without it. just as much as we need the word, so do we need the Spirit of God; but this is never given unless there be that dependence upon Him that goes forth in prayer, and, I repeat, in prayer not at the moment. Indeed, the moment was come for action or suffering. To Peter it was a question of action: to the Lord it was suffering. The Lord bows. It was no question now of any action, except, indeed, of repairing the mischief that Peter had done. This the Lord always does; and so He touched the servant’s ear and healed him. And this is a statement admirably finding its place in the very Gospel from which I have read, because Luke shows us the heart of man, or even of a saint, that is searched and found wanting where there has not been self-emptiness, where there has been self-confidence; and undoubtedly this was the case. And further, too, I am not in the least denying spiritual feeling and affection. They were sleeping for sorrow, but why? Why sleeping? The sorrow was all well, but why sleeping for sorrow? They ought to have been praying in sympathy with our Lord. They ought to have been in fellowship with Him. Not so; they found a sort of resource and relief in going to sleep when the Lord was calling them to watch, if it was only for the one hour. But there was no watching at all, any more than prayer: they went to sleep.

Now, when the Lord goes forth, in the calmness of one who had gone through the trial with God before the trial came, He is perfect calmness. Yet we know what was before Him. We know how He had felt it. There was the One that had been in the agony. There was the One that had been sweating, as it were, great drops of blood. Not a trace of it now. He had gone through with God. Satan now was to go through with Peter. Satan had carried completely away in the case of Judas. I do not mean that he was to carry Peter away as he had done Judas, but certainly it was to sift. As the Lord Himself said, Satan desired to have him that he might sift him as wheat; and this was now going on, so that Peter shows out himself. His way of sheaving his love for Christ was by taking a sword to cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant. Poor Peter! Not an atom of fellowship with the mind of God at that moment, nor, indeed, at any moment, as far as the Lord Jesus was concerned. It was entirely out of the current of the thoughts of God, and yet we cannot doubt that he might have found a sort of reason for it, as I have said, in a misuse of the very word of the Lord.

And this is a solemn lesson to us that the word of God itself will never guide a person aright until the spring of self is broken; until a person has judged himself before God, and is found, above all, with the loins girt with truth before he takes up the sword. When it is taken up afterward it is the sword of the Spirit, and not a material one to cut off an enemy’s ear.

Now here, then, we see the difference, first of all, but there was a far more solemn one afterward; for they go a little farther. When the elders and captains and the rest take the Lord, and lead and bring Him into the high priest’s house, Peter follows. We are told in the Gospel of John that he was not alone. Nay, John tells us; and it is beautiful that it should be so. How lovely are these traces of grace! He had seen the One that was full of grace and truth. What was the effect of it? A spirit of grace in himself. But it is John that tells the story of his own folly, his own selfishness, his own worldliness, for John went there rather in the capacity of a friend of the high priest—an acquaintance at any rate than as a follower of the Lord Jesus. That does not come before us here; indeed, it was reserved to himself to tell it. Now, was not that like the way of God? It had been a long time. Why tell a story that was so old? Perhaps there was not a single person in the whole world that knew it then—none but John. But John lived long enough to bring this out himself in his own word.

Here, however, we have the story of Peter pursued. “Peter followed afar off. And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them.” It was a little of that same spirit that we have the Lord warning against eating and drinking with the drunkard; that is, it was an association with the men of the world when they were set upon deepest enmity against the Lord Jesus, and with motives, in some respects, a little like themselves. I do not mean as regards the Lord, but all that was secret in his heart towards the Lord was entirely unknown. And who was the person that concealed it? Peter. He feared the world. He feared the men among whom he found himself. It was the spirit of the world. There is nothing that so destroys confession as fear of the world, and it is evident that this was the case. He had got with the world on its own ground. He wanted, no doubt, to see what was going on. I do not say that there were not deeper and better things at the bottom of his heart, but he did it in concealment. He was off the ground of faith. Here was another fruit of his not watching even one hour—of his failure in prayer when the Lord called him to pray.

And so the trial came—a new kind of trial, not now of patience; but here the question was, Would he confess? The occasion soon came. “A certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him and said, This man was also with him.” Now there was nothing violent; there was no strong language; but it was too much for Peter. It was—what? beloved friends. Association with Christ? He was ashamed of his Master. Oh, what a solemn thing! It was not that he did not love his Master, but he feared even this servant-maid. So mighty is the spirit of the world when we are off the ground of faith, and when we have failed in prayer before the temptation comes.

So he denied, saying, “Woman, I know him not.” It was not only a failure in confession: it was a lie! I know there are many Christians who think that a believer never can tell a lie. I pity them! One’s feeling always is, You are going to fail in that which you think impossible. You are going to fall into a lie yourself, and just because you do not believe it possible. “Woman, I know him not.” Nor was this all. “And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not. And about the space of one hour” —for God did not permit all to come in a few moments. No, He will have it made most plain. He would have the awful consequence of neglecting the word of the Lord in prayer. He would have a total humiliation of His servant; and so it was, for now it is bitter aggravation that, although, of course, conscience must have been at work, he must have known perfectly the sin against his Master, and the lie, as a mere question of morality. “And about the space of one hour after, another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilan. And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest.”

Oh, beloved friends, what are we apart from Christ? The worth of every Christian is just the measure in which he has Christ, practically, as his life. I am not now speaking of a person being brought to heaven by blood. No doubt the two things go together; but I do say that all that is precious in a saint of God—all that one can speak of as giving pleasure and satisfaction—is that which gives pleasure and satisfaction to God. And we must remember this. It is no question of character: you cannot trust flesh. Character you may count upon in a man of the world, but never trust it in a Christian. God will not allow character to reap the praise. God will not sustain a person according to his character. Who would have expected this from Peter? Peter may never have been guilty of anything of the kind in his life, even about the common transactions of the world, or about other persons. It is quite evident, from what we see of him in his ordinary ways, that Peter was in no way a man of deceitful character. If one looks at Rebecca, one is not surprised that the sister of Laban should be full of her plans and tricks and ways. And one is not surprised, again, that Jacob should savor of the family character. One sees that there were ways that were unworthy, bearing a most suspicious resemblance to his mother. Well, there, I say, it is his natural character; but not so with Peter; and I think that these two things are of great importance; that is, that natural character has a great deal to do where it is a question of the enemy, but natural character is a very small thing with the Spirit of God.

[W. K.]

(To be continued)

The Dealings of God With Peter: 8. In the Gospels

LUKE 22:50-62 (continued)

Now, there is an immense comfort in this, because, supposing I know that my natural character fails in this way or that, there is a ground to take care; there is a ground where I have got peculiarly to watch it. On the other hand, there is the greatest comfort in knowing that, whatever may be one’s failure, what Christ has formed is not merely a question of developing one’s character, or patching up what is wrong. It is the forming what is entirely new. It is the new man that the Spirit of God is occupied in bringing out, and in exercising according to the will and word of God. And, hence, therefore, whatever might have been one’s defects, whatever might be the horrible evil of one’s nature —I am speaking now of that which one may painfully know in one’s natural character—it has nothing at all to do with the Spirit of God. He is above it. He is sovereign. He forms what is utterly wanting, and makes a person remarkable for the very opposite of what he is naturally; so that, you see, one gets a double advantage in this way—all the comfort of what grace can do on the one hand, and all the profit of the humiliation of what we feel ourselves to be, and what exposes us to the enemy.

Well, then, there is another thing, and that is that, when a man is a Christian, one never can tell what Satan will try, where one is unwatchful — to drag one down in the last thing that could be expected. There you cannot predict, but this you may safely predict—that Satan will throw a person down in the very thing in which he thinks it impossible. There never was a man that had greater confidence that day than Peter—that it was impossible for him to deny his Master. His Master had told him that he was to do it, and solemnly warned him. He did not believe Him; therefore, he fell. And, not believing Him, he did not pray—there was another thing, and the outer failure is always the manifestation of the inward one. Everything that is blessed in the Christian is the fruit of prayer with God in secret. I am speaking now not, of course, of how souls are brought to God: I am speaking of the way in which God manifests the traits of grace in those that are His. Hence the all-importance of the word of God and prayer. In these very particulars Peter had broken down.

But mark, now, the beginning of his restoration. We have seen his fall. I have now a happier task—to trace the ways of grace in restoring the soul of Peter.

“The Lord turned and looked upon Peter; and Peter remembered the word of the Lord”; for it is always the point of failure that is taken up, and the first part of Peter’s failure was that he slighted the word of the Lord. He really did not believe Him about himself and about his danger, although he did believe in Him as to His own glory, and had given various proofs of his faith in Him, but he did not believe in Him practically, that is, as to his own peril at that moment. Now he realized what a fool he had been. Now he realized, in a little measure—for it was not anything like complete how profound the sin and shame that he had put upon the Lord Jesus. “And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.” It was repentance, but it was only the beginning of repentance; for repentance, beloved brethren, does not merely mean sorrow, however genuine, for one’s sin. Repentance, in a Christian particularly, goes a great deal more deeply into the matter, and we shall find that the Lord, in his very love to Peter, would have it deep. He meant it to be a work never to be forgotten. He meant the fruit of this to appear by His own grace. He meant other souls to be blest; for what cannot grace do? Out of the eater, as we know, comes forth meat, and out of the strong sweetness. That is, grace is always sovereign, always free. Hence the Lord delights at just the very last moment when we could expect it. But what you expect is not grace. Grace is always above any inference that can be drawn, except, indeed this—if I have learned what God is, I have learned, it may be, to infer that God must always act worthily of Himself.

Well, I do not call that, of course, mere reason. Reasoning is the other way. The reasoning of man is from himself—it may be to God—and hence it is always wrong. The true way of reasoning is from God to man, and not from man to God. Well, this is just exactly where we fail; but, grace being in God, one ought to start from this, as a believer—that God will always prove that He is never overcome with evil. Why, He calls us not to be. He says, “Be ye not overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good.” That is what He does Himself. That is what He is always doing as the God of all grace. And so now the Lord looks out of this spirit of grace. I quite admit that there is nothing which judges sin so severely as grace. There is nothing which produces such deep shame before God. There is nothing which makes the vilest see all his failure —his denial (for really it was that)—his denial of the Lord Jesus. What a Lord to deny! What a Savior He was! What love was in that look, but, at the same time, what grief! And grief over whom? For Himself? Over Peter—Peter. The love of the Lord, as well as the sense, no doubt, of the sin, filled Peter’s heart. There was more to be done still, but that will follow.

John 20; 21

Now I turn, then, from this to the Gospel of John, where we have the further dealings of the Lord as to Peter, and the completeness of the work in the soul. We see Peter on the resurrection day—the resurrection morning. “The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulcher, and we know not where they have laid him.” What was the effect of this upon Peter? “Peter, therefore, went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulcher. So they ran both together; and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulcher.” But he did not first enter in. There was a need in Peter’s heart which at that moment carried him farther than even the affection of John; for, although John came first to the sepulcher and stooped down, and, looking, saw the linen clothes lying, he did not go in. But “Simon Peter cometh, following him, and went into the sepulcher, and seeth the linen clothes lie, and the napkin that was about his head not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple which came first to the sepulcher, and he saw and believed.”

Again, our souls may well admire the grace that tells such a story—not to his own credit, “for as yet,” saith he, “they knew not the scripture that he must rise again from the dead.” They believed the fact, but they knew not the scripture. It was not a truth to them, bound up with God’s character and God’s word. It was a fact. They saw that the Lord was risen, but the connection of the resurrection with God’s glory and with their own deliverance did not yet cross their minds. “Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.” Not so Mary. But I do not pursue her story. My subject is Peter.

Well, now, what I should draw from the story that is brought before us here, more particularly followed up by what is mentioned in the last chapter of the Gospel of Mark, is this. Peter was a true man. He knew that he had dishonored the Lord, but the first impulse of his heart was to see the Lord. But was that all? It was the grace of the Lord’s heart to see Peter. The Spirit of God was truly at work in Peter in this desire to see the Lord, even if he were alone to see the Lord. He wished to have it all out with the Lord, but the Lord wished it too, and wished it for Peter’s sake; for there is nothing that would more damage a soul than an unsettled question between it and the Lord. Hence, in the Gospel of Mark we are told that the Lord said, when He gave the word to the women—or rather the angel speaking for the Lord— “Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee.” Why Peter? Why is he the only one that is named? Because he was the one that most needed it. Love always goes out most where there is need most. “Tell his disciples and Peter.”

What a joy to Peter’s heart that it should be so, in spite of his scandalous and his repeated lying—for indeed it was most shameful. It was not simply a failure to confess; it was a denial of his Master, and this repeatedly; and remember, this was only a very short time afterward. He experienced how infinitely the ways of the Lord are above ours. Could we have thought such a thing possible? Just conceive it now. Conceive a person guilty of a flagrant act, and a public one, too, and a repeated one. How slow any of us would be to think that such a person could possibly be a believer. And this is an apostle; and did not that make it a great deal worse? Even the law always laid it down as a principle that the sin of the ruler was a more serious thing, and could not be dealt with as the sin of one of the people generally. There was always that which required a deeper purgation before God; and so the very fact of Peter’s being so specially honored would to us have been so much the greater shame and evil. But to the Lord it was an opportunity for judging it thoroughly out of fullness of His grace. He was to be a strengthener of others, and this, too, as he had not learned what it was in secret with the Lord. Now he must learn by his own public sin, but where sin abounded grace did much more abound; and, unless it be the apostle Paul, where was there such a preacher of grace as the apostle Peter?

Now turn again from this to the fifteenth of 1 Corinthians—for I must just refer to that for a moment. The proofs must be taken from different parts of scripture. We know that the Lord did appear to Peter. Indeed, we need not leave the Gospels. The 24th of Luke shows the very same thing; for when the two disciples came in from Emmaus, and reported to the assembled disciples in Jerusalem that the Lord had spoken to them by the way, what are they told? “They found the eleven gathered together and them that were with them, saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.” But He had appeared to Simon; and, you will mark, to Simon alone. Now I do see unspeakable grace in our Lord in that it was not only an angel that gives the comforting word, “Tell his disciples and Simon Peter,” but here is the fact that the Lord met Peter alone. I am not aware that He met anybody else alone. He met two disciples. I am not speaking of Mary Magdalene, of course, when He sent the message, but as far as the eleven were concerned I am not aware of His appearing to any one of them alone except Peter. Why so? Because He felt for the heart of the disciple. He felt that there would be a burden, that there would be a cloud, and He would remove it. He had given the certainty that there was nothing between Him and Peter, so that Peter might have nothing between his heart and the Lord. That was His object, and this, too, He accomplished in this very way—he appeared to Simon. [W. K.]

(To be continued)

The Dealings of God With Peter: 9. In the Gospels

John 21

Well, then, we find a further step in the twenty-first chapter. “Jesus showed himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias, and on this wise showed he himself. There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.” Now, I do not say that the work was very deep. It was real, but there was a want of depth. “Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee.” The ways of one who has a pre-eminent place, and his words too, are surely of great moment to us here. How readily saints fall in with the word of any one who takes the lead! “They went forth and entered into a ship immediately, and that night they caught nothing. But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore.” He turns this to his own account. “But the disciples knew not that it was Jesus. Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No. And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes. Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord” —always prompt of action— “he girt his fisher’s coat unto him (for he was naked), and did cast himself into the sea. And the other disciples came in a little ship (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits), dragging the net with fishes. As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread. Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught. Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three; and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.”

Now I have no doubt that all this was a typical scene—that it was in direct connection with the wonderful effects of the work of the Lord in a day that is coming, but not yet come—that, in short, it is the picture of the millennial scene when there will be no failure whatever as far as the work of God is concerned. There will be failure in man outside, but not as far as the work of God is concerned. It will be one of the peculiar characteristics of that day. And so, you observe, for all the great catch of fish the net is not broken. It is in contrast with the picture of the work now, and with that which had been said to Peter. You may remember that, in the Gospel of Luke, there is the picture of Peter and the rest called to be fishers of men. Well no doubt they catch fish and plenty of them; but the nets are broken, whereas in that day there will be nothing of the kind; there will be no breach. The work of God will be fully accomplished, not merely grace overruling as now, not merely God doing it as far as His own secret purpose is concerned. I am speaking now of the public work in the world. Well, that will be an immense change, but there is another thing that comes before us here of more importance for my present purpose, and that is, the dealings of God still more fully pursued with Peter’s soul—the restoring dealings of the Lord.

“When they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?” Now that was a very searching question. It told the whole tale. “Lovest thou me more than these?” That was the root of his failing. Peter did not give the other disciples credit for being willing to go to prison and to death for Jesus’ sake; but he believed himself. He was confident that he loved the Lord as nobody else did, and now the Lord turns upon Peter. He had carried the work on in his soul. He had looked upon him and sent him out to weep when he remembered the word. He had seen him alone, but now He would carry on the work at the same time that He would publicly reinstate His servant; for the very point here was that, while the work was carried on more deeply than in others, it was in presence of others, that they might know the entire restoration of communion between Peter and the Lord—nay, more than that, that they might know the confidence which the Lord reposed in Peter now. He had never done it before.

He had never entrusted his sheep to Peter before.

Oh, what grace! The very time when men would have said, “Never trust Peter again! A man that has so denied the Lord he may be a saint! I hope he will get to heaven—but never you trust that man! Why, did any one ever hear of such flagrant, repeated denial? “Well now, you see the Lord does it all before them, and the first question really probed the heart, though He carries it still deeper every time. “Simon, son of Jonas,” for that was the point—he trusted himself “lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.” What does the Lord say? “He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time.” Peter had denied Him thrice, and it is in the most pointed reference to this that He puts it the third time; yet Peter did not feel how deeply the Lord was going, for He had not alluded to his denial; but now he understands. He thought it was all settled, but the Lord would have it settled not only publicly, but divinely. And you see here was the thing that was wanting. He had judged his failure, but had he got to the cause of the failure? Had he detected the root of it? I do not believe he had. We may be very, very grieved because of our sin, and feel it deeply before God; but have we really reached what exposed us to sin? What was it in Peter? His confidence in his own loving the Lord—that he could go where nobody else could—that he loved the Lord more than any one more than these.

Well now, you see he feels that the Lord was alluding to his threefold denial. “Peter was grieved, because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee.” How humiliating! Peter is reduced to cast himself upon the Lord’s perfect knowledge—what the Lord Himself knew. Everybody else in the world would have said that Peter could not have loved the Lord to deny Him so, and that unless the Lord knew to the bottom of his heart he could not have given him credit for love. “Lord, thou knowest all things.” Oh, beloved friends, what a comfort it is to have to do with One that knows all things, and, in consequence of knowing all, can see a love that nobody else could see—can give credit to that which all appearances might contradict; so that, instead of the Lord’s perfect knowledge of all being a thing that we have need to be afraid of, it is the very thing that is in our favor where there is reality; and there was reality in Peter. It was not that there was any question of love: the failure was not there. It was not that there was not love, but that he considered that his love would preserve him in the hour of danger. It never does—nothing does. But the self-judgment that comes out in prayer to God and in total distrust of self before God. It is not, therefore, the protective power of the love of Christ that keeps people. There must be that, but there is more than that wanted, and the more than that is the very last thing that a man lacks: it is to believe his own badness, to believe that he is such a poor, weak, unworthy creature; and Peter had never got a deep sense of it before. Now it is brought to him. “Lord, I admit that all the rest would say that I do not love you a bit, but you know everything to the bottom of my heart, and you know, after all, that it requires divine knowledge to know that I love Thee.” Not a word now of loving more than anybody else. That was furthest from Peter’s heart. You may depend that he never said it again, never thought it again. I do not mean that he did not fall in other ways, but he was thoroughly broken, at any rate, in this conceit of himself. “Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.”

Now you see there is a distinct word of the Lord, for it is not merely that the Lord was thus bringing Peter to judge the root of the evil that had exposed him to fall, but the Lord was now reposing public confidence in Peter—in His servant—for the work that He was about to open to him. He was about to have a very special charge, and I suppose that the sheep which are referred to here refer rather to the Jewish ones. It would seem so from the context and from the fact. We know that the circumcision were handed over to Peter, as the uncircumcision to Paul; and it would appear that this is what the Lord refers to here. At the present time you must remember the only sheep that were accredited were the sheep that were there. Others no doubt there were, but that does not seem to enter into the special line of this part of the Gospel of John.

However, that may not be of so much importance. The great thing I wish to press is the evidence that scripture gives us here of God, in His wonderful way, restoring our souls fully only when we have got at that which exposed us to sin, and not merely the sin itself. This is of so practical a nature that I must dwell upon it, therefore, at more than usual length. But it is not all, for the Lord, when He restores, always restores what was not taken away—gives more than was ever possessed.

Now there was one thing in which Peter had expressed his confidence—that is, to go to death or judgment or prison—anything for the Lord. Well now, the Lord takes this up. “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest; but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.”

Thus then, I think, we have the unspeakable grace of our Lord Jesus Christ meeting the desire of Peter’s heart. He had done wonderful things for him already, when He committed what was most precious to the man that had failed so publicly and so repeatedly; but He goes farther. Had not Peter desired to follow the Lord to prison and to death? Certainly. “Well now,” says the Lord, “I will give you all the desire of your heart.” And look at the Lord’s way! Look at the way of grace! When he was comparatively young he failed. When there was all the fervor and impetuosity, I must add, of his natural character, he completely broke down. The Lord puts no honor upon that; rather the contrary. He must bring it to nothing. It is what flesh would glory in. “But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.” And so the Lord gives him good ground for it, for He tells him, “When thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands.” It was not only that he was to die, but, “This spake he signifying by what death he should glorify God.” Peter was to have his wish gratified to the very fullest. Peter was to suffer like his Master. I am not referring now to the tradition. I do not know whether there is any truth in his being crucified with his head downwards. Scripture says nothing of that kind. We are told so. It is a pretty story, and that is all one can say about it. It may be true; it is more likely to be false. You never can trust the stories of men in the things of God. I have never known a true story told by men in what concerns God, and where the spirit of man reigns. There is a fatality of error of the most extraordinary kind in the old ecclesiastical historians that touch upon these matters. Why, they cannot even tell correctly what is in the Bible, still less what is not. I say, therefore, that I do not believe that these stories are to be trusted. But this is to be trusted: he is to die like his Master, at any rate. He is to be crucified, so that the Lord would not only give him then to be led away a prisoner, but to suffer upon the cross. Peter would have what he desired, and more than he desired; but he would have it in pure grace; there was no strength. He would have it given him by the Lord; nay, farther than that, to “glorify God.” No longer Peter’s love; no longer glorifying Peter in any way. “He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”

I do not know, then, beloved friends, a more touching proof of the way in which grace not only restores, but triumphs. And, remember, that is the measure for us. We are put in this wonderful place of glorifying God. Is that only for Peter? Nay, for all the redeemed. “We are bought with a price; therefore,” he says, “glorify God in your body.” So it was in Peter’s case. It was not the cheap and easy way of thinking that it is a mere matter of feeling. It is all-important that our affections should be right, but God does give opportunities that the feeling shall be a manifested one. God does give opportunities that the heart shall have its desire. Where we have wrong desires, it is the greatest mercy of God that He crosses them, but when we have a holy desire, though it may be taken up in a spirit of self-confidence, and comes to naught for the time, yet what is divine always survives. This is what we find here. Peter, when he was broken, therefore, in all his own power, finds the power of God strengthening him even beyond what he had thought, for I do not suppose that when Peter spoke about following the Lord to prison and to death he thought of the death of the cross. None of them could say that till the cross came. They never contemplated such a thing as their Master suffering so, although the Lord had intimated it. But it is astonishing how the disciples forgot the word of the Lord, and how little impression it made. Are you surprised at that? You ought to know it from yourselves. I ought to know it from myself, and I do know it too well—how we slur over the word of God, how we are caught continually in the midst of a chapter that we have read ever so often and never understood before—expressions, even those that we have cited, it may he, and used; and yet suddenly the light of God shines through them. Well, how is this, beloved friends? Why, it is just because there has been a hindrance in self. There has been something of our own that has been an obstruction to the Spirit of God, but God brings down the self and causes the light and grace of Christ to shine, and all is clear.

And now, beloved friends, I have desired to help you to follow to the end all the dealings of God with Peter in the Gospels. If the Lord will, perhaps there may be another opportunity of tracing him in the Acts of the Apostles, or the Epistles of Peter; but I do not hope for that just now. May the Lord bless what we have said. May He give us more simplicity to read that we may understand; for simplicity, after all, is exactly what the deepest understanding brings us to. If we are growing rightly, we are growing more simple. I am sure, beloved friends, that that is the true lesson for all our souls—to appreciate the word and to apply it, to learn how to use it, not only for others, but for our own souls.

[W. K.]

Enduring Temptation and Entering Into Temptation

James 1:2, 12; Matthew 26:41

There is manifestly a vast difference between “falling into temptation,” or “enduring temptation” (James 1:2, 12), on the one hand, and “entering into temptation” (Matt. 26:41), on the other. We do well therefore to have it clear and settled in our souls; for, as the one is blessed, the other is the utmost possible danger for the soul. There is nothing more strengthening than to “endure temptation”; nothing more perilous than to “enter into” it. There seems little difference in the words, and people might easily slur over the difference in their thought. But the difference is complete; for in the one case it is an honor that God puts upon us, and in the other a snare that Satan presents to us.

Which or these two things do we know best? How far do our souls that are here round the table of the Lord Jesus know what it is to fall into divers temptations, or to endure temptation?

For blessed are we if we do. Falling into temptation, or enduring it, is that which God delights in. In Gen. 22 we find that Abraham was in a condition in which God could try him; and He loves that we should be in such a condition that He can try us. But this is not so when we are not governed by the sense of the presence of God, as well as happy in Him. It is not so where flesh is not judged. Are we then brought to this point in the ways of God? For it is this that He looks for from every saint of His. Are we then brought into communion with the Father and His Son in our Lord Jesus (1 John 1)? Have we not the same Savior, and the same salvation of God?

Still, in Christ salvation is not merely an incomparable favor such as God has shown to us in the depths of our need, but it is also assuredly inseparable from the dealing with self in the presence of God; so much so, that where this is not learned at the beginning it must be more painfully taught in the course. And then what dishonor to God! how grieving to His Spirit! Such failure, to teach us what we are, is not enduring temptation, nor is it in the least the same as God’s trying us. In such a state the Lord has rather to buffet us for our faults, as those who bear the name of the Lord Jesus after an un-comely sort.

How grievous that those who have in the Savior such a salvation, based on the utter judgment of the flesh, should so little have used it to deal with self, the most hateful of all things to God; for so one need not hesitate to call it. I admit there is a greater daringness and pride and subtlety in Satan; but it seems to me that for that which is low and base and mean, there is nothing so had as self; and yet this is the very thing that every one of us carries with us. The question now is, How far has grace acted upon our souls to lead us to judge it out and out in the presence of God? Where this is the case, the Lord can try us; that is, He can put us to the proof by what is not at all a question of evil of any kind, because God does not tempt by evil any more than He is tempted by evil things.

When God then was pleased to ask Abraham to give up his only son, this was in no wise evil, but a most blessed trial. It was proving whether Abraham had such perfect confidence in God that he would give up the object that was dearest to him, in whom were centered all the promises of God. And by grace Abraham could. Of course he did it with the perfect certainty that, if Isaac were then to die, God would raise him up; for Abraham perfectly well knew, before the sacrifice was asked, that Isaac was to be the child of promise; and he knew that it was to be that Isaac and nobody else—not another son—so that he was certain, if Isaac were offered up, God would raise him again from the dead. It was therefore really the good of God’s own heart that was reflected in what He asked of Abraham’s heart; and Abraham was brought into greater communion with God in that which was in its measure the counterpart of the gift of His own Son.

Just so is it with the trials that God is pleased to try us by, speaking now not of our had trials, but of our good ones; not of such sorrows as Lot passed through, but of those like Abraham’s. It is a proof of the greatest confidence on God’s part if there is in us such a groundwork of walking before God, and in the consciousness of His presence, that He can try us with something that is like Himself—some prize to give up, some suffering to endure in grace—whatever it may be that is according to His own mind. It is in this sense that temptation is spoken of in James 1:2, 12.

After this (vers. 13-15) we immediately turn to temptation spoken of in a had sense, and this connects itself with the verse I read in Matt. 26 I shall not dwell long upon either, though both are words of most salutary character for our souls. The Lord had looked for His disciples to watch with Him. Alas! He had not found it. And the Lord had gone Himself alone, and had prayed to His Father in deepest suffering. Then He comes back to the disciples, and, finding them sleeping, He says to Peter, “What, could ye not watch with me one hour?” No, they could not watch with Him one hour! The spirit was willing, but the flesh was weak.

Nov it would be very unworthy for us to take this as an excuse for our own failure; this would be reading scripture to the positive injury of our souls and the dishonor of God; yet I am afraid there are many who do so. But we must remember there is this difference between our standing now, and that of the disciples. Flesh had not been thoroughly exposed and judged at that time; it was before the cross of Christ, and so before the Holy Ghost was given. There was divine life, but divine life, in itself, always goes in weakness.

It is the Holy Ghost that acts in power; and you never can have power without Him. But we are always responsible for the power of the Holy Ghost, because He is given to the believer, and forever abides in him. This time was not yet come; but the Lord does say in view of it, as well as of the state in which they then were, “Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.” For remember this, it is not any power conferred by the Spirit of God that keeps, even though He be the Spirit of power—it is not energy in this or that which keeps, but dependence; it is the sense of weakness that watches and prays, and thus has the power of Christ resting on us. His strength made perfect in weakness.

There is nothing that so tends, where it is severed from Christ, to destroy dependence, as a large knowledge of the word of God. And that is where our danger lies. The greater our knowledge of the word of God, where it is separated from the sense of utter weakness, and consequently from the need of watching and praying, the greater the danger. This is a solemn warning for our souls. There is no doubt plenty of knowledge of Scripture, and of what is called intelligence of truth; but do our souls keep up this sense of our need and weakness, and the expression of it to God? “Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.”

What does our Lord mean by “entering into temptation”? The will that goes into a scene where nothing but a judged will in one who goes at the bidding of God and leaning on Him can be kept; that is, the will goes in where failure is inevitable, just because it is will at work. So Peter himself soon proved. He went where Peter could not stand, unless the Lord had called and kept him by faith. He entered into temptation. He did not suffer. There was no such thing as enduring temptation; but he entered into it, and fell.

And let me just say that it is all well in the midst of the saints of God to confess our Lord Jesus Christ; but it is not so easy to confess Him truly and humbly where, instead of saints sympathizing with us, shame and contempt, or death even, may be the consequence, as in Peter’s case. He would have endured, had he gone in by grace, obedience, watching and praying, instead of trusting in his own willingness to go to prison or even to die for his Master. When our Lord says, “The spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak,” He is looking at nature in man; and nature is incapable of such a trial. None but God can sustain, and therefore it would require God’s will expressed in His word to lead us rightly into such a scene of temptation, and His grace sustaining in faith to keep us in it; otherwise it would be but our own will, and we should fall. It would have been an abomination in Abraham to sacrifice his son, unless God had spoken the word. But faith, where self is judged, strengthens the soul to endure temptation. One enters not into temptation where one abides in dependence and self-judgment. Then when we fall into various temptations, we count it all joy; and as we did not enter of our own will, so we do not fall in them, but by grace endure.

The Lord give us to watch and pray, so much the more because He has blessed us with such a knowledge of His word and of Himself in the Lord Jesus Christ.

W. K.

Errata

(In last number)

Page 209, col. 1, line 21 from bottom—For The read They.

Page 220, col. 1, lines 13 and 14 should be transposed.

Errata

Page 323, 4th line from bottom, For Israel read Syria.

Page 324, line 1, For house read history.

Existence Between Death and Resurrection

Letter to a Millennial-Dawnist

Dear Sir,

It is only now that I can find time to commence a reply to your letter of the 12Th instant. The subject matter of your correspondence is of a very serious nature: and bear in mind, that deeper even than the question of doctrine is the personal one for yourself, as to whether or not you are standing arrayed in antagonism to the Lord Jesus Christ. Solemn thing, Sir, if you should be found at the last guilty of counterworking His interests and building in wood, hay and stubble all to be destroyed!

I would recall you to my previous letter, to which yours is a reply. My letter takes you up on just one point—the existence of the soul between death and resurrection—the denial of this is the key-stone of your fanciful system without which the whole arch tumbles in. Upon this I presented you with simple but ample proofs from Scripture.

I gave you Stephen’s prayer— “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” —and you reply,

“You seem to think Stephen has been in existence for the last nineteen hundred years.”

I should rather think I do! I have not yet got down to believing that a man such as Stephen was at that moment, “full of the Holy Ghost” as he was stated to have been, could ask the Lord to receive his spirit when he had no spirit to be received!

You then say that devout men “carried Stephen to his burial,” and ask, “When did he rise again?” The answer is: He did not rise again: no one says he did. The contention is that his spirit went to the Lord, there to await the resurrection. And that is what you have to disprove, not his resurrection. You assume that because his body has not been raised his spirit is not in existence; but as the logicians say, the assumption of the thing which has to be proved is valueless.

You are kind enough to suggest that I “should search the Scriptures as to man,” but such Scriptures as I have in memory are quite sufficient to refute your false doctrine, for you say, “Man is a Unity; and only as a unit is he dealt with as a man in Scripture.”

Without disputing the first part of this statement, the latter is disproved by 1 Thess. 5, for the apostle Paul there speaks of “your whole spirit, and soul, and body,” The very Scripture we are dealing with, Acts 7:59, itself confutes you, for Stephen, in articulo mortis, calls upon the Lord to receive his spirit, while Stephen himself, that is the corporeal Stephen, as which alone he could be taken cognizance of by men, was carried to his burial.

But there is further scriptural proof. The Lord Jesus, about to die and leave His body on the cross, commends His spirit into the Father’s hands. Again, the apostle Paul, in Phil. 1:23, refers to dying as being “to depart and to be with Christ.” Again, in 2 Cor. 5:8, he describes it as being “absent from the body” and “present with the Lord.” Again, the Lord tells the dying malefactor that that day he should be with Him in paradise (Luke 23).

Again, Peter speaks of the body as a tabernacle, and also of his putting off his tabernacle (2 Peter 1:14). So also Paul speaks (2 Tim. 4:6) of the time of his departure being at hand.

I have now shown you and proved by Scripture the separate existence of the spirit after death. It is proved by:

1. The Lord’s words respecting His own spirit.

2. Ditto respecting the spirit of the dying thief (Luke 23)

3. By the dying utterance of Stephen.

4. By Paul’s description of death in 2 Cor. 5

5. By ditto, in Phil. 1

6. By ditto, 2 Tim. 4:6.

7. By Peter’s description of dying in 2 Peter 1:14.

Well, dear Sir, you are loud in your profession of attachment to Biblical teachings and profuse in denunciations of what is “unbiblical.” If this is anything more than an empty boast, I call upon you to acknowledge your error as to the separate existence of the spirit of man at death. If you really reverence God’s word you will do this frankly and honorably; and further, according as you are in a spiritual state, you will, in that proportion, humble yourself before God, for having gone about propagating such evil doctrine as that in question.

You say, “What did Peter’s argument in Acts 2 mean?” Why it meant what every person who heard him would understand it to mean, namely, that David had not yet partaken of the resurrection of the body. That it did not relate to David’s spirit is proved by another scripture, for David says, when referring to the death of his child, “I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me” (2 Sam. 12:23). Scripture rebukes your doctrines at every turn! According to you, the child was not in existence for David to go to, and David, on dying, would be no more in existence to go to him!

II.

My letter cited Luke 20:38 as a proof of the existence of the spirit after death, and your reply is, “You read Luke 20:38 in one way; I read that Christ taught the resurrection; and Paul teaches the same glorious truth.” Permit me here to make a general remark. Your views, both original and quoted, are extremely narrow-minded and one-sided. But I must not use these terms without justifying them, or as terms of abuse—far be it from me—but in their proper significance. A “narrow” mind is one which sees only a section of a subject. That section which it does see it may apprehend with great clearness. In fact there is nothing more common with that class of minds than speaking with superlative emphasis of that part of truth which they do see, while other persons, who see not only that, but much more, they regard as quite in the dark. Now to justify the application of this to yourself: you get hold of the unity of the being of man, but your mind seems to have one eye shut, so that you are unable to see that man is also tripartite (1 Thess. 5). And another instance is the passage we are now dealing with Luke 20:38. That passage teaches resurrection, but it also demonstrates the separate existence of the disembodied spirit. The former truth you can see, but the other truth your half-vision excludes. The Lord taught that Abraham and Isaac and Jacob were living (their spirits of course) in the time of Moses, because God calls Himself their God, and that He is not the God of the dead; so that they were not dead at that time in the sense in which you speak of being dead.

You go on to say, “Christ taught the resurrection, and Paul teaches the same glorious truth.” Of course, Christ taught the resurrection, and, of course, “Paul taught the same glorious truth.” Who doubts it? Here again is the blind eye, for Paul not only taught the resurrection but he taught the separate existence of the unclothed spirit, as I have proved.

With this, dear Sir, I conclude. Nothing would be easier than to go through the whole of your letter and to take it to pieces line by line as I have done so far. But you have now been presented with quite sufficient proof from Scripture to deliver you from your erroneous views, if only you are morally in subjection to Scripture. If you are, you will how to the force as well as to the authority of God’s word. If, however, you are not subject to God through His word, your doctrines might be proved wrong a thousand times, but you would hold fast to them all the same. The holding of false doctrine is only partially an intellectual matter; it is in large degree moral. A man may inadvertently drop into error, but if he be truly godly he will retrace his steps the moment it is shown that his views are contrary to Scripture.

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to labor through the whole of your voluminous letter if I thought it would lead to your eyes being opened. But if you are irretrievably wedded to your system of notions it would be a waste of time which might be better employed. In the present case, having confronted you with Scripture, I must leave the matter between your conscience and God—a solemn responsibility.

I remain, dear Sir, yours truly,

E. J. T.

Fragment: 2 Timothy 3:16-17

“Every scripture is God-inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction that is in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, furnished thoroughly unto every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16, 17).

Fragment: Christ the Test

“Christ personally—the written word as the standard of truth—is the test for everything that can be said or written now, in the hands of all that fear the Lord, whether it be those that minister or those that are ministered to.”

Fragment: Coming to the Father

By receiving Jesus, by believing in Him, and only so, we come to the Father. Christ is the way, and there is none other. Besides, He is the truth, the revelation of every one and of everything as they are. He is also the life, in which that truth is, by the Spirit’s power, known and enjoyed. In every way Christ is the only possible means of our entering into this blessedness. “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”

Fragment: Full of Faith, Grace, and Power

We may, in a measure, be so accustomed to what we may call the ordinary ways of the Lord, as to be forgetful of His special interventions whether in blessing or in judgment. But if our expectations of His grace were but simple and livelier, would we not know more of sudden—not always immediate answers to our prayers? Oh, that, like Stephen, we might be “full of faith and of the Holy Ghost,” “of grace and power”!

Fragment: Latitudinarian Unity

Latitudinarian unity it may be painful and trying to keep aloof from; it has an amiable form in general, is in a measure respectable in the religious world, tries nobody’s conscience, and allows of everybody’s will. It is the more difficult to be decided about, because it is often connected with a true desire of good, and is associated with amiable nature. And it seems rigid, and narrow, and sectarianism to decline so to walk. But the saint, when he has the light of God, must walk clearly in that. God will vindicate His ways in due time. Love to every saint is a clear duty; walking in their ways is not. And he that gathers not with Christ scatters.

J. N. D.

Fragment: Quickened With Christ

Christ comes and, in grace, dies for my sins; and, if I am quickened, I am quickened with Him, and they are all left behind and forgotten; but I am quickened, not to live to myself at all. Now you will find that will cut to the root of many and many a thing. You say, What is the harm of it? I say, Is it living to Christ? What do I find in Christ’s life? Why, that He never did a single thing for Himself. “He died that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again”; carry that into everything, and, if you can say about anything, It is for myself, then it is not for Christ. Where Christ is all, as He is in all, then He is the object. The claim that He makes is not a legal claim that comes upon me, but that He died for me.

J. N. D.

Fragment: Service of and Communion With Christ

O my brother, be it ours to fill the little while separate from the world, and above fleshly ease in the devoted service of Christ. Nothing so good and happy now, and nothing so appreciated on high and through all eternity, unless it be the communion with Himself and the worship which accompany it. W. K.

A Full Christ for Empty Sinners: Part 1

Well does the writer remember the effect on his own mind of the perusal, now many years ago, of a paper in the first volume of the “Christian Witness,” on “The distinct characters of the several writings of the New Testament.” if not the first, it was among the first means of leading him to read Scripture in the light of the characteristic subject and aim of each distinct portion of it. But, while leaning on God’s grace as the only efficient cause of true instruction, every attempt to impart to others what has been so precious to his own soul, has served more deeply to convince him of the truth of one remark in the paper above referred to, viz., that, “The expression of one’s own thoughts, and the acting so as to awaken similar thoughts in others, are two very different things; and the latter is a rarer and more self-denying attainment than the other.” It is not as attempting much more than the former, that the following thoughts are submitted to such as bring all they read and hear to the test of the word of God itself.

Much that at that time had to some of us all the vividness and freshness of truth newly discovered to the soul, has long, as to the letter of it, at least, been familiar to all who are likely to read these remarks. The way in which the same blessed Person is presented in Matthew as the Messiah of Israel; by Mark, in active service as the Minister of the word; by Luke, in the fullness of that grace, in which He, the Son of man, came to men as such, to seek and to save that which was lost; and by John as the Word which was in the beginning, which was with God, and was God, but which was made flesh, and dwelt among us; all this the reader has doubtless read and heard again and again, until the words remain in the memory, whether they be understood and enjoyed through divine teaching or not. The peculiar character of John’s Gospel has been dwelt upon by many. Many have pointed out how the glory which passes before us in that Gospel is the glory of Christ in His highest divine titles and relations; “the glory of the Only—begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” Sweetly has it been shown, moreover, that while no other Gospel so freely unfolds this highest Godhead—glory of Christ, no other shows the sinner in such immediate contact with Him, receiving of His fullness. These and other leading features of the book, though never losing their interest, have yet to numbers become familiar truth. What the writer would now suggest may bear no comparison in importance with these chief characteristics of this Gospel; but nothing is lost which contributes in ever so small a degree to acquaintance with the precious record of the glory of Him of whom it is said, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

In perusing any book, inspired or uninspired, if we find certain words occurring often enough to awaken attention to the fact, and then, on examination, discover that they are thus used throughout the book, we immediately conclude that they either express its great theme and object, or at least that which is very closely related thereto. Reading thus the Gospel of John, certain words can scarcely fail to impress the mind with the frequency of their use; while a comparison with the other Evangelists confirms the conviction that the words in question do really bring out what is in closest connection with the great leading subject. For instance, the word life meets the eye almost at the beginning of the book, reappears most prominently in chap. iii., and afterward, indeed with such frequency as to awaken the inquiry, Can this be one of the leading words in this Gospel? Can it have a characteristic force? Let us see.

But, before comparing this Gospel with the others in this respect, we do well to remember that there are more words than one in the New Testament rendered life. One, ζωή, means life, in the strict, absolute sense. I speak only of the use of this, and other words, in the New Testament. Another, ψυχή, soul, is frequently represented by the word life; but it is not the natural, ordinary use of the word; and if it were, it is as often so given in John as in any other of the Gospels. The word βίος, used for life, in the secondary sense of living, or way of living, does not occur in our Gospel at all. It is to the first word, life in its absolute sense, that our inquiry relates. It occurs in Matthew, seven times; in Mark, four times; in Luke, six times; and in John, thirty-six times. Its force and bearing, as thus characterizing John, may be estimated by such passages as, “In him was life”; “Not perish, but have everlasting life”; “Passed from death unto life”; “The resurrection of life”; “I am the bread of life”; “I am come that they might have life”; “That he should give eternal life”; “That, believing, ye might have life, through his name.” Is it nothing that in the midst of this world of death, the One who has life in Himself has been here to manifest it in His own person, and to impart it to us who were dead in sins? Nor has His rejection by the world, and His ascension on high interrupted for a moment this outflow of life from Him to dead sinners. He is glorified of the Father, who has given Him power over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as the Father “has given” Him.

But let us turn to another word—love. Here, also, we have two words, ἀγαπάω and φιλέω, each with its shade of meaning, rendered to love in the English New Testament. Taking both these verbs, with words immediately related to them, such as the noun love, we find one or other of them in Matthew twelve times; in Mark, five times; in Luke fifteen times; and in John fifty-six times. Nor can we doubt the force of such words as characterizing this Gospel, in view of such passages as the following: “God so loved the world”; “Now, Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus”; “Having loved his own which were in the world”; “One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved”; “As I have loved you, that ye also love one another”; “If a man love me, he will keep my words, and my Father will love him”; “That the world may know that I love the Father”; “Thou hast loved them as thou hast loved me.” LIFE and LOVE! Precious words! Life the gift of love. Divine love, in the person of the Son, bestowing a life, not only eternal in its duration, but of such a nature that the love wherewith the Father loved the Son can now rest on those of whom He said, addressing the Father, “And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it, that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.”

But in what sphere does the revelation of this love take place? True it is that none profit by it vitally and everlastingly, but they in whom the native opposition of the heart is overcome by almighty grace, in the positive communication of life. But is it only among God’s ancient people Israel that such persons are found? Are they the only inheritors of this blessedness, so immeasurably surpassing their fruitful land, the covenanted portion of their tribes? Let us see. The word world is quite as characteristic of our Gospel as either of those which have been under consideration. We stop not to notice the word αἰών, sometimes translated world, but intrinsically referring more to duration than to the world itself, absolutely considered. “The times which pass over it,” the world morally viewed, is what it signifies. The word χόσμος-, the world literally, including both the earth and its human inhabitants, occurs in Matthew nine times, in Mark three times, in Luke three times, and in John seventy-nine times. How it is used, the reader may judge from such instances as— “God so loved the world”; “The Savior of the world”; “I am the light of the world”; “Now is the judgment of this world”; “I came not to judge the world, but to save the world,” “The world seeth me no more,” “The prince of this world”; “I have overcome the world”; “I pray not for the world”; “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world”; “The world hath not known thee.” Could it be more evident than it is, that when the Eternal Word—the only-begotten Son—was made flesh and dwelt among men, the question was one which concerned not Israel alone, or Israel more than others, but the whole world! It was towards the world the love of God was shown in the gift of His only-begotten Son. It was as the Savior of the world that the blessed. Lord Jesus appeared, and as the light of the world He shone; and now that He has left the world, and returned to the Father who sent Him, He has left the world under the solemn responsibility of rejecting Him, and of not knowing the Father of whose love He was both the messenger, the gift, and the expression. If He had tears for Jerusalem, and said, “How often would Ι have gathered thy children together... but ye would not,” with what feelings did He bid farewell to the world, towards which such love had been shown, and by which such love had been repulsed and trodden under foot?

But there is one other word in its comparative use illustrative of the difference between this Gospel and the others. It is the word πιστεύω, to believe. We have it in Matthew eleven times, Mark fifteen times, Luke eight times, and in John ninety-nine times. Nor does this amazing disparity exhibit the whole amount of the difference. Six out of the eleven occurrences of the word in Matthew give it in connection with miracles, or in reference to false prophets, or in the lips of ungodly scoffers. So of eight passages in Mark, out of the fifteen that it contains. But in John, the vast majority of cases in which the word is employed, are those in which it expresses the believing in Christ Himself unto life eternal. “That all through him might believe”; “To them that believe on his name”; “That whosoever believeth on him should not perish”; “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life”; “If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins”; “Dost thou believe on the Son of God? Lord, I believe.”

It is added by the Holy Ghost to the last quotation, concerning the man that had been blind, “And he worshipped him.” May we all have his simplicity of faith, and more of the deep joy which filled and overcame his heart in gazing with his new-found sight on the One whom he now beholds by faith as the “Son of God.” It is to faith alone that the discovery is made of His glory and His grace; and faith counts the One whom it receives as unspeakably more precious than all attendant blessings, privileges, and favors, vast and unutterable as these may be. “As many as received him, to them gave he power to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name.”

Thus have we seen the life revealed in Christ, and bestowed by Him as the gift of the Father’s love in Him, not to any class or nation privileged by descent, but to all to whom it is given to believe on Him throughout the wide world. To that world itself, indeed, was the coming down to it of God’s well-beloved Son, the expression of a love on God’s part, which has no measure but the gift that it bestowed. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Never, till at the moment of now perusing it, had it been noticed by the writer, that in this one verse all our four words are found—life, love, world, believing! Thus does it gather, as into one focus, the light shed throughout the book from the person, mission, and work, the life, death, and resurrection—victory of the Son of God. [W. T.]

(To be continued)

A Full Christ for Empty Sinners: Part 2

In turning to chap. 6, one point it is important to consider; that is, the contrast between the way in which Christ is presented here, and in the previous chapter. Life, in its communication by Him, and its inception by us, is the theme of both chapters; but in the fifth He is seen in full Godhead—title and glory, as the Source and Dispenser of the life sovereignly imparted by Him to us. The recipient of the life is regarded as entirely passive, and called into life by the almighty, new-creating, voice of the Son of God. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.” Here, there is nothing in the case of the sinner but the powerlessness of death itself, till the deep silence is broken by the voice of the Son of God, who never thus speaks in vain. His voice makes itself heard in the soul, till then dead, but no longer dead as it hears the voice of the Son of God. It lives. “They that hear shall live.” But we read here of no exercises or feelings, no desires or sense of need, of which Christ is the object. It is Christ in divine title and competency, as the Son of God, who speaks; and the soul, till then dead, hears and lives.

But in this chapter 6., our Lord is seen in the place of humiliation He had assumed as man, “come down from heaven,” and the object thus of those desires, and of that sense of need, of which the quickened soul is conscious, but conscious, mark, because of the sin and ruin which it knew not till the voice of the Son of God broke in on its deep sleep of death. It is not always, perhaps not often, that these things can be distinguished in fact. The discovery of Christ in the soul, awakens, perhaps, the first sense of desire after Him, producing thus the hunger and thirst which He only, in further discoveries of Himself and of His work, can appease. But though this may be true in principle, as it surely is, the soul, while going through this passage in its history, is too much occupied with itself to distinguish very accurately the order of its experiences. What is of infinitely greater moment is the truth by which, instrumentally, they are produced; and this, blessed be God! we have in all its fullness and variety in the scriptures under review, and in other portions of God’s holy word.

In the early part of our chapter, we find our Lord fulfilling, in the midst of Israel, the predictions of Psa. 132, where, in connection with Jehovah’s choice of Zion, and placing David’s son upon the throne, we read, “I will abundantly bless her provision; I will satisfy her poor with bread.” But though Jesus be thus manifested as the heir of all the glories prophetically unfolded in the psalm, He is not here taking that place. Israel and the earth were as yet unfit for this; and God’s time for it had not arrived. Hence Jesus retires before the urgency awakened of His own act in this feeding of the multitude. When they would have taken Him by force to make Him a king “he departed again into a mountain himself alone.” Indicating thus that He would be on high during the postponement of His kingdom, His absence was continued until His disciples were in great trouble through a storm by which they were overtaken in crossing the lake. Jesus rejoins them with words of comfort, “and immediately the ship was at the land whither they went.” This episode does not so much refer to the church, or to the saints composing it, as to the Jewish remnant in days to come. The return to them of the now absent but exalted Messiah will both hush the storm which will be threatening their total overthrow, and conduct them at once into the haven of rest. The heavenly saints will be taken from amid the whole scene of trial and of conflict, to be with their Lord whom they meet in the air.

All this, however, is but introductory to the great subject of the chapter, which is linked with these details by the inquiry of those who next day followed our Lord to the other side of the lake. They seem to have been swayed by the most sordid motives with which they are pointedly charged by the Lord. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled. Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you; for him hath God the Father sealed.” If they would come after Him, and this was all the “labor” they had performed, He would have them come for that which would endure. Not the perishing sustenance of a life which shortens each moment of its existence, but the imperishable food of an imperishable life, which it was the great errand and business of the Son of man to give. Son of man He is, blessed he His name, and not simply Son of God; but in this place of humiliation to which He had stooped, how had the Father singled Him out from the whole race of mankind, setting upon Him alone the seal which marked Him out as the object of the Father’s perfect approval and infinite delight. Believers are now, since the resurrection and ascension of the Lord, sealed; but it is in Christ that they are thus distinguished. “In whom, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise.” Christ was sealed because of His intrinsic perfections; we, through our identification with Him in the place He has taken as having accomplished redemption. But the verse under consideration brings us to the Son of man as giving “meat which endureth unto everlasting life.”

They who could follow Christ for loaves only, seek to excuse themselves for the neglect of this better gift. “What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?” is their next question. In what lovely, patient grace does the Lord reply, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” Is He the One who, of all that ever trod this earth, was counted worthy to be sealed of God the Father? How evident, then, that to believe on Him is that which God must approve, and without which nothing else can be accepted in His sight.

The only answer of the people is an inquiry after signs, with a reference to the manna in their fathers’ days, which seems intended to depreciate, by comparison, the miracle of the day before. It is as though they would say, “If you would have us believe in you as the sent One of God, you must show us greater works than these. You have fed five thousand once; our fathers, in Moses’ day, ate manna for forty years”: as it is written, “He gave them bread from heaven to eat.” Then did our Lord begin to unfold the great subject of the chapter. The reasonings of Jewish pride and unbelief gave Him the occasion; but, dealing with these in the most unsparing way, how does He, at the same time, present Himself as the Object on which any hungry, thirsty, fainting, perishing one might feed and live forever. “A full Christ for empty sinners” indeed. These Jews were not such, and so went away. But how many fainting ones, perishing with hunger, have here been regaled, and found in Jesus the bread of life!

The remainder of our chapter affords us a threefold view of this blessed One. Christ incarnate—Christ slain—Christ ascended. May we have grace to listen, to receive, and to worship.

“Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” How simple, and yet how weighty and conclusive His answer to their unexpressed thoughts about Moses, as though Moses were shown, by the miracle of the manna, to be greater than our Lord. “Moses gave you not that bread from heaven.” He was but a receiver of it, like the people themselves, who subsisted on it for forty years. It was God’s gift, and despised, alas! by those who lived on it, just as “the true bread” was now being despised by their descendants. Our Lord does not pursue the subject of the manna. He does not say, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven, but my Father did. No; He would not speak of the manna in connection with the Father’s name, as though the import of that name were disclosed by the gift from heaven of bread for six hundred thousand men and their families for forty years. Was this more, in reality, than His feeding all His creatures every day and every hour? “Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing.” So vast are the Creator’s stores, and so easy their application in Providence to the creature’s need!

But the Father’s name is linked with deeper wonders far. All the riches of grace are told out in the revelation of that name. “My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.” What was that? The answer is at hand. “For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” The Father’s provision for a dying world was to send from heaven His only begotten Son. His appearing here was as the lowly Son of man. The fact was of worldwide interest. All alike needed this bread from heaven, and all alike were welcome. Not to Jew or Gentile, as distinct and privileged, but to the whole race as perishing, was this bounty sent. “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him” (1 John 4:9); “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them” (2 Cor. 5:19). But the world would not be reconciled. It had no taste, no appetite for this “bread from heaven.” There might be the momentary movement of the affections by His gracious words, leading some present to cry, “Lord, evermore give us this bread”; but it was only to make their rejection of Him more manifest and decisive when they came to understand His meaning. But let us listen to His words.

“And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.” Dear reader, do you understand these words? Has your soul-hunger been appeased by this “bread from heaven,” this “bread of life”? Has your soul-thirst been quenched by receiving in Him and of Him the water of life? Or is it possible that one who reads these lines should fall under the condemnation of the words next uttered by Christ? “But I said unto you, that ye also have seen me, and believed not.” No language so cutting as that of rejected mercy, repulsed and slighted love! Here was this blessed One; His errand to this world nothing less than to be the expression of His Father’s love, and the Savior of lost men! He bore His credentials in every gracious word that fell from His lips, and every action of His perfect spotless life. One of these, the miracle of the loaves, had attracted after Him the multitude, who from selfish motives had followed Him across the lake. They confessed thus that they had “seen” Him; but, alas! they “believed not.” When they understood that He was the bread of life, they show plainly it was not for such food that they had come. They would have had another meal such as on the day before; but for the One who gave it they had no heart. He had come to save them, if they would, from a worse death than that by hunger, but they had no sense of their danger and need in this respect, and therefore had no heart for Jesus as their Savior; and they would not receive Him. Nor would any, with Christ shown to them thus and nothing more.

These men were not worse than others. Their unbelief was manifest and declared; and He treats them, therefore, as unbelievers, as rejecters; but this is what would be the result in every case, were we left to our own thoughts of Christ, when thus seen as “come down from heaven.” Thank God, there is something more. Christ had not only come, as bringing life and love so near to the world, to men as such, that only by refusing the life and repelling the love could they hold on in their sins; He had come to fulfill the counsels of His Father’s love in the sovereign gift of life, as shown in chap. 5; and of this He now proceeds to speak, though still as “come down” and here in humiliation, the Object for faith to receive and appropriate. Such faith, it was evident, had no place in man’s heart; but God could give it, and would sovereignly in His grace. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.” [W. T.]

(Continued from page 329)

(To be continued)

A Full Christ for Empty Sinners: Part 3

How humiliating and heart-breaking for us, that, in the presence of incarnate life and love in the Person of the incarnate Son of God, no one would have come to Him, no one have been benefited by His mission, had there not been those who were given Him of the Father, and on whose coming therefore He could securely reckon. Man’s will would, in each individual, have held out against Christ, had not the Father resolved that He should have some as the trophies of His victory, and the reward of His coming down from heaven. Alas, that our deadness to such love should have called forth such sighs as seem to breathe in these words of Jesus. Is it not as though He were accounting to Himself for the marvels of human unbelief?—as though saying, After all, it is but what I might have counted on? Nothing will affect man’s stony heart, save where My Father’s grace effectually intervenes, and on that I may securely count. All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me. And, then, to see how perfectly He fills the servant-place He had taken. For any now to come to Him is the proof of their being among those given to Him of the Father; so He may well declare of such that He will cast none out. The heart to come to Jesus is the sure sign to Him, had that been needed, of His Father’s gracious working; and, therefore, He is but obedient to His Father’s will in receiving, without question as to the past, all who come to Him. “Him that cometh to Me, I will in no wise cast out.” Precious words! Rich has been the comfort they have yielded to many an otherwise desponding one; but how greatly is their value enhanced when the coming to Christ is seen, not as an act of man’s fickle will, but as the effect of the Father’s drawing to Jesus of one given to Him in the counsels of that Father’s love before the foundation of the world.

Then, too, as we have just seen, the reception of such a one by the Savior, irrespective of every consideration beside, is not merely the fruit of His compassion for the sinner, but of His grateful obedient acceptance, as the servant of His Father’s will, of the one sent to Him, brought to Him, by the unseen drawings of that Father’s love. All thus rests, not upon any fancied good in the sinner, but upon the Father’s choice and the Son’s obedient love. “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will; but the will of Him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.” How He thus discloses that a far deeper and more important work had been entrusted to Him than that of satisfying Israel’s poor with bread; no less a charge than that of raising up at the last day all given to Him of the Father, without losing one. Blessed Lord! to whom besides could this charge have been entrusted?

But, while disclosing, as above, that His real errand was one not depending for its issues on man’s will, known already to be so perverse as in every case to reject the Savior—an errand, too, embracing the safe production by Christ in resurrection blessedness of all given to Him by the Father—It is touching to find how solicitously He leaves wide open the door to anyone anywhere who is disposed to enter. He may not, as yet, be able to account for the change in his own condition, as we have seen it accounted for by the Savior; he is not the less welcome, or his final safety the less certain and unfailing. “And this is the will of him that sent mc, that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him, may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

The great stumbling-block to the Jews at that time was His professing to have come down from heaven, just as afterward, in Paul’s day, the doctrine of “Christ crucified” was “to the Jews a stumbling-block.” And for precisely the same reason, their pride disdained the being indebted to One so lowly; and they were so self-satisfied as to see no need for One to come from heaven, and much less for One to die upon the cross to meet their case and be their Deliverer and Redeemer. Their case, as they thought, was by no means so desperate as this. They could not have denied their national subjection to the stranger’s yoke; and, a “great prophet” to have stirred up the people to crowd around the standard of some great commander who would have led them on to victory over their Roman oppressors—this would have been a Messiah to their mind.

But for a plain, homely man, reputed to be the son of a carpenter of Nazareth, to profess to have come down from heaven and to speak of Himself as the bread of life, engaging to raise up His followers at the last day; in other words, for the lowly Jesus to present Himself as the Savior of their souls and the giver of everlasting life, this was a deliverance and a Deliverer of which they felt no need, and for whom they had no relish. They did not hunger for such bread; they did not thirst for such life-giving drafts. “The Jews then murmured at Him, because He said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that He saith, I came down from heaven?” They could understand that a heavenly existence prior to His being a man on earth was implied in this language; in other words, that it was divine glory, veiled in His lowly place and condition as Son of man, which was in these words declared by Him as His. With this implied claim they contrast what they suppose to be His origin, and inquire, “How is it then that He saith, I came down from heaven?”

In answer to all such cavilings the Lord only again retires into His own consciousness of how the case really stood. “Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw Him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” No one hungers for the bread of life so as to come to the Savior except as drawn by a sense of urgent need which exists in none but those whom the Father draws. The prophets had declared of all who should inherit Israel’s promised blessings in the latter day, “And they shall be all taught of God.” This scripture our Lord quotes, and again consoles Himself with the assurance, “Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto Me.” All in Israel who had inwardly heard God’s voice, not only came to Jesus, but were overjoyed to do so. Take Nathanael for an instance (John 1:49). It was these dealings of God with the soul under the fig-tree, these humbling discoveries of self and sin leading to guileless confession of total ruin, that accounted for any coming to Christ. But, as it were, excluding the sense which might have been put on His words, the Lord adds, “Not that any man hath, seen the Father, save He which is of God, He hath seen the Father.”

What treasures do these few words unfold. However souls may be taught of God, drawn of the Father, and consequently come to Christ, it is not that the Father is immediately revealed, so as to be seen. There was no incarnation of the Father, as of the Son. He abides in unmanifested Godhead; and, only in the Son, who stooped to “come down from heaven” and be here a Man upon earth, is the Father to be seen. “Not that any man hath seen the Father, save He which is of God, He hath seen the Father.” Infinite distinction between this blessed Son of man and all men on the earth, whither in grace He had humbled Himself to come. He had seen the Father. In the depths of that eternity in which the Word had been “with God,” in which the “eternal life” was “with the Father,” had He, who now humbly speaks of Himself as “He which is of God,” “seen” what no creature can — “seen the Father.” What unfathomable secrets of love and blessedness and glory are wrapped up in these short simple words!

Tread softly, Ο my soul, for surely this is holy ground. And here He was, He who had seen the Father, He was here to make Him known. He had become incarnate for this very end. He had taken flesh, came down from heaven, or He would still equally with the Father have been beyond the ken of mortals, beyond the creature’s sight. “No man hath seen God at any time: the Only Begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.” Who else could? And how else could we ever have known Him? How else could the light of the Father’s love and grace have beamed into our dark hearts, and shed its luster on our whole upward path to the abodes of which the Savior afterward said, “In my Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so I would have told you; I go to prepare a place for you.” When there with our adorable Jesus, and privileged to behold His glory, how will there be connected therewith the witness of what He had known and enjoyed there from all eternity! “For thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.”

From these depths He returns, and with what perfect case and grace, to the simplest presentation of Himself as the bread of life. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life.”

How simple the way in which the Savior is received! Just as a hungry man, with bread before him, asks no questions, makes no demur, but eats and lives, so the Savior, with a hungry soul before Him, needs nothing to commend Him to such a soul’s grateful, adoring reception. But where are such? Alas! it was the lack of all taste for Christ, the self-complacency which felt no need of Him, that prevented these blinded Jews from receiving Him. And where is there an appetite for Him now? Precious bread of life He doubtless is — perfectly adapted to nourish and sustain divine life in man, even if that life be in its most infantile stage, the very earliest moments of its communication by grace to the soul.

But without this what is there? Death! A corpse has no appetite — it neither hungers nor thirsts. No more does the soul that is still dead in sins, dead to God. It is of the woman who seeks her happiness on earth that the word is spoken, “She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth” (1 Tim. 5:6), but it would surely be as true to say that he who thus lives is also dead.

Dear reader, if fashion, wealth, or pleasure —the world in any of its forms—be all we wish, all we seek, what can the bread of life be to us in that state? Insipid and distasteful indeed in our esteem! Christ will not help us to win the prize in any race of ambition or pursuit of pleasure. He who passed by the nature of angels, and all the gradations of human rank, to be known on earth, as these Jews tauntingly designated Him, “the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know”; or as some in Mark vi. 3, “Is not this the carpenter?” — He is not one in whom pride can find its food. And as to pleasure, what can they who seek it find in the One “who pleased not Himself” — who tells us in this very chapter, “For I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me”?

And yet, solemnly as the fact begins to declare itself, that between this incarnate One and those who surrounded Him there was not one thought, feeling, or motive in common, how graciously He continues to urge every consideration which might be adapted to produce in them an appetite to awaken desires after Himself, the Living Bread! They had referred to the manna, and covertly to Moses as the giver of it, in order to depreciate Christ. He returns to that subject now, to press on their attention the contrast for themselves. “Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread he shall live forever.” Wondrous words!

The manna, testimony as it was of God’s power and grace, and type indeed of Christ Himself, in its actual use did but nourish for a few years that poor, fleeting, feverish, forfeited life, which begins at our birth and ends at our death. A taper wasting from the moment it begins to shine; “a vapor that appearth for a little time, and then vanisheth away” —is it for this, or the support of it, or for the brief pleasure that it affords, that men toil, fret, weary themselves, despise heaven with all its glories, refuse or neglect Christ and His great salvation?

Yes. It was so in our Lord’s day on earth. It is so still. Oh that His words (thank God, “they are spirit and they are life”) may reach the heart of some one who cons these pages—the words in which He contrasts with everything in this poor, perishable life, that interminable existence in unutterable peace and joy, that “everlasting life” which all receive who receive Him! Hungry soul, can you not feed on Jesus? As you would appease your natural hunger on the suited food, can you not find in Jesus what meets your entire case, what satisfies your every wish? Here is an undying life—an unwasting one; to “live forever” is the effect of feeding on this bread from heaven. “That a man may eat thereof and not die: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever.” Has the worldling anything to compare with this? Do his most feverish dreams of happiness on earth embrace the element of unending continuance? It is just for him the one element wanting, the lack of which spoils all the rest.

How passing wonderful, that the One who stood before these Jews as the lowliest and poorest of men had the full consciousness then of having a life to bestow, to communicate, which death cannot touch, and which is, in its own proper nature, everlasting life! He is no longer here in humiliation, speaking such words of grace and truth as these; but He has not ceased to be the giver of this life, Himself the fullness of the life He gives. “As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.”

To gather up a little what has been under review, we have here “the Son of man,” One who is really partaker of flesh and blood, a Man conversing with the men who had followed Him across the lake—we have this Son of man, the Sealed One of God the Father. He is the Sent One too, and the first thing for any one who would please God is to believe on Him whom He hath sent. He has, moreover, meat or food to give, which endures to everlasting life. In the conversation with the parties just adverted to, the mystery of His presence here is declared, and many of the moral traits of that life of which He is the full expression, and which He was here to communicate, are either stated in words, or come out in practical display. He was from heaven, the incarnate One. He was the Father’s gift, a character in which He delights in this Gospel to speak of Himself. He was the true bread—the real and only nourishment for divine life in man, had it only been there.

What perfect adaptation to man’s need is this bread from heaven. He who is that bread gives life, moreover, as well as sustains it where it is. But where is it, alas! save as sovereignly bestowed, when all would equally have treated it with disdain. They had seen Him and had not believed. There is the heartiest welcome, an open door, none refused; he who comes is no more to hunger, he who believes is no more to thirst; but the Savior has to take refuge from universal rejection by mankind in the certainty that all would come to Him who were given to Him of the Father. The outflow of His own love in receiving all such, and casting none out who come, is thus seen as the perfection of obedience to His Father, whose will, not His own, He had come from heaven to do. How the heart bows in contemplation of such obedience! He who could speak of raising up His people at the last day as though it were as easy and simple an act of obedience as any that He performed while here, speaks of Himself as having it in charge not to stop short of this. “This is the Father’s will... that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”

Blessed Jesus, how safe, to be confided thus to Thee! But more than this, this safety appertains to all who see Him and believe on Him, “the last Adam, a quickening Spirit.” Though it may be of His resurrection-place that this is spoken, such is the fullness of life in His person that the eye that rests on Him receives, with the beams of His countenance, that life which these beams impart. To believe on Him is to have everlasting life. The drawings of the Father, His secret teachings, secure that they shall come to Him who are the gift to Him of the Father’s love. The Father Himself, undisclosed save to the Son (“He who is of God”), draws to the Son by that sense of need which is met by Him alone. He is the bread of life—not a perishable life like that of which even the manna in the desert was the food—but everlasting life.

What unfathomable wonders these few verses disclose! The infinite grace displayed in the fact of the incarnation—how little is it pondered by our careless, frivolous hearts! And then the perfectness of this blessed One in the place of humiliation to which He had stooped—the absoluteness of His obedience, and the delicacy of His self-hiding, self-consuming service! To these Jews He had to speak of Himself, for they challenged His claims, and invidiously compared Him with Moses, and His miracle with that of the manna. He answers as feeling the reflection on His Father, not on Himself. “Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.” Blessed Savior! grant us daily and hourly to feed by faith on Thyself in all the perfectness in which Thou wast displayed to the eye of God while sojourning in this vale of tears.

[W. T.]

(To be continued)

A Full Christ for Empty Sinners: Part 4

But our attention is claimed by deeper wonders still. The incarnation is one marvel and mystery and glory of the gospel, the cross is the other. Any third miracle to compare with these the records of eternity afford not. There has been none such in eternity past; there can be none such in eternity to come. The Word made flesh! The Holy One made sin! But why was this? Was it not enough that God sent His only begotten Son into the world that we might live through Him? Had this been all, not one sinner of Adam’s race would have been found on high to sing the praises of his Savior-God. Christ the incarnate Word, had there been no deeper mystery of love, would have shown, more than anything beside, man’s hatred to God, and the utter hopelessness of his case. The blessed One well knew this when He came into the world, but now the proof was before His eyes. The more His intrinsic excellence, His moral perfectness was displayed, the more manifest it became that between Him and fallen man there was not one moral quality in common.

It is not, as others have observed, a question of degree, a race in which one immeasurably out distances another. No; it is contrariety—contrast—of the most absolute kind. All that men value and seek He declined and shunned. For all on which His heart was set they had no relish whatever. Men seek their own glory; He sought His Father’s alone. Men do their own will; His Father’s was His only business. Men love those who resemble themselves, and such as love them; He loved where there were no qualities He could approve, and where there was hatred to Himself that thirsted for His blood. To think of One who for the three and thirty years of His sojourn on earth never did one thing to serve Himself, spare Himself, exalt Himself, but for every moment of His life was and did, spake and, thought and felt, exactly as the Father would have Him! Let a man’s eyes be opened, as they are when his ears are unstopped by the voice of God’s Son; let his opened eyes rest on THIS BLESSED PERSON as the divine records set Him forth, and what is the result? “Woe is me,” he exclaims, “I am utterly hopeless now! Hard and vain have been my struggles to win life by keeping the law; but now, as I look on this moral picture, every trait, every line, convicts me of being exactly the opposite. I admire His ways, I could sit and gaze on Him and wonder; and if I could be like him—alas! every attempt deepens my conviction that it is all in vain. If Christ be what God delights in—and He is—He never can delight in me, for His ways and mine are farther than east and west asunder. What is to become of me, wretched man that I am?”

What, indeed, must have become of any of us, had Christ only glorified His Father in coming down to sojourn here as a living man? But this was not the whole; He Himself assures us it was not. “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

As come down, as incarnate, He was the bread of God, His Father’s gift; but there was bread which He Himself would give, even His flesh, which He would give for the life of the world. Now this giving of His flesh was the laying down of His life, the yielding Himself up to death, that He might become to sinners—to fallen, perishing men—what bread would be to a crowd of persons perishing with hunger.

It is in a slain Christ alone that sinners can now find what meets their deep and solemn need. Well may our need be met where God has been perfectly glorified about our sins! Convicted, by His life, of total contrariety to Him in every moral trait, whither shall we turn but to the cross, where this same blessed One gives His flesh that we may live?

Did His love go even to such lengths as these? It did. When nothing less than the death of a sin-atoning victim of infinite value could meet our need as guilty ones exposed to the wrath of God, or justify God in justifying us, His love was found equal to the emergency, and He gave His flesh for the life of the world.

That such is His meaning comes out more emphatically in His reply to the next cavil of those who stood round about Him. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” was their carnal, foolish inquiry. He stops not to explain, but repeats and amplifies His previous declaration. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” Evidently, for the blood to be apart from the flesh, so as to speak of eating the one and drinking the other, the blood must have been shed in death. So that we have here, in the fullest way, the death of Christ, the shedding of His blood, set forth; and, at the same time, the most solemn testimony of ITS ABSOLUTE NECESSITY FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL, and of the equally absolute necessity for ITS INDIVIDUAL RECEPTION. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” Who besides could have thus provided for our perishing souls? What other life would have had in it the atoning value, the saving efficacy, at once to meet the highest claim of God’s moral glory, the glory of all His perfections, and reach down to the lowest depths of our need as guilty, ruined, hopelessly undone sinners?

And yet it is as Son of man that He here speaks of Himself. How could He have suffered death had He not become the Son of man? How this links together the mysteries of Bethlehem and Calvary, the Incarnation and the Cross! The one was in order to the other. He came to die. “Once, in the end of the world, hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” It was “for the suffering of death” that He was “made a little lower than the angels.” And it is by His death we live.

Though He had life in Himself, and though, anticipatively of His atoning work, He gave life at any time to any poor sinner, it was only on the ground of that work that life could flow from His person to any who heard His voice and believed His words while here; and the actual shedding of His blood as that of the great and all-atoning Victim for our sins, was the only way in which the flood-gates of mercy could be thrown open to guilty, justly condemned sinners. How widely they are flung open now! How completely has Christ’s precious sacrifice removed all the obstacles to our salvation presented by the character of God, His holy nature, the majesty of His throne, and the faithfulness of His word! “The righteous Lord loveth righteousness”; and while this perfection might surely have been displayed in the endless punishment of the whole guilty race, how then would the love of God have been exercised or shown? Where is that love so manifested as at the cross? and where besides is God seen as so inexorably just? The flames of hell are not so glorious a vindication of His righteous claims as the agonies of His spotless, immaculate Son. God’s holy hatred of sin could not go further than the averting His countenance from the Son of His love when drinking the cup for us.

Who will not tremble before this holy Lord God, who, sooner than tarnish His throne, or break the word which had gone out of His mouth, that sin should have death for its righteous punishment, gave up to death—the death of the cross—the One who had been in His bosom from all eternity? And then to think of that One voluntarily yielding up His life? In obedience to His Father and in love to us He drinks the cup of wrath, that in Him, the Slain One, we perishing sinners may find all we need. Life flows to us through His death; and the soul that finds its hunger appeased and its thirst quenched by what Scripture tells of Christ on the cross, has not only life in Him, eternal life, issuing in the resurrection of life at the last day, but a present fullness of nutriment and refreshing, of which the Savior witnesses in the words, “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” Continuing to feed on Him as the slain as well as the incarnate Christ, we abide in Him and He in us. “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.”

This language assumes, though it does not mention the fact, that He who used it would rise again. And with Christ as risen, they who feed on Him as slain, are so identified that He here for the first time in Scripture speaks of our dwelling in Him and He in us. Dwelling in Him we participate in all that is His; and by His dwelling in us we become vessels for the manifestation of what He is.

Nor is this the whole. Christ’s own life as the Son of man was a life of entire dependence on the Father. And ours is one of dependence on Christ Himself. But the one is presented as the model for the other. “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.” Blessed Jesus, teach us thus to live in hourly dependence on Thyself! It is at this point that the Savior sums up the whole subject of which He had been treating. “This is that bread which came down from heaven; not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead; he that eateth of this bread shall live forever.”

But the native sphere and home of this undying life is not earth but heaven. To all intents it is an exotic here. Perfectly was it manifested in the three and thirty years’ sojourn on earth of the Son of man; and, as we have seen, this display of divine life in man, in the person of Christ, is one great leading subject of this Gospel. But the One in whom this display took place was a stranger here. The Book witnesses this fact throughout. We have not far to read before we find the words, “And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness comprehended it not.” And then more plainly still, “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.” Even His own people, the Israel of Jehovah’s choice, had, as we have also so largely seen in this very chapter, no heart for Jesus. “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” Thus rejected by those among whom He came, He makes no secret of whence He had come. To Nicodemus He says, “If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” Who so competent to tell as He to whom these things were familiar, and the mystery of whose Person still made heaven His home, though as man He had come to sojourn below? “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” Such were His own words to the Jewish rabbi; while in the same chapter (3), the Holy Ghost by the Evangelist’s pen delightedly bears witness to Him as the heavenly Stranger here. “He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that corneal from heaven is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth.” Alas that He has to add, “And no man receiveth his testimony”!

Our own chapter bears abundant witness to His having come down from heaven. This was what so provoked the opposition of the Jews; an opposition which became so open and so fully declared as to force from the Savior’s lips the most solemn statements as to the contrast between their origin and the sphere whence He had come. “And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above; ye are of this world; I am not of this world” (chap. 8). No; He was from heaven. A true, real Man; veritably partaker with the children, blessed be God, of flesh and blood; partaker, as He has been telling us, of a life which He would give in the shedding of His blood, that there might be the link between Him and all who receive Him of an undying life. But all this could not constitute Him a native of this world, a denizen of the earth. He was a stranger here; and when many of His disciples began to say inwardly to themselves, “This is a hard saying, who can hear it?” He, knowing their thoughts, replied, “Doth this offend you? What and it ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?”

Thus does He give, somewhat obscurely indeed, as suggesting much more than was spoken, the first intimation of the third great fact of which our chapter is the witness. Christ incarnate, and thus come down from heaven; Christ slain, His blood shed for sinful men, becoming the suited food of a life, the first movement of which in us is in the sense of our need as sinners, a hunger which can only thus be appeased; and now Christ ascended, involving of necessity His resurrection, but including much more than this. The eternal life which was with the Father before all worlds —the eternal, uncreated, all-creating Word which “in the beginning” was “with God” and “was God” —had come down, and become in that act of deep humiliation “the Son of man.” He was now returning to that sphere of unmingled blessedness, of highest glory, whence He had come forth to Bethlehem’s manger and Calvary’s cross; but He was returning thither as Son of man. Thenceforth He should be seated as man on the throne of His Father. Heaven, not earth, becomes thus, from the moment of His session there, the home of all who, by eating His flesh and drinking His blood, become partakers of His life. Earth becomes a wilderness, a place of exile, to all such, just as it was to Him while here. He is our life, and this associates us necessarily with heaven and all that is native to that abode of purity and joy. As another once remarked, “If sin has opened to man the place of woe never designed for him but for the devil and his angels, grace has opened to him that heaven which is peculiarly and distinctively the dwelling-place of God.” “The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s; but the earth hath he given to the children of men.” So the Psalmist wrote, and such indeed was the only inheritance which could have descended to us, even from unfallen Adam. The earth was given to him (Gen. 1), but when his sin had opened hell to the finally impenitent and unbelieving, grace opened heaven to all who become willing to enter there in the value of Christ’s blessed Person and atoning work.

What He but obscurely hints to His disciples in our chapter has since become accomplished fact, and one of the great foundation-facts of Christianity. Christ has gone up on high. The Son of man has ascended up where He was before. His request to His Father (John 17) has been fulfilled. “And now, O Father, glorify thou me, with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” Nor would He be there alone. “Father, I will [or, desire] that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me; for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.” Heaven is now the revealed home and sphere of that eternal life which, if absolutely and perfectly displayed on earth in the One of whom we read, “In him was life,” is also derivatively enjoyed by all who believe. “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?”

It was for other lips and another pen than the beloved disciple’s to unfold this subject in detail. The place in heaven in and with Christ, bestowed on believers by the grace which reigns through righteousness by our Lord Jesus Christ, is Paul’s distinctive theme. The manifestation of divine life on earth, perfectly in Christ, and really though derivatively in us, is the theme of John’s Gospel and Epistles. It is, of all themes, the most vital, essential, fundamental. But deeply interesting it is to find such links as our Lord’s words last quoted, and those from chap. 17:24, evincing that whether Paul or Peter or John be the instrument of communication, it is one vast circle of truth which is revealed, of which the center and fullness are found in the Person and Sacrifice and Exaltation of the Son of God and Son of man, Christ, the Word incarnate, Christ slain, Christ ascended; “a full Christ for empty sinners.”

Many who had for a season followed Christ drew back from the time when this discourse was delivered. This did not surprise Him; but it afforded Him the occasion of challenging the hearts of those who still surrounded Him. To them Jesus said, “Will ye also go away?” No one wonders that Peter was spokesman for them all; and he might not yet have measured himself, as afterward through grace he did when he went out and wept bitterly. Nevertheless there is a warmth, an energy, a decision about his words that we may well covet, and as to which we may challenge our hearts, dear Christian reader, whether we could reply thus. Go away! “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.”

May our hearts repel thus, and disown, every thought of any other than this blessed Christ of God. “To whom shall we go?” To whom indeed? Oh, to abide in Him! May we have grace to cleave to Him with purpose of heart, and may He be glorified in each of us, for His Name’s sake. Amen.

(Concluded from page 363)

W. T.

Hebrews: Its Aim, and for Whom Written? Part 1

When the will is engaged in any doctrine it leaves one but a faint hope of its being given up by him who holds it. Still, I would not abandon that hope, altogether, as regards the author of the “Remarks on the Intercession of Christ,” and at any rate the inquiry into the truth on the subject may be useful to many souls. I confess I have been surprised at the statements in the tract. If anything had been needed to convince me of the totally unscriptural and unfounded character of the doctrine, this tract would have supplied it. Scarcely a single principle or statement is scriptural or sound. But God’s grace is almighty, and I can only heartily desire and pray for the clearing up the mind of one of whose Christianity I should not hear to doubt.

The theory is, that The Epistle to the Hebrews is for the remnant after the church is gone, not for us Christians. And that Christ’s intercession is simply His presence before God for us in the worth of His work; nothing active. That there is no exercise of any priesthood after the pattern of Aaron’s on the part of Christ. I could hardly have thought any one could have made such statements. But they are made. “The only priesthood of Christ is Melchisedec, and that is for blessing, not intercession. The intercession, as I have before said, is his maintaining us before God in all the value of His own person and work.” “Israel will be in the land of unbelief, keeping the commandments of Moses—this epistle takes them up on that ground and tells them Christ is the end of the law,” etc. “Christ is indeed on the right hand of God—He is there by right and title; but He is there also for us, and so He is there presenting Himself as the Head and the representative of the redeemed. It is His presence intercedes or avails for us.” “Some who would not say quite so much [that Christ had a double priesthood], yet say that though Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedec only, yet He exercises it at present after the character of Aaron... Thus they make the word of God of none effect by their tradition.”

Referring to Christ’s work and the Spirit’s, the writer says, “Still, one is a finished work abiding before God in all its finished perfectness—the other is that which is carried on from age to age in the world; and from day to day in the heart of the believer; and the two works, for they are two, are effected by different persons and differ greatly in character; one is completed, the other not; and it is because one is completed, and not to be added to, and is ever in its completeness before God, that the other is being carried on by that other person.” “And certainly if we take the testimony of the book itself, it is clear that it is the world (or, habitable earth) to come whereof we speak, and that is assuredly connected with Israel, not the church being gathered.” Again, “Melchisedec priesthood is prominently presented, and from Psa. 110 we know that to be coincident with the rod of strength out of Zion.” And, quoting from me as to this priesthood, he says, “It is blessing and refreshment after and consequent upon the destruction of all enemies it is not that which Christ the Lord now exercises.” “And the way in which they [these matters] are here treated... shows that it is not the church as being gathered that is contemplated, but that which follows after the church is caught up to meet the Lord in the air.”

My purpose is to go through The Epistle to the Hebrews sufficiently to see what its true aim and bearing is, and then I will take up particular statements to show how utterly groundless they are. But before I do this I have one remark to make, and that is, that the notion that our church position as such is the whole or even the highest we have, is quite unfounded. Mistakes connected with this I will note in their place. I only notice the principle now. Our union with Christ casts its preciousness on every part of our blessings, and the last thing I should be inclined to do is to compare these where all is sovereign grace. But in itself this is not a relationship with the Father. With Him we are individuals, we are sons. Christ owns us as brethren, is the Firstborn among many brethren. Our union with Christ, though divine, is with Him as man, as made Head over all things. See Eph. 1:22, 23, and so Eph. 2. And all our relationship with God and the Father is developed before that, and this in the epistle where church privileges are peculiarly taught, and many of the most precious exhortations to practice are on this ground. See chapter 5:1 for example.

We speak of what belongs to the church, according to the common use of language, when we really mean what belongs to those who compose it. And this has no great practical harm when it is not used to make the idea, exclusively as such, our only blessing. I might say, The corporation are very good men, when I mean the men that compose it. But when an idea newly acquired gets hold of the soul, men are apt to be exclusively full of it. It shuts out other important truths. If anyone has been filled with the sense of the importance of the doctrine of the church, I think I may say I have; but conscience is individual; justification is individual; sonship is individual; communion, in perhaps its most important and certainly necessary part, is individual. Take all the writings of the apostle John, and, unless one allusion to a local body, you would never know that a church existed. I never lose, or at any rate never should lose, the consciousness of being a member of Christ; as I have said, it throws, when have it, its light on all. I add the idea of unity in the body to union in the family. I am one with all those who are my brethren. But surely there is a vast flood of unspeakable blessing in John, in whose writings the thought or name of the church never comes. I speak of the gospel and epistles. All is individual there. Those who enjoy it belong to the church, and do not put themselves out of the church mentally in enjoying it; but it is not, for all that, the less individual.

This principle will be found to be of large application. Thus justification is not found in Ephesians. That speaks of the new creation according to God’s counsels. The sinner has to be justified, not God’s new creation. Yet every word blessedly confirms the doctrine of Romans—Galatians also; but the subject is taken up differently. Romans deals with man’s responsibility, and the Ephesians with God’s counsels. They meet in Christ and in the cross, and nothing can be more deeply instructive to heart and soul, but they are distinct.

But I turn to Hebrews. Now I fully admit, and have often stated, that the epistle has the Jews as a people in view, Christ having died for the nation; and it is interesting to inquire in its place as to the bearing of this on the remnant, after the church is gone. I will try and touch on it briefly; but our present inquiry is, Does the epistle apply to Christians?

The Epistle to the Hebrews at the time it was written was written to somebody? To whom? Either to Christians who at the same time were Jews, or to unbelieving Jews who rejected the Savior. The answer to this question is an answer to the whole theory. No doubt therefore interesting and important details to consider after it is answered. But if it was written to Christians the whole theory is proved false. I have not to inquire as to my use of it and to whom it may apply. I have learned to whom it did apply. To Christians, and though specially addressed to Jewish Christians, for such there were, Christians jealous of the law and frequenting the temple, and offering sacrifices, and adapted to their case; yet available for all Christians, in the doctrines by which it acts on these Jewish Christians, though not as to the circumstances in which they were found, for we are not in them. Though we may be in very similar ones, when the professing church has Judaized.

I repeat then my question: To whom was it addressed when written? Were the unbelieving Jews then “partakers of the heavenly calling”? If not, it applies to Christians. Had the unbelieving Jews taken joyfully the spoiling of their goods, knowing that they had in heaven a better and enduring substance? Had they to consider the end of the conversation of their departed rulers whose faith they were to follow? Who had an altar which they had no right to eat of, who served the tabernacle? The unbelieving Jews? Why they are in express contrast. Christians, Christian Jews, were therefore to leave the system which they up to that time had been walking with. I ask any sober person to read chapter 13 through and say, Was the epistle addressed then to Christians or not? If it was addressed to Christians, as Christians, and because they were such, the question is answered and set at rest. Most interesting for Christians to inquire its import and value for themselves, but as belonging to themselves and addressed to themselves.

But I anticipate a little the details, and will inquire now regularly what proofs the epistle gives of being addressed to Christians, though not speaking of church privileges as such. The writer places himself amongst those he writes to. This is not denied, and is clear from the beginning of the second chapter. Was the writer among the unbelieving Jews? For it was addressed to some one then. Those addressed had received the teachings of the apostles. There was danger of letting them slip; but they had heard and received them. He speaks of the world to come, but was not in it, for Jesus was sitting at the right hand of God, all things being not yet under His feet. But he speaks for himself and those he writes to: “We see Jesus... crowned with glory and honor.” This last is an important point. Besides His divinity—it is that which the first chapter insists on—it is characteristic, specifically characteristic of the whole epistle. I mean that Jesus was sitting at the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens. Not after the destruction of His enemies a priesthood of blessing on His own throne. Thus, in the wonderful statement in chap. 1:3, the groundwork of the epistle, the place Christ is found in is, having “by himself purged our sins, he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”

The position which makes the basis of the whole epistle is Christ’s present position, not his Melchisedec position, but a heavenly Christ sitting at the right hand of God on high. So when the writer has gone through his doctrine on this subject, he gives the summing up of it. “We have such an high priest who is set at the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens.” When His position is considered in reference to His manhood, as we have seen, all things are not put under His feet. He sits at the right hand of God till they are. We see Him crowned with glory and honor. He suffered being tempted here, that He may be able to succor those that are tempted. Neither the position nor the service has any possible application to a Melchisedec priesthood on earth. Temptation and conflict will not exist then. The Melchisedec priesthood, the writer agrees and insists on, is, in its exercise, after the destruction of all enemies. Satan will then he bound. Antichrist’s time is not the time of Melchisedec’s priesthood; and the exercise of Melchisedec’s priesthood is not the time of temptation. Further, the object in view is bringing many sons to glory. The remnant are not the object of this purpose. The place of Christ, the service of Christ, and the object of God all refer to the saints at this present time, not, as such, to a Jewish remnant to be blessed on earth, or to a Melchisedec priesthood in its acknowledged exercise as such.

Does the third chapter teach us any other doctrine or the same founded on the same truth of Christ’s heavenly present glory? Christ is as son over God’s house. That is the position in which the epistle views Him, not in a Melchisedec one. And note here, He is the High Priest of our profession, compared to Moses and Aaron; that is, according to the doctrine of chaps. i. and ii. Whose profession? The unbelieving Jews’? An unbelieving remnant when the heavenly saints are gone? A Christian, more than a Christian, we are told, writes the epistle, and says, “our profession” —and that means unbelieving Jews, or an expectant remnant.

[J. N. D.]

(To be continued)

Hebrews: Its Aim, and for Whom Written? Part 2

But I prefer at present to follow out the direct teaching of this Epistle, which makes all clear, if anything can, if there is spiritual intelligence. Further, then, in this chapter it is said, “Whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.” To whom does this apply? For whom is it written? Are unbelieving Jews, however inclined to listen, the house of Christ as the exalted Son of God?

Are they to hold fast their profession, the beginning of their confidence and rejoicing of hope, firm to the end? The Jewish remnant is not, further, a partaker of the heavenly calling, but of the earthly. In a word, thus far we have Christ, not as Melchisedec priest, but as sitting at the right hand of God, the High Priest of our profession; and those addressed are “partakers of the heavenly calling,” and are to hold fast their first confidence. We, says the writer, are His house if we do. “Made partakers of Christ,” which in English might embarrass a soul, offers no difficulty, but the contrary. It is final partaking with Him in glory, according to chap. 1:9, where “fellows” is the same word. Some remarks on how far this chapter may subsequently suit the remnant in its use of the wilderness history I will make when I refer to that point.

In chap. 4 it is said, “For we which have believed do enter into rest.” Does “we which have believed” (οἱ πιστεύσαντες) apply to unbelievers? and this of the rest of sons whom God was bringing to glory? Again I read, “Seeing then that we have a great high priest that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.” Whose? Whose then? The unbelievers willing to listen, or even the Jewish remnant after the church is gone, have no profession to hold fast which a Christian could call “ours,” when he referred to having a high priest in the heavens. This priesthood, moreover, a present priesthood which “we have,” has nothing to do with a Melchisedec priesthood; it is a priesthood for the time of need, a priest who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, tempted in all points like we are, except sin; so that we can come boldly to the throne of grace for mercy and help in time of need. This is priesthood, and not Melchisedec priesthood, after enemies are destroyed; but what enables us to come boldly to a throne of grace for mercy and help.

In chap. v. the “For” of this first verse shows that the Aaronic priesthood was founded on this very principle. It is not Christ’s priesthood itself, as the fifth verse very clearly and positively shows; but it takes the Aaronic priesthood as a sample of the thoughts of God in priesthood, clearly not Melchisedec priesthood. It was different from Christ’s, inasmuch as the Aaronic priesthood had sympathy while in, and because they were in, the same weakness as the others who drew nigh to God; whereas Christ’s priesthood is exercised in the heavens. The partaking of the sorrows, when here, fitted Him for it, as chaps. ii. 18, iv. 15, 16 show, and v. 7. But THESE took place in the days of His flesh before He became a priest. He became that when perfected on high, for “we have a great high priest that is passed into the heavens.” This makes the place and nature of His priesthood as clear as possible. He was tempted and suffered here below, as we suffer, to be fitted for it, touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but He exercises it on high. These two points are the fundamental and essential ones of the doctrine of the epistle, while it clearly states that it is for us. He is the High Priest of our profession. He is the author of eternal salvation to all those who obey Him. That those whom the apostle thus addresses were Christians will appear in the strongest light from what is here and afterward said of them: Christians in danger of being led away by judaism and of apostatizing.

“For the time ye ought to be teachers” (ver. 12). What had time to do if they were unbelievers or Jews? or how could the writer say to the Jewish remnant after the church was gone, that they for the time ought to be teachers? Ye ought to be teachers. Who? The unbelieving remnant?

And now let the reader remark here what lies at the root of all this question.

We have seen as clearly as Scripture could make it, a priesthood based on Christ’s being exalted at the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens on the one hand, and on His having been tempted, and having suffered, and having learned obedience here below in the days of His flesh on the other; the priest of our profession who has the heavenly calling, a priest, as we shall see, who is entered into the heavens as our forerunner; and able, as having suffered, to help those who are tempted; and this priest is the priest according to the order of Melchisedec. (See chap. v. 7-10). We have the whole process of His perfecting for priest and then He is saluted of God a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Is it not perfectly clear that, though, personally, the priesthood be not after the order of Aaron, but a new one, the exercise of the priesthood is not after the similitude of Melchisedec? Save what belongs to the person, not one clement of Melchisedec priesthood is here found. The priest is in heaven, and profits by sufferings experienced here below to succor a tempted and suffering people. So that we come boldly to the throne of grace. I add to this, that it is after He has perfected the work of propitiation, chap. 1:3 to chap. 2:17, where “reconciliation” should be “propitiation” (ἰλάσχεσθαι)—but His priesthood, wholly and expressly on high, and He is on no Melchisedec throne, no throne of His own at all, but on the Father’s throne, on the right hand of the throne of God; not after His enemies are all subdued, but expecting till His enemies be made His footstool. His priesthood is this; not Melchisedec priesthood in its place or exercise. I remark further, that though the application of every blessing, all the work of God in good from creation on, is by the Spirit, yet that that truth is not taught here. The person who feels for us has had experience, so as to be able to feel for us. “Who is able to succor the tempted” is not the Spirit here, but Christ, and Christ as priest. And this is a most important thing. For the heart of the Christian, Christ is an object of affection, which the Spirit—though we are indebted to His working for every blessing—cannot be.

I pursue my inquiry into the contents of the epistle. They for the time ought to be teachers; and (chap. vi.) the writer will not go back to Jewish elements. How does he speak of the responsibility of those he addresses? He will go on to perfection (that is, the estate of full age: it is the same root-word as in chap. v. 14, “full age”) with those he addresses. “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again to repentance, seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God.” Is that the state of Jews disposed to listen then, or of the Jewish remnant in the last days? Falling away from having enjoyed their privileges is the thing contemplated. But these two categories of persons had never enjoyed them at all. And this is the aim of the whole epistle—to guard against falling away. The nation had crucified Christ—they might be forgiven it as an act of ignorance; but these, after the enjoyment of Christian privileges, did it for themselves; then there was no help. But in spite of this so solemn warning, he hoped better things of those he addressed, for they had brought forth fruits of grace. He could not think they could fall away from their privileges; for fruits of life had been shown. Only he desired that every one of them might show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope to the end. Is that addressed to a then unbelieving remnant, or to Christians who had received all fullness of privileges, and whose fruits made their teacher fully hope they would not abandon them? What was falling away from unbelief? The best thing they could do was to give it up. What was the same diligence to be shelved to the end in unbelievers? And what was the hope that belonged to them? It entered in within the veil whither the forerunner was entered for them, even Jesus. That is not the hope of the remnant, no more than the beginning of the chapter was the state of the remnant. Their hope is deliverance. The forerunner is for us entered within the veil. We hope to be with Him in heaven. Jesus is gone in: we are to follow Him there. Yet this is He who is made a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec.

The inspired writer then unfolds this priesthood of Melchisedec; but of the exercise of the priesthood not a word. All relates to His person, and the setting aside of the law by the setting up of another priest. There is large allusion to the history, or to His person and personal dignity; but not a word as to what He did. But we have the bringing in of a better hope, by the which we draw nigh to God. Who? the unbelieving Jews ready to listen? Of whom does the writer say, “We draw nigh unto God”; and “He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them”? Here we have an ever living priest, by whom we draw nigh to God, able to save through and through to the end (not because He has perfected us by His offering, infinitely precious, unspeakably precious, as that is; not because He has died for us, though that be the ground of all, a ground even for the Father’s love of Him; but) because He ever lives to make intercession for us. Appearing in the presence of God for us is another thing, and otherwise expressed in this epistle (chap. ix. 24). And really “ever living to appear,” has very little sense. He is able, since He ever lives, to do something which requires activity, is plain enough; but “ever living to appear” is not a sentence which could commend itself to any sober mind taught of God.

But ἐντυγχάνειν does not mean that; it means “to intercede.” If he who has given occasion to this paper likes to take the dictionary sense given by his correspondent as a general idea, I have no objection. “Talking with, or getting to the spirit of another”; that is, activity; not appearing before another, but talking with that other, getting to his spirit, if we are so to express it. And I insist distinctly, that the use of it in Rom. 8 is a very distinct and plain proof of its meaning. The Holy Ghost in us does not appear before God for us. He is active in us, and makes us groan, and God recognizes it as His activity in us; finds the mind of the Spirit in us; for He makes intercession for the saints. This is activity. It is talking to another, even to God, in a groan; and, if I am reverently to use such an expression, “it gets to His Spirit.” God apprehends His mind when even we cannot, and recognizes it as His, accepts it. He talks to another, and it gets, as far as we may venture to use the words, it gets to His Spirit—it reaches God’s mind and heart. Christ ever lives to intercede for us on high. I say “for us,” not as sitting in heavenly places, but as coming to God by Him. I say “us,” “for such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, made higher than the heavens.” “Became us” because we belong to heaven—go in spirit into heaven in our coming to God. We have not to do with a priest on a throne on earth, or on His own throne anywhere; but with one who is now made higher than the heavens.

Such is the priesthood of Christ always in this epistle, a present priesthood, a priesthood in heaven, a priesthood on the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens, exercised there; a priesthood, not after the order of Aaron as to person or descent, but our Lord, priest on high after the power of an endless life, personally similar to, and after the order of, Melchisedec, but never introduced as exercising His priesthood after the pattern, or in the place of, Melchisedec; always, from chapter ii. and iii. as compared with and contrasted with Aaron’s, to lift Jewish Christians (for they were Jewish Christians specifically), then from Jewish habits of association with that which was on earth, in showing a present priesthood exercised above the heavens, and to preserve them by grace from falling away from the heavenly things to what they were used to; and I may add, to bring them out from what they had hitherto staid in, the camp—outward association with Israel and a judged system, and by teaching which, for us, is based on the truth, in its continual exercise, that He ever lives to do it, now as then. It is the exercise of a continual priesthood after He had offered up Himself once for all.

It is well that the reader should remark, that though the sacrifice has been stated (it is spoken of in the very first chapter, so in the second, as it is again here), we have not one word as yet of being made perfect in fact or in conscience, but the priest’s fitness for tempted exercised souls down here; a priest who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities. He is gone on high, but we have no perfecting by sacrifice, no appearing— as yet in the presence of God for us. Though the value of His priesthood for tried ones, and its fitness, is fully stated, as yet it is not our perfectness before God, but help for the feeble and tried, who need help and mercy. It is to this last that priesthood is applied, and priesthood at the right hand of God, on the right hand of the throne of Majesty on high, not at all on any Melchisedec throne. And this application of the priesthood of Christ to our infirmities and help in time of need is the more remarkable, because, when the author of the epistle comes to speak of perfectness through His offering and His appearing in the presence of God for us, he does not speak of Him as priest at all; the reference to His priesthood is wholly dropped. Though contrasted with the Jewish priesthood, infirmities, help, intercession, ever living to make it, and these alone are identified with His priesthood—save the fact of propitiation in chap. ii., which is admitted to be an exceptional case, in which the high priest represented the people (not a proper act of priesthood, though of the high priest on the day of atonement)—and on the other hand, when our perfecting by His offering of Himself, and His appearing in the presence of God for us, is spoken of, priesthood is wholly dropped. There is distinct and marked contrast. That is not priesthood, intercession is, according to the Epistle to the Hebrews.

[J. N. D.]

(Continued from page 188)

(To be continued)

Hebrews: Its Aim, and for Whom Written? Part 3

In chap. 8 we have the whole doctrine of the priesthood summed up before the unfolding of the worth of the sacrifice and His appearing in the presence of God for us are gone into. We have an high priest set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister of the sanctuary, a purely heavenly one. None of this belongs to Melchisedec. The priesthood spoken of is solely while Christ is on high. It is in the sanctuary—that is, in heaven itself—exercised in that of which the tabernacle man pitched was the shadow, made according to the pattern of things in the heavens, a heavenly priesthood in a heavenly sanctuary. This is so distinctly the case, that if He were on earth He would not be a priest (of Melchisedec’s exercise of priesthood on His throne no trace or hint is found); there were priests who served to the example and pattern of heavenly things; we have to do with the heavenly things themselves. And Christ has obtained a more excellent ministry. When and where according to this chapter? What is— “But now hath he obtained?” What, as to the priesthood and ministry of Christ, “replaces here”? The heavenly things, and a heavenly service, and a heavenly sanctuary as a present thing, or a Melchisedec priesthood after all enemies are put down on earth? Is that shadow and pattern according to which it is exercised, the sanctuary set up by Moses, or the Melchisedec service? For a calm and straight-forward mind there can be but one answer. It may be said he speaks of the covenants. He does. But to what end? Solely HERE to show that the old is passing away and ready to vanish, that the Jewish Christians might not hang on to it. The new covenant is surely not made with us at all. The basis of it is laid in Christ’s blood, as the institution of the Lord’s Supper shows, and we have all the advantages of it; but a great deal more, and Paul was a minister of it.

But this allusion to the pattern of heavenly things has led the inspired writer to the whole order of the sanctuary; to unfold the worth of Christ’s work and sacrifice. And here let me make a remark not without its importance in the study of the Hebrews. The mention of the temple is carefully excluded. That was connected with royalty; with the establishment on earth of what was practically Melchisedec rule and priesthood, the rule of the Son of David. The tabernacle only is mentioned. That was the pattern of heavenly things; the temple is never given as such, whatever analogies there may be; the tabernacle is. Even when he speaks of the system as having still its standing (chap. ix. 8), it is the tabernacle, not the temple. It is the camp they were to leave, and come outside. The analogy of Christ’s service is distinctly, definitely, and declaredly after the similitude of the Aaronic service in the tabernacle, not after any Melchisedec service. The pattern is what Moses gave, but it is in heaven, and in heaven only and specifically. It is a present thing, specifically a present thing, as He is in heaven now; not a future thing as Melchisedec is. He is entered in, not come out (chap. 9:12). The veil is rent, the way into the holiest is open, and the blood of Christ purges the conscience. And the apostle speaks to those to whom the epistle is ing, and can say, He is the High Priest of our addressed, who are partakers of the heavenly call—profession. The heavenly things themselves are in question. Christ is entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us. In this, as we have seen, though compared with what Aaron did, there is no mention of priesthood. It is another matter. In chap. 4:14 we have the analogy strikingly stated: “a great high priest that is passed through [not into] the heavens,” as Aaron through the court and holy place into the sanctuary. But here we have no priest but Christ appearing in the presence of God for us. He has appeared, not to restore Israel and the world, but to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. He has been once offered, not to redeem Israel, but—in contrast with death and judgment, man’s portion as a child of Adam—to bear the sins, not of Israel, but, of many. Does this mean that He did not die for the nation, or that the remnant will not be restored on the ground of this sacrifice? Surely not. But the passage speaks of other things.

In chap. 10, still in express comparison and contrast with the law, the application of Christ’s sacrifice is gone into; but it is fact and efficacy — no priesthood now. It is application; we are sanctified. It is taught as that which is known by him that teaches it, a present thing. The position of Christ is still the opposite of that of Melchisedec. He is expecting till His enemies be made His footstool. It is not a reign and kingly priesthood after they are destroyed. It is only heavenly; He sits at the right hand of God. The sanctified ones, already spoken of, are perfected forever. He is not, as Aaronic priests were, standing ever renewing inefficacious sacrifices; but sitting at the right hand of God, because His is complete, and those having a part in it perfected forever; that is, not merely for eternity, but in uninterrupted and unbroken continuity, just as He sits there. It is those who have part in it while He is sitting there. And the Holy Ghost is a witness of it to the writer, and those he writes to, as a present possession of peace. And mark the consequence. We brethren have boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. When and where? Jews under Melchisedec? And now we come back to the High Priest. Where? In the holiest in heaven, or in the house of God, whose house, we have read, are we if we hold fast, I suppose what we have got.

It will be remarked, that with chap. x. 18 the doctrine of these two chapters ends, and exhortation begins. We are to draw near with full assurance of faith into the holiest, having a High Priest over the house of God. I will suppose for the moment, what clearly could not possibly be, that this exhortation was addressed to unbelievers disposed to listen, which is the theory of the deniers of priesthood as to any present application. I ask, Was not that into which they were brought the Christian position? Those living men could not be brought into the residue position in the last days; they could be brought, if anywhere, among Christians. That, then, to which they were called, was where Christians were: a rent veil; access into the holiest by it; a purged conscience; full assurance of faith; and a great High Priest over the house of God. I do not believe that this is the position of the remnant in the latter day at all, but I leave that aside. It is the position of Christians now, for it is what the then listeners, according to the theory, were called into.

When we go on with the chapter it becomes evident, beyond all possible question, that it is the Christian position. “Let us hold fast the profession of our faith.” Does the writer of the epistle identify himself with unbelieving Jews in the profession of a common faith? What were the unbelieving Jews to hold fast? “The profession of our faith” in the mouth of a Christian must be Christian faith; and if it be “our” he must write to Christians. We (who?) are to provoke one another to love and to good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together—who is that? Was it a Jewish assembly, or Christians and unbelieving Jews together? Besides, it supposes that the knowledge of the truth had been received, and, as in chap. vi., if the Spirit, whose presence distinctively characterized Christians and Christianity, was received in vain, so here, if the one sacrifice which characterized it was departed from, there was no remedy, no room for repentance. Only judgment remained. They were Christian professors, and enjoyed the advantages of Christianity, and if they cast them away there was nothing else to come but judgment. What distinguished the remnant is that there is deliverance to come, because they have not had these privileges, and had not cast them away. What characterized any Jews disposed to listen then was the same fact, they had not had them. What characterized those to whom the writer addressed himself is that they had. They, if they departed from the faith, drew back, had trodden under foot the Son of God, counted the blood of the covenant wherewith they were sanctified an unholy thing, and done despite to the Spirit of grace, there was no remedy left. Are unbelieving Jews, however disposed, as to their position, sanctified by the blood of the covenant? What does ver. 32 mean? “After ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions”; and “knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance”? What the confidence they were not to cast away? In a word, they were not of those—the writer hoped—who drew back to perdition, but of those who believed to the saving of the soul, and certainly had the privileges from which they could draw back.

I resume the proof from these exhortations. The epistle—the practical exhortations—were addressed in fact to some one. Those to whom they are addressed are illuminated, had received the knowledge of the truth, are exhorted not to forsake the assembling of themselves together; had taken joyfully the spoiling of their goods, knowing they had in heaven a better and enduring substance; and even not to cast away their confidence; were not to be of those who drew back, but believing to the saving of their souls; in a word, were believers, or at least professed believers, and believers then were Christians. Profession left them in danger of drawing back to Judaism, and gave occasion to warning in this respect; but, if Christians, Christians had and therefore have a great high priest over the house of God; a priest gone into heaven, and who exercised his priesthood there, and, as here described, there only: a priest who is touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and who ever lives to make intercession for us. Our perfection by His offering, and His appearing in the presence of God for us, not being connected with his priestly service.

What remains of the epistle, after such evidence, needs not very enlarged reference. In chap. 11. I notice one passage— “God having provided [or foreseen] some better thing for us, that they [Abraham, etc.] without us should not be made perfect.” Is it for Christians or for the Jewish remnant that some better thing than Abraham’s heavenly portion is provided? Is not the perfection resurrection glory, not blessing under Melchisedec?

All the exhortations in the beginning of chap. 12., if they mean anything, are addressed to Christians. They were not come to Sinai, but to the full heavenly and earthly blessing, in which the church of the firstborn and the Old Testament saints are included. Here alone we have the church in the Hebrews. They were come to Jesus. It will be said, To Jesus, mediator of a new covenant. Quite true; and I do not doubt that this refers in accomplishment to the millennial earth. But they were come to Jesus, and this is the essential point; and it is a Jesus not coming back from heaven, but speaking from heaven while He is there. Chap. 13:8, 9, clearly shows with whom they were in connection. The Christ they had been taught to know, by those whose faith they were to follow, was the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. I do not connect the verses as in the English Bible; but it is quite clear that the faith a Christian exhorts to follow, is Christian faith, and here suggests Christ as the One whose unchangeableness should guard them from strange doctrines; grace, not Jewish meats, was to be their portion.

But further, “We,” says the writer, “have an altar of which they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle.” Who had an altar in contrast with the Jews? the unbeliever willing to listen? Of a future remnant there is no idea or question. The writer declares that he and those with whom he was associated had, had then, an altar, a place of worship, where the food of and communion with God was, at which those who held to (now by-past and soon to be judged) Judaism had no right to partake. Who had, who could then or now have, this but Christians? Judaism as a system is then rejected as being a religion for this earth, a camp of God (now left of Him) here. Such a religion was now rejected. When the blood Was carried within the sanctuary, the body of the Victim was carried without the camp. The true sanctuary, heaven (as is expressly taught in chap. 9:11, 12, 24) is one essential element of the position spoken of; abiding rejection of and by worldly religion, made for or suited to the flesh, “outside the camp,” or the earthly holy city, is the other. That is distinctly Christianity. The remnant at the end look for and will have the restoration of an earthly’ system, and the Lord’s presence and throne in Jerusalem. The system into which men are called in this epistle (and, if Christians, are, and warned not to fall away from) is exclusively and uncompromisingly Christian and heavenly, in contrast with what the remnant could have at the end, founded on this same work, but established in a restored throne on earth and a holy city here, not a rejected Savior and a heavenly throne. Vers. 20, 21, are most clearly addressed to Christians, and outside all old and new covenants; and the rest, as the whole chapter, suppose that in faith, joy, hopes, interest, and warnings, the writer and those addressed are alike Christians, though the latter, Christians in danger of slipping back into Judaism, from which they are called finally to separate themselves.

The result of this survey of The Epistle to the Hebrews is, that our being perfected by the offering of Jesus Christ, and His appearing in the presence of God for us, is not referred to priesthood, but that there is a priesthood of intercession available for us because the priest can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; and, having suffered, being tempted, is competent to succor those that are tempted. That this priesthood is exercised in heaven specifically, in its whole character and nature, and only there, as here brought forward as that which became us. That the comparison and contrast of this priesthood in its exercise is wholly with the ordering and service of the tabernacle. The priest is according to the order of Melchisedec, but of the exercise of a Melchisedec priesthood there is no mention, hint, or trace. It is a priesthood exercised in heaven only, into which Christ is entered, as Aaron into the holiest made with hands. It is addressed to Christians formally and expressly in all its parts; if it reach over—as a groundwork of Israel’s future hopes, as what is taught in it surely does—it has no direct application to them save as Christ’s present position and His accomplished work secure these hopes; and as it does not take proper church ground, that is, our sitting in heavenly places in Christ, it can reach over in certain parts to their hopes and blessings as an accessory. But the hopes given in the epistle are not theirs, but heaven and glory. Further, it is written to Christian Jews, that is, to Christian’s from among the Jews, and who in fact clung to their own old thoughts, and feelings, and system, and were in danger, if not kept of God, of falling back into Judaism, which was ready to be judged, and are warned moreover to come out and leave their connection with it; warned that the faith of Christ, which they had, and Judaism could no longer be connected as it had been, many thousand Jews, as we know, holding fast to their ancient law. J. N. D.

(Concluded from page 204)

Hebron: Part 1

The references to Hebron in Scripture are brief and scanty, but they are concise enough to give the place a typical value hardly exceeded by any other city mentioned in Scripture. Abraham purchased it, and there Sarah died; Caleb conquered it, and there too David reigned for seven years. The name of its builder is not revealed to us. Nor does the statement that “Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt” (Num. 13:22) throw much light upon its history; yet to the believer, the reference is not without significance. The world’s wisdom and learning (“the princes of Zoan are become fools,” Isa. 19:13) are indeed baffled by the simple faith that takes God at His word, and finds its triumph in the proved impotence of nature.

It is well that we should rightly understand the relations of the Christian to the world. Position in it we have none, as the followers of a Christ rejected by the world but received up in glory. As God is sovereign, so His relation to the world cannot be ours, yet Christ’s present relation to it now determines ours. But for the presence of sin, blessing in the world would have been the rule and not the exception. As it is, it is necessary that both man and the world should be morally prepared to receive the blessing. The evil which the first man has brought in must be borne away (John 1:29), and cast out by the Second man, the Lord from heaven.

Now God had proposed to Abram blessing, not for himself alone, but for the whole earth. “Jehovah had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will show thee; and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:1-3).

This revelation of the divine purpose received by faith is what determined Abram’s walk in the land of Canaan, as well as his attitude towards the world of his day. After the death of his father Terah, there yet to Abram remained, in the person of Lot his nephew, what hindered his full adherence to the divine call. The worldliness of Lot soon made a separation inevitable, and Abram, for the first time, realized “the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” “And Jehovah said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art, northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward; for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth; so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. Arise, walk through the land, in the length of it, and in the breadth of it; for I will give it thee. Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto Jehovah” (Gen. 13:14-18).

Here then we have the typical character of Hebron fully established. It is the dwelling-place of the man of faith; and not only his dwellingplace, but his place of worship. To Abram the altar and the tent were here inseparable. The tent bespoke the pilgrim character, whilst the altar signified that his links were with God and with heaven. The God of glory had called him out of his country and from his kindred. In obeying the call he judged the world as an unsuitable dwelling-place for one who might at any moment be called upon to entertain heavenly visitors (see chap. 17). Lot had never been a partaker of this heavenly calling; and indeed the path of faith is more frequently trodden alone than in company (compare Rom. 14:22). We may peradventure find in service a true yokefellow, but how little real companionship in the daily walk of faith! This leads us to the consideration of Hebron in connection with the “purchased possession.”

In Gen. 22 some great and precious realities are prefigured which have to do with the removal of the sin of the world, when man will then enjoy the presence of God in the new heaven and new earth, without the necessity, as now, of his going out of the world for it. The church is builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. God dwells in it, it is therefore heavenly in character. Of believers now in it the Lord Jesus could say, “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.” The mutual love of the Father and of the Son, the obedience of the Son to the Father, the death of Christ as the burnt offering, these are all very vividly presented, and the results are commensurate with the grandeur of that mighty work wrought on the cross. In the new heavens and the new earth wherein righteousness shall dwell, God will be no stranger to man. See Rev. 21:1-5, where this eternally abiding and blessed scene is disclosed to us.

Gen. 24 gives us in type the call of the bride and the marriage of the Lamb; but the chosen of the Father leaves the world in its guilt and distance from God to be united to the Bridegroom on high, and “so shall we be forever with the Lord” (cf. Rev. 19:17). Would that the blessed hope—peculiarly that of the church—might be more effective in producing present separation from the world, and attachment of heart to the One for whom we wait! The death of Christ has for the present closed God’s probation of the world (“Now is the judgment of this world,” said our Lord in view of His cross), and the call of the bride is now for heaven—not the earth. “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto me” (John 12). There is a new center and gathering point, and a power which draws to a Christ who died but who is now risen and exalted on high. The bride is for heaven, and as Isaac (type of Christ risen, Gen. 22, Rom. 9, Heb. 11:19) was not to go to Mesopotamia, out of which his father had been called (24:6), but the bride was to be brought to Isaac in Canaan, so in the Antitype, God by the Spirit is bringing through the wilderness many sons to glory, to be united to His Son in heaven. Then when the Lord Jesus is revealed to the world, it is in judgment, and His bride comes with Him (Rev. 19). Meanwhile, the world seeth Him no more.

Gen. 23, which gives us the death and burial of Sarah, occupies a significant place between the offering up of Isaac in the chapter before, and the call of the bride for Isaac in the chapter that follows. We have thus the death and resurrection of Christ (Isaac); the death and putting away of Israel, of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came (Rom. 9:3-5; 11:15); and meanwhile, consequent on the nation’s rejection of Christ, the Holy Ghost taking out of the world now (Acts 15:14) a people for His name, even Gentiles. And so, believers now are espoused not yet married—as a chaste virgin to Christ (2 Cor. 11:2). Convoyed through the wilderness, by the Holy Ghost, we are looking for the Bridegroom who is coming to call us up to meet Him in the air (unseen by the world), to be forever with the Lord. Then will follow the blessed consummation, when the marriage of the Lamb shall come.

What as to Abram in this chapter? The bereaved heart of Abram found consolation in the assurance which faith gave of the certain fulfillment of the promises, and in the hope of resurrection. His faith and hope were in God, and manifested their presence, not in making light of the trials and difficulties of the way, either special or ordinary, but in considering all in the light of the divine counsels—as to the earth, the land of Canaan in gift but not in possession, the supremacy of his seed attested and guaranteed by the oath of God. These were the things that influenced his actions. It was not the independence of a wealthy man who did not choose to be debtor to a stranger; but the knowledge which he had of God characterized him as a stranger here. He confessed himself a “stranger and a sojourner” with them. They answered, that he was a “prince of God” (margin).

Perhaps we have here, further, an illustration of what the heavenly calling is, and what it involves. Prosperity is too often a snare to the believer, who is in danger of using (or, misusing) this very mercy for settling down in comfort here, thus compromising his testimony to God and to heaven. Here was a man whom God had greatly enriched, refusing to be anything but a sojourner in the land which he should afterward receive for an inheritance, content with the purchase of sufficient land for a grave! Thus it was that Hebron became the resting-place of the heirs of promise, who died in faith. Closely connected with the hopes of the living it came to be even in death a witness of that faith which lives and survives the decay of nature, because resting upon God’s word. The Spirit of God in Heb. 11 sets the stamp of divine approbation upon this character of faith, that we may be encouraged to run with patience the race set before us. “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things, declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned; but now they seek a better, that is, a heavenly. Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for he has prepared for them a city” (vers. 13-16).

[G. S. B.]

(To be continued)

Hebron: Part 2

Hebron then became the property of Abraham by right of purchase, and we know that Christ has acquired rights (besides His creatorial) over this world and all in it, and these will be made good in a coming day. But now these rights are in abeyance, and another principle is called into requisition. It is good to be an heir of promise; but for actual possession and enjoyment “overcoming” is necessary. “He that overcometh shall inherit these things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son” (Rev. 21:7). The approbation and encouragement here extended to the “overcomer” is the same as to the “stranger” of Heb. 11:15, “God is not ashamed to be called their God.” Thus the man who stands aside and refuses to be a citizen of a world that is guilty of the death of Christ is approved of God. And the man, who at a time when evil prevails and the foundations of faith are everywhere loosened, makes a stand for Christ and the word of God, who opposes and by faith overcomes the world, is approved of God— “I will be his God.”

If Hebron was in the first place the “purchased” possession, it becomes afterward the “conquered” possession in Josh. 14:6-15. Here, too, we may notice how intensely individual a thing is faith; it was “me and thee.” Joshua and Caleb were the two who faced the rebellious assembly of unbelieving Israel in Kadesh Barnea; and it was the same two—the same “me and thee” —who forty-five years later engaged in earnest conversation about the same possession. The man of faith used the same argument in each case, but he was as much alone on the latter occasion as on the first. For although God fulfilled His word and manifested His power and presence with Joshua, yet when it came to be a question of the tribes separately taking possession of their respective positions, again and again do we read of their failure to drive out the Canaanites who “would dwell in that which had been their own land.” Hebron seems to have been a famous stronghold of the Anakim. The difficulties in the way of its conquest and possession only stimulated the courage and determination of Caleb. He had waited forty-five years for the opportunity. Meanwhile faith had wrought in him, producing patience, strength, and patriotism, so that he had not a hard word to say of his people who by their unbelief had kept him so long out of his inheritance. Yet to Caleb it was well worth waiting for; and his words, “But I wholly followed Jehovah my God,” give us such an insight into his character as reminds us of Barnabas in the early days of the church’s history. Of him the Spirit has testified, “who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith; and much people was added to the Lord” (Acts 11:23, 24).

Here, again, we may notice that the distinguishing characteristics of Caleb were as illustrated in his private and family life as in public. Having no sons, he determines that he who marries his daughter shall prove himself worthy of her and of Hebron. And so Othniel proved himself to be. He afterward became Israel’s first judge and deliverer, while Achsah his wife, on her part, manifested similar energy of faith and intelligent appreciation of the inheritance which Jehovah had given His people. “And Caleb said, He that smiteth Kirjath-sepher, and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife. And Othniel the son of Kenaz, brother of Caleb, took it: and he gave him Achsah his daughter to wife. And it came to pass as she came unto him, that she moved him to ask of her father a field; and she lighted off her ass; and Caleb said to her, What wouldst thou? Who answered, Give me a blessing; for thou hast given me a south land; give me also springs of water. And he gave her the upper springs, and the nether springs” (Josh. 15:16-19).

Hebron was yet again connected with God’s government of His people by means of the kingdom. After the death of Saul, David sought the guidance of God as to his actions, for faith and dependence characterized David as truly as they had Caleb. “And it came to pass after this, that David inquired of Jehovah, saying, Shall I go up into any of the cities of Judah? And Jehovah said unto him, Go up. And David said, Whither shall I go up? And he said, Unto Hebron. So David went up thither, and his two wives also, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail, Nabal’s wife, the Carmelite. And his men that were with him did David bring up, every man with his household; and they dwelt in the cities of Hebron” (2 Sam. 2:1-3). The kingdom had its commencement there, for God had not yet set His king upon. His holy hill of Zion. There was still room for the exercise of faith and patience, and dependence upon God. We might have thought that with the death of Saul, the last obstacle had been cleared out of David’s way, but it was not so. To have a discernment of the purpose of God is not enough, we must be subject to Him, and be dependent upon Him for bringing it about. It was at Hebron that David learned important principles of divine guidance, which brought forth precious fruit for God’s glory, and for Israel’s blessing. It was there that he became more perfectly instructed in God’s way. “As for God, his way is perfect; the word of Jehovah is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him. For who is God save Jehovah? and who is a rock, save our God? God is my strength and power: and he maketh my way perfect... and thy gentleness hath made me great” (2 Sam. 22:31-36).

We find, then, firstly, Hebron closely associated with the faith and strangership of the patriarchs, who died in faith and desired to be buried there, having no present portion in the land of promise except a grave. Secondly, the actual possession and reward of such as believed in God and overcame the enemies and drove them out. “This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” Thirdly, when the man of God’s choice had been manifested to a people not yet ready to receive him, Hebron became the center and the rallying-place for all those in Israel who were true to God and His king. They formed a great host, “like the host of God.” If challenged as to why they had come, they would reply, “Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse; peace, peace be unto thee, and peace be unto thine helpers; for thy God helpeth thee” (1 Chron. 12:18). So, too, the disciples of the Lord, the true David— “To whom shall we go? Thou hast words of eternal life, And we believe and are sure that thou art the Holy One of God” (John 6:68, 69). David’s men were “men of war that could keep rank,” they “came with a perfect heart to Hebron to make David king over all Israel, and all the best also of Israel were of one heart to make David king. And there they were with David three days eating and drinking: for their brethren had prepared for them... for there was joy in Israel” (1 Chron. 12:38-40); it was the hour of David’s triumph and of Israel’s joy.

The present application of these principles would be manifested in the intelligence of the wonderful counsels of God as now revealed to us in His word, and in faith in God to fulfill them. “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee out of the hour of trial which is about to come upon the whole habitable world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. I come quickly: hold fast what thou hast, that no one take thy crown” (Rev. 3:10, 11). May we answer to this!

(Concluded from page 53)

G. S. B.

Israel of God - Gentile Believers

“Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16) seems to be used here, not as a general phrase for every saint, but for the believing ones in Israel—those Jews who had repudiated their own works and found shelter only in Christ Jesus. Two parties are spoken of, and not one only. “As many as walk according to this rule,” are rather the Gentile believers; and the “Israel of God” are the Jewish saints, not the mere literal Israel, but “the Israel of God”; the Israelites indeed, whom grace made willing to receive the Savior. W. K.

Israel of Prophecy and Christ the True Servant

Isaiah 42, 43, 49.

I will now take another character of prophecy referred to—the servant; showing that Israel is taken up as the servant, and replaced by Christ, who will deliver the remnant as again servants of Jehovah, who had long, as we have seen, hidden His face. Isa. 43 says, “My servant whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. A bruised reed shall be not break,” etc. This we know is formally applied to Christ in the Gospels. In verse 19, and more distinctly and definitely in chap. 43:1-10, the servant is Israel. In chap. 49 this is again declared in express terms, “Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” Then says one, If that be so, I have labored in vain, and spent my strength for naught and in vain; and then goes on, “And now, saith Jehovah that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of Jehovah, and my God shall he my strength. His judgment was with Jehovah, and His work with His God. Then comes the answer, “It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and restore the preserved of Israel. I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, and to be my salvation to the end of the earth.” Yet afterward Israel is brought back, and Zion is remembered and glorified, and kings her nursing fathers.

Now here I have Israel a servant apparently a total failure, because they are not gathered by a person who appears on the scene to do it, yet declares His work owned. Then the Gentiles brought in (a passage which Paul uses for his ministry); and then, after all, Israel restored and blessed. Now I am not saying [for the moment] whether this is a false prophecy, or a true one; but it is there—was there—as a prophecy before the time, is not yet all accomplished certainly, but speaks of Israel as a servant supplanted by another who fails in gathering Israel, and turns to the Gentiles, and looks on to the end then even for Israel. It is (true or false!) Messianic, predicts one who seems to fail—outwardly does as to Israel, and then turns to the Gentiles. It is used by Paul in Luke’s account in the Acts, and by himself in 2 Corinthians; the former to authorize his turning to the Gentiles, the latter to the gospel time (2 Cor. 6:2). Every one can judge whether Christianity, or the ribaldry of the Neologists and the idealism of Baron Bunsen most justly meet the statements in it. At any rate they are there. A man may reject prophecy, or say it is not fulfilled; but he who says there is not avowed prophecy, and prophecy of Israel’s future glory (and glory through a glorious deliverer, commonly called Messiah), is not an honest man, or is in willful blindness.

And remark, I insist on the truth of what they make an objection of, namely, that there is the connection with present circumstances in Israel; that God had foretold a deliverance by the Seed of the woman; and then, when the world had fallen into idolatry, which no one can deny, chose out a people to preserve the knowledge of the one true God, Jehovah, and made them the center of His earthly government: as it is said, “When the Most High [His universal name of dominion over the earth and all powers] divided to the nations their inheritance; when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel. For Jehovah’s portion is his people, Jacob is the lot of his inheritance” (Deut. 32:8, 9). This did not set aside the promise made before, though for a time He suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. But the promises as to the earth centered in Israel as a people. When the fullness of time was come, the promised Deliverer came and presented Himself to Israel as a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God. Israel is not gathered. He is a stone of stumbling. Then the promises center, as we have seen, in Christ. Israel has voluntarily forfeited them, and ceases for a time, save by the hiding of God’s face from them, to be the center of His earthly government, and remain, as we know, without their own religion, and without a false one (Hos. 3:4, 5).

Meanwhile believers are called to follow a rejected Lord, take up their cross, and have their treasure in heaven. Though not a sparrow falls without our Father, and all is under God’s hand, yet it is not the time of God’s direct government in respect of an earthly people. In due time God declares He will take up the Jews and Israel again; and while the saints who have suffered will have a heavenly portion, the earth will be governed in peace. But this will be introduced by a time of evil, tribulation, and judgment.

Now the prophecies all declare this, and we must not confound the government of the earth (and the promises made to the Jews and connected with it) with our heavenly hopes. God does not prophesy of heaven, but of events on the earth. These prophecies, while the Jews were connected with the present government of God, were addressed to them, to warn and encourage them then; but God, knowing what they were, went on to the end, to the infallible accomplishment of His purpose, knowing that what rested on man’s responsibility must fail. Hence prophecies do apply largely at the time, only they go often on to the end; and are all a part of this large general scheme—are not “of private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20), and not only as to Messiah, but as to Jews and Gentiles, all whose history and circumstances at the close of the world’s history are much more fully gone into than the circumstances of the day. Christ’s humiliation is spoken of, His rejection, as we have seen; but the prophecy, as it speaks of the government of the world, once He is gone on high, passes over to His future re-appearing in the world’s government; for this was the subject of prophecy. Hence Christ and the apostles leave out often the last part of a prophecy—it belongs to the end of the present order of the world—and stop at its first coming or its effects. Thus Christ says, “To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,” but does not add, “the day of vengeance of our God”: this is to come. So Paul, quoting Psa. 68, says, “He hath received gifts for men,” but does not add, “Yea, even for the rebellious, that the Lord God might dwell among them.” This will be true when Israel is restored in the latter day...

The notion of the application of the words in Hosea, “I have called my son out of Egypt” to Christ, is ridiculed by rationalists. Now, I affirm distinctly that it is according to the tenor of scripture testimony and perfectly rightly applied. It is a great leading truth. If you look at Isa. 49, you will see Messiah distinctly presented as taking the place of Israel. I think we have spoken, when on the pseudo-Isaiah of infidels, of the elect servant of Israel—Christ the elect Servant, and the remnant the elect servant of the last days. But this chapter 49 is more definite. Israel is first presented as Jehovah’s witness in the earth, as the polished shaft in His quiver. “Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified. Then I said,” says Messiah, “I have labored in vain, and spent my strength for naught and in vain.” And so it was with Christ on earth. “But now, saith Jehovah, who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of Jehovah, and my God shall be my strength. And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel; I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, and to be my salvation to the end of the earth.”

That is, Israel is presented as the servant of Jehovah; but when Christ comes, if it were so, His labor was in vain, and then Christ, though to restore the remnant in due time, is Himself God’s Servant, and light goes forth to the Gentiles.... Christ takes the place of Israel under the law, Israel after the flesh. This He does all through [the Gospel of] John, though in a higher way, as revealed Son of God. Hence in John 15, He proclaims Himself as the true Vine. Israel was the well-known vine, and; as remarked before, Messiah was to be the best branch, the topmost bough. But Israel is set aside. The true vine, as the true servant, is Christ. Israel was Jehovah’s son, His firstborn; but Christ was the Son, the true firstborn of every creature. Hence, as rejected by Israel, He begins Israel’s whole history afresh, and, as not deriving His position from the people, He is called out of Egypt to begin their history according to God.

J. N. D.

Jesus Christ the Faithful and True

1. As God’s Witness

Of the many and varied names, titles, offices, and glories of our Lord Jesus Christ, surely none is of so absorbing interest to the believer’s heart as the one which speaks of Him as the “Faithful and True.” And in this character do we have Him brought before us by the Spirit of God on three different occasions in the Book of the Revelation. How gladly do we listen to the words, handed down to us through ages past, which announce the personal and abiding glory of Jesus Christ, as “the Faithful Witness, and the First Begotten from among the dead, and the Prince of the kings of the earth.” As these precious glories of our beloved Lord and Savior rise up, before our ransomed souls, we may well worship and adore, for in their inspired order they illuminate the past, sustain us in the present, and indicate the future.

Let us, however more particularly dwell upon the first of these titles. When all was gone, morally, as regards man, then in due time God’s Faithful Witness steps into a world made by His own hands, only to bring to light the utter ruin and distance from God into which the creature had fallen. Sin, moral darkness, and death were universal, and Satan, the enemy of God, had become “the god of this world.” But God’s Faithful Witness brought light into the midst of darkness, love into the midst of evil, and life into the midst of death. Moving onwards through such a scene, as the obedient Man, who had come to do the Father’s will, grace and truth marked every step He took, and flowed out to all around. Nothing turned Him aside, and the malice, hatred, and misrepresentation which followed Him only brought out in brighter rays and deeper luster the stupendous fact that He alone was faithful where all else was faithless. In His every motive, thought, word and act a sweet savor went up to God; and it was He alone who could say, “The prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in me.” Faithful as the Apostle and High Priest of our profession; faithful as “a Son over his own house,” He was also God’s faithful Servant, and the only One who could say, “I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.” The Father’s voice bore witness to Him, “Behold, my Servant, mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth”; and the proof of it found its, perfect expression in those wonderful words, “I have set the Lord always before me, because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.” Faithful alike in life and in death, this humble and dependent Man, yea, “A man approved of God,” was borne testimony to in varied ways, and we have four abundant and distinct evidences of it, not only by John the Baptist, and by Christ’s own works, but also by the Father Himself and the Scriptures (John 5:36, 37, 39).

Under all circumstances, Jesus was ever the “Faithful Witness.” Whether as tempted by Satan in the wilderness, or in answering all the cavilings of the Jews, rebutting the willful misrepresentations of the chief priests, scribes and pharisees, faithfulness and truth marked all His words and ways. Behold Him again, at Sychar’s well, revealing to Jacob’s erring daughter the secrets of her life; or, in the temple, in His gracious dealings with the adulteress; or, shielding His disciples in the garden, when His enemies fell backward to the ground. He is ever the same, “full of grace and truth”; ever the Faithful Witness, for “never man spake like this man.” Then, as we gaze on Him on Calvary’s cross, while the waters of death were fast closing round Him, His one and only object was the glory of His Father; and, though forsaken by all, yet, “that the Scripture might be fulfilled,” He exclaims, “I thirst”; and, commending His spirit to His Father, delivers His last message to a perishing world, “It is finished.” Yes, Jesus is “faithful unto death.”

2. As Head Of The Church

Man put God’s Faithful Witness in a grave, and sealed the stone at the door of the sepulcher, but God “raised Him from the dead, and set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. And put all things under his feet, and gave him to be Head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.” As on earth, so also in resurrection glory, God’s Holy One does not cease to maintain the same unchanging character of the “Faithful and True Witness,” for it is as such that He reveals Himself to the church of the Laodiceans, “These things saith the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the beginning of the creation of God, I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot; I would thou wert cold or hot. So then, because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” Surely what the Lord condemns in Laodicea is rampant everywhere to-day in professing Christendom; and spiritual pride, neutrality, and carnal ease are all around, the sad fruits of unfaithfulness, worldliness, and lack of love to Christ. While exposing all that is so dishonoring to His name, the wretchedness, misery, poverty, blindness and spiritual nakedness that meet His holy eyes, God’s Faithful and True Witness, as Head of the church, addresses words of sweet encouragement to every overcomer, reminding us of His own pathway here, and cheering our fainting spirits in the midst of such general declension. “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him and will sup with him, and he with me.” “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame and am set down with my Father on his throne.”

Just as we listen to His holy voice, so are our hearts consciously drawn away from this faithless scene, and our faith is sustained by the gracious way in which the Lord reveals Himself. All is secure and stable in resurrection, for Christ is not only “the Faithful and True Witness,” but the One in whom all the promises of our God are yea and amen; and though all is ruined that is connected with the old creation, He is “the beginning of the creation of God,” where “old things are passed away, and all things are become new.” Thus would He lead our hearts into the true secret of overcoming, and it is well to note here the divine way and order whereby this can be practically carried out, viz., in hearing, opening, and supping.

His loving invitation goes out to all, yet is it intensely individual, “If any man hear.” We must needs listen when He speaks, for the true mark of Christ’s sheep is that they hear His voice. But then there must also be the willing response of the obedient heart, to open the door and let Him in, for “to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” To the one who thus listens, hears and obeys, communion between the Lord and the overcomer is the immediate result— “I will sup with him, and he with me.” What sweet, precious and holy intercourse with Him may thus be ours in the closing hours of the dispensation, as the fruit of obedience.

3-As Returning Conqueror

Here, after the rapture of the church, the scene changes, and with the opening of the seven-sealed book (chap. vi.), a series of overwhelming judgments, swift, sure, and terrible is poured out upon the world which has consummated its guilt and sin in the rejection and murder of God’s “Faithful and True Witness.” Those eyes which are “as a flame of fire” are no longer seen in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, but are gazing down upon scene of ever-increasing wickedness and sin, and the opening of the seven seals, and subsequent outpouring of the seven vials, alike testify that “when God’s judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.” “And after these things, I heard a great voice of much people in heaven saying, “Alleluia, salvation, and glory, and honor, and power unto the Lord our God. For true and righteous are his judgments, for he hath judged the great whore which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. And again they said Alleluia, and her smoke goeth up forever and ever.” This is followed by a burst of worship and praise; and countless hosts, like the voice of many waters and mighty thunderings, fill those heavenly courts, shouting, “Alleluia, for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him, for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white, for the fine linen is the righteousnesses of saints.”

This is but the prelude to what follows. “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse, and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire (unsearching judgment), and on his head were many crowns, and he had a name written that no man knew but he himself.” The heavens had already opened at His baptism by John, when He began His public ministry as God’s anointed Servant; they had opened again in order that the dying Stephen might behold the Son of man in the glory of God; and now they were opening for the last time, as the mighty Conqueror, on the white horse, returns to earth, no longer as the lowly Nazarene, but to vindicate His right, and to “smite the nations, and rule them with a rod of iron.”

Besides His unrevealed name, He has also three others, each one being in keeping with His solemn work as He “treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.” They are as follows— “Faithful and True,” the “Word of God,” “King of kings and Lord of lords.” He is about to vindicate God’s character as faithful and true, whether in connection with the past, the present, or the future; to maintain God’s word at all cost, and to bring every opposing force into complete subjection to God’s will, as “King of kings and Lord of lords.” Let Scripture tell its own tale as to the issue of that stupendous conflict between the respective armies of heaven and earth. “And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth; and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.”

How infinite the joy of those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb! but oh! how truly awful the judgment of those who are gathered together unto the supper of the great God. The One who is pre-eminent at both these scenes is none other than Jesus Christ Himself, “the Faithful and True.” Oh! that His precious love might burn so brightly in our hearts that we, in our tiny measure, may be faithful and true to Him while waiting to meet Him in the air!

S. T.

Jesus Forsaken of God and the Consequences: Part 1

The scripture that I have read (Psa. 22) is preeminently the psalm of One forsaken of God. In this it stands alone: not that there are not other psalms which refer to that most solemn hour, and to the blessed person who here speaks to God; but this psalm above all. It is not merely here that we have the Lord taking His place among men, the trusting One, which Psa. 16 gives—His trust carried on unbrokenly, looking on through death into resurrection, yea to glory at God’s right hand.

But here what a contrast! He is abandoned of God, yet cleaves to Him wholly and vindicates Him absolutely. But He is forsaken of God. Now it is not His enemies that say so, though they too did—it is Himself; and it is Himself to God Himself. No believer had ever been thus forsaken or can be. “Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them. They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee and were not confounded. But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on Jehovah that he would deliver him, seeing he delighted in him” (vers. 4-8). Never was there such an hour even for Jesus, never can there be such an hour again. Good and evil were then brought to an issue in the only person who could solve the riddle; good and evil met in One that was perfectly good and yet then bearing evil at the hand of God. It was atonement. Not that this alone appears in the psalm; but Jesus made sin is the first and deepest thought and fact. There was no sorrow that He knew not; there was no shame that He was saved from. Bulls of Bashan were there; shameless dogs compassed Him about; the ravening lion was not absent. In truth these are but figures; and man was more cruel than all, baser and most deliberate, he alone indeed guilty, led on by a subtler mightier enemy; but, deepest, and most wondrous of all, God was there, and there first of all, as it could not but be, God as judge of sin, who made His Son that knew no sin to be sin for us.

First, I repeat, was this mysterious judgment of evil on the Holy One, not merely first in point of fact, but because it stands necessarily to itself the most solemn and solitary of all things for God and man, in time or eternity, in earth or heaven or hell. Befittingly therefore with this the psalm opens, for what could compare with it, past, present, future? The Lord Jesus had met Satan at the beginning in the wilderness, at the end in Gethsemane. He had broken his power for the earth and for man on it, spoiling the strong man’s goods; but it was another and inconceivably profounder question now. It was sin before God. It was no mere conflict, it was nothing that could be broken or won in the power of obedience. There had been living goodness, and God’s seal was upon it. But here was another thing. He had glorified the Father all His life, but now it was a question of glorifying God in His death, for God is the judge of sin. It was not a question with the Father as such, but with God as God touching sin. He who had glorified the Father in a life of obedience glorified God in the death in which that very obedience was consummated; and not merely this: evil was laid on Him in whom all was good, and they met. What a meeting!

Yes, God was there, not the approver of what was good only, but the Judge of all evil laid upon that blessed head. It was God forsaking the faithful obedient Servant; yet it was His God: this would—could—never be given up; for, on the contrary, He even then firmly holds to it, “My God, my God”; yet He has to add now, “Why hast thou forsaken me?” It was the Son of the Father, but as Son of man necessarily that He so cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Then, and then only, did God desert His one unswerving Servant, the man Christ Jesus. Nevertheless we how before the mystery of mysteries in His person—God manifested in flesh. Had He not been man, of what avail for us? Had He not been God, all must have failed to give to His suffering for sins the infinite worth of Himself. This is atonement. And atonement has two parts in its character and range. It is expiation before God; it is also substitution for our sins (Lev. 16:7-10; Jehovah’s lot and the people’s lot), though the latter part be not so much the subject of the psalmist here, and I do not therefore dwell on it now. The ground, the most important part, of the atonement, though all be of the deepest moment, is Jehovah’s lot.

Here then we have God in His majesty and righteous judgment of evil—God in the display of His moral being dealing with sin, where alone it could be dealt with to bring out blessing and glory, in the person of His own Son; One who could when forsaken of God, reach the lowest, but morally highest, point of glorifying God, made sin for us on the cross. It was the very perfection of His bearing sin that He should not be heard. There was the sharpest pain and anguish and bitterness of rejection; and did He not feel it? Did the glory of His person render Him incapable of suffering? The idea denies His humanity. Rather was His deity that which made Him endure and feel it most, and as none other could. “I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. For dogs have compassed me; the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. But be not thou far from me, O Jehovah: O my strength, haste thee to help me. Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog” (vers. 14-20).

Nevertheless the Lord Christ perfectly vindicates God who forsook Him there and then. Others had cried, and there was not one who had not been delivered; but it was His not to be. For the suffering must go to the uttermost, and sin be righteously atoned for, and this too not by power but by suffering.

But what is this that breaks on our ears, when the last drop in the cup is drained? “Thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns. I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee,” says the Savior. He says, now He is risen from the dead, “I will declare thy name unto my brethren.” He had declared it: such was His ministry here below, but now on an entirely new ground. Death and death alone disposed of sin; death, but His death alone, could dispose of sin, so that the sinner could bow to God’s righteousness about it, and be brought without sin into the presence of God. And this is what God Himself declares.

Mark here too the consequence of it, “I will declare thy name unto my brethren.” Now the Lord Jesus shows us in the Gospels the wonderful adaptation of the truth of the Old Testament. “Thy name” —what name? When bearing sin He speaks of God. When looking on to deliverance, or in enjoyed relationship, the godly Israelite speaks of Jehovah. But in the New Testament, while God remains God and must be ever the judge of sin, Father is the characteristic term of a relationship which the Son of God knew from eternity, yet knew none the less as man but in a truth and fullness which belonged to Him only. This in its reality and intimateness He would give them as far as it could be, in redemption, as many a soul here knows with joy. But I shall repeat it for some hearts which know not that blessed word in its sweetness and real meaning to the soul. Jesus could bring it out now.

“I will declare thy name unto my brethren,” and so He says, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.” He had never said so before. He had been declaring the name of the Father, but He had never presented it thus; and your particular attention is called to the fact. It supposes not merely love, but this on a foundation of righteousness. Undoubtedly grace was that which gave Him and thus wrought for sinful man; but here He gives us, when sin was judged and put away, to know that His God is ours, and, when the life was bearing much fruit in resurrection, that His Father is ours. The glory of the Father and the nature of God were now engaged in blessing us with Him, as just before only the holy vengeance of God came out against sin. It was indeed glory in the highest, it was grace in the lowest, but all was on the footing of righteousness, without which all else would only inflate the soul and expose it to be dragged down into worse depths. The basis of God’s righteousness is needed for the sinner, and he who in himself was but a lost sinner is now entitled to know God not merely as God but as Father. “I will declare Thy name unto my brethren.” There was pardon now, and peace; but not these only: there was association with Christ Himself. Far more than this indeed, but, as it is not here, we need not now go beyond what is before us, with only the modification given by the scriptures of the New Testament already referred to.

Now mark how the declaration of His name comes out. “My God, my God,” says Jesus, when and because He was forsaken on the cross, made sin and bearing our sins in His own body on the tree. It is the true and simple and strong answer to those who suppose that He had been all His life here below bearing sin; had this been so, He must have been all through forsaken of God, unless God shine with complacency while judging sin. It would be the virtual denial of His life in the joy and communion of His Father’s love. Son of God here below, He had ever walked in the intimate and perfect acknowledgment of His Father’s presence and of His own relationship, and hence so much the more did He feel what it was to be abandoned. But now the sin that was charged upon Him is gone by His dying for it; and, as the witness that all was gone, He is raised up from the dead and then declares that very name, not first “your” Father, nor our Father (this were beneath His glory, whatever may be His love), but “My Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” Thus what God is as Father to Him rests now on those for whom He died, on those whose sins had been blotted out by the blood of His cross.

But this is not all. The perfect and manifested acceptance of the Man that God made sin is altogether theirs now, not merely the love of the Father, but the glorified character and light of God. Thus it is love not solely in relationship but in nature; yea, more than this: all that God feels as God, all that pertains to Him vindicated forever, not merely is Christ’s, but by Christ’s work consequently belongs to those who rest on that person and that work. Such is the virtue and fruit of atonement; nor is it only for heaven, for it was brought out by Himself on earth. He was going to heaven; but it was expressly for wise and weighty reasons made known here to the souls that needed it most. To the poor in spirit, to the meek, His disciples, He had shown Himself the pattern of dependence and obedience, of grace and righteousness, of bright and peaceful communion with His Father; but all this of itself could only aggravate their condition, which was so far beneath His, and thus must be the more humiliating to His own, had not He by grace wrought their deliverance. With what force then the blessed truth broke upon their souls! God Himself, the Father of the Lord Jesus, was their Father, even as He was their God; all that is in God as completely in their favor by what He had wrought on the cross as all that is in Him as Father. And remark it is not merely “as a father pitieth his children,” for there is incomparably more now. He is the Father as the Christ knew Him. “I will declare thy name unto my brethren” brethren brought, and brought righteously, into the self-same relation, so that all the satisfaction and delight of God (not only of the Father, which relationship He has given us to enjoy, but of God) Himself in Christ is shared fully with us because of the acceptance we have in Christ our Lord.

[W. K.]

(To be continued)

Jesus Forsaken of God and the Consequences: Part 2

(Concluded from page 115)

But we have more still to hear. “In the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.” It is not merely “I will praise thee,” nor yet “in the congregation,” but, “In the midst of the congregation.” The apostle Paul quotes this scripture in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and we find its spirit fulfilled in the little company gathered on that day (John 20), “the assembly.” The Lord is at once found in the midst of them, not reproving them for their just proved cowardice, unbelief, and unfaithfulness, to say nothing of lack of love for His person and suffering for His name. I say not that He had not His dealings with one or another; but He brings them at once into the highest relation and best blessings by His sacrifice. With more than one of them we know He dealt: but this did not hinder or postpone His grace at all.

“In the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.” Think, beloved friends, for a moment what the praise of Christ was in such an hour, what His feelings must have been, when emerging from the darkness from the dust of death, from the abandonment of God! He alone could rightly estimate the immensity of it all, who having suffered once for sins now rests in the hard-won victory. Then it was that He bore our sins; then He who knew no sin was made sin. Risen from the dead, He is bearing sins no more; He is praising, and not alone, but “in the midst of the congregation.”

Let me add another word; there is a day coming when this earth shall be filled no more with groans but with hallelujahs; the day hastens when everyone born shall join in the chorus of blessing, when heaven and earth shall be filled with joy and glory; but never will come a day when such praise will burst forth as that which He began that day. It is not that they who praise with Him, being brought into such association of blessing, will ever lose it—they never will; but if it began with Him then, it will be theirs forever, but it is theirs only with Him in their midst: and the psalm before us proves it the more strikingly because it was written expressly with a view to the earthly people. The praise of the resurrection-day is peculiar, being Christ’s praise in the midst of the congregation, that is, of His brethren.

And who could declare it as He? and when could even He have declared it as when raised from the dead by the Father’s glory after having been brought into the dust of death for sin? None but He could feel to the uttermost what it was to be forsaken of God and not heard when He cried; but now, heard from the horns of the unicorns. He enters as the risen man into the light and glory of God shining forever on the accepted sacrifice of Himself; and declares to His brethren the name (now we can say) of His Father and their Father, of His God and their God; and there and thus, in the midst of the church now set free forever by and in Him, He sings praises. Oh! what praises were Christ’s, delivered now at length and from so great a death! But are they not our praises too? And is it not in “our midst” that He sings them? What a character does not this communion imprint on the church’s worship! The praise of Christ, after sin was judged as it never can be again, and He who was crucified in weakness lives by the power of God, gives the just and only full idea of what becomes God’s assembly.

Are these your thoughts, brethren beloved of the Lord? Is this the standard by which you try your hearts and lips when you present your spiritual sacrifices to your God and Father? Be assured, He values none compared with those of the risen Christ, who deigns to be the leader of such as cleave to Him in this the day of His still continued rejection, though He be, as we know, glorified on high.

Truly His is in the highest sense a new song. Alone He has thus suffered; not alone does He praise, but in the full chorus of the consciously redeemed. How wondrous that it is not here merely “in” the congregation but “in the midst” of it that He thus sings! In the day of His power it will not be so for “the great congregation.” Not that His praises will be lacking in that day; not that high and low will not praise in the earth when all Jehovah’s works shall praise Him and all His saints shall bless Him. Still it remains true that there is a revealed association on His part with those who are now being called and gathered since His resurrection, which exceeds in depth anything said of those who follow in that bright and blessed day. Not to the great congregation is He said to declare His God and Father’s name. In it indeed will His praise of Jehovah be, but not in its midst as on the resurrection-day for those who have not seen and yet have believed. Compare verses 22, etc. with 25,—etc. For what is said of that jubilee for Israel and the earth would still be true if He praised alone on His ground and all others on theirs. Neither does He call them His brethren as now, however He may pay His vows (in itself another distinctive mark) before those that fear Jehovah, when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess Him Lord to God’s glory, even to the ends of the world and throughout all kindreds of the nations.

Is not all this grace indeed to us who deserve nothing less, even the true grace of God wherein we stand? May we appreciate the counsels and the ways of the God of all grace who has called us to His eternal glory by Christ Jesus? To Him be glory and dominion forever and ever, Amen! May our praises then abound; but may they be Christ’s praises in our midst, who deigns to be where two or three are gathered to His name! He is not absent if we are called, in aught to vindicate the truth or holiness of God: is He when we gather to worship His and our God and Father? By Him therefore let us offer sacrifice of praise continually, that is, fruit of lips confessing His name.

This is followed by a call to others founded on the resurrection of the suffering Messiah. “Ye that fear Jehovah, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Jacob. For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard” (vers. 23, 24). This was at least anticipated, we may note in passing, in those words which the Lord uttered before departing, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” The public answer to His cry was when God raised Him from the dead.

Thus we find Messiah no longer suffering but heard, His God and Father’s name declared to His brethren, and Himself in the midst of the church praising; and then a call to everyone who fears Jehovah to praise Him, on the ground of atonement. For by the cross of Christ the whole question of sin and sins before God and for the believer was settled forever.

But there is a new scene in the verses that follow, which may help to bring out more distinctly what I have already endeavored to explain. Here the Messiah says, “My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation.” Thus “the great congregation” is distinguished from “the congregation” in ver. 22. There it is clearly the assembly surrounding Him when risen from the dead; whereas in ver. 25 we read, “My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation.” Remark that it is not in the midst of them. There is no such association with Christ spoken of Observe in John 20 (which has already furnished us with the illustration, and indeed fulfillment, of His name declared to His brethren, and the congregation in the midst of which He praises), that there also we have what answers to “the great congregation.” For Thomas came eight days after and exclaims to the Lord, when convicted of his unbelief, “My Lord and my God.” Not a word is hinted here about “My Father and your Father, my God and your God.” There is no longer the association of Christ with the disciples traced here, but another confession which grace will draw out from “the great congregation” as from Thomas, when they too repent, and confess their long despised and rejected Messiah. They too will then say, “My Lord and my God.” It is most true, the striking type of what Israel will know and confess in that day. (Compare Zech. 12).

How wide will be the praise! But it is not association with Christ, it is not the praising in the midst of the congregation. There is no such blessedness of fellowship with Him. Of Christ in that day it is said, “I will pay my vows before them that fear him.” Could anything more strikingly show that this is on Jewish ground? And still further it is not only what is said which distinguishes them from those in ver. 22, but what is not said. Thus there is not a hint of declaring the name of His Father and God here; nor are they here called His brethren. There will be a blessed people, but as a people round Him who is at once the reigning Messiah and Jehovah their God. Even He praises and pays vows in that day.

There had been Christ’s praise in the midst of the assembly of His brethren when He rose from among the dead, their Leader; and there followed also a suited testimony of God to those who feared Him (compare Acts 10:35), as well as to all the seed of Jacob or Israel. The day when grace assembles the children of God is also a day of good news to every creature, Jew or Gentile, that they may believe. But now it is more than testimony. Messiah’s praises are of Jehovah in the great congregation; Messiah pays His vows before them that fear Him. There is the sure and open accomplishment of all promises. Now every prophecy of coming glory for the earth and the nations is being fulfilled. Accordingly the “meek shall eat and be satisfied, they shall praise Jehovah that seek him: your heart shall live forever.” “All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto Jehovah: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. For the kingdom is Jehovah’s: and he is the governor among the nations” (vers. 27, 28). Not a word of this was given in the former connection. Henceforth it is not merely calling on all the ends of the earth to remember, but they shall remember. It will not be the gospel of grace as now, nor the church, but the kingdom in its display of power. All therefore shall turn to Jehovah, as we are here assured, “and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.” It is no longer a question of the Christian place (this was given us in ver. 22) when the testimony goes out in ver. 23, the ground of faith being laid in ver. 24. After that (vers. 25-31) comes what supposes and characterizes the millennial days. It is when Christ asks (Psa. 2) and gets the earth, that He is in the “great congregation.”

Now on the contrary His is a “little flock,” and everything great among men is opposed to God. By-and-by it will not be so; but Christ will have “the great congregation,” and be Himself the governor of all nations. Then “all they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship, all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him.” Then is a day of confessed dependence, though of the richest blessing, for “none can keep alive his own soul.” He is the life and strength of all, as He is the exalted of all. “A seed shall serve him: it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.” The old Christ-rejecting generation will be gone, but the returned remnant, after undergoing judgment and consumption, shall be a holy seed and a new stock. “They shall come and shall declare his righteousness [weaned now at length from all conceit of their own] unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this” (vers. 29-31). It is neither heaven nor eternity, nor is it the present evil age, but the bright and holy age to come, when the Lord Jehovah is blessed and blesses, the God of Israel who only doeth wondrous things; and in that day His glorious name is blessed forever, and the whole earth is filled with His glory. Amen and Amen. W. K.

“Whom heaven must indeed receive until times of restitution of all things of which God spake by [the] mouth of his holy prophets since time began.”

John 16:28

Before looking at this verse as a whole, I would briefly point out the distinctive force of three Greek prepositions, meaning “from” in a general way, and occurring frequently in this Gospel in connection with statements by our Lord Himself as to His divine glory before the incarnation. Such statements are found in chaps. 8, 16 and 17. The Greek words referred to are ἀπὸ, ἐχ and παρά. The first means “away from,” the second “out of,” and the third, “from beside.” Also the first implies separation or distance, the second points to Christ’s identity of essence with the Father, while the third puts in strong relief the temporary break in His session by the side of the Father in heaven. Of course the Lord never ceased to be “the Son of man which is in heaven” (John 3:13). Both statements are divinely true. It is only when they are superficially or unspiritually viewed that there may seem to be antagonism in the various aspects of divine truth. Moreover, all the colored rays; to put it figuratively, blend in one complete beam of white light. But we shall now see which of the three prepositions are used in the verse before us.

I follow the text approved by Bishop Westcott, whose remarks in loco are as instructive as they are luminous. In the previous verse (27) the Lord had said that He came forth from (παρὰ) God or the Father, as Westcott gives the text. In ver. 28 Christ adds, “I came out from (ἐχ) the Father.” If this reading be correct, the force undoubtedly is that not only did our Lord, in becoming flesh, temporarily vacate His seat of coequal honor by the Father’s side, but would impress on the disciples the fact that in essence He Was identical with the Father. It would almost seem that the disciples, though expressing themselves as grateful for the plainness of their Master’s speech, hardly rose to any realization of the heights from which He had descended. This is perhaps indicated by their use of the word ἀπὸ in verse 30, which, as we have said, looks simply at the separation involved in the incarnation, and might be used, one may venture to say, in regard to a merely angelic visitant to this earth.

But, whether indicated by the preposition ἀπὸ or not, we know that not till after the resurrection had the apostles a due conception of the incomparable dignity of the One who had tarried with them. Then at length they knew likewise that “he that descended was the same also that ascended far above all heavens that he might fill all things” (Eph. 4:10). But now they simply say, “We believe that thou camest forth from (ἀπὸ) God.” Thus all three little words are used, if not in the text, at any rate in the context. Truly such diversity is not without design. The Evangelist was not a mere lover of varying phrase like our King James 1. This must suffice for what I hope may not be considered too microscopic a scrutiny for the ordinary reader. Now for the verse itself.

Truly nothing more majestic can be found even in this Gospel than the words we are seeking to consider. They are, as one has said, a complete summary of our Lord’s mission. Note how the Savior’s declaration is bounded by the words “the Father.” They are the poles on which it is not fanciful to say the entire statement turns. We may read it a thousand times, and yet merely touch the fringe of its profound significance. Yet will it become growingly luminous as the Holy Spirit takes of the things of Jesus and shows them unto us. To such verses as these it is said that devout souls have been known to shut themselves up, closing their ears for a time to all other sayings of the Bible, even of the Lord Himself, if so be they might more adequately drink in something of their inexhaustible fullness. And whatever may be thought of such exclusive heed, when listening so attentively to the Master’s voice, the discordant words of men, aye, sometimes of saints, will be less audible. Moreover, to return to a figure used above, the cloven rays are inseparable, if momentarily divided in short, all the truth hangs together, and one aspect calls up another.

The disciples then thank the Lord for the plainness of His declaration, and that He no longer spoke in parables. In fact, the Lord spoke as they could bear it, as He still speaks to us through His word. But by way of contrast with the clearness of revealed truth I would quote the language of an illustrious poet of the Victorian period—and I quote it because the words came to my mind the other day in reading our verse—who, in describing the passing of his mythical hero, says, “From the great deep to the great deep he goes” —words not deficient in majesty, but, spite of their large impressiveness, vague and indefinite. Probably they are intentionally so; for high poetry loves the element of mystery and universality. Often indeed such language conveys a sense of immensity and infinity, not would it be fair to pin down the poet to a denial of the faith because of this line in the Arthurian idyll. Yet it is by way of contrast I quote the line, as said above, and to mark how its shadowy vagueness differs from the lucid words, like clear shining after rain, of the inspired page. There is definiteness, needless to say, in all Scripture, for it is the Holy Ghost who speaks; and what He says about the Son must be definite indeed. And so, as the Lord came forth from the Father, He goes to the Father. The circle is complete.

But it is not only the prepositions that are noteworthy in this verse; the verbs are equally striking. “I leave,” “I am come,” “I go.” Note the difference of tense. The force is this. Though the Lord was about to leave the world and go to the Father, yet the words, “I am come” imply that the world could not be, after the advent, the same as it was before. The statement, “I am come” implies abiding consequences; indeed it is only one word in the original Greek, the tense used being that which invariably and most emphatically, and in a way beyond the powers of English, signifies present and perpetual result. It undoubtedly points to responsibility on the part of men for what they had seen and heard; also, too often but superficially, when there was not hatred and antagonism. Again, the word “I leave” (ἀφίημι) has the undoubted force of “leaving a thing to itself, of withdrawing a controlling power, exercised before” (Westcott), and is seen strikingly in the fourth chapter of this Gospel, where we read, in ver. 3, “Jesus left (ἀφῆχε) Juda.” I do not say how far we should press this latent meaning in the Greek term, but it is discernible by every scholar, and felt to be just by every spiritual mind conversant with the story. Lastly, the word for “I go” (πορεύομαι) carries with it the sense of proceeding solemnly, deliberately, and steadfastly to a destined goal.

I have spoken of the definiteness of Scripture in contrast with the vagueness of man’s surmises as to things beyond the natural sphere. Here human ideas must be vague; nay, they are not seldom of that character even in human science when men attempt to pierce behind phenomena into the causes that produce them. But it may be granted that science in other respects is often marvelously definite, and admirable for the affairs of this life. Nay, so definite is it, that a distinguished English R.C. has very forcibly pointed out the difference between the definiteness loved by scientific men and the haziness which they, and alas! not a few so-called theologians affect when speaking of the Bible. But I had better give, as a penultimate paragraph, Faber’s thoughts in his own eloquent words—

“In our own times it is the fashion of men to develop, as they phrase it, the human features in Christ. They talk, in the empty, pedantic grandiloquence of the day, of exhibiting and producing the human element in Jesus. Thus to an unbelieving people religion has neither facts nor doctrine in the strict sense of those words, but only symbols and views. In astronomy men delight in making the dubious nebula resolve itself into the lucid separateness of individual stars; but in theology they reverse this process. Thus they are fain to superinduce vagueness over what has once been clear, so as to make theology a shapeless nebular light, about which they can theorize and conjecture as they please, finding in its huge spiral convolutions or the lineaments of its rugged edges such fantastic likenesses as made the men of old give their names to the constellations. Now whence this love of vagueness in the matter of religion, joined with a craving for definiteness in all other departments of human knowledge, but from a desire to evade the yoke of faith without the inconvenient boldness of publicly rejecting it.”

Such is the remarkable language of a distinguished divine, who, I believe, left the Church of England for that of Rome, and extracted from a work called “Bethlehem.” But it is not so much his righteous denunciation that one desires to be uppermost in the mind as these words of our Lord Himself in the 28th verse of St. John’s Gospel—words full of sublimity, and uttered with serene calm just before He suffered.

R. B.

Substance of an Address on Joshua 6-7

1 Chronicles 13, 15

There are two portions of scripture we may turn to in which we shall see the blessedness of obedience, and the sorrows of disobedience or neglect. Paul committed the dear ones he was about to leave (he had told them who the apostolic successors would be) to God, and the word of His grace. Oh, that we knew more of real subjection to that word—subjection of heart, and mind, and will! In Josh. 3 we see that when the feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the water, that the waters which came down from above were stayed back, and rose up upon a heap, and the waters below failed. The waters of judgment were stayed back by the ark of the covenant till all the people passed over. On the resurrection side they encamp at Gilgal, where they are circumcised; natural defense given up, the flesh judged, and their whole confidence set in Him whose power had stayed back the Jordan and brought them into the land. There was a great contrast between the land they were now in and the land of Egypt, out of which they had been redeemed.

In Num. 11 we are told that they lusted for six things which they had fed upon in Egypt (they forgot the hard bondage)— “fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlick.” Egypt’s prosperity depended on the Nile, but they were in ignorance as to its source. The land of Canaan drank water of the rain of heaven, and produced seven things that were gathered without stooping—wheat, barley, vines, fig trees, pomegranates, oil olive, and honey (Deut. 8). When they were circumcised the manna ceased; and the old corn of the land took its place—the risen Christ.

In Josh. 1 They were told what should be the extent of their coast— “From the wilderness and this Lebanon, even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun.” In its typical teaching, the mountain would be the world in its power, the great river the world in its prosperity, the wilderness the world in its sterility, and the great sea the world in its lawlessness. This goodly land flowing with milk and honey, is a type of the place we are brought to as given in the Epistle to the Ephesians, but there are always contrasts between type and antitype. It was said to Abram when the land was given to him, “Arise, and walk through the land in the length of it, and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.” But we have “breadth, and length, and depth, and height” to explore and possess as “blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”

In the second of the prayers of the apostle for the saints at Ephesus, the words, “breadth, and length, and depth, and height” (Eph. 3:18), are frequently applied to “the love,” but I believe wrongly. Strengthened “according to the riches of his glory” (not from it), we are to apprehend (not comprehend) all this blessing, and to know the love of Christ which has made it all certain for us.

The land of Canaan was given by Jehovah to Israel for an inheritance, but there were those who opposed their possession, and the Israelites were required to be warriors to fight Jehovah’s battles. They had foes of flesh and blood to contend with; but, we have far mightier enemies to face, for we wrestle against principalities, against powers, against the world—rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual [hosts] of wickedness in the heavenlies (Eph. 6:12). We are no match for them in ourselves, for we are weakness itself, but there is divine and adequate equipment for the warfare provided. Never is anything lacking on God’s side. Has He not given us all things that pertain to life and godliness? We can always praise Him though we have always so much to deplore in ourselves. In this armor there is nothing for the back, clearly indicating there must be something wrong in ourselves if we turn our back to the foe. Our confidence must be exclusively in the Lord—strong in Him and in the power of His might.

The girdle of truth—let us become acquainted with it, let us hold it tighter. It imparts strength to us when we have it tight about ourselves. The breastplate is practical righteousness; and we are called upon to have (as Paul himself had) “a conscience void of offense toward God and toward man.” The shield that Paul would be familiar with would be the large Roman shield which covered the whole body. We must never lower it for only with it shall we be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. In ver. 10 we are called to be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might, which corresponds to the “according to the working of the might of His strength” of chap. 1:19 (New Trans.), which He wrought in the Christ in raising Him from among the dead. So in the type the power that stayed the Jordan back was for Israel to use in their battles with their enemies. The city of Jericho, with its high and mighty walls, they meet first. The ark goes with them, they are (in New Testament language) “strong in the Lord and in the power of his might.” In obedience and dependence they march silently around for seven days. On the seventh day the circuit is made seven times, and it came to pass at the seventh time, when the priests blew with the trumpets, Joshua said unto all the people, Shout; for Jehovah hath given you the city; and the people shouted with a great shout, and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up and took the city (Josh. 6). They were more than conquerors, for they took the spoil for Jehovah. When obedient and dependent, who could stand before them?

Their next battle was to take place at Ai, an insignificant place in human estimation as compared with Jericho; and here we have an exceedingly solemn lesson, for they went in their own strength and were defeated. They had not the presence of the Lord with them, for there was sin unjudged in their midst (unjudged sin deprives us of our breastplate of righteousness). Achan’s sin affected the whole camp of Israel. They made their own plans instead of getting God’s mind, and being obedient to it. They went in their own strength, instead of being dependent and strong in the Lord, with the inevitable result—disaster, sorrow and dismay. Jehovah, in His Mercy, discovered to them the secret cause, and gave them to know that He is holy as well as merciful and gracious and powerful. This surely is an object lesson for us.

Now in 1 Chron. 13 the order is reversed. For in this scripture we have a scene of sorrow and dismay succeeded by recovery to obedience, with its accompanying blessing and joy. It is quite clear that David makes more of the ark than Solomon does. Solomon makes more of the brazen altar than of the ark; but David is on a higher level, and has a deeper acquaintance with the heart of God, to whom he always turns. In the darkest hour “David encouraged himself in Jehovah his God.” Fail he does, but he always recovers, being blessed with a nimbleness of faith to which God in grace responds. One thing we may well lay to heart from David’s experience, viz., that declension always begins in the heart, and may rapidly follow a time of very bright testimony. His confidence in Jehovah’s care when persecuted by Saul was very sweet, but how soon after do we find David saying in his heart, “I shall one day perish!” We all need that word, “Keep thine heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life.”

David began wrong by consulting with “the captains of thousands and hundreds, and with every leader.” These were put first, and the Lord last (ver. 2). It is due to the Lord that we should put Him first and last too. It was doubtless right for David to desire to bring up the ark. But it is possible to do a right thing in a wrong way. We read in ver. 7, “They carried the ark of God on a new cart out of the house of Abinadab, and Uzza and Ahio drave the cart.” All knew how the Philistines had adopted this course, and had sent the ark by a new cart. It was all very well for the Philistines, for God had given them no instructions. Let us beware of human reason. Do not let us be imitators of others because of apparent success. Let us be subject to the word of God in all things. We get on broad, dangerous, sinful ground if we get away from it. Often the question is raised, “What is the harm” of doing this or that? or, Do the Scriptures condemn? Whereas the question should be, What do the Scriptures teach? What do they enjoin? What is the Lord’s will? Read vers. 8, 9 and 10. How could this have occurred had they not had the “new cart”? David was afraid.

What a contrast between the experience of Obed-edom and of David! Now we find David being recovered and trained. In chap. 14:9 we find him in a place of trial, but instead of consulting with his captains, he inquired of God, and got His mind and His instructions, with the result that there was a breach upon David’s enemies instead of a breach upon a Levite. Then in ver. 13 we find him in a trial very similar to the previous one. But instead of falling back on his own previous experience, he again inquires of God, and again learns the blessedness of knowing God’s will and doing it. God is ever ready to teach us and instruct us, to guide us with His eye; and it is to our shame when we fail to get His guidance. Chap. 15:2 tells of David’s recovery, for he had got God’s mind about the ark and the right way of carrying it from God’s own word. Now was God’s due order (ver. 13) observed, now was the obedience of faith and love, with its attendant blessings (ver. 26). We may sometimes shun that which is not easy for us, by slipping aside from the path of obedience, but what a blessing for them to have had His help and power! It led to worship (ver. 29). That may be our portion too, but to be despised by the world, when meeting the Lord’s mind, surely is no cause for regret. May we be “wise, understanding what the will of the Lord is,” and be doing that will from the heart!

J. A. T.

Law and Grace

It is important to see that there were two distinct occasions in which we find tables of stone, according to God’s command, committed, though in a different way, to man. On the first occasion, as we know, there was total ruin; and when God uttered His commands then. afterward written down, there was no shining of the face whatever; there was no Moses transfigured by the power of glory. Law, pure and simple, never made the face of man to shine; it is not the intention of law; nor is it the result of law. Law, simply as such, is characterized by darkness and tempest, by thunder and lightning, by the voice of God dealing with the guilty more tremendous than all together. And so it was on the first occasion when the law was announced by God Himself, and the tables were broken (before ever they reached man) by the indignant law-giver.

On the second occasion what a difference! The lawgiver was called into the presence of God, who thereon was pleased to give a mingling of mercy along with law. There was a covenant expressly made of this combined composite character. It was not law alone, and not grace alone, but rather the mingling of grace along with law. For it would have been perfectly impossible for God to have carried on dealings with Israel, or to have brought them even into the land, unless there had been this mingling of grace and mercy with law. Consequently on this occasion the law was still committed to man; but it was shut up in the ark, not displayed with all its terrors before the eyes of men; it was enclosed, as we know, in the testimony.

Now, there are many even of God’s children who think that such is exactly the tenor of the dealings of God with us now; that is, taw and grace mingled—grace hindering the action of law; the law bringing us in guilty, but grace interposing to screen the guilty according to the words we read in the early part of Ex. 34. There Jehovah proclaims Himself in the character of lawgiver, though he declares His longsuffering and mercy, as it is said, “Jehovah, Jehovah God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.” But it is also added, “And that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.” Now you will observe that while such is the principle of God’s dealings—that it is not law alone, nor grace alone, but the two together—while this is the case, whenever the mediator comes forward to speak to the people he has to put a veil upon his face. When he goes into the presence of God, the veil was taken off; in glory, in the presence of glory, there is no veil. But as long as man had to do with the law, even though there was mercy and grace mingled with it, the veil must be put on when he spoke with the people.

Now, the remarkable thing that I would call your attention to is this, that our position is in contrast with both. Our position is neither having to do with law alone, nor with law mingled with grace; we are in presence of grace and glory without the law at all. This is precisely what the apostle shows in 2 Cor. 3 Here he does not refer to the contrast of Ex. 19 or 20, but solely to the occasion of mingled law and grace in Ex. 34; and he lets us see that the ministration on that day was one of death and condemnation. The reason is this, that if the law enters at all, if I have to do with it as that which governs me, and under which I am, the more mercy that is shown, the more guilty am I, and He will by no means clear the guilty.

Now, that all-condemning character did not come out while God was dealing with men before Christ; but when Christ came, God stood to His principles with the utmost nicety and all His authority. The reason is, that there was One come who could solve all difficulties, meet all need, and deliver from all distress and danger. It was because the Son of God was now become the Son of man, and the Son of man was willing to suffer on the cross, not yet about to administer the glory.

Hence it is that our position is put in distinct and positive contrast. The apostle says, “If the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.” He does not put us in the place of the children of Israel, but takes care to show that it is after the type of Moses drawing near into the presence of God, where he takes off the veil. This is the sign of our position now, and not the children of Israel. In short it is not the man veiled, and the children of Israel afraid of him because of the glory of his countenance, which they could not look upon; but the man unveiled in the presence of God, when he turns, not to the people with a veil upon his face, but to God in glory without the veil.

Such is our position now; such the position of all Christians, if they only knew it. This comes out fully in the last verse. He says, “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” “We all” is in contrast with the one man Moses. The position of the Christian is typified by Moses in the presence of God, and not by the children of Israel in the presence of Moses veiled. “We all,” for God makes not the smallest difference in this respect; the weakest Christian has exactly the same position before God. Whenever it is a question of position, of the simple effect or result of what the Lord Jesus has accomplished and given to us by grace, there is no difference whatever. When it is a question of spiritual power, there is a difference, and all possible room for variety. Just as in the first Adam there is no difference in the general fact that all have sinned; yet, when you come to look at the extent to which people have gone in sin, there are degrees of difference.

Precisely so with the Second man, the last Adam. He has brought all who belong to Him now into this common place of blessing. We all with open, or unveiled, face (for this is the true force of it) beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord. This was what Moses saw, and only Moses, and he merely for a moment; whereas it is our constant position. A Christian, all the time he is here below, is, as far as the work of Christ is concerned, one entitled to draw near to God, to look up into the glory, and to be there himself; the veil gone, Christ without a veil. There was a veil but it is rent. Now there is none—none on the heart of the believer, none on the face of Christ or on ours; it is completely gone. “We all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory even as by the Spirit of the Lord.”

What the Holy Ghost now ministers to us is not merely a Savior who came down into our woe and misery to bear our iniquities and sins, but that same Savior after the work of grace is done when He is gone up as the witness of its perfectness into the presence of God; and we are invited by the Holy Ghost to keep our eye fixed upon Him there, glorified according to the excellency of redemption. That will not make His grace in coming down here to be less precious; nor will it make redemption to be less prized, but much more. It will also imprint a heavenly character upon all our ways; and this, and nothing less, is our place. “As is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly”; and, “As we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” Then it will be perfect; now it is only partial, and according to the measure in which self is judged.

What hinders the practical effect, the heavenly power being reflected from us, is the unjudged actitvity of our nature. Do we not know it? When is it we do wrong? When is it we form mistaken judgments, and become careless and worldly? Just in proportion as our eye is off Christ as He is now in glory. I grant you that Christ anywhere before the soul is a preserving means. Nevertheless, there is no such power for overcoming the seductions of the world, and that which looks fair and religious in the world; nothing will do it thoroughly but Christ in glory. As far as leading out our souls in love and devotedness is concerned, Christ here below will do it. But Christ in glory puts out the light of earth’s best religion, and makes it appear pale and tawdry by the side of its surpassing brightness. We are invited, we are called upon as Christians, to behold Him in that glory continually now. The Lord give us so to walk, and we shall find the fruit of it, “changed into the same image from glory to glory.”

One word more. There is nothing so dangerous as to trifle with the truth; nothing more ruinous than for men to use the brightest truth, and to be careless about the matters of every-day life. I beseech of you to remember this. There is something even of a disgusting character about it when we fail in ordinary duties, and yet are at the same time talking about resurrection and glory—life and all the special blessedness of the Christian position. I beseech you, my brethren and sisters, especially those of you who are young (though indeed it is a snare for old as well as young), think seriously of this. It is the natural snare of those who are accustomed to an atmosphere of truth, where the words of God are, so to speak, a common household bread. None are in such danger; but it is a danger because the eye and heart are not on Jesus. There will be power where there is simplicity with self-judgment; nowhere else.

W. K.

Living on Grace

“God never gave you grace that you might live upon it, but grace that you might live upon Christ.”

The Lord's Coming and the Lapse of Centuries

As all that we know about the coming of the Lord has not been incompatible with the lapse of nineteen centuries, some are asking, May there not be as long a period yet to run before His advent? The first reply to this is that faith is never governed by appearances or reasonings, but by the word of the Lord; and that as He has told us to wait, without reference to time, fidelity to Him demands that we should do so, undeterred by the passing of centuries. “We walk by faith, not by sight.” “We look not at the things that are seen, but at the things that are not seen” (2 Cor. 5:7 and 4:18).

Has the reader ever noticed that Luke 12 gives a special reward for watching, distinct from that for service? The former is in verse 37, and has a sweetness of its own: it has relation to the heart’s affections, which after all are the governing clement in looking for the Lord’s return. The Lord says, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (ver. 35); and then in ver. 37, “Blessed are those servants, whom the Lord when he cometh shall find watching; verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.”

The reward for service is in ver. 44: “Blessed is that servant whom his Lord when he cometh shall find so doing; of a truth I say unto you that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.”

The reward of service is blessed, but it is outward glory-rule; that for watching is as it were the internal pleasures of the domestic scene, where the Royal Host, in the most touching manner—Himself dispensing His hospitality—makes them sit at their ease, while He personally ministers to their enjoyment. It is remarkable that either as to faithful watchfulness for His return, or unfaithful abandonment of that duty, the Lord represents both as a matter of the heart. As to the former he says, “Where your treasure is there will your heart be also”; as to the latter, He quotes the unfaithful servant as saying “in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming.” Indeed the very first mention of the rapture in Scripture, is in connection with the affections. The ancient prophecies are full of the Lord’s glorious epiphany; but the first mention of that prior event—His receiving us to Himself—is in the 14th of John; and there it is announced as for the fulfillment of His heart’s desire “that where I am ye may be also” (14:3).

Leaving now in its due prominence, the important point that what the Lord looks for from us is not the holding of a prophetic theory, but the lively affection of the heart, let us look at the bearing which the long lapse of nineteen centuries has upon the matter.

In the first place, if so long a time has passed, may we not for that very reason be quite possibly at the very eve of His coming? Undoubtedly we may.

All that can be said on the contrary is that, because so long a time has passed, an equally long time may possibly have yet to run. While the possibility cannot be denied, the probabilities are strongly against this. Too much stress should not be laid on the unexpected length of time that has elapsed. For Scripture has with profound wisdom been constructed so as to contain in several places mystical intimations of the unexpected extension of times—intimations which can be discerned now, but which could not be given with plainness at first, because to have done so would have put the church out of that attitude of expectancy which the Lord desired to be maintained. Take as an instance the Epistles to the seven churches in the Revelation: addressed to seven actual churches at the time. There is no reason to suppose that they were then seen to have any typical character, though possessing valuable instruction for other churches at all times, just as the Epistles to the Romans, Ephesians, etc. But we in the end of the church-period can perceive that the seven churches afford a type of the whole history of the church from the setting up in first love in Ephesus, on through varying phases of church-history—unmistakably portrayed, though with more or less clearness—down to the rejection of the dead profession in Laodicea.

A similar mystical intimation in the end of John’s Gospel has been beautifully pointed out by Mr. Darby—

“In chap. 21.... the special ministry of Peter and John is pointed out, though mysteriously. The sheep of Jesus of the circumcision are confided to Peter; but this ministry was to close like Christ’s. The assembly would not be established on this ground, any more than Israel. There was no tarrying here till Christ came. Peter’s ministry in fact was closed, and the circumcision assembly left shepherdless, before the destruction of Jerusalem put an end to all such connection forever. Peter then asks as to John. The Lord answers, confessedly mysteriously, but putting off, as that which did not concern Peter who was to follow Him, the closing of John’s ministry, prolonging it in possibility till Christ came. Now, in fact, the Bridegroom tarried; but the service and ministry of John by the word (which was all that was to remain, and no apostle in personal care) did go on to the return of Christ.”

Again in Mark 13, “Take ye heed, watch and pray; for ye know not when the time is. For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. Watch ye therefore; for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cock-crowing, or in the morning; lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch” (vers. 33-37).

At first this would present only a stirring exhortation to watch for the Lord’s return, but we in our day can discern more than that in ver. 35. The dispensation is given in the figure of night, beginning with the time of the greatest light, the evening; then sets in the darkness culminating in the “midnight” of the middle ages; but there came the awakening of the Reformation—the time of cock-crowing; at length comes the morning for which we are watching still. How plain this seems now; but it was wrapped up and concealed in this brief yet graphic outline by One who knew the end from the beginning.

In the same way the parable of the ten virgins, while constituting in itself the most solemn admonition to watchfulness under all events, contains also an intimation of extension of time. This is somewhat concealed in the Authorized Version by the phrase, “while the bridegroom tarried.” It should be, “Now the bridegroom tarrying” (New Transl.). The former makes the tarrying a mere casual incident; the latter mentions it as a distinct intentional action.

This parable also would at first appear merely a moral enforcement of watchfulness; but in the light of events it displays a picture—only too true—of the dispensation. There would be an immense concourse of merely formal Christians bearing the lamp of profession, but no oil, and no real light. Darkness comes down on the dispensation and they all grow slumberous and sleep. That is, all, wise as well as foolish, abandon the hope of the Lord’s coming. But at midnight a cry is made, “Behold the Bridegroom! Go ye out to meet Him!” The text is, “Behold the Bridegroom” (not, “cometh”). Attention is called primarily to the person of the Bridegroom, not His coming; nevertheless the summons is, “Go ye out to meet Him.” Probably the whole verse (6) —covers figuratively, not only the revival at the Reformation, but every subsequent awakening (Wesley, Whitfield, etc.), and more especially that revival, about sixty years ago, of the hope of the Lord’s return, till then totally lost. Then only was it, since Apostolic days, that Christians were shown that their true calling was “to meet the Lord in the air.” Let those to whom it was given to voice this summons at that time, see to it that they hold fast that which they have, that they lose not their special crown (Rev. 3:11); not merely holding to a certain prophetic doctrine, but as those whose treasure is in heaven and hearts there also, who livingly hope for the Lord’s coming.

The parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-30) exhibits the same feature. It state that, “after a long time the Lord of those servants cometh and reckoneth with them” (ver. 19). These words, “after a long time,” have a deeper significance than appeared at first.

Thus then Scripture refutes those who say that the apostles were mistaken, and the early Christians mistaken, in looking for the Lord’s coming. It shows that it was the Lord’s intention to keep the church in the attitude of expectancy, but notwithstanding this that there are clear indications of an intended tarrying of the Bridegroom.

But still, there remains the tendency to think that because so great a time has been suffered to go by, further lengthy time must still elapse before the Lord’s return. A counterpoise to this, however, is furnished by the consideration of current events of our day, which the Christian cannot ignore, and which in connection with Scriptures which bear upon them, seem to afford striking indication that the Lord’s coming may now be near.

One of these is the remarkable action of the Spirit of God in reviving within the last. sixty years the truth as to the coming of the Lord. Before that date the coming was universally interpreted to be death; and the statement, “Be ye also ready, for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh,” was explained from all pulpits as meaning nothing more, and nothing less, than death. But God raised up earnest and devout students of Scripture to whom He imparted the knowledge, and also gift to teach it, that the Lord’s coming meant nothing of the kind, but that before His appearing to the world He will come and receive the church to Himself. This will not be found in the writings of the so-called Fathers, nor in any writings or sermons between apostolic days and its being educed from Scripture in recent times. It was scouted and opposed by the official ministry of all classes and parties of Christians except those to whom God had given it. Now, needless to say, it is fairly well known in Christendom and accepted by the great majority of the godly. A large number of the latter are now earnestly looking for that blissful event—the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. Is there no significance in this? Is not the preparation by the Holy Spirit of a remnant to wait for the Lord Jesus Christ an indication that His coming may be about to take place? How blessed to be, when He does come, one of those who are waiting in happy earnest expectation of seeing Him!

Another event of unmistakable significance is the alarming movement towards what will, when the church is gone, develop into THE APOSTASY, i.e. the absolute abandonment of Christianity. This has already been somewhat explained in a previous article in this journal. The New Theology of the present time is not “the apostasy,” inasmuch as it still claims to be Christianity. It does not renounce, but shelters under, the name of Christianity. It indeed denies all the essential doctrines of Christ, but claims that it is a “rearticulation” of them. It says that “there is a beautiful spiritual truth underneath every venerable (sic) article of the Christian faith, but as popularly presented, this truth has become so distorted as to be falsehood.” The English of which is that the hitherto known Christianity is false. What the said “re-articulation” is may be judged of by the following— “Briefly summed up the position is as follows: Jesus was God, but so are we. He was God because His life was the expression of divine love; we too are one with God in so far as our lives express the same thing. “

Ex pede Herculem. Anyone who has had the painful task of looking into the book from which these quotations are taken will know that they are fair specimens of its system of veiled apostasy and blasphemy. The so-called “Higher Criticism” of the Bible is all of a piece with this; as its exponents admit without a blush that twenty-five years ago it would have been deemed “subversive of the foundations of the faith.”

The object here, however, is neither to criticize nor denounce such movements, but to point out their significance. The instructed Christian can scarcely doubt that we have in them the commencement of that working of error, which will become in its maturity “the apostasy” of 2 Thessalonians, and will bring eternal condemnation to those who accept it. But this development cannot occur while the church, in which the Holy Ghost dwells, remains below (2 Thess. 2:6). But who shall say the moment, when this restraining power will be removed, by the catching away of the church? The popularity of the new tenets amongst all denominations of Christians is unquestionable. Here then we see the mind of man being prepared for the delusions to follow the removal of the church. May not this too be significant of the Lord’s coming being now near at hand?

The two indications which we have been considering have relation to Christianity. First, prior to the outburst of the awful New Theology, the Lord, as if to prepare and strengthen His own against what was coming, causes the hope of His return to be brought to light, together with a body of heavenly truth calculated to gird up the church and direct the minds of God’s children to their true and heavenly calling. Second, the virtual abandonment of Christianity preliminary to the open apostasy which is to follow the rapture of the church.

But outside the ecclesiastical sphere, premonitions may be observed. From the slumber of centuries the Jew seems to be awaking. Zionism and the so-called “Ito” movement have been referred to in a previous number. There is, no doubt, a revival of national aspirations amongst the Jews, though it is damped by two influences. Many of them have no sympathy with anything further than an improvement of their worldly condition. Then again some of the Gentile powers are jealous of their forming any organization amongst themselves. But the Jewish movement likewise is one which will probably receive an impetus from the termination of the earthly existence of the church.

The effort to obtain Egyptian independence has also significance; for Egypt (the “king of the south” of Daniel’s prophecy) is to be a prominent power in the post-church period. The unrest in India, the unexpected revivifying of Turkey through constitutional reforms and other progressive operations, have each of them important and scriptural bearings on our subject. Space, however, forbids details. But whether we look at the state of the church, or of what is called the Christian world, or the condition of the nations, the world seems ripe for the coming of the Lord, and an intelligent survey of the situation seems to furnish an overwhelming answer to the question about His coming with which we started. “He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear.” “BEHOLD I COME QUICKLY” (Rev. 22:7, 12, 20).

E. J. T.

Love and Brotherly Love

2 Peter 1:7

The common notion is that brotherly love is charity, and indeed its most perfect form. This is a mistake, as this passage shows. That brotherly love is a most sweet and precious fruit of grace is most true precious in the heart that is filled with it, and precious in its mutual development; but it is not charity. We are told to add to “brotherly love” “charity.” The reason is simple: if brotherly love, brethren are the object, and though when genuine and pure it surely flows from grace—it easily in us clothes itself with the character which its object gives it, and tends to limit itself to the objects with which it is occupied and be governed by its feeling towards them. It is apt to end in its objects, and thus avoid all that might be painful to them or mar the mutual feeling and pleasantness of intercourse, and thus make them the measure of the conduct of the Christian. In a word, where brotherly love ends in itself, as the main object, brethren become the motive and governing principle of our conduct; and our conduct as uncertain as the state of our brethren with whom we may be in contact. Hence the apostle says, “Above all these put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness”; and another apostle, “And to brotherly kindness charity.”

Now charity is love; but will not this seek to exercise brotherly kindness? Undoubtedly it will, but it brings in God. “God is love.” “He that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.” Hence it brings in a standard of what true love is, which mere brotherly kindness in itself never can. It is the bond of perfectness, for God, and God in active love is its measure. Brotherly kindness by itself has the brother for object: charity is governed by, exists in virtue of the conscious presence of God; hence whatever is not consistent with His presence, with Himself, with His glory, cannot be borne by the heart who is filled with it. It is in the spirit of love that it thinks and works, but in the Spirit of God, by whose presence it is inwardly known and active. Love was active in Christ when He said, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers”; in Paul when he said, “I would that they were even cut off which trouble you.”

Charity, because it is God’s presence, and that we feel His presence, and look to Him in it, is intolerant of evil. In mere brotherly kindness, the brother being the object before my mind (and, if God’s presence be not felt, we do not realize it, nature coming in so easily and here in its most unsuspected and kindly shapes), I put man before God, smother up evil, keep kindness going, at any rate so far exclude and shut out God. Charity is His active presence though it will be in love to man; but it gives to God all His rights. He it is that is love, but He is never inconsistent with Himself. His love to us was shown in what was the most solemn proof of His intolerance of evil, the cross. There is no true love apart from righteousness. If God is indifferent to evil, is not righteous, then there is no love in grace to the sinner. If He abhors evil, cannot suffer it in His presence, then His dealings with us as sinners shows the most perfect love. If I have ten children, and they go wrong, and I say, “Well, I am to show love to them,” and I take no account of their evil ways; or if some of them go wrong and I treat them as if there was no difference to my mind in their well doing or evil doing; this is not love, but carelessness as to evil. This is the kind of love looked for by unconverted man, namely, God’s being as careless as to evil as they are; but this is not divine charity which abhors the evil, but rises over it, dealing with it either in putting it away or in needed chastenings. Now if God were indifferent to evil there is no holy being to be the object of my love—nothing sanctifying. God does not own as love what admits of sin.

J. N. D.

Studies in Mark: a Merciful Deed on the Sabbath

14.-A Merciful Deed on the Sabbath

“And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had his hand withered. And they watched him whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. And he saith unto the man that had his hand withered, Stand forth. And he saith unto them, Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or to do harm? to save a life, or to kill? But they held their peace And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth; and his hand was restored. And the Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against him, how they might destroy him” (3:1 -6, R. V.).

In the cornfields the lowly Servant of Jehovah, by the vindication of His followers from the groundless charge made against them by the Pharisees, declared that He had supreme authority over the sabbath. The record of this declaration by the Son of man is immediately succeeded, in all three of the Synoptical Gospels, by the account of the miraculous restoration, on another sabbath, of the withered hand of the man in the synagogue. Whether the latter event followed the former in immediate chronological sequence cannot be definitely ascertained from the sacred history, and this point may therefore be regarded as one of no importance in the scheme of the Gospels.

It is, however, of the deepest interest to observe that the two incidents are brought together by three of the Evangelists, and thus constitute an epoch in the Galilaean ministry of our Lord. At this juncture the truth of the gospel broke away from Judaism. For herein it is shown how the teaching and practice of Jesus came into direct collision with the teaching and practice of the Jews in regard of one of the most salient of the outward features of their religion—the observance of the sabbath. In this particular, as in others, the Jews had rendered the law of God inoperative by their traditions. The Lord, by exposing this departure from the spirit of their ancient oracles, and the evil tendencies of their beliefs, aroused their hostility and censure. The two incidents may be regarded from this point of view as forming a double witness (1) to the apostasy of the Jews in their manner of observing the sabbath—that characteristic ordinance committed to the chosen people—and (2) to the wise and faithful testimony to the truth delivered by Jehovah’s Servant in the face of Pharisaic gainsaying and rancor. And while both occurrences show the persistent zeal exercised by the Lord’s enemies to prove Him a sabbath-breaker, they also show how able the Lord was to confound their schemes and to discern the evil motives concealed beneath the cloak of piety.

THE WITHERED HAND RESTORED

The Lord went into a synagogue on the sabbath. It is not clear whether this was or was not the synagogue at Capernaum where He had already performed miracles. But when the Pharisees and scribes who were assembled there saw amongst the congregation a man whose hand (the right, as Luke the physician, tells us) was shrunken and useless they suspected that the Master might heal the afflicted man. Thoroughly opposed to Him as they were, their unspoken thoughts by this conjecture paid tribute to the unfailing compassion of Jesus for whatever weakness and suffering crossed His pathway. But it is patent that the fact of His being good and doing good, which they inwardly acknowledged, caused them to hate Him and to seek to destroy Him. Imbued with this sinister desire they eyed the Lord narrowly, hoping that out of His active beneficence which they anticipated they might concoct some charge which would bring Him under the jurisdiction of the law.

Jesus knew their machinations (Luke 6:8), but was not to be diverted out of His course of “doing good.” He bade the afflicted man to rise and stand out in the midst in sight of the whole company. Then the Lord, desirous of awakening the dormant consciences of the Pharisees and scribes to a sense of their own guilty motives, asked them, “Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath or to do harm? to save life or to kill?” (Mark, Luke). To this piercing question, which exposed the hidden sophistries of their minds, they had no reply, and were dumb before Him. They had reasoned within themselves that, since the commandment of God forbade all work on the sabbath, Jesus, by healing the withered hand, would be working, and therefore breaking the sabbath. But the Lord’s words put the matter on a different plane altogether. The question was not, as they supposed, one between activity and passivity; it was between doing good and doing harm, between saving a life and destroying a life by refraining from saving it. The law of God was given for the repression of evil, not for the repression of good. “There is none good save one, that is, God,” and it is inconceivable that He, “the Goodness of goodness,” would promulgate a law which would prevent the doing of good. Indeed to refrain from doing good when opportunity is offered is to display unlikeness to God. “Whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him” (1 John 3:17)?

Thus then did the Lord, by the presentation of the truth, seek, first of all, to heal the diseased minds of His enemies in the synagogue, but was hindered by their unbelief. The entrance of His words would have illuminated their dark hearts; but as the Prophet of Jehovah surveyed the congregation, His omniscient eyes marked not only the frowning brow and furtive glance but the hardened hearts and minds refusing to accept the truth. The zeal for God which “consumed” the Righteous Servant drew forth a momentary flash of that “wrath of the Lamb” from which the potentates of this world shall vainly seek to be sheltered in a future day (Rev. 6:15-17). But the Lord was not there to judge. Hence He regarded their desperate condition with sorrow and grief. “He looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart.” Then addressing the disabled man, He bade him stretch out his hand. With implicit trust in the words of the prophet of Nazareth the man essayed to do so, and found the limb restored to its natural strength and suppleness.

Such a result could not be gainsaid. The miracle was performed in a public place in the presence of a company of witnesses, consisting not of ignorant and credulous peasants only, if at all, but also of educated Pharisees and scribes who were only too anxious to deny the cure altogether, if possible, or at any rate to raise objections to its genuine character. They did not, however, attempt to deny the miracle, but leaving the synagogue they sought their rivals, the Herodians, and laying aside their mutual animosities, the two parties conferred together that they might find the most expeditious method of destroying Jesus.

PROMINENCE GIVEN TO SABBATH-SERVICE

In the brief outline of the life and ministry of our Lord which we possess in the Gospels, it is striking to observe what a large proportion, comparatively speaking, of His recorded service was performed upon the sabbath. There are, altogether, about twenty-six cases of healing specifically mentioned in the Gospels, and of these, seven are stated to have been executed on the sabbath day. These seven cases are—

1. The demoniac at Capernaum (Mark 1:21).

2. Simon’s wife’s mother (Mark 1:29).

3. The man with a withered hand (Mark 3:1-5).

4. The bowed woman (Luke 13:14).

5. The man with dropsy (Luke 14:1-6).

6. The impotent man at the pool (John 5:9).

7. The beggar blind from birth (John 9:14).

Other instances are referred to in general terms as happening on the seventh day. It may also be observed that the Lord commenced His public ministry at Nazareth on the sabbath; and that He was in the sepulcher during the whole of the sabbath after His crucifixion—that “high day,” as it was called. Attention has already been drawn to the fact that the incident in the cornfields occurred on the sabbath.

Much of this service was rendered in synagogues where it was customary for the law and the prophets to be read in the hearing of those assembled. The acts of mercy therefore, in addition to the direct benefit which they conferred upon those immediately concerned, formed instructive examples of the blessing for man which would characterize the coming kingdom even then preached by the Servant of Jehovah. This blessing was not to be effected without the energy of divine love. And divine love had charged itself to remove the presence of sin and its fruits; nor could it rest until this was accomplished for the whole creation. As the Lord said on another occasion, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work” (John 5:17). The instance here of the healing of the withered arm was a sample of the “powers of the world to come,” and was but a single instance of what shall eventually be effected for the whole earth.

Looked at truly, the presence of this sufferer in the synagogue was undeniable evidence that the sabbath could not be rightly kept. For at the beginning of the world’s history, when Jehovah rested on the seventh day from His works and blessed it and hallowed it, the earth was unblemished, and declared the glory of God. In an Eden unsullied by man’s disobedience Jehovah could, in that primeval sabbath, commune with Adam. The entrance of sin destroyed these conditions, its presence in the world being incompatible with the rest of God.

At Sinai the people of Israel were enjoined to “Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy.” There were to be no sinful desires, no sinful actions, no sinful associations. They were to regard the claims of Jehovah upon them and observe the day to Him, distinguishing it from the six days by abstaining from all manner of work, i.e., all labor usually undertaken for personal gain or gratification or comfort.

Where was this sanctity in the Galilaean synagogue? It is true there was a cessation of manual labor in the town. The fishing-boats rode idly at anchor or were drawn up on the strand, the fields and vineyards were deserted, the bazaars were silent, and a decorous company assembled for prayer and reading of the Scriptures. This man saw, and judged what a pious observance of the sabbath was there.

But Jesus saw more and differently. He saw a man there doing no manner of work truly, for his right hand was robbed of its cunning. If this affliction was not a direct infliction from God, as in the case of the renegade king and of the false shepherd of Israel (1 Kings. 13:4; Zech. 11:17), it was certainly the result of sin, whatever the secondary causes may have been. The human hand, by its flexibility and manifold utility, differentiates the physical organization of man from the ape-like animals which superficially resemble him. Its uselessness in this case demonstrated the cruel effects of sin upon mankind.

But the Savior saw even more. He looked beneath the cloak of formal piety and hypocrisy, and discerned a fountain of corruption. Evil thoughts and desires were in the assembly. Those who considered that to heal a man on the sabbath was to violate sanctity had no scruples about holding a council on that day for the destruction of Jesus. The Cain-thirst for innocent blood was there. The professed sabbath-keepers were hating their Messiah without a cause, and had already murdered Him—in their hearts. Was this remembering, the sabbath day to keep it holy? All this and more the Lord saw, as He looked round on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their hearts. He surveyed them in the spirit that at His final entry into Jerusalem wept over the guilty city.

Similarly, we read of divine grief in the Old Testament when in antediluvian days “the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart” (Gen. 6:5, 6). Again He said of the Israelites in the wilderness, “Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways” (Psa. 95:10). A SOLEMN LESSON There is in this incident, beside other instruction, a solemn lesson for all time as to the utter futility of the mere outward observance of a divine ordinance. The same truth is expressed many times elsewhere and in many ways. But it is here associated with the keeping of the sabbath and not with the offering of sacrifice or the repetition of prayers, and it may be well to state the principle which seems to be involved. Here, on the part of the Pharisees, was a great display of zeal, ostensibly for the honor of Jehovah’s sabbath. They appeared to be desirous above all things that its holiness should be preserved inviolate, so much so that they regarded the plucking of a few ears of corn and the healing of a withered hand as infractions of God’s law. But what was the truth? They were all the while furiously angry without cause, hating their Messiah and persecuting the benefactor of their fellows. It is evident that their position was one of gross deceit, though while they might deceive other men and even themselves, they could not deceive God. And this was the true nature of Pharisaism, as the Gospels abundantly testify. It is well, however, to remember that this hypocrisy arose from the natural tendencies of the human heart, and for this reason all religious persons are liable to fall into the same unreality in their devotional exercises. And what at first may be no more than an occasional lapse, becomes eventually a settled habit. We are therefore to regard the exposure here made of the inward evil of these religious professors as a serious warning for the present day.

It should be comparatively easy to discern that the exercise of public Christian worship and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper are liable to the danger of unreality—a punctilious performance of these rites being accompanied by a complete absence of spiritual intention. And it is commonly and rightly understood that this failure to present to God “worship in spirit and in truth” is especially to be feared when that worship is connected with an ornate ceremonialism and a prescribed liturgy. The aesthetic ritual may proceed most agreeably to the cultivated taste, but what if the soul of the worshipper be out of harmony with its God?

Most admit the possibility and even the prevalence in Christendom of this spiritual pretension. But is it not too often forgotten that the danger equally exists, however simple the external forms of worship may be? In our Lord’s day it was found in the synagogue as much as in the temple. Nowadays hollow formalism frequents both the fretted aisles of venerable cathedrals and the whitewashed rooms of our obscure by-ways. Reality may be as seriously lacking in the simple singing of a “common meter” hymn as in the classical rendering of an anthem accompanied by trained choral and instrumental harmonies. The delusion lies in the false assumption that the negation of all outward ceremonies provides a certain safeguard against unspiritual worship and prayer. The truth is that the presence or the absence of an appointed ritual will not exclude from the worshippers thoughts which are evil and hostile to the Savior, though it is likely enough that these thoughts may assume the disguise of religious zeal for the readier deception of the unwatchful, and of such as, like those in the synagogue, have not learned the real nature of their own sinful hearts.

HEART-HARDNESS

What are we to understand by the phrase used here— “the hardening of their heart”? Does it imply that the hearts of the audience in the synagogue were naturally incapable of appreciating the cogent and irrefragable evidence afforded by the works of Jesus to the divine nature of His person and mission? or does it imply that they, knowing otherwise, resolutely refused to recognize the value of this evidence? In other words, is the allusion to their inborn or to their willful obdurateness of heart?

The word πώρωσις—translated “hardening” or “hardness” signifies a state of callousness, and, considered in connection with the other instances of its use in the New Testament, seems to specify the deplorable state of insensibility of the Jews to the words and works of the kingdom which were placed before them by their Messiah—a condition of indifference which became intensified by their neglect of the testimony to the gospel.

Looking at the other occurrences of the word and its cognate forms, we find that it is applied to the Jews, to the Gentiles, and to the disciples of our Lord to indicate their want of receptivity of the truth. In the Epistle to the Romans, the apostle uses it in reference to the rejection of the gospel by the mass of the Jews. “That which Israel seeketh for, that he obtained not; but the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened.” “A hardening in part had befallen Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in” (Rom. 11:7, 25). Again, in another epistle, the apostle, speaking of the same subject, says, “Their minds were hardened” (2 Cor. 3:14).

The same term is used to express the natural irresponsiveness of the Gentiles also to what is of God: “Being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their heart” (Eph. 4:18).

The word is not found in the Synoptical Gospels except in Mark. He uses it here, and also in reference to the disciples: “They understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened” (Mark 6:52). And again, he reports the words of Jesus to the dull apostles, “Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? Do ye not yet perceive, neither understand? Have ye your heart hardened” (Mark 8:17)?

In the above instances the activity of the will in opposition to the truth is not necessarily implied. The term appears rather to point to that prevailing state of moral stupidity among the Jews which failed to perceive what was evidently of God.

When the apostle in the Hebrews is referring to the willful obstinacy of the Israelites in the wilderness he uses a different word: “Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness” (Heb. 3:8, 15; 4:7). And without presuming to dogmatize as to its finer shades of meaning it is suggested that the word σχληρύνω and its derivatives is employed to denote that definite resistance on man’s part which deliberately blocks up the heart to exclude the light of God—as the Lord said, “Ye will not come unto me that ye may have life” (John 5:40).

It must be added that the former word, πώρωσις, occurs in one other connection not vet mentioned. John uses it in his Gospel with reference to the solemn judicial process which is exercised by God upon those who fill up their measure of guilt in repeated refusal of divine testimony. The Evangelist, speaking of those who had not believed on Jesus although they had witnessed so many miracles by Him, wrote, “For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart; lest they should see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and should turn, and I should heal them” (John 12:39, 40; citation from Isa. 6:9, 10). This judicial sentence was not pronounced upon the nation until the divine patience was exhausted with those who stumbled at the stumbling-stone, ignoring the Messiah sent to them (Acts 13:27).

[W. J. H.]

Studies in Mark: a Sabbath in Capernaum

7.-A Sabbath at Capernaum

“And they go into Capernaum; and straightway on the Sabbath day he entered into the synagogue and taught. And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes. And straightway there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who that; art, the Holy One of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. And the unclean spirit tearing him and crying with a loud voice came out of him. And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What is this? a new teaching! With authority he commandeth even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.

“And the report of him went out straightway everywhere into all the region of Galilee.

“And straightway when they were come out of the synagogue they came into the house of Simon and Andrew with James and John. Now Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick of a fever; and straightway they tell him of her: and he came and took her by the hand and raised her up; and the fever left her, and she ministered unto them” (1:21-31, R.V.).

(Many of these renderings by W.K. are taken from Vol: II. of the Believer’s Monthly Magazine.)

The Servant of Jehovah proceeds with His ministry of the kingdom of God. Only He is not now alone in it. We read previously that “Jesus came into Galilee”; we now read “they go into Capernaum.” He would necessarily direct all the service and provide and arrange all matters as the Master. It was their part to be ear-witnesses of His gracious words and eye-witnesses of His miracles and signs, and some of them of His majesty also. But they, we may be sure, found their joy and their strength. not in visions of the future, but in the simple satisfaction that arose from being in the company and under the direction of a loved One. Is it not so even now? Does not the renewed heart crave for a sense of the Lord’s presence? And did not the Lord Himself answer that craving by His promise before His departure, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20). And, if this assurance be said to have a special collective application, the wish of Paul for Timothy is undoubtedly individual, “The Lord [Jesus Christ] be with thy spirit” (2 Tim. 4:22). May we then, individually and collectively, walk with Him!

The Lord was pleased to select Capernaum as His abode in Galilee, making from thence His circuits through the numerous towns and villages—of that populous district. Capernaum was from this circumstance highly favored as a place.—Matthew, alluding to the Lord’s residence there, speaks of it as “His own city” (9:1). In the words often quoted from Chrysostom, “Bethlehem bore Him, Nazareth nurtured Him, Capernaum had Him continuously as inhabitant.”

The Lord Himself referred to this mark of outward privilege and its abuse in words of solemn and tremendous import, “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be brought down to hell [hades]; for if the mighty works which have been done in thee had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day” (Matt. 11:23). Capernaum repented not at the preaching of Jesus, and while its unbelieving inhabitants must answer for themselves individually in a day of judgment yet to come, this, the Lord’s own city in Galilee, has been so completely overthrown that its site cannot with certainty be identified.

In the Lord’s service on this Sabbath day in Capernaum, as recorded by Mark, He is shown (1) teaching in the synagogue, (2) expelling a demon, and (3) healing Simon’s wife’s mother.

JEHOVAH’S SERVANT TEACHING WITH AUTHORITY

Jesus straightway went into the synagogue, probably that one built by the Roman centurion (Luke 7:1, 5), and began teaching. We are not: told here the matter of His discourse. Matthew, in, what is commonly known as the Sermon on the mount, has summarized in the words of our Lord the moral principles which should characterize the coming kingdom of heaven. Mark simply states that He who had preached the fulfillment of ancient promise and the gospel of God now commenced to expound the truth, so that those who were hungering and thirsting after righteousness might be filled. Many prophets and kings had desired to hear the things taught in Capernaum that day, but had not heard them. And many in the synagogue, the Simeons and the Annas, had waited for that day, and now they received with joy the welcome news of grace, saying in their hearts, “Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us; this is the Lord; we have waited for him; we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation” (Isa. 25:9; cf. Luke 2:29).

But the Evangelist points out for our admiration and instruction that the teaching of the lowly Servant in the synagogue was “with authority”, and also that this character was so evident in His words as to fill the audience with astonishment. His words carried with them the weight of divine credentials, giving them a distinction altogether superior to those of unauthorized teachers, so that not only the common people, but a learned rabbi was constrained to say to Him, “We know thou art a teacher come from God.”

We may pause here to inquire more closely and particularly as to the exact meaning of this phrase used with regard to the Lord’s teaching at Capernaum. “He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes”; and again, “With authority he commandeth even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.” What was it for Him to speak with authority? Does this mean that when He spoke His words were followed by an immediate and irresistible effect in the conviction of the minds and hearts of the auditors, or in compelling the obedience of the unclean demon present? Or does it mean that when He spoke it was evident to His hearers that He had an adequate commission as the Servant of Jehovah to declare the good tidings that He did? The latter, assuredly, is the meaning most in consonance with the scheme of this Gospel, and also with the general usage of the original word (ἐξουσἴα) rightly translated “authority.”

This word (ἐξ.) implies the possession of the right or title to act, and not only the capacity or competency to do so, the latter being expressed by the word often translated “power” (δύναμις). Moses might be said to have had zeal and competency when he first set about redressing his people’s wrongs in Egypt; but when his authority was challenged, “Who made thee a prince and a judge over us?” he fled ignominiously. Later, however, Jehovah said to him, “Come now and I will send thee unto Pharaoh that thou mayest bring my people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt.” He then went as a divinely accredited emissary. It is so that Jesus is presented in Mark. He had an indisputable right to speak.

It is not implied that His word in any sense lacked power. On the contrary, in Luke we have, in connection with this very incident, both words used; “with authority (έξ) and power (δ) he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out” (Luke 4:36). As a Servant, He was heaven’s Plenipotentiary in the fullest sense of the word. He had the amplest title to speak, and His word was also effective, according to Isaiah’s prophecy, “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth; it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it” (Isa. 55:11).

The time soon came when men in resentment questioned this authority of the Lord. Did they not ask, “By what authority doest thou these things?” and, “Who gave thee this authority to do these things?” (Mark 11:27-33). But this question was the outcome of the stubborn will of man rebelling against the manifest authority of God; and Jesus vouchsafed no answer.

Here in Galilee were simple souls, thirsting for the word of life, desirous of having the great problems of an active conscience toward God settled with authority. They perceived with amazement such authority in the manner of the Lord’s teaching, even before that authority was demonstrated in their midst by the expulsion of a demon. It must be observed that this character was recognized although His word was not prefaced by the phrase so frequent in the prophecies which were read in their hearing every Sabbath, “Thus saith Jehovah.” Indeed, a false prophet might use such a formula, but here was One who spake in His own name and yet in the name of Jehovah of Israel and the God of all the earth also. He said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you”; “Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time... but I say unto you,” giving them thus, by virtue of His own right, the word of Him that sent Him. Can we wonder that it was said, “I perceive that thou art a prophet”; and again, “We have heard ourselves, and know, that this is indeed the Savior of the world” (John 4:19, 42)? While even the officers sent to arrest Him excused their failure to execute their task by the statement, “Never man so spake.”

The teaching of Jesus is placed in contrast with that of the scribes in so far as the former possessed an authority of which the latter was utterly destitute. “He taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes.” It is unnecessary to refer to the erudite speculations of professors of our day, at home or abroad, as to the theology of the scribes, in order to realize the force of this inspired contrast. We have all we need in this Gospel itself. The Lord Himself has characterized the scribes and their doctrine, and they therefore stand uncloaked in the presence of the Light of the world (Mark 7:1-13; 12:38-40). Besides, the question here considered is not the one raised later, viz., what the scribes taught, but how they taught. The unlettered peasants, hearing the Faithful and True Witness, confessed how different His teaching is from that of the false witnesses. They heard the voice of the Good Shepherd, whose own the sheep were, and it had a ring of authority never heard in the voice of the hireling who cared for the fleece rather than the flock.

The truth was that, though the scribes sat on Moses’ seat, they neglected the commandments of God, and expounded and enforced the precepts of men. Hence their words were bereft of all authority in matters appertaining to the responsibility of man to God, and this lack was evident to the natural conscience. But now One spake upon whose words sinful men might rest with assurance, as He said, “We speak that we do know, and bear witness of that we have seen.” “His word does not consist of arguments which evidence the uncertainty of man, but comes with the authority of One who knows the truth which He proclaims—authority which in fact was that of God who can communicate truth.” It is no wonder then that the audience in the synagogue was filled with amazement, as they listened to the authoritative words of Jesus of Nazareth. Let us hope that many received His words in faith, and, believing, had life in His name.

(To be continued)

[W. J. H.

Studies in Mark: Demoniac in the Synagogue

7.-A Sabbath at Capernaum (continued)

The Demoniac in the Synagogue

How soon the Evangelist shows that the ministry of the Servant-Prophet elucidated the true moral condition of things in Israel! The Light shone into the darkness, and there in the synagogue revealed the hypocritical scribes in the pulpit, and an unclean spirit in the congregation. Such ministry could never be popular, especially when its novelty was passed, because “men loved darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil. For every one that doeth ill hateth the light and cometh not to the light, lest his works should be reproved” (John 3:19, 20).

But if fallen man refused to own the light of life, the powers of darkness did not remain silent and irresponsive in the presence of the Majesty of heaven in human guise. He who was possessed by the unclean spirit acknowledged Jesus the Nazarene as the Holy One of God. It was a confession, no doubt, of apprehension and dread, for the demons “believe and shudder,” but the declaration was real and true nevertheless, as indeed all such must be in the presence of Him who is the Truth. The unclean spirit hitherto concealed behind the personality of the man revealed himself by this public utterance, “What have we [the man and I] to do with thee, Jesus the Nazarene?” The spirit of lying spoke truth, for “what fellowship has light with darkness,” but not the whole truth, for Jesus came to deliver man from the authority of darkness (Col. 1:13). The demon continued, “Art thou come to destroy us [the man and me]?” Yea and nay, foul spirit. “To this end was the Son of God manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8). But as for the man, “the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them” (Luke 9:56). Then, without equivocation or ambiguity, the unclean and unholy spirit bore testimony to the Holy and the Just One: “I [not now the man] know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.”

What a commotion such an outcry would create in the synagogue. The audience had not ceased to wonder at the gracious words of instruction from the new Teacher. They were now startled by the passionate outburst from the man with a demon. The two speakers afforded contrast of the widest possible nature. There was the Man, “anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power” (δυν.), “full of the Holy Spirit.” There was also a man possessed by an unclean spirit, a power of evil. It was necessary that this existing contrast should be emphasized before all, and that it should be made clear to all that there was no association whatsoever between the Servant of Jehovah and the spirit of darkness.

The Lord therefore, acting in His own authority, did what even Michael the archangel forbore to do when he durst not bring a railing accusation against the devil, but said, The Lord rebuke thee (Jude 9). Jesus rebuked him, quelling his riotous speech with a word, as with a similar word He did the howling winds, the tossing waves, and the raging, burning fever. Exercising His authority further than mere repression, He commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man.

The demon obeyed, speaking no more, only uttering inarticulate cries as he departed, his exit being attended by a paroxysm of physical pain to the possessed man (Cf. Mark 9:26). “What the devil cannot keep as his own, he will, if he can, destroy; even as Pharaoh never treated the children of Israel so ill as when they were just escaping from his grasp. Something similar is evermore taking place; and Satan tempts, plagues and buffets none so fiercely as those who are in the act of being delivered from his tyranny forever.”

Thus then did the Lord deliver the captive of Satan, and demonstrate that in His service He held no alliance with the evil one. The Servant of Jehovah who vanquished the prince of this world in the solitudes of the wilderness, unmasked him when, in the crowded synagogue, he came in the guise of one of the fallen sons of men, acknowledging Him as the Holy One of God. In the power of the Spirit of God, Jesus, the true Nazarite, maintained His service in the unsullied purity of heavenly light. He who opened the mouths of dumb sinners to speak forth His praise closed the mouths of demons, forbidding them to say that they knew Him. And in this manner the Lord removed all occasion for stumbling as to His service, and anticipated that malicious spirit in the scribes and Pharisees which caused them to bring against Him the baseless and evil charge that He cast out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons.

Here, however, in the synagogue at Capernaum, the utmost amazement prevailed. Those present had felt the authority of His word within them; they now saw that authority exemplified in the person of another, a remarkable deliverance wrought at the simple word of Jesus. They questioned among themselves for an explanation, unready as yet to see a sufficient explanation in the Person of Jesus before them. They can but own, however, that this is a new kind of teacher and a different sort of teaching altogether from any to which they have been accustomed. For the word of Jesus evidently is of paramount authority even in the kingdom of Satan. The report of this incident, as it might well do, spread with rapidity throughout the Galilaean district.

SIMON’S WIFE’S MOTHER HEALED

Following directly upon the service of the Lord in the synagogue we are called to witness His service in the home. His activities and perfections which glorified God in the public synagogue are shown to have been equally in exercise in the privacy of the domestic circle.

Immediately He passed from the synagogue where such excitement had been awakened to partake of the hospitalities of the house of Simon and Andrew. James and John are invited also. They knew the commandment, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy”; but could it be kept more holy than in the presence and company of Jesus?

Coming into the house, a shadow lay upon it. Simon’s wife’s mother was there, sick of a great fever, as Luke the physician states. With simple directness and with growing confidence in the love and sympathy and power of their Master they unite to tell Him of their trouble. They had seen His power in the physical world—over the fish of the sea. They had seen His power in the realm of darkness—over the unclean demon. But could He—would He—consider a private sorrow, a domestic affliction? The compassionate Lord dissipated once for all any uncertainty on this score. He had come to heal the diseases of Israel, and He vouchsafed a ready answer to their request.

Jesus came to the bedside. He stood over the patient and rebuked the fever. Taking her by the hand He raised her. The fever left her, and she immediately arose, the recovery being instantaneous and complete, so that she was able to wait upon them.

The touch of Jesus is significant, indicating His personal contact with sorrowing humanity. He did not touch the demoniacs, but He touched the leper, the eyes of the blind, the tongue of the dumb, and the ear of Malchus. He also touched the bier of the dead, and the terrified disciples on the mount of Transfiguration. The hand of Omnipotence was laid upon the infirmities of man. He proved Himself a God near at hand, and not afar off. The principle is true now to faith, but will have a direct application when Messiah visits His enfeebled people, raising them up by His strong right hand.

The restored woman used her newly-given strength in serving the One who had bestowed it and those with Him. This is an example for all time. What have we that we have not received? Let all therefore be rendered to Him who is the Giver.

[W. J. H.]

Studies in Mark: Evening and Morning at Capernaum

8.-Evening and Morning (First Day) at Capernaum

“And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were sick, and them that were possessed with devils. And all the city was gathered together at the door. And he healed many that were sick with divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and he suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.

“And in the morning, a great while before day, he rose up and departed into a desert place, and there prayed. And Simon and they that were with him followed after him; and they found him and say unto him, All are seeking thee. And he saith unto them, Let us go elsewhere into the next towns, that I may preach there also; for to this end came I forth. And he went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out devils“ (i. 32-39).

The Jewish Sabbath was passed, and the first of the week began. The Mosaic day of rest was not such for the Servant of Jehovah. A captive of Satan was in the synagogue, and the Son of God was manifested that He might destroy the works of the devil. Weakness and pain, the effects of the presence of sin in the world, were present in the house of Simon Peter, and the Anointed One had come “to set at liberty them that are bruised.” Hence it was a day of service for Jesus, who cast out the demon and healed the mother-in-law of Simon. And the necessity for such service proved unmistakably the utter inadequacy of the law to relieve and bless the sinful and suffering Jew.

But after Sabbath a new era dawned, a forecast of the kingdom come in power. Not now isolated cases were blessed, but all the sick and suffering of Capernaum flocked to the great Physician, who healed them all—every one. Those who had in weariness and painfulness passed many a sleepless night were freed of their infirmities to enjoy a rest Jewish ordinances could never give. It was truly the beginning of a new week for them. And it was also a happy augury of that millennial day for Israel when the glorious Sun of righteousness, even then present with healing in His wings, should arise and chase away all darkness, disease and death.

Studies in Mark: Fasting and Feasting

12.-Fasting and Feasting

“And John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting: and they come and say unto him, Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not? And Jesus said unto them, Can the sons of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then will they fast in that day. No man seweth a piece of undressed cloth on an old garment: else that which should fill it up taketh from it, the new from the old, and a worse rent is made. And no man putteth new wine into old wine-skins: else the wine will burst the skins, and the wine perisheth, and the skins; but they put new wine into fresh wine-skins” (2:18-22, R.V.).

(Note: “is poured out,” J.N.D. “is lost,” W.K.)

There seems no sufficient ground to doubt that this question was put to the Lord in the house of Levi, nor that it arose while the feast was still in progress. The previous question related to the relative respectability of the assembly in the house of the tax-gatherer, where Jesus attended as the invited and honored guest. The present question referred to the purpose for which the company was assembled. It was as if they had inquired with some display of zealous piety, Is this a time for eating and drinking and feasting? feebly imitating the indignant question Elisha put to Gehazi, “Is it a time to receive money, and to receive garments, and olive-yards and vineyards, and sheep and oxen, and men-servants and maid-servants?” But unlike Elisha, the zeal of the questioners was without knowledge. The wisdom, however, of the Prophet whom God had raised up “like unto Moses” made the manifested ignorance of this inquiry the occasion for instruction to all.

The questioners in this case embraced John the Baptist’s disciples and the Pharisees. John himself was at this time in prison (Mark 1:14), but his followers remained as a distinct body during this and some part, at any rate, of the Lord’s ministry (Matt. 11:2; 14:12; John 3:25), and even subsequently (Acts 19:1-4). They were taught by John to pray and to make supplications (Luke 5:33; 11:1), and as their master came eating no bread nor drinking wine (Luke 7:33), so they used often to fast, imitating his austerities. In this they were in unison with the Pharisees, for was it not the proud boast of one of them that he fasted twice in the week (Luke 18:12)? They were on this occasion accompanied therefore by the Pharisees, though, as Matthew tells us, they were the actual spokesmen. “Then come to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not” (Matt. 9:11)?

THE OCCASION OF THE QUESTION

We are not informed in the Gospels why this question was laid before the Lord. But it can hardly be supposed that on the part of the Pharisees there was a sincere desire for instruction. The publicans were entering the kingdom of God (Matt. 21:31), but they were not desirous of learning its principles. They were probably hoping that some word of His might form a basis of attack. On the other hand it is easy to conceive that the disciples of the Baptist might have been presenting to the Lord what was really an insuperable spiritual difficulty to them, founded upon the striking contrast between John and Jesus, which their imperfect knowledge could not reconcile. John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; the Son of man came eating and drinking. Who was right?

The disciples of John had every confidence in their master. Though he wrought no miracles, they regarded him, and rightly so, as the prophet of the Highest, the forerunner of the Messiah. They were profoundly convinced of the justice of his stern denunciations of the evils prevailing in every social class at that time, though now, in the strange providence of God that voice of testimony was silent in the prison of the oppressor. They believed that the ax was laid at the root of the tree, and everything was ready for the baptism of the fire of Jehovah’s judgment (Matt. 3:11, 12). They repented; and was not fasting fruit worthy of repentance? John fasted, and should not the disciples be as their master?

But more than this they were not without the support of scriptural example and precept for the association of fasting with the introduction of the kingdom of Messiah. Truly this support existed more in their own fancies than in reality, but such is often the case in the history of spiritual difficulties. They would remember the long fast of Moses on the occasion of the giving of the law, and of Elijah, in whose spirit John had come, in the days of the restoration of the law. When Zechariah prophesied of the fountain to be opened for sin and uncleanness, and of the deliverance of Jerusalem from the oppression of the Gentiles, did he not prophesy that in that day there should be a great mourning in Jerusalem? The whole land should mourn, every family apart (Zech. 12:9-13:1). Joel also, in view of the imminence of the day of Jehovah, calls the people to fasting and to prayer: “Sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the old men and all the inhabitants of the land unto the house of the LORD your God, and cry unto the LORD” (Joel 1:14; 2:15).

These and other scriptures in connection with the introduction of the kingdom, which they believed to be at hand, might well cause them to wonder when they saw a feast not a fast proclaimed, and sanctioned by the presence of Jesus Himself, while sinners were not cut off in judgment but made welcome at this feast which was proceeding at the very time of one of their own fasts. What was the explanation? They sought instruction of the great Prophet of wisdom. “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?”

THE TERMS OF THE ANSWER

The solution of their difficulty was simple, and in like manner all our difficulties vanish as the light of God shines upon them. They had fallen into the common error of thinking of the coming kingdom and of forgetting that the King was already present with them. They were absorbed with the adjustment of the Bridegroom’s affairs, and overlooking the Bridegroom Himself. They were full of the sense of their own guilt as sinners, and ignorant of the presence of the Savior of sinners. There is a time to fast and a time to feast. The question really was which of these was seasonable, and this the Lord settles in His own inimitable way, revealing the truth concerning Himself in simple and homely figures such as all might understand.

He was among them as One to serve them all in love, not in the majesty of His might to condemn; with the branch of olive, not with the rod of iron; as the Bridegroom, not as the Judge. “Can,” said He, “the sons of the bride-chamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come when the bridegroom shall have been taken away from them, and then will they fast in that day.”

It was clearly incongruous for there to be, from whatever motive, fasting in the presence of a bridegroom. The nuptial season is, by common consent, one associated with joy, from the days of Adam and Eve in Eden. And the disciples of John had to learn that the Lord Jesus was presenting Himself to the daughter of Zion in the character of her Bridegroom, come to betroth Himself to her “in righteousness and in judgment, and in loving-kindness and in mercies,” according to the spirit of the prophecies of Hosea. God had raised up a Horn of salvation for His people; was it therefore a day for a man to afflict his soul, to bow his head like a bulrush, to cover himself with sackcloth and ashes? Was not the “Magnificat” of Mary (Luke 1:46-55) more suitable to their lips than the Lamentations of Jeremiah, since the Servant of Jehovah was in their midst—He who had come to give a garland for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, and the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness (Isa. 61:3)?

There is reason to think that these men had heard this figure of the Bridegroom applied to the Messiah on a previous occasion. They spoke to John with reference to the numbers of persons whom they saw coming to Jesus. John showed them that he was aware that this was, and must he, the case, saying also in explanation, “He that hath the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice; this my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:29, 30). The Baptist compared himself to the friend of the Bridegroom, showing that he was conscious that Jesus was present in that character though he himself was His friend, rather than of the bride. For like Moses upon Pisgah, he discerned the promised kingdom and its glories near at hand, yet not for him. Like aged Simeon he would depart, having seen the King in His beauty.

The Lord now confirmed the application of this prophetic figure by John, their master, to Himself, as if to awaken a sense of allegiance to Him as the Bridegroom of Israel. Had not John pointed to Him, saying to them, “Behold the Lamb of God”? But they had not responded. Had he not spoken of Him as the Bridegroom? But still they fasted and prayed and held aloof from Him to whom John witnessed. The Lord did not definitely call them to follow Him as He called Peter and Andrew, James and John, and Levi the publican, for they lacked that appreciation of Himself which would have impelled them to instant obedience. But He set before them that truth concerning Himself which, when received by faith, would inevitably draw them unto Him.

AN OCCASION FOR FASTING TO COME

While the disciples of the Lord had at that time adequate reasons for rejoicing, inasmuch as the Hope of Israel was with them, the days would darken again before the millennial dawn. The Bridegroom would be taken away; then they would have reason to fast. Thus did the Lord, early in His ministry, intimate to His own, in veiled but significant language, that He must be removed from their midst, and, in consequence, a sorrow should fill their hearts which would be turned into joy only at His second coming (see John 16:17-22).

The coming days, characterized by the absence of the Bridegroom, are strictly those which immediately precede His public appearing for the blessing of Israel and the nations generally. Those will be days of unparalleled tribulation for the Jews, of such an intensely violent nature that if they were protracted none could be saved (Matt. 24:21, 22). Then the faithful ones might well fast.

So the Lord instructs them subsequently in more definite terms (Mark 13), but here imparts so much of the truth as was needful to meet the difficulty raised. The Lord was with them, and in this they were authorized to rejoice, as they would be constrained to do by the affections of their hearts towards Him.

The Lord did not condemn fasting as a practice. He instructed His disciples that it should be undertaken in secret, as before God, rather than before men (Matt. 6:16-18). It was to be united with prayer for the effectual expulsion of unclean spirits in certain cases (Mark 9:29). There was a season of prayer and fasting in the early church when Paul and Barnabas went forth on their first missionary tour (Acts 13:3). Nothing in scripture appears to warrant the present general abandonment of the practice by Christians, though indeed there is a sense in which we may say the Lord is still with us (Matt. 28:20). Self-denial in the spirit of Nazariteship, of which food-fasting is but a single phase, should, however, be practiced by the believer habitually and not only on special occasions.

Fasting appears to be expressive of an occupation of the spiritual nature with heavenly subjects to such an intense degree that the instinctive cravings of the physical nature for food and relaxation are disregarded or unheeded for the time. In its purest form therefore fasting is involuntary. It is surely needless to say that the perfunctory or the Pharisaic fast is valueless before God.

THE OLD AND NEW CONTRASTED

The Lord, in taking up the question of the apparent incongruity between His disciples and John’s, used it as an occasion for general instruction as to the contrast in principle between the dispensation that was passing away and that which was about to come. That was old; this was new. The two differed in nature and character—both externally and internally. This essential contrast the Lord placed before them in the simple and homely metaphors of the cloth and the wine, with the absence of affinity between new and old in both cases. “No man seweth a piece of undressed [unmilled] cloth on an old garment: else that which should fill it up taketh from it, the new from the old, and a worse rent is made. And no man putteth new wine into old wine-skins: else the wine will burst the skins, and the wine perisheth, and the skins; but new wine must be put into fresh wine-skins.”

In the first case a worn-out and torn garment is rendered still more unserviceable by a patch of new cloth—the newness itself causing a further breach. In like manner, unless new wine is put into fresh unused skins (or leather bottles) the skins burst and both the wine and the skins are lost.

The joys of the promised kingdom are associated in the prophets with the introduction of what is absolutely new and created of God, not with the rehabilitation of the old things. Thus we read in Isaiah, “Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former things shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice forever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying” (Isa. 65:17-19). Nothing can be newer than a created thing. And the principle is true in Christianity, even as it will be in the coming millennial day. “If any man is in Christ, there is a new creation; the old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17).

The dispensational truths underlying the emblems of the cloth and the wine are fully revealed in subsequent parts of the New Testament. That outward righteousness which is of the law is replaced by that which is of faith. And the joys of the “vine of the earth” give way to those of the “True Vine,” who bestows the inward power and comfort of the Holy Ghost, a source of joy of which no one can rob us. Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews particularly deal with these contrasts.

“It is not possible to attach the spiritual power of Christianity to the carnal ceremonies which human nature loves, because it can make of them a religion without a new life, and without the conscience being touched. The unconverted man, if he wishes, may thus do as much good as the converted man. No, the new wine must be kept in new bottles: it is important for us to remember it. The dispensation was changed, a new order was coming in, and all was altered; the nature of the things was different—they could not exist at the same time; fleshly ceremonies and the power of the Holy Ghost could never go together. Think of it, Christians! Christianity has tried to embellish itself with these ceremonies, and often even under pagan forms; and what has it become? It has adapted itself to the world of which these forms were the rudiments, and has become really pagan, and its true spirituality can hardly be found at all.”

[W. J. H.]

Studies in Mark: Obedience the Test of Relationship

Doing God’s Will the Basis of Relationship

The religious trust of the Jews was in their pedigree. They boasted that they were lineal descendants of Abraham (John 8:33, 39)—an idol that John the Baptist sought to hew to pieces with fierce invective, “Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” (Matt. 3:9). The Lord here declared that in the kingdom of God vital relationship with the King was demonstrated not by nationality, but by personal obedience and individual fealty. The mass were obdurate and irresponsive to the Lord’s teaching, but whoever separated himself from the disobedient nation proclaimed himself thereby on the Lord’s side.

It will be remembered that Israel as a nation placed themselves at the beginning upon the ground of obedience, and it was because they proved themselves in this relationship to be a disobedient and gainsaying people that they were set aside. Jehovah said to them through Moses, “If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me from among all peoples: for all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.” In their self-ignorance and self-satisfaction they readily accepted this condition: “All the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do” (Ex. 19:5-8; 24:3). Thus it came about that at the people’s desire the law was imposed with its defined responsibilities of unqualified love to God and man, its conditions being summed up in the phrase, “This do, and thou shalt live.”

But the recorded history of Israel under the law is one of dismal failure. Like sheep they all went astray and turned every one to his own way. They were the sons of disobedience. In the concluding words of the Book of Judges, every man did what was right in his own eyes. John the Baptist was sent to prepare the way of the Lord by turning the hearts of the “disobedient to the wisdom of the just.” For Messiah’s kingdom, as the Lord here intimated, is characterized by doing the will of God.

For this consummation the Lord taught His disciples to pray to their Father in heaven—a new title of God evidently contrasted with that of Abraham their father on earth as to the flesh. The Lord had come to set up the promised kingdom, and He instructed His followers to pray to Him whose it was (“Thine is the kingdom”) for its due establishment, so that the will of the Father might be done on earth even as in heaven (Matt. 6:9-13). On high there is the harmony of perfect desire among the angelic hosts to do the divine pleasure, as it is written in a psalm of praise, “Bless the LORD, ye his angels that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word. Bless ye the LORD, all ye his hosts; ye ministers of his that do his pleasure” (Psa. 103:20, 21). And in Messiah’s kingdom this spirit of obedience to the divine will shall also be seen below. When it comes about that Jehovah’s anointed rules in the midst of His enemies His people “shall be willing” in that day of power (Psa. 110:3).

Enough has now been written to show what a far-reaching principle obedience to the will of God is. And it is as essential in the present as in the past and in the future. Relationship to God is inseparable from subjection to His will. “This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.” And the Lord said, “If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments.” Recipients as we are of His illimitable grace, we may not ignore His authority, but are called to do the will of God from the heart [soul] (Eph. 6:6). And to quote again the Master’s words, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). This is the divine purpose with regard to us, who are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience” (1 Peter 1:2). And the impulse of the new nature begotten of God within us is to cry with the psalmist, “Teach me to thy will, O God” (Psa. 143:10). So Saul of Tarsus, convicted in the dust, exclaimed, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” nor was he disobedient to the “heavenly vision.”

It may be asked, How can I ascertain the will of God? First of all there must in such a case be the willing mind. This the Lord Himself declared — “If any one willeth to do his will he shall know of the teaching whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (John 6:17). Coming to the scriptures with the prayer, already quoted, of the psalmist, “Teach me to do thy will, O God” (Psa. 143:10), the docile spirit is instructed, so that he may stand perfect and fully assured in all that will (Col. 4:12). The apostle Paul desired on behalf of the saints at Colosse that they might be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding (Col. 1:9). There is first the hearing and then the doing. In the Lord’s words, “My mother and my brethren are those which hear the word of God, and do it” (Luke 8:21).

But while to understand what the will of the Lord is (Eph. 5:17) is obviously essential, it is required further in order to prove that good, acceptable and perfect will, that we present our bodies a living sacrifice, not fashioning ourselves according to this present evil age (Rom. 12:1, 2). Self-denial and suffering are mostly involved in doing the will of God, as Peter reminds us (1 Peter 3:17; 4:19; 2:15). The obedience of Christ was of this nature, and we also are to have that “mind,” as is exhorted in the verses which speak of His Great Renunciation unto the death of the cross (Phil. 2:5-8).

It is important to mark this, since the Incarnation is an insoluble enigma apart from the fact that the Son was here in human guise to do the Father’s will. “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered” (Heb. 5:8). As God He was essentially exempt from the responsibilities of the creature. These He assumed that as the Second man He might become the federal Head of a new creation which should be characterized by obedience, even as the first creation was by disobedience (see Rom. 5:12-19).

Until the Father’s kingdom is fully established, and a spirit of unvarying obedience to His will pervades the whole earth, obedience to His word by the minority must be attended by the renunciation of selfish interests and by the persecuting opposition of the disobedient ones. But the faithful Christ will publicly confess as akin to Himself, who came to “do and suffer” the will of God. His obedience had a double character—an active and a passive side—the doing and the suffering. In our case the will of God involves, on the one hand, the active and diligent performance of assigned tasks, and on the other hand, the patient endurance of privation and suffering for the sake of righteousness and the name of Christ. Thus we do (ποιέω) the will of God from the heart, and we also say in the spirit of the Lord Himself, “Thy will be done” (γίνομαι), (Matt. 26:39, 42; Acts 21:14).

However, in spite of the world’s fierce enmity and powerful antagonism, the obedient believer is the only stable person in the world. “The world passeth away and the lust thereof, but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever” (1 John 2:17). The Lord taught this same truth by a parable concerning the obedient disciple: “Whosoever heareth these words of mine and doeth them shall be likened unto a wise man, which built his house upon the rock: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon the rock. And every one that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the wind blew, and smote upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall thereof” (Matt. 7:24-27). Though there may be temporary defeat, there will be eternal victory for the obedient. Whoso suffers with Christ shall also reign with Him.

The Lord then, in these weighty words, indicated what was before Israel after the flesh, who boasted in the possession of the law but forgot that not the hearers of the law are just before God, but that the doers of the law shall be justified (Rom. 2:13). As the Servant of Jehovah He acknowledges as His associates those who follow Him in the pathway of obedience to the will (θέλημα) of God, which is “that which God decides to have done because it is pleasing to Him.” “God’s good pleasure is everywhere [in scripture] regarded as the law whereby all things, human and divine, are ordered. Christ is regarded as its embodiment and manifestation; and the Christian, being—by profession at least—one with Christ, is supposed to be conformed to that will in all things.”

And regarding this incident in its connection with what precedes it, we believe that in the words He used we have not so much His absolute renunciation of natural relationship as His enunciation of obedience to the will of God as the only valid basis of spiritual relationship with Him. Thus we take the yoke of Christ upon us, and learn to love, to do, and to suffer the will of God.

“O Will, that wiliest good alone,

Lead Thou the way, Thou guidest best;

A silent child, I follow on

And trusting, lean upon Thy breast.”

[W. J. H.]

(To be continued)

Studies in Mark: Opposition by Friends and Foes

17Opposition by Friends and Foes

“And he cometh into a house. And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. And when his friends heard it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself. And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and, By the prince of the devils casteth he out the devils. And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.? And if Satan hath risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. But no one can enter into the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house. Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme; but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin: because they said, He hath an unclean spirit” (3:19-30, R.V.).

Immediately after the call and appointment of the twelve it would seem that the Lord delivered an exposition of the principles of the new kingdom, such as is recorded by Matthew (5-7.) and Luke (6:20-49). But Mark does not mention what is commonly known as the “Sermon on the Mount”; he states briefly that the Lord and the band of apostles came home, or to the house. This house was one habitually occupied by Jesus and His disciples when they came to Capernaum. Here on a previous occasion the crowd had gathered, and the paralytic let down through the roof was healed (2:1-11). In the house He explained the parable of the sower to His disciples (7:17). In the house also the Lord questioned the apostles privately as to the subject of their disputations among themselves by the way (9:33).

This practice of Jesus appears to have been recognized in Capernaum, for, as a crowd quickly assembled upon a former occasion, so we read they did so “again”; “the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread.” The open doors of Eastern houses and the liberal hospitality of the domestic circle would explain as customary much of what in this incident the Western mind might regard as an unwarrantable intrusion. But making due allowance for local custom, it is clear from this passage and others (Mark 6:31-33) that there was a great eagerness on the part of the people to know more of the Prophet of Nazareth, while on His part an absolute disregard of self and an absorbing love to do good to the needy led Him willingly to forego meal-time when an occasion such as this arose for service.

IS HE OUT OF HIS MIND?

The news that Jesus was again at Capernaum spread quickly beyond the town itself into the surrounding country and to Nazareth where He was brought up. His relatives received these tidings with feelings of apprehension. They were alarmed at the growing interest and the excitement displayed by the populace, and possibly more so by the fact that a deputation of scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem (3:22) was even then in Capernaum to investigate the practices of the Prophet of Nazareth and to ascertain whether anything in the new teaching was antagonistic to the religion they had received from Moses and the fathers.

As soon as they heard, they started out, presumably from Nazareth, to go to Capernaum in order to prevent this mischief, for so they conceived it, spreading further. In their blind ignorance and blinding unbelief they said, He is beside Himself, or, out of His mind.

There is no ground for understanding the term “friends” in the above translation in the sense of a relation based mainly upon feelings of love and regard. When the Lord said to His disciples, “Ye are my friends, if ye do the things which I command you” (John 15:14), He used a different word altogether (φίλοι), which does signify those who love. But here the Evangelist employs a peculiar phrase (οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ, literally, those from Him, or, from His home. It means no doubt His relatives or kinsfolk, and certainly included, as we find from the account in this chapter of their subsequent arrival (3:31), His mother and brethren. Cranmer’s Version (1539), following Tyndale’s (1534), translated the phrase expressively enough as, those belonging unto Him: “And when they that belonged unto him heard of it, they went out to laye handes vpon him. For they sayde: he is madd.”

We are shown here by this outrageous comment of the relatives how utterly unable “flesh and blood” under the most favorable conditions was of appreciating the true nature of the service of Jesus. It might be supposed that the family at Nazareth would have supported Him. And yet sacred history is not without examples of family ties covering family feuds, even though the enmity existed upon one side only. Cain slew Abel his brother; the sons of Jacob sold Joseph into Egypt; and the sons of Jesse scoffed at David the shepherd who slew Goliath before their eyes.. And the Spirit of Christ in the prophets said, “I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children” (Psa. 69:8); and again, “Because of all mine adversaries, I am become a reproach, yea, unto my neighbors exceedingly, and a fear to mine acquaintance” (Psa. 31:11, R.V.).

The Gospels illustrate the fulfillment of this predicted estrangement. Mary, in her overweening anxiety that Jesus should do some great thing to signalize Himself, said to Him suggestively at Cana, “They have no wine.” Before the feast of tabernacles, His brethren said to Him in Galilee, “Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may behold thy works which thou doest.... If thou doest these things, manifest thyself to the world” (John 7:3, 4).

Here, as Mark shows, mother, brethren and others came out to restrain Him, for such zeal, they said, bespoke an unsound mind. Thus in every case, whatever appearance of aid their actions had, there was real opposition to Him in His path of service.

How full of bitterness was the cup of the Lord, who endured not only the “contradiction of sinners” against Himself, but the mistaken and evil judgments of His own kinsfolk. He trod first and foremost in that pathway wherein, as He warned His disciples, a man should find that his foes included his own household.

It has seemed to some that to translate ἐξέστη by “out of his mind,” “beside himself,” or “is mad,” is to give the word a stronger sense than is justifiable. And it is true that in John 10:20, where His enemies say, “He hath a demon and is mad,” a different word is used. But whatever may be an exacter rendering here in Mark the general sense is certainly that they thought Jesus was actuated by an extravagant enthusiasm which altogether exceeded the bounds of soberness and propriety. This was a false judgment which arose because they failed to understand what Person had now undertaken service for Jehovah in the midst of His chosen people.

THE INFAMOUS CHARGE OF THE SCRIBES

With that austere impartiality which is indubitable evidence of the divine inspiration of the sacred Gospels, the Evangelist, after showing that the Lord’s zealous activities awakened in His kinsfolk a suspicion of mental derangement, states, in immediate juxtaposition, the awful charge preferred against the Servant of Jehovah by the religious leaders of the Jews. They were unable to disprove or to deny the reality of the signs and wonders wrought by Him. They therefore, with horrible perversity, attributed this power to a Satanic origin. They could not condemn Him as guilty of this charge by the test laid down of old in the Scriptures of failure in the fulfillment of His words. For in their presence the Lord spoke the word of healing to the palsied man who was so helpless that only by a most extraordinary method was the prostrate sufferer brought before the Prophet of God. His word was immediately effective, as crowds in Capernaum could testify, and the man was able to carry away his bed before their eyes. This proved conclusively the validity of the Lord’s claims. Was it not written, “When the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known that the LORD hath really sent him” (Jer. 28:9). And Moses had previously written of the converse, “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken: the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously; thou shalt not be afraid of him” (Deut. 18:22). In the case of the Lord, however, there were abundant instances that His word was fulfilled, so that a fair-minded teacher of eminence in Israel was constrained to confess, “Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with him” (John 3:2).

The Pharisaic scribes from Jerusalem, unable to accuse Jesus of failing to comply with these tests divinely laid down in former days for an alleged prophet, resort to a charge of complicity with evil spirits. Such a charge, if established, would have rendered the Lord liable to the death-sentence of the law. For Jehovah had commanded through Moses, “A man or a woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones” (Lev. 20:27). The Jews did, as we learn elsewhere, say of the Lord that He had a demon (John 7:20; 8:48, 52; 10:20), and they also sought to stone Him (John 8:59). Here they went further, for they said, “He hath Beelzebub,” and “By the prince of the demons casteth he out demons.” The degree of aggravation in this charge will be seen when we remember, on the one hand, that Judas, the perfidious traitor, in his act of betrayal, was possessed not of a demon but of Satan himself (Luke 22:3; John 13:27), and, on the other hand, that the Man Christ Jesus was anointed for service by the Heavenly Dove, the Holy Spirit of God (Mark 1:10-12). By this statement of theirs which attributed the works of Jesus to the power of Satan, the scribes incurred the guilt of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

There seems to have been a special commission sent from Jerusalem by the Sanhedrin to investigate the words and deeds of Jesus in Galilee. See also Matt. 4; Mark 7.

THE LORD’S REPLY TO THE SCRIBES

The Servant of the Lord did not contend with those that opposed Him so unscrupulously, but He gently, meekly, patiently, instructed them (see 2 Tim. 2:24, 25). He called them to Him and showed them (1) the absurdity of their charge, using for this purpose plain and forcible figures of speech (vers. 23-27), and (2) the gross wickedness of their charge, and the peril of it to themselves (vers. 28-30).

(1) Their folly. The Lord demonstrated that these learned scribes whose opinions by reason of their eminence would possess a weighty influence upon the people, were devoid of even ordinary wisdom. He set this forth in “parables” or pithy metaphors stated in the form of interrogatories. “How,” said He, “can Satan cast out Satan?” The prince of the demons is a liar and a murderer (John 8:44), and his purpose is to rob and kill and destroy. How unthinkable therefore that Beelzebub should be the author of the merciful and beneficent deliverances from the power of the demons wrought in the cases they had witnessed. The prince of darkness could not be the agent of such works of light. Besides, as the Lord proceeded to point out, such a policy involved self-destruction on the part of Satan. All worldly experience proves that disunion and faction in a community result in disintegration. That union is strength is a universal maxim. Whether it is a kingdom or a household that is divided against itself it will not be able to subsist. And if Satan had risen up against himself, as the words of the scribes implied, he could not continue, but must destroy himself. Thus the Lord exposed the folly of His accusers and then added another truth which the many instances of the expulsion of demons by Him proved. Every demoniac was a witness of the power Satan wielded over men; while every such miracle of Jesus was evidence of the superiority of His power to that of the Evil One. As the Lord said, “No one can enter into the house of the strong man and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.” This He Himself had already done. He had resisted the temptations of the strong and crafty one in the wilderness. He had also delivered a great number of demoniacs. And shortly He would bruise the serpent’s head, through death bringing to naught him that had the power of death (Heb. 2:14). The hand of Jehovah was thus upon the Man of His right hand, the Son of man whom He made strong for Himself (Psa. 80:17). And if only Israel had faith, they might well sing praise with the Psalmist, “All my bones shall say, LORD, who is like unto thee, which deliverest the poor from him that is too strong for him, yea, the poor and needy from him that spoileth him?” (Psa. 35:10). But the scribes and Pharisees could not deny the gracious mercy in exercise in their midst, yet would not believe it to be the power of God, bringing rather the baseless and improbable charge of Satanic influence against the Lord.

(2) Their wickedness. This gross charge was not only foolish, it was worse; it was impious and blasphemous. They said of Jesus, He hath an unclean spirit; and this statement was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by whom the Son of man was indwelt, anointed and sealed. And the Lord warned of the gravity of their sinful speech, prefacing His warning by the solemn and impressive phrase, “Verily I say unto you.” He said to the scribes, “Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme; but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness but is guilty of an eternal sin.”

The Lord, speaking as the anointed Servant of Jehovah, shows that He regarded the railing of the scribes as directed not so much against Himself as against the Holy Spirit by whom He wrought His miracles. In like manner Ananias, in lying to Peter, lied to the Holy Ghost dwelling in the newly-formed church; and, taking another instance, the Sanhedrin, in refusing the testimony of Stephen, resisted the Holy Spirit (Acts vii, 51, 55). Only here the sin was greater; for those that sat in Moses’ seat, in the obstinacy and virulence of unbelief, called the Holy Spirit an unclean spirit.

Though they knew it not, these scribes were tools of the great enemy of God and man. They were carrying into effect the scheme of Satan to cause that the Lord should be regarded among men as his emissary. The awful character of this design will become more apparent to us when we recollect that, according to apostolic teaching, Satan will even yet succeed in imposing upon men for a time a modified form of delusion. If he then sought to persuade men that Jesus was his Servant, he will yet delude men into accepting his agent as the object of divine worship. Such temporary success over men Satan will accomplish in the days of the coming apostasy, which will affect both Judaism and Christendom. This agent is in the prophetic word called the “man of sin, the son of perdition,” and in evil arrogance will impersonate the Messiah Himself to the deceit and destruction of many. It is said of this personage that at his future coming he “opposeth and exalteth himself exceedingly against every one called god or object of veneration; so that he sitteth down in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God,” his coming being “according to the working of Satan in all power and signs and wonders of falsehood, and in all deceit of unrighteousness” (2 Thess. 2:4, 9).

Scripture is clear that this gross imposture will be accepted by the mass of Christendom as well as of the Jews, and this servant of Satan will be successful in luring multitudes to destruction. But think of the enormity of this evil scheme, originated in the days of the Lord, to characterize Jesus, the meek and lowly Servant of Jehovah, as One under the power and direction of Satan! And according to the subtle policy of the serpent, that the slanderous accusation might fall with greater force upon the hearts of men, this declaration concerning the Prophet of Nazareth was made by the religious leaders who had come down with authority from Jerusalem to Galilee.

Such a sinful charge, directed as it was against the eternal Spirit of holiness, was of such heinousness that there was no forgiveness, neither in that age nor in that to come (Matt. 12:29).

[W. J. H.]

(To be continued)

Studies in Mark: Opposition by Friends and Foes

Unpardonable Blasphemy

It is important to observe that the sin concerning which our Lord made such an unqualified pronouncement is a specific one. It is in no sense vague and indefinite, but on the contrary it is here, as well as in the parallel passages of Matthew and Luke, stated in precise terms to be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. This terrible guilt rested upon the Jewish generation of that day. Most cogent evidence of the power of the Holy Ghost was before their eyes in the words and works of Jesus; but they denied the validity of that evidence, and going further in their malice they ascribed this power for good to the energy of Satan. For this willful blindness and obduracy of heart there was no remission. Such perverse unbelief was the sure sign of that impending doom to the nation which could not be averted. Could there be a more perfect testimony than that which was rendered by the Spirit through the holy Son of man in whom every act and word and motive were in absolute accord with His divine energy? The generation to which the Lord ministered had “done despite to the Spirit of grace” by describing this testimony as Satanic, and was “guilty of an eternal sin.”

This last phrase is peculiar to Mark. And the expression is one pregnant with deep significance. It teaches by a word the unalterable character of the unforgiven. There is an eternal fixity in the unholy character of such rebellion against the authority and love of God. The penitent is forgiven, but the guilt of the impenitent is eternal. And eternal sin implies eternal punishment.

A COMMON ERROR

The following remarks are helpful in elucidating the correct interpretation, and thus preventing erroneous views of this passage, some of which have caused unnecessarily much personal distress, as in the case of Peter Williams and of many others.

“Our Lord most solemnly pronounces their doom [the scribes], and shows that they were guilty—not of sin, as men say, but of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. There is no such phrase as sin against Him in this sense. People often speak thus, Scripture never. What the Lord denounces is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Keeping that distinctly in view would save many souls a great deal of needless trouble. Flow many have groaned in terror through fear of being guilty of sin against the Holy Ghost! That phrase admits of vague notions and general reasoning about its nature. But our Lord spoke definitely of blasphemous unforgivable sin against Him. All sin, I presume, is sin against the Holy Ghost, who has taken His place in Christendom, and, consequently, gives all sin this character. Thus, lying in the church [the case of Ananias and Sapphira] is not mere falsehood toward man, but unto God, because of the great truth that the Holy Ghost is there. Here, on the contrary, the Lord speaks of unforgivable sin (not that vague sense of evil which troubled souls dread as ‘sin against the Holy Ghost,’ but blasphemy against Him).

“What is this evil never to be forgiven? It is attributing the power that wrought in Jesus to the devil. How many troubled souls would be instantly relieved if they laid hold of that simple truth! It would dissipate what really is a delusion of the devil, who strives hard to plunge them into anxiety, and drive them into despair, if possible. The truth is, that as any sin of a Christian may be said to be sin against the Holy Ghost, what is especially the sin against the Holy Ghost, if there be anything that is so, is that which directly hinders the free action of the Holy Ghost in the work of God, or in His church. Such might be said to be the sin, if you speak of it with precision.

“But what our Lord referred to was neither a sin nor the sin, but blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. It was that which the Jewish nation was then rapidly falling into, and for which they were neither forgiven then, nor will ever be forgiven. There will be a new stock, so to speak; another generation will be raised up, who will receive the Christ whom their fathers blasphemed; but as far as that generation was concerned, they were guilty of this sin, and they could not be forgiven. They began it in the lifetime of Jesus. They consummated it when the Holy Ghost was sent down and despised. They still carried it on persistently; and it [this persistency] is always the case when men enter upon a bad course, unless sovereign grace deliver. The more that God brings out of love, grace, truth, wisdom, the more determinedly and blindly they rush on to their own perdition. So it was with Israel. So it ever is with man left to himself, and despising the grace of God. He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness.’ It is the final stage of rebellion against God. Even then they were blaspheming the Son of man, the Lord Himself; even then they attributed the power of the Spirit in His service to the enemy, as afterward still more evidently when the Holy Ghost wrought in His servants; then the blasphemy became complete.”

XVIII.-OBEDIENCE THE TEST OF RELATIONSHIP

“And there come his mother and his brethren; and, standing without, they sent unto him, calling him. And a multitude was sitting about him; and they say unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, and saith, Who is my mother and my brethren? And looking round on them which sat round about him, he saith, Behold, my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother” (3:31-35, R.V.).

The kinsfolk of Jesus had set out for Capernaum with the intention of restraining Him in His active service by word and work (ver. 21). They arrived after the interview in the house between Jesus and the scribes from Jerusalem had taken place. On account of the multitude, His mother and His brethren were unable to obtain access to Him, and they accordingly sent a message to announce that they were seeking Him. They must have known that scribes, to whom naturally some reverence and regard were due as teachers of the law of Moses, were among the audience. But this they disregard and send their peremptory message as if to assert the paramount claims upon Jesus of natural ties.

But the Servant of Jehovah, in that wisdom which had come from above, turned the occasion to account in His preaching of the kingdom of God. He did not meet with an angry rebuff this unwarrantable interference which sprang from natural affection, although it was ignorant affection, blind to His heavenly mission. But the Lord used the incidents as text, so to speak, for the announcement of the fundamental principle of the kingdom which was at hand. The effort made by His kindred to influence Him led Him to declare that obedience to the will of God is the only reliable foundation of divine relationship, while it necessarily takes precedence of every other claim. “Looking round on them which sat round about him, he saith, Behold, my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

“Looking round” (περιβλέπω) is a characteristic expression of Mark, and is only used once by any other New Testament writer (Luke 6:10). By Mark it is used six times, and on all but one occasion it has reference to the Lord Himself (3:5, 34; 5:32; 10:23; 11:11). In the remaining instance it is applied to the disciples (9:8). The term seems here to imply the intense personal and individual interest the Lord took in those who sat around Him in the attitude of discipleship.

JESUS HIMSELF DOING GOD’S WILL

This simple and profound saying of the Lord (ver. 35) embodied truth applicable to man from the beginning. For obedience to the will of God must ever be inseparable from man’s well-being and happiness. Historically, the will of God forbade eating the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and disobedience to that expressed will involved the forfeiture of the bliss of Eden and the inheritance of a world of sorrow and sin. Of Adam’s descendants, whether enlightened Jews or darkened Gentiles, it is written comprehensively, not of a particular era, but of every age, “They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not so much as one.” So that disobedience to God is declared to be perpetuated among men, His will being universally slighted and despised.

Now the Lord Jesus came not only to recall man by His instructions to a sense of his individual responsibility to God as the moral Governor of the world, but to afford in Himself an instance of perfect human obedience to the will of God. He came as a man truly, but also as the Incarnate Servant of Jehovah, which no man beside Him was or could be. Upon every sentient creature service to God is not a matter of choice but of incumbency, but upon the Son there was no obligation of servitude. He chose to take upon Himself “the form of a servant.” This He purposed to do before the world was, as was intimated by the prophetic Spirit through the psalmist, “Then said I, Lo, I am come: in the roll of the book it is written of me: I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart” (Psa. 40:7, 8). This utterance is definitely declared in the Epistle of the Hebrews to have been fulfilled by the coming of Christ (Heb. 10:5, 9). In Him the will of God was done in this world, where the will of man was and is ever struggling for supremacy. And no Gospel sets forth with greater precision than the Fourth—that which portrays Him especially as the Son of God—His absorbing devotion to the will of God. After His ministry of the water of life to the woman at the well of Sychar, He said to His disciples, “I have meat to eat that ye know not.” “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to accomplish his work” (John 4:32, 34). Again, testifying to the Jews of Himself as the appointed Judge of living and dead, He said, “I seek not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me” (John 5:30). And once again, He declared, “I am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me,” going on to make known what is that will with regard to those who come to Him, “And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father that every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:38-40). What subjection was this! In the matter of receiving poor vile sinners, loving them as He did, about to die for them as He was, He acknowledged that He could not cast them out because it was the Father’s will that they should come to Him and receive eternal life. In His joy, as in His suffering, He was the submissive One—in all the worthy Object of our admiring and adoring wonder and worship.

But, moreover, we have been permitted to see how His submission was subjected to the most rigorous of all tests. Three only of the apostles were allowed to accompany the Lord in His vigil in Gethsemane. But sleep overcame these, so that there were no human witnesses of that agony of the Holy Servant. Yet we have the record of the prayers and supplications, the strong crying and tears, the bloody sweat, the threefold repetition, communicated to us in the Gospels as well as by allusion in Heb. 5:7. As a Son He learned obedience, and His obedience was unto death. In the garden the consummation of that obedience in atoning sufferings and death was immediately before Him. He anticipated the cup that His Father had given Him to drink. He gauged its bitterness with absolute perfection. He measured the immeasurable burden of guilt to be laid upon Him. The sting of death as for none else was before His spirit. It was in the anticipative realization of all this and of much besides, that He fell prostrate and prayed, “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.” In this perfect resignation we have the triumph of holy obedience. “Thy will be done” was soon followed by “It is finished,” and the will of God was indeed done. That obedience was thereby accomplished through which many were made righteous.

[W. J. H. ]

(To be continued)

Studies in Mark: Out of Weakness Made Strong

10.-Out of Weakness Made Strong

“And when he entered again into Capernaum after some days, it was noised that he was in the house. And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, no, not even about the door; and he spake the word unto them. And they come, bringing unto him a man sick of the palsy, borne of four. And when they could not come nigh unto him for the crowd, they uncovered the roof where he was; and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed whereon the sick of the palsy lay. And Jesus seeing their faith saith unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins are forgiven.

“But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak? he blasphemeth: who can forgive sins but one, even God?

“And straightway Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, saith unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Whether is easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise and take up thy bed and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins (he saith to the sick of the palsy), I say unto thee, Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. And he arose, and straightway took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion“ (Mark 2:1-12, R.V.).

Here we have the account of another of the numerous “mighty works” of our Lord performed in that particularly favored town, Capernaum. This town, whose name signifies the city of comfort or consolation, seems to have been the chosen center from which the Lord proceeded upon His various itineraries. It is called by Matthew “His own city” (Matt. 9:1), and it was there, presumably because it was His place of residence, that the tax-collectors exacted tribute from Him (Matt. 17:24).

After some days of retirement in desert places, following upon the cleansing of the leper, Jesus came to town again and entered the house privately—possibly the house of Simon and Andrew. His arrival was quickly reported, and the news traveled rapidly throughout the town and district, so that He was soon sought out by the crowds in Capernaum, as He had been in the desert places.

The Lord continued His work of teaching, as the Sower sowing the good seed of the word of the kingdom, and as the righteous Servant of Jehovah instructing the masses in righteousness (Isa. 53:11, New Tr.). Besides the simple unlettered peasantry of Galilee His audience, on a certain day at any rate, included Pharisees and teachers of the law who had come out of every town in Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem (Luke 5:17; Mark 3:22). Were these emissaries of the priests to whom the cleansed leper presented himself, and charged by them to make official inquiries concerning Jesus and His work? We indeed are not told so, but we are told (1) that this healed man was sent as a witness to the leaders of the people, and (2) that immediately afterward hostility to the Servant of God had begun to work in their hearts.

Eagerness to see and hear something novel brought together then, as always, a great concourse of persons, whose interest was intensified not only by the fame of Jesus and His miracles, but also by the visit of the nation’s great ones from the metropolis and from the large towns of the provinces. Every means of access to the Master who sat indoors teaching was in consequence filled by excited crowds straining to hear a word or to catch a glimpse of what was being done.

There must necessarily have been disappointment for many that day, and it would seem that one of the least likely in Capernaum to receive benefit on this occasion from the great Healer was the paralyzed man, whose infirmity confined him to his bed. This man had an earnest desire in his heart to seek the face of Jesus, whom he believed could relieve him, as He had done many others. His faith was shared especially by four devoted friends, who carried him upon his bed to the house where Jesus was. These were accompanied by others, as Mark’s narrative shows— “they came, bringing a paralytic, borne of four.” At the house further advance seemed impossible, for the courtyard and every avenue of approach was blocked by interested persons who showed no disposition to make room for the sick man and his bearers. But what so dauntless as earnest and purposeful faith such as this! They, the sufferer agreeing to endure the pain to himself which the scheme involved, ascended by an outside flight of stairs to the flat roof of the house (cp. Matt. 24:17), where they proceeded to remove the tiling or the thin stone roofing (not at all a difficult task, and its repair an easy matter), and to lower the paralytic upon his bed, through the opening thus made, in to the presence of the Master.

The act was a bold and beautiful strategem of faith, arising not from a spirit of bravado, but from real confidence in the grace and power of Him whose presence they sought, coupled with a sense of the needed mercy. The faith was that of the five, for the action was concerted. And this the Lord saw, and approved what might have seemed to most brusque and ill-timed. It was indeed an offering to the Lord, even as the Jews will be in a future day when they are brought to Jehovah out of all the nations “upon horses and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts” to the holy mountain Jerusalem for blessing in their land (Isa. 66:20).

In this instance the Lord did not wait for the suppliant to frame his petition, nor did He say, as to the blind man, “What wilt thou that I should do unto thee?” He gave him the boon and more, going down to deep-seated needs the man, so far as we know, had never realized. Addressing the sick of the palsy in tender and affectionate terms, Jesus said, “Son, thy sins are forgiven.”

The critical portion of the audience, seeing no visible effect following these words, drew adverse conclusions immediately, and in their hearts set down the Lord as a blasphemer— “Why doth this man thus speak? he blasphemeth. Who can forgive sins but God only?”

But Jesus was present not only as the One to pardon iniquities and heal diseases (Psa. 103:3), but also as the One who searches the hearts, tries the reins and knows the inmost thoughts (Psa. 94:11; Jer. 17:10). He who saw the faith of the five men perceived the reasonings of the scribe’s in His own omniscient spirit (cp. John 2:24; 6:61), and not by a power temporarily imparted to Him, as might have been the case with a prophet. None but God could penetrate the secret workings of man’s spirit, as Solomon confessed in his prayer (1 Kings 8:39 Chron. 28:9; 2 Chron. 6:30; Ezek. 11:5), and the Lord gave the Pharisees the proof of the nature of His person by answering their thoughts. Who else could “hear them thinking”?

The Lord thereupon addressed those who were inwardly caviling at His words in terms which shed the light of God upon their hearts, revealing their secret thoughts: “Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Whether is easier to gay to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise and take up thy bed and walk?” The crucial point was not the actual words uttered, but what result was consequent upon their utterance. And the Lord proceeded to give them a visible assurance that His word was living and powerful, as He had just shown it to be “sharper than a two-edged sword.” He demonstrated its power over physical infirmity, that by analogy its power to dispense pardon to the guilty might be known. The Master then continued, “But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins (he saith to the sick of the palsy), I say unto thee, Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.”

The effect of these words addressed in His own authority (“I say unto thee”), and not speaking as a delegate, was instantaneous upon the paralytic man. His useless limbs were strengthened, so that he arose immediately; and so hale was he that he was able, as incontestable evidence of his thorough restoration, to take up the pallet or mattress upon which he had been brought to Jesus and to carry it away in presence of them all. What previously was a proof of his weakness, became thus a witness to his strength.

The miracle too was an undeniable testimony to the claims of the One then in Capernaum. The company was deeply impressed by the sight. They were all amazed and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion. Israel by-and-by will see and believe on the evidence of sight. But the Lord said, “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed” (John 20:29), and this applies to the Christian to-day (1 Peter 1:8). [W. J. H.]

(To be continued)

Studies in Mark: Publicans Enter the Kingdom

10.-Out of Weakness Made Strong (continued)

Forgiveness of Sins

It is remarkable that the Lord in His ministry in only one other recorded instance deals with the question of the forgiveness or remission of sins. To the penitent woman, in Simon the Pharisee’s house, He said definitely, “Thy sins are forgiven” (Luke 7:48). There were thus two witnesses to His power on earth to forgive sins according to the prophecy of Zacharias (Luke 1:77). This blessed work was hindered by the obduracy and impenitence of the people. But after His crucifixion and the shedding of the blood of the new covenant for the remission of sins, He is presented anew in this character. Peter testified concerning this: “Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31). And this grace is not for Israel alone, but for all that believe. This Paul declared in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch: “Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things” (Acts 13:38, 39).

Such was the wider and fuller tide of blessing for man which was ensured by the death of Christ. But here was a sample of this function performed by the Person deputed to forgive, the blood-basis of the act having not yet been laid. The cleansing of the leprosy and the healing of the paralytic, coupled with the forgiveness of sins, were indisputable evidence that the Servant-Prophet of Jehovah was present in Galilee exercising divine prerogatives in His own right. Was not the Psalm familiar to their ears, “Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits; who forgiveth all thine iniquities, who healeth all thy diseases” (Psa. 103:2, 3)? There was now an exemplification of this mercy before their eyes which could not be dissociated from Jesus of Nazareth as the One who was acting. In point of fact, Israel did not know nor consider, but this Servant of God patiently accumulated evidences of His mission which would leave the nation without excuse.

Are the Lord’s words to be regarded as a benevolent wish on His part that the sick man’s sins may eventually be forgiven? Not so; but rather as a positive declaration that they were then and thereby forgiven (“Thy sins are forgiven”); and the Lord intended that the sufferer should understand His words in this unequivocal sense. At any rate, the scribes understood the words in this sense, and they, in consequence, brought the charge of blasphemy against Him: “Why doth this man thus speak? he blasphemeth? Who can forgive sins but one, even God?” It is evident they regarded the words as a positive expression of fact, and not a hope for future pardon, such as any one might compassionately utter on behalf of another.

It may be asserted that the disease of this man’s body was an infliction upon him in consequence of some particular sins of which he had been guilty. God sent such temporal judgments in His government of the people of Israel, as the scripture testifies in many parts. For instance, at the repeated murmuring of the nation in the wilderness Jehovah smote them with a plague (Num. 11:32, 33; Psa. 78:31). In New Testament times it was so also in the assembly at Corinth, where many were in sickness and some even slept, because of their transgression (1 Cor. 11:30; see also James 5:14-16). The Lord recognized afflictions of this judicial character in the case of the impotent man of Bethesda, to whom He said after His cure, “Sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee” (John 5:14).

If it be so, that the Lord’s declaration of forgiveness had reference only to that portion of the man’s sins for which his paralysis was a temporal chastisement under the hand of God, and not to the sum total of his guilt as a sinner, the principle still holds good. It is equally the exclusive prerogative of God to release a man from the temporal, as it is from the eternal, consequence of his sins. Sin is an offense against God, and therefore He only can remit it. By divine mercy the sins of Saul of Tarsus, the chief of sinners, were forgiven; by that same mercy alone, the thorn in the flesh could be removed from Paul the apostle (1 Tim. 1:15; 2 Cor. 12:7).

True were the words of the scribes, “Who can forgive sins but one, even God”; but false was their assumption that He who had just spoken was not God. He was God “manifest in the flesh,” as He proved so often before their eyes. But all human reasoning founded upon disbelief in the person of Christ must not only he false but evil. He alone is the Truth, and He is also the Life, and the Way to the Father.

SPEAKING BLASPHEMY

Blasphemy in Holy Scripture, while sometimes used for evil speech against man, has reference also to evil speaking against or about God. The mental charge of blasphemy made against our Lord on this occasion was due to the assumption of the scribes that He usurped one of the attributes of Godhead by pronouncing absolution of sins. His claim to be the Son of God was so regarded by the Jews; as the Lord said to them, “Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God?” (John 10:33, 36). At the trial Caiaphas said to Jesus, “I adjure thee by the living God that thou tell us whether thou he the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said; nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his garments, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is worthy of death” (Matt. 26:63-66; Mark 14:64, New Tr.).

While these references illustrate the use of the term by the Jews, the Lord Himself applies it to the disparagement of God the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:31; Mark 3:28, 29; Luke 12:10). The term is also used for the calumniation of men, and of Jesus on the cross (Luke 22:65; 23:39), and is translated variously as “evil speaking,” “railing,” “being defamed,” etc. Its seriousness as a sin is correlated to the dignity of the person slandered or blasphemed—a distinction fully recognized by human laws.

SON OF MAN

It is to be noted that in this connection we have the first recorded use of this title of our Lord in this Gospel and also in Luke—the power of the Son of man to forgive sins. In Matthew it first occurs in the sentence, “The Son of man hath not where to lay his head” (Matt. 8:20). The title is frequently applied by the blessed Lord to Himself, but is never applied to Him by others, nor by the Evangelists themselves. Stephen testified, however, that he saw the “Son of man standing on the right hand of God” (Acts 7:56). And in the Apocalyptic visions John saw the Son of man in His capacity as Judge (Rev. 1:13; 14:14). It does not occur at all in the Epistles, except once in a quotation from the Psalms (Heb. 2:6).

This title, “Son of man,” by its terms suggests a wider sphere than is suggested by “Son of David” and “Son of Abraham.” It implies universal headship, as Heb. 2 shows, and was adopted by the Lord in view of His rejection by the Jews as the Messiah. Son of a man He was not, but Son of man He was, and when on earth He could say, “The Son of man which is in heaven” (John 3:13 Cor. 15:47). In Daniel His universal dominion is prophesied of under this title: “I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like unto the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom that all the peoples, nations and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed” (Dan. 7:13, 14). As Son of man He has power to execute judgment on sins as well as to forgive them (John 5:27).

In the prophetic communications to Ezekiel, the title, “Son of man,” is frequently employed by Jehovah when addressing the prophet. It is also used once in addressing Daniel (Dan. 8:7), but they never apply it to themselves. Both Ezekiel and Daniel were prophets of the exile, and ministered away from Judah, which was under the power of the Gentiles. The Lord too, as the despised Servant-Prophet, ministering in “Galilee of the Gentiles,” assumed this title, proving His authority to forgive sins, not as Jehovah of Psa. 103, or as the Messiah of Israel, but as the Son of man. [W. J. H.]

(To be continued)

Studies in Mark: Publicans Enter the Kingdom

11.-Publicans Enter the Kingdom

“And he went forth again by the sea side; and all the multitude resorted unto him, and he taught them. And as he passed by he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the place of toll, and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.

“And it came to pass that he was sitting at meat in his house, and many publicans and sinners sat down with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. And the scribes of the Pharisees when they saw that he was eating with the sinners and the publicans, said unto his disciples, He eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners. And when Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, they that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners (2:13-17, R.V.).

The Evangelist as directed by the inspiring Spirit proceeds to set forth the character of the ministry of Jesus the Servant-prophet. He had been announcing the imminence of the kingdom of God (1:14-15). He had by many incontestable proofs shown that the healing mercies of Jehovah were in their midst in His own person (1:16-39). But the people had heedless ears and callous hearts and the striking cases of the cleansed leper and the restored paralytic awakened the religious wisdom of the day. only to prefer a malicious charge of blasphemy against Him as the Forgiver of sins (1:40-2:12).

When the benign grace of God is met by the churlish resistance of man it seeks to extend its limits. The Savior came bringing grace and truth to the favored nation, but since the scribes and Pharisees would not have His boon, He would show that the nature of this grace was such that it embraced not only the despised Galilean, but ‘the still more despised publican. Mark shows this development in the Lord’s ministry by the account of the call of Levi, and by the subsequent feast at which many tax-collectors and sinners were present as welcome guests.

(“came,” J.N.D.; “kept coming,” J.N.D., note.)

(“passing by,” J.N.D.)

(“tax-office,” J.N.D.)

(“lay at table,” J.N.D.; W.K.)

(“tax-gatherers,” J.N.D.; W.K,)

(“and Pharisees,” J.N.D.

(““Why is it,” J.N.D.; “How is it,” W.K.)

(“strong,” J.N.D.; W.K.)

(“ill,” J.N.D.; W.K.)

(“have not come,” J.N.D.; W.K.)

THE CALL OF THE TAX-COLLECTOR

Jesus left Capernaum and passed on to the shores of the Sea of Galilee where He was teaching the crowds that flocked to Him. Here was the Government custom-house, where various tolls and dues were collected either for Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee, or for the Romans. The persons responsible for the collection of these taxes were, in many, if not in all, instances, Jews. On this account, as well as because of the natural repugnance of most men to pay taxes at all, the “publicans” were regarded by their country-men as an odious and hateful class. In the performance of their duties they had ample opportunities for oppression and extortion, to their own personal enrichment (Luke 3:13). Such abuses naturally aggravated the hatred generally felt towards them. All, however, were not equally oppressive, and Zacchaeus evidently was an exception to the general rule, for he seems to have been of just and generous habits (Luke 19:8).

As Jesus passed along he saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting at the place of toll. Addressing him, the Master said, Follow Me. And in instant response Levi arose and followed Him.

As in the case of Simon and Andrew (1:16-18), there was probably on the part of Levi some previous knowledge of the Lord and His teaching. They, as John 1 shows, had made a confession of Him some time before they were called to go after Him. Levi no doubt had heard His preaching and witnessed His miracles in Capernaum. For aught we know to the contrary he may have been one of those publicans who “justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John,” and thus confessedly was one of those waiting for the Redeemer of Israel (Luke 3:12; 7:29). But his difficulty would be whether he who was considered to be no better than a Gentile might dare to appropriate the blessings of the promised kingdom. Like his fellow who could not lift up so much as his eyes in the temple (Luke 18:13), this man could not lift up his eyes to Him who was greater than the temple.

But the Searcher of hearts was passing by. He who knew the vain thoughts of the scribes and Pharisees knew also the timid desires of the publican. He who saw Nathanael under the fig-tree, had seen Levi at the toll-booth. And the Lord of love summoned him who was already a disciple in heart to be His follower in the open light of day. At once he arose and left all, as Luke tells us, reclaimed thus from the service of the Roman to that of King Immanuel, who in this manner collected His dues by the Sea of Galilee.

LEVI AND MATTHEW

Some have found a difficulty in determining whether Levi the publican and Matthew the apostle were the same person. There is, however, no sufficient reason to doubt their identity. In the lists of the apostles given in the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew is named in each of them. And Mark and Luke, in narrating the call of the publican, both give him the name of Levi. The obvious inference from these passages is that, like other of the apostles, the man had two names, Matthew being his most usual, if not his only, designation after his call to the discipleship of Jesus.

In the first Gospel, Matthew, writing of the same eventful call, ascribes it to a man named Matthew (Matt. 9:9), thus indicating his own origin with the utmost candor and humility, and by the avoidance of the name Levi preventing any possible confusion as to his identity. It is granted that a crooked worldly policy animated by motives of short-sighted prudence might cause an author to conceal such a fact about himself; but he who was inspired to include the names of Tamar and Bathsheba in the genealogy of the Messiah (Matt. 1) would be preserved from the petty meanness of concealing the fact that one of the Lord’s apostles was a tax-collector. “Whom do we hear to blazon the shame of Matthew but his own mouth? Matthew the Evangelist tells us of Matthew the publican. His fellows call him Levi, as unwilling to lay their finger upon the spot of his unpleasing profession; himself will not smother nor blanch it a whit, but publishes it to all the world in a thankful recognition of the mercy that called him, as liking well that his baseness should serve for a fit foil to set off the glorious luster of His grace by whom he was elected. What matters it how vile we are, O God, so Thy glory may arise in our abasement?” The truth is that Matthew bore two names; so “Thomas is called Didymus by John only; and Thaddeus (or Lebbeus as in Matthew and Mark) is called Judas by Luke and John.” But while the identity of Matthew and Levi may be considered as well established, it is the merest conjecture to regard Alphaeus, the father of Levi, as identical with the father of James (Matt. 10:4), and with Cleophas (John 19:25). THE FEAST IN MATTHEW’S HOUSE Soon after the call of the fishermen Jesus went to the house of Simon and Andrew (i. 29). He is now shown as the guest of Levi the publican. “And Levi made him a great feast in his house; and there was a great multitude of publicans and of others that were sitting at meat with them” (Luke 5:29). The King is not the host here, for He has not yet taken possession of His own. Solomon in the day of his power made a feast to all his servants (1 Kings 3:15), but He who was a greater than Solomon had no place to lay His head. He who in a coming day will make in mount Zion for “all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined” (Isa. 25:6), was well content to be entertained by the tax-gatherer. And what a company were seen at the banquet that day! The Son of man had power on earth to forgive sins; hence sinners were welcome to Him who came to cleanse them from their sins. Levi the publican could testify to the grace that called him to be a follower of Jesus; hence, other publicans felt this to be a sufficient ground for believing that if they also came He would in no wise cast them out. We find therefore that a goodly company responded to the invitation of Levi, and came to eat and drink with Him. “O happy publicans and sinners who found out their Savior! O merciful Savior that disdained not publicans and sinners!” They found Him to be indeed the “Friend of publicans and sinners,” “a Friend sticking closer than a brother,” and it is good to read that at the close of the feast “many followed Him,” sinners as they were, fitted and made meet to follow the Sinless One into His kingdom.

MURMURS AT THE FEAST

The unbelieving and sinful generation that murmured of old in the wilderness at the heavenly manna murmured now in the presence of the Bread of God come down from heaven to fill with good things those who were hungry and thirsty after righteousness. The Pharisaic scribes said to the disciples, “How is it he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?”

It will be observed how the gradual development of evil opposition to the Lord is presented to us. In the previous incident we are shown the mental comment, the inward suspicion, the evil surmise of the Pharisees; and also how the Lord graciously corrected this, rebuking them before all that others might fear. Now we see that the sinful thought of foolishness became the spoken back-biting word of these men unrestrained and unabashed in the presence of Him who had laid bare the thought and intents of their hearts. The word of the Pharisees, however, was spoken not to the Lord Himself, but to the disciples, reminding us of the wily serpent in Eden who directed his assaults upon Adam through Eve, the weaker vessel. They, avoiding Jesus Himself, sought to bring the Master into discredit with His followers by their question, “How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?” It was a whisper in their ears to turn away their hearts, even as Absalom sought to turn away the hearts of the people from David.

But the Lord was watchful over His own. It was not yet the time to put words of wisdom into their mouths to speak for Him as His witnesses. (Matt. 10:19). But He answered for them, confuting the sophistry of the scribes. “They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” It was in this manner that the two-edged sword of truth proceeded out of His mouth for their moral judgment. For why was it they failed to receive their Messiah? Because in their own estimation they did not need such a one as He. Why complain then that those who did feel their need of such a Savior came to Him and were made welcome? What sort of a physician is he who refuses to minister to any but the hale and the hearty?

The Lord then definitely announced that He was come not to call the righteous (i.e. those who were righteous in their own eyes; indeed otherwise there is none righteous, no, not one), but sinners. These who responded should be washed, sanctified, justified, and made inheritors of the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-11), but those who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others, except they repented, would most assuredly perish in their sins.

In Matthew it is stated that the Lord vindicated His reception of the moral outcasts by a quotation from the prophet Hosea: “Go ye,” He said, “and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13; Hos. 6:6). It was the promise of God that when man was in a resourceless case, He would exercise His prerogative of mercy. The Lord accordingly was in the midst of Israel not to receive sacrifice but to show mercy. For it is suggested that this is the significance of the passage, rather than a rebuke to formalism and religious ceremonialism which some see in it.

According to the latter interpretation the sentence is a declaration that God desires not the sacrifices of the law but the merciful deeds of man to his fellow-creatures. But while this statement is true in itself, and indeed expressed in other portions of Scripture, the words of the prophet as used here by the Lord show that in receiving publicans and sinners He was performing the divine function of displaying mercy, which was in accordance with the will of God, rather than the offering of sacrifice by those whose hearts were far from God, like the Pharisees. It was for the remission, not for the judgment of sins, that the Servant of Jehovah, the “dayspring from on high,” had visited His people; and His mission emanated from the tender mercy [the heart of mercy] of God Himself (Luke 1:78). While it abides true that judgment shall overtake every evil work, it was shown in the house of Levi the tax-gatherer how the mercy of God gloried against judgment.

[W. J. H.]

Studies in Mark: Servant of Jehovah the Lord of the Sabbath

13.-The Servant of Jehovah the Lord of the Sabbath

“And it came to pass, that he was going on the sabbath day through the cornfields; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Did ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungered, he, and they that were with him? How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath” (2:23-28, R.V.).

The Servant of Jehovah is shown by the Evangelist in a variety of circumstances, carrying out in them all the will of God with absolute and unvarying perfection, so that in every recorded word and deed we have for our admiration and humble emulation a living exemplification of divine truth.

We have seen Him at the feast spread by the love of Matthew the publican, having accepted the invitation with that humility which was the wonder of the Pharisees and is the ambition of the believer. But as He thus “goes along with the lowly” we see the Guest become the Host. He will be debtor to none, and in that motley assemblage of self-righteous and self-abased men He dispenses the hospitality of heaven, making them free of truths of the kingdom which the prophets and kings, the Abrahams and Davids of old, had longed in vain to know.

We now see Him a wanderer, and His followers staying their hunger with a few grains of corn, plucked by the wayside. They who had no occasion to fast because the Bridegroom was with them were compelled to fast because the Bridegroom was a rejected one. The Pharisees raised objections to this act of the disciples, as if the law of God were infringed thereby, but the Lord exposed their sophistry by means of the Old Testament scriptures, and accepting His title as the rejected Servant, He asserted the authority of the Son of man as the Lord of the Sabbath.

JESUS IN THE CORNFIELDS

The Lord and those who were with Him were walking in the cornfields on the Sabbath day. We learn from the parable of the Sower that a public way or path often lay through the cornfields, on which indeed some seeds were apt to fall in sowing-time (Mark 4:4). The disciples, as they passed along, began to pluck some of the ears of corn, and, after rubbing them in their hands, to eat the early ripened grain. This act was not regarded as a violation of the law of private property. On the contrary, it was expressly permitted under the Mosaic economy: “When thou comest into thy neighbor’s standing corn, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbor’s standing corn” (Deut. 23:25). Accordingly, in this case we do not find that any protest was raised by the husbandman himself, but the envious and jealous eyes of the Pharisees were upon the little band, and directly they began (Matt. 12:1, 2) to pluck the corn in their hunger, the hostile critics in their indecent haste to find some occasion to condemn the Lord, said to Him, “Behold, why do they on the Sabbath day that which is not lawful?”

The Lord Himself had not participated in the act of the disciples, but He defended them against their accusers. Precious proof of His faithful guardian love for those whom the Father had given Him out of the world! If He is for His own, who can be against them? The time was to come when the little flock would be left alone, and in that future evil day they must gird themselves with the girdle of truth and wield the sword of the Spirit. Now the Master, whose hands had been taught to fight in the wilderness (Psa. 144:1), used the two-edged sword of scripture to overcome these adversaries who sought to fasten upon His followers the stigma of law-breakers.

The reply of Jesus, as recorded by Mark, consists of two distinct portions, each of which is introduced by the words, “And he said unto them.” (1) He appealed to written scripture in support of what was done: “Did ye never read what David did?” etc. (2) He vindicated the act of the disciples on the ground of the origin of the Sabbath, and of His own authority as Lord of the Sabbath. To this two-fold testimony the Pharisees, so far as we learn, returned no reply. We can well believe that, in a greater degree than in the case of the proto-martyr Stephen, “they were not able to withstand the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spake” (Acts 6:10).

In the Gospel by Luke, the same two points raised by the Lord are given, but in Matthew two other points are added, so that His testimony there is shown to have a fourfold character. But this we can now do no more than mention. The Lord there is stated to have cited, in addition to that given by Mark and Luke—(1) the example of the priests serving on the Sabbath day in the temple, executing their duties in the offering of sacrifices and the like, not contrary to, but in accordance with the law, and (2) the declaration of Jehovah through Hosea of His desire for the exercise of His own mercy rather than the reception from man of the sacrifice required by law (Matt. 12:5-7; Hos. 6:6). But of all these things the Pharisee in his religious pride was ignorant, or he would not have condemned the guiltless disciples. This instance afforded a practical illustration of the truth previously declared by the Lord that the old wine-skins of the law could not contain the new wine of the kingdom.

DAVID AND ABIATHAR

Let us consider now this reference—the only one made by the Lord to the history of His ancestor according to the flesh, the great king of Israel—(1) regarding the incident itself, and (2) inquiring what is its application to the event in the cornfields.

David, chosen of God and anointed of Samuel to be king over Israel, was in flight from Saul, who sought to kill him. It was a day when the appointments of Jehovah for His worship and praise in Israel were sadly “out of course.” The ark was at Kirjath-jearim, while the tabernacle was at Nob (1 Sam. 7:2; 2 Sam. 6:2), where the priests were also; and thither David came, a fugitive from the wrath of the king, and famished with hunger. He arrived on the Sabbath day when the priests had changed the twelve loaves of shewbread (“the bread of the face,” or “of the presence”) which according to divine instruction were placed on the golden table in the holy place every Sabbath (Ex. 25:30; Lev. 24:5-9). The ritual was therefore proceeding, though there was no ark within the holy of holies—an indication of the manner in which the nation had departed from the center and core of worship as laid down in the beginning of its history. David asked the priest for some of the stale loaves for himself and his companions. This was a bold request, for this hallowed bread, unleavened, anointed with pure frankincense, one of the most holy fire offerings to Jehovah, was eaten in the holy place by the priests only (Lev. 24:7-9). But the priest recognized in the hungry David fleeing from Saul the anointed of Jehovah, and he gave him shewbread, in spite of the evil eyes of Doeg the Edomite, a creature of Saul’s, which were upon him (1 Sam. 21:7), and by whose hand the fearful vengeance of the king was speedily wreaked upon Nob and its priestly inhabitants.

It was to the written account of this incident in the life of David that our Lord referred by way of scriptural support of what the disciples had done on the Sabbath. “Did ye never read what David did?” The parallel is clear. The glory of God had departed from the temple, and the Pharisees were despising and rejecting their Messiah, even as David was hunted into exile by the cruel and unrighteous rage of Saul. In that day the letter of the ancient ordinances had to yield to the necessities of him who was the anointed king after God’s heart. Of what value then were these petty cavils of the Pharisees who sought to impose grievous burdens contrary to the spirit of the law, and refused to acknowledge either the King or His kingdom? Their objections recoiled to their own condemnation, for were they not to blame because the Lord from heaven was wandering on the Sabbath, with His followers, hungry and homeless? “In the presence of the evil that despises God’s beloved and faithful witnesses in the earth, the outward ordinances of the Lord lose their application for the time being. The sanctity of ritual disappears before the rejection of the Lord and His people.” “Granted that the shewbread was only for the priests, yet for them to keep their consecrated bread and let the anointed king starve would be strange homage to God and the king. And now the Son of David, the Lord of David, was there, and more rejected, more despised, than David himself.”

ABIATHAR OR AHIMELECH?

In a divine revelation there must be of necessity difficulties to a finite mind. And in an inspired history extending over many centuries and consisting of events selected and grouped for moral and spiritual instruction, there must indeed be difficulties many of which arise from the omission of connecting links which, though unessential to the divine aim, would nevertheless, if supplied, at once remove the perplexity. An instance of such a difficulty, which is indeed common in all history, occurs in this section of Mark. The Lord’s words, as recorded in this Gospel, are, “Did ye never read what David did... how he entered the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest.” In the book of Samuel, David is said to have come to Ahimelech the priest (1 Sam. 21:1), who gave him the bread, and was subsequently massacred with his family by order of Saul (1 Sam. 22:11-19), one of his sons named Abiathar escaping to David, and afterward becoming high priest.

So that apparently the same man is called Ahimelech in one place and Abiathar in another. This constitutes the “difficulty,” and if we were in possession of the whole of the details it would no longer he a difficulty to our intelligence, as it is now none to our faith. We dare not suppose that our Lord was ignorant of the name of the priest at Nob, nor that Mark, who alone of the Evangelists supplies the name, was permitted by the inspiring Spirit to record the words of his Master erroneously. But as the Lord definitely challenged the Pharisees, who were so punctilious as to the letter of scripture, on their reading (“Did ye never read?”) we may examine the Old Testament for help. The Lord’s words, as we have seen, imply that the truth on this point could have been ascertained by reading.

Now it will be observed from the Historical Books that (1) the same person frequently possessed more than one name, and (2) that the same name frequently recurs in the pedigree of families. It is not therefore an improbable explanation that the priest who succored David bore the joint names of Ahimelech and Abiathar, and that his son, who escaped the massacre at Nob, also bore the same double names. Indeed, the responsible priest at Nob is “called by no less than three names—Ahiah (1 Sam. 14:3, 18), Ahimelech (1 Sam. 21:1-6; 22:9-23); and, as in St. Mark, Abiathar (1 Chron. 18:16; 24:6, 31). The Septuagint gives also the form Abimelech. Moreover, the son of this Ahimelech or Abiathar, who was afterward David’s joint High Priest with Zadok, was himself also called by both names, viz., Abiathar (1 Sam. 22:20-23; 2 Sam. 15:24-29; 1 Kings 2:26, 27), and Ahimelech (2 Sam. 8:17; 1 Chron. 24:6, 31), or Abimelech (1 Chron. 18:16). Now it has often been remarked that there occur in the Old Testament many instances of double names, as Reuel, Jethro, and Hobab; Esau and Edom; Benjamin and Benoni; Gideon and Jerubbaal; Solomon and Jedidiah; Uzziah and Azariah; Zedekiah and Matthaniah (see Patrit. de Evang. L. iii.; Diss. ix. c. 3); but it has scarcely been noticed that the priests especially appear to have borne double names, and that father and son were frequently called by the same names. Yet both these facts are of the utmost value for the passage before us. The following are illustrations—As to the first: In 1 Mac. 2:1-5 is a list of five priests, sons of Mattathias, all with double names. The priestly pedigree of Josephus, from the public records, furnishes several other examples (Jos. Vit. §§ 1, 2). As to the second: It was proposed to call John the Baptist Zechariah ‘ after the name of his father ‘; and his father was a priest (Luke 1:5, 59). In Josephus’s pedigree, Matthias, one of his priestly ancestors, had a son also called Matthias; whose grandson again was likewise named Matthias, and his son also Matthias (9.). Also, upon the deposition of Joseph Cabi, the High Priesthood was conferred on the son of the famous High Priest Ananus, “who was himself also called Ananus” (Jos. Ant. xx. 9.1). Thus, then, we not only have Old Testament evidence to the fact that the High Priest who gave David the hallowed bread bore the name of Abiathar as well as that of Ahimelech, and his son likewise; but also independent evidence that this possession of double and the same names by father and son in the families of the priests was not an unusual occurrence. With such evidence the alleged historical error of Mark completely vanishes. “

This explanation seems preferable to that which supposes that the phrase in Mark is elliptical and means “in the days of Abiathar who afterward became high priest.” Abiathar, it is further assumed in this hypothesis, influenced his father to befriend David, and as he alone escaped, this may have been the case.

Seeing that the senior priest at Nob was called Ahimelech and Abiathar, a pertinent inquiry arises why the Lord refers to him as Abiathar instead of Ahimelech, the latter being the name by which he is described in the narrative relating to the shewbread incident.

In connection with this inquiry, it should be remembered that Ahimelech was of the house of Eli, and that house was doomed to extermination by the judgment of God, because of the wickedness at Shiloh (1 Sam. 2:30-33; 3:12-14). In accordance with this judgment, Eli’s descendants were all slain at Nob, but with one exception. For God was not unmindful of the mercy of Ahimelech shown to His anointed, and He did not then make a full end of the line of Ithamar, and blot out the posterity of Eli from the earth. Abiathar was spared to be the representative of the junior house of Aaron throughout the reign of David, being subsequently deposed by Solomon in fulfillment of the word of Jehovah spoken concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh (1 Kings 2:27). Abiathar therefore (to use the more frequent name by which he is called who was the companion of David in his exile) preserved the second name of his father Ahimelech throughout the glorious reign of David when the rest of the family were cut off.

In the warning of judgment delivered to Eli by the man of God, he said, “It shall come to pass that every one that is left in thine house shall come and how down to him [Jehovah’s anointed] for a piece of silver and a loaf of bread, and shall say, Put me, I pray thee, into one of the priests’ offices, that I may eat a morsel of bread” (1 Sam. 2:36). But it came about that Jehovah’s anointed begged bread of the descendant of Eli, and as he was not denied, the mercy of God was displayed in the midst of the judgments that fell upon the ungodly house, and a scion of that house held the priestly office while David was upon the throne.

The Lord therefore, in alluding to the act of kindness shown to David by Ahimelech, alludes also to its recognition and reward by Jehovah in a manner familiar to students of God’s word by selecting the least obvious of his names, but that name by which his reward is marked in Holy Writ, viz., in the mercy and distinction conferred upon his son Abiathar. The principle of moral and spiritual significance conveyed by the use of the one or the other of double names may be traced elsewhere in scripture. Compare, for example, the use of Jacob and of Israel in the prophecies, and of Simon and of Peter in the Gospels.

It is believed therefore that underlying this alleged historical difficulty there is a truth of great beauty which is seen upon patient inquiry. In addition to the assertion that the Son of David may do what David did, there is the quotation of an example of God’s grace shining out in a dark chapter in the annals of the priesthood. We cannot think there was no bread in Nob except the show-bread. But all closed their hearts to David except one, and he helped and honored the true king of Israel when all else despised him. And Jehovah, true to His word spoken to the head of that priestly house, “Them that honor me I will honor,” rewarded his kindness as is recorded. The Lord would have them know that the principle was equally true in their day. If the Pharisees received God’s anointed, already rejected by the spirit of the nation, their reward should be great in heaven. The stone of stumbling would assuredly fall in crushing judgment upon the guilty people, but the followers of the Lord in “His temptations” should “sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

[W. J. H. ]

Studies in Mark: the Appointment of the Twelve

16.-The Appointment of the Twelve

“And he goeth up into the mountain, and calleth unto him whom lie himself would: and they went unto him. And he appointed twelve, that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, and to have authority to cast out demons: and Simon he surnamed Peter; and James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and them he surnamed Boanerges, which is, Sons of thunder: and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and “Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot: which also betrayed him” (3:13-19, R. V.).

We now arrive at what was an important juncture in the ministry of the Servant and Prophet of Jehovah. His continuous and indefatigable labors in Galilee, proclaiming the coming kingdom, have been recorded in the previous verses of Mark, along with the marvelous testimonies which accompanied His preaching, of His goodness and His power. This witness to the gospel awakened an interest which spread in every direction throughout the country, so that crowds came to Jesus from all parts. Clearly there was a general desire abroad to hear and to know more of the Prophet of Nazareth. If many journeyed to the place where He was, there were presumably many more unable to travel who were equally desirous to hear for themselves the wonderful works of God. “But how shall they hear without a preacher?” To meet this difficulty the Lord of the harvest selected certain of His followers whom He authorized to proceed in various directions and proclaim in every town and village the good news of the kingdom.

THE OCCASION OF THE CALL

In the First Gospel the call of the twelve is narrated in connection with the great need that sprang up for more extensive service among the masses of the suffering poor of the land. “But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion for them, because they were distressed and scattered, as sheep not having a shepherd. Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the laborers are few. Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest that he send forth laborers into his harvest” (Matt. 9:36-38). Such was the sympathy of the Good Shepherd for the distresses and infirmities of the lost sheep of the house of Israel, that He desired that others should co-operate in the work of speedily gathering together those that were scattered abroad. And immediately, being Himself the Lord of the harvest, He proceeded to send forth laborers into the harvest.

Luke, in recording the call, states quite another circumstance which brings into emphatic prominence the perfect dependence of the Man Christ Jesus upon God. “And it came to pass in these days, that he went out into the mountain to pray; and he continued all night in prayer to God. And when it was day, he called his disciples: and he chose from them twelve whom also he named apostles” (Luke 6:12, 13). In this Gospel, the immediate context portrays the intensified hatred and opposition of the religious leaders to Christ. In view of this enmity Jesus retired to the solitudes of the mountainous country, and spent the night in prayer. At dawn, He chose twelve witnesses to labor with Him in face of this growing antagonism.

These aspects of the apostolic call both differ from that which appears in Mark, while all three, each being itself perfect in its setting, combine to present a flawless portrait of our ever adorable Savior and Lord in His choice of those who should eventually occupy positions of honor and dignity in His kingdom. Sympathy for the ignorant and love for the erring wrought in the heart of the Master, as Matthew shows; grace also wrought in associating fishermen and others with Himself as the “Faithful and True Witness” in testimony against a hostile world, as Luke shows. But Mark is careful to display the holy and heavenly calling of the apostolate instituted by the Lord. He makes it clear that these chosen ones had no connection with the grateful crowds on the one hand, nor with the witnessing demons on the other.

We are told that Jesus left both of these companies and went up into the mountainous region. It was a place of separation from the world of confusion, the powers of evil, and the passions of sin, below. In the presence-chamber of the Most High, the thrice-holy Servant passed the night-watches in communion with His Father. This act of His was, as it were, a foreshadowing of what He said later, in that marvelous prayer before His crucifixion, “For their sakes I sanctify myself that they also might be sanctified through the truth” (John 17:19). Even then it was true, though more fully so later, that the called ones were not of the world, even as He was not of the world.

But if this is the correct view of the passage in Mark, the Spirit being jealous for the honor of Christ shows by this connection that the ministry of the Servant of Jehovah was thus freed of all apparent association with either time-serving beneficiaries or the spiritual agents of Satan. He, on the contrary, silenced the demons, and, exercising His sovereign right, selected from His disciples “whom He Himself would.”

THE PURPOSE OF THE CALL

The object for which these twelve persons were selected from among the mass of the disciples or followers of the Lord is here stated to be threefold. They were (1) to be with the Lord, (2) to be sent forth to preach, and (3) to have authority to expel demons. These chosen ones, as Luke tells us, are “named apostles” by the Lord Himself (Luke 6:13); and it is well to remember that this term was applied to them from the first, so that the apostolate, so far as the twelve are concerned, originated before the founding of the church.

The first of their qualifications is of special interest since it is mentioned by Mark alone—they were to be “with Him.” The phrase constitutes one of those inconspicuous points in the differentiation of this Gospel from the others that offer to the believing heart such indisputable evidence that a predominating purpose characterizes the portraiture of the Lord Jesus in each of the four. Here we have the calling of those destined to carry on the service and testimony of the gospel in the whole world after His departure. Do we not therefore see the exquisite propriety that the Evangelist who describes the perfect Servant of Jehovah should show us that His under-servants received their training in the company of the Master Himself. Who so competent to instruct them, by example and precept, what was acceptable and glorifying service to God, as He whose “ears were digged,” as the Psalmist said (Psa. 40:6)? They, after their service in the day of suffering, should serve in the day of glory, as the Lord told them at a later period. “Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations; and I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed unto me, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and ye shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:28, 29). Those who were with David’s Son in the cave of Adullam should be with David’s Lord in mount Zion.

We may thus consider that this phrase covers the spiritual education which Christ’s servants received under the personal tuition of the Incomparable Servant, who in His service served even His own servants. They were admitted to a degree of favor and intimacy which was accorded to none beside. In such a hallowed associate-ship what daily lessons were ever before them for their learning of untiring zeal, exhaustless patience, purest devotion, absolute and unqualified obedience to God and profoundest sympathy for man!

But more than this, being “with Him” they heard His words, and received the truth. Seeing Him, they saw the Father also. Beholding Him, they beheld His glory, as of the Only-begotten of the Father. So that the apostles became qualified to testify, as eye-witnesses, of the revelation of the Father made by the Son. One of them, subsequently, writing to the whole family of God, referred to the fullness of this intimacy as that which constituted the credentials of his apostleship. “What was from [the] beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we looked on, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life (and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and report to you the eternal life, the which was with the Father and was manifested to us); that which we have seen and heard we report to you” (1 John 1:1-3, N.T.). The apostles therefore had the honorable distinction of being not only the servants of the Lord, but His friends ( John 15:14, 15).

In the second place, the apostles were called that they might be sent forth to preach. At the commencement of His public ministry the Lord presented Himself, preaching the gospel of God —that the kingdom was at hand. It now was proved to be necessary that this testimony should be taken up by others and spread in all directions, and the Lord chose the twelve that He might commission them to go throughout the country as the accredited heralds of His kingdom. The term “apostle” signifies one who is sent, and the first item of the service assigned to them was to announce that the Redeemer was come to Zion, and that the prophetic kingdom was therefore at the doors.

Thirdly, the apostles were to receive authority to cast out demons. In Matthew and Luke the power to cure diseases is coupled with that over unclean spirits. And copyists with an ignorant zeal to make the Gospels all alike, appear to have added the phrase here unwarrantably, for it is now agreed that the best witnesses omit it in Mark.

And the context supplies what will be found to be quite an adequate explanation of the omission here by Mark of any reference to the curative powers conferred upon the apostles. The purpose of this section, as has been suggested already, is to show the dissociation of the kingdom of the Lord and the kingdom of Satan. One of the special forms of temptation in the wilderness was that the Lord should obtain the dominion of the world by acknowledging the rule of Satan (Luke 4:6-8). Now we read that evil spirits submitted to His power and rendered public testimony to His divine person. The Lord knew what His enemies would say, and what indeed they did say of Him, soon afterward—that He had Beelzebub, and that His mighty works were done by evil agency.

Hence the Lord, anticipating this calumny, chose the twelve apostle to be His ambassadors, and gave them also authority over evil demons. So that wherever the Lord and His apostles encountered the spiritual powers of darkness, there was the reverse of co-operation; the unclean spirits were cast out and not suffered to speak. Mark had shown the angels ministering to Jesus (1:13), but he makes it clear that evil spirits, the servants of the great enemy, were in no way associated with Him.

The apostolic power over diseases is therefore not mentioned in this connection, in order that greater prominence might be given to their power over demons, We can see the utmost propriety in this omission, especially when we consider that the chapter goes on to narrate that the charge of complicity with Satan was actually brought against the Lord by the scribes which came down from Jerusalem.

THE TWELVE AND THEIR NAMES

The Lord chose and appointed the twelve to be His apostles. The term itself, though used in connection with the call by Matthew and Luke, is not given by Mark, who only uses it once throughout his Gospel (6:30). Their number has an obvious allusion to the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28); and the sphere of their service was confined to the earthly people of God. Their charge from the Lord was, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 10:5, 6). After the Lord’s resurrection the commission was made universal in its scope: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). And at Pentecost the apostles being together with others of the followers of the Lord, the Spirit descended upon them (Acts 2), and they were incorporated in the church, that new building of God which groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord (Eph. 2:21, 22).

Paul, called after Pentecost, was pre-eminently the apostle of the church in the sense that the revelation of the mystery of its heavenly calling was communicated to him. Barnabas is also alluded to as an apostle in company with Paul (Acts 14:14). But the original call of the twelve Jewish apostles as recorded in the Gospels is clearly in connection with the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom to Israel.

This band of apostles is frequently alluded to in Scripture as “the twelve,” but this mode of reference is used most of all by Mark. The following is a list of the passages—Matt. 26:20; Mark 3:14; 6:7; 9:35; 10:32; 11:11; 14:17; Luke 6:13; 8:1; 9:12; 18:31; John 6:67, 70; Acts 6:2 Cor. 15:5. Thomas is called “one of the twelve” (John 20:24); and so is Judas (Matt. 26:14, 17; Mark 14:10, 20, 43; Luke 22:3, 17; John 6:70, 71). After the defection of Judas, they are called “the eleven” (Matt. 28:16; Mark 16:14; Luke 24:9, 33; Acts 1:26); Matthias being subsequently chosen by lot after prayer to fill the vacancy (Acts 1:26; 2:14).

The names of the twelve apostles are enumerated in each of the Synoptic Gospels, and also in the Acts, and these names were also seen in vision inscribed upon the foundations of the wall of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:14). They occupied a special place of honor and privilege in the confession of the name of Jesus in the days of His presentation as Messiah to Israel, and in the coming day of glory a special award is accorded to them in manifestation before Israel and the nations in that holy city which is to come down from God. Paul undoubtedly will have his distinguished place in that heavenly kingdom, but the twelve, unlike Paul, moved along, in believing wonder, with the Lord in His daily progress through this world of woe. Hence, their names are written, not only in heaven (a matter in itself of greater cause for their rejoicing than power over evil spirits, Luke 10:20), but also in the foundations of the wall of that figurative city which will be a medium for the light of the glory of God and the Lamb throughout the millennial earth.

The various names of the apostles, with one or two exceptions, are easy of identification. A few brief remarks upon each are appended, following the order found in Mark.

Simon Peter. The name of this apostle is always placed first in the various lists of the twelve, and also when two or three or more are mentioned by name. Simon or Simeon (Symeon, Acts 15:14; 2 Peter 1:1) was the son of Jona or Jonas (John 1:42; 21:15-17). Jonas, which is equivalent to John, is the Greek form of Jonah. And Bar-jona, or Bar-Jonah, means son of John (Matt. 16:17).

Simon received a new name from the Lord, signifying a stone or a rock. This name in the Aramaic, that is, the language usually spoken by the Lord, was Kephas, or, Cephas (John 1:42 Cor. 1:12; Gal. 2:9), and in the Greek, Peter (Petros, Matt. 16:17). Peter, or Simon Peter, occurs most frequently by far in the New Testament. Besides in those references, made historically before his call and at his naming, Simon is used alone in the following passages—

(a) By the Lord (Matt. 17:25; Mark 14:37; Luke 22:31; John 21:15-17).

(b) By the other apostles (Luke 24:34).

(2) James. This was one of the sons of Zebedee the fisherman, the New Testament form of Zabdi (Josh. 7:1, 17, 18; 1 Chron. 8:19). The word James is an English form of the Hebrew and Greek name Jacob. He is the only apostle whose death is mentioned in the New Testament, being executed in Jerusalem by Herod Agrippa I. (Acts 12:1, 2).

From a comparison of Matt. 27:56 with Mark 15:40, it would appear that the name of the mother of James and John was Salome.

(3) John. The brother of James was also chosen to be an apostle, and the two sons of Zebedee were surnamed by the Lord Boanerges, which means, Sons of thunder. Though others of the apostles appear to have had several names, Peter, James and John are the only ones who, we are told, received surnames from the Lord.

There seems no doubt that John alludes to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23; 19:26; 21:20) in the Gospel which he wrote. He also wrote three Epistles, as well as the Apocalypse, the latter during his exile in the island of Patmos (Rev. 1:9).

John is associated with Peter in their visit to the tomb of Jesus (John 20:1-10), in the healing of the lame man and the subsequent testimony (Acts 3:1, 4; 4:14, 19), and in their journey to Samaria after the preaching of Philip (Acts 8:14); while Peter’s inquiry of the Lord concerning John, “And what shall this man do?” (John 21:21) spews the affection existing between the two men.

The name John in Hebrew is Johanan, “the gift of Jehovah.”

(4) Andrew. In Matthew and Luke, Andrew immediately follows Simon Peter in the list of names. They were brothers, and natives of Bethsaida, like Philip (John 1:44). Andrew was a disciple of John the Baptist, whom he left to follow Jesus, afterward communicating to his own brother the joyful intelligence that the Messiah was found. This preceded the call by the Lord (Mark 1:16).

Little is said of Andrew. His name is, however, mentioned alone twice by John (6:8; 12:22). The four, Peter, Andrew, James and John are named as being together with the Lord in the house at Capernaum (Mark 1:29) and on the mount of Olives (Mark 13:3).

(5) Philip. This apostle was also of Bethsaida, a fact stated twice in John’s Gospel (1:44; 12:21). He was one of the early disciples of the Lord, being called by Him, as it says, Jesus “findeth Philip and saith unto him, Follow me” (John 1:43). The Lord “proved” Philip before the feeding of the multitude (John 6:5-7). Some Greeks came to him, and said, “Sir, we would see Jesus” (John 12:21). He said to the Lord,

“Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us” (John 14:8). All these historical items are communicated in the Fourth Gospel only.

The name itself means “lover of horses.”

(6) Bartholomew. This was the apostle’s patronymic, that is, his family name, or surname; and it occurs in all four lists. Nathanael was, most probably, his personal name, signifying the “gift of God.” He confessed the Lord before His public ministry as Son of God and King of Israel (John 1:49). Bartholomew is not mentioned by John, who, however, includes Nathanael of Cana when naming others of the apostles after the resurrection (John 21:2). Of him the Lord said, “Behold, an Israelite indeed in whom there is no guile” (John 1:47).

(7) Matthew. The identity of Matthew and Levi the publican seems to rest upon sufficient evidence, and reference has previously been made in these articles to this point. He was the writer of the First Gospel, but no further record of him is found in the Scriptures. Mark alone gives the name of his father, Alphaeus (2:14), a different person, it is presumed, from the one mentioned in connection with James, since the two apostles are not associated like James and John of Zebedee.

(8) Thomas. The name Thomas, like that of Didymus, which is used three times by John, means “a twin.” Nothing is said of him after his call and appointment except by John. When the Lord spoke of going to Bethany, Thomas said to the other disciples, “Let us also go with him, that we may die with him” (John 11:16). When the Lord was instructing the apostles as to His immediate departure and their knowledge of the way, Thomas broke in with, “Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?” (John 14:5). His incredulity at the tidings of the resurrection has passed into a proverb (John 20:24-31).

(9) James. In each of the four lists, Peter heads the first four names, Philip the second four, and James of Alphteus the third four.

James is a name of frequent occurrence among the Jews, and, on this account, the name is not easy of identification, apart from some distinguishing epithet. In the New Testament we read of (1) James of Zebedee, (2) James of Alphaeus, (3) James the Lord’s brother, and (4) James the Less. The first is clear, but scholars are divided in their opinions as to the number of persons referred to by the following terms, whether three, two or one. A few words must suffice here upon what has been the subject of much controversy.

James [the son] of Alphaeus only occurs in each of the various lists of the apostles. But it has been supposed that Alphaeus is the Greek name for the Hebrew Cleophas (Clopas, John 19:25), whose wife stood by the cross with the other Marys, and is called the mother of James (Luke 24:10). In any case, that James of Alphaeus was an apostle is fully established.

James the Lord’s brother is so called by the apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians. He states that on his visit to Jerusalem, “other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother” (Gal. 1:19). This person appears to be distinguished in this way from the other James who is mentioned in the succeeding chapter without any qualifying phrase (Gal. 2:9, 12) [?]. Such a form of reference implies that the latter was too well-known in Galatia to require any special term of distinction. The latter may therefore be assumed to be the James who came into prominence in Jerusalem after the martyrdom of the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18), and to be identical [?] with James of Alphaeus, one of the twelve. He wrote the inspired Epistle to the twelve tribes (James 1:1), and is sometimes known as James the Just.

James the Lord’s brother is mentioned with others (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3); and in the account of the meeting in the upper room at Jerusalem before Pentecost, the brethren of Jesus are said to have been there, but they are mentioned separately from the apostles (Acts 1:14). In favor of the hypothesis that he wrote the Epistle of James it may be noted that like Jude he does not claim to be an apostle, but neither does John in any of his three Epistles. This argument therefore is not a weighty one.

James the less, or little, occurs but once (Mark 15:40), and is named as the son of Mary, one of the Galilaean women who were last at the cross and first at the tomb. She was the wife of Alphaeus, so that this is the James already mentioned, the epithet being applied to him probably because of his stature.

(10) Thaddaeus. From Matthew we learn that Lebbaeus was surnamed Thaddaeus (Matt. 10:3), while Luke, in his Gospel and in the Acts, gives a further name of this apostle, viz., Judas [the son or brother] of James. A question of his is recorded by John, who distinguishes him from the traitor of the same name: “Judas (not Iscariot) saith unto him, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?” (John 14:22). There is no further reference to him by name in the New Testament.

Whether Judas the apostle was the writer of the Epistle bearing this name is a matter upon which difference of judgment exists. The writer introduces himself, not as an apostle (see also verse 17), but as “Judas, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James,” this James being the Lord’s brother. It is certain that of the Lord’s brothers there were two so-named, since they both are mentioned by Matthew and Mark (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3), and we know that the brethren of the Lord were at the apostolic prayer-meeting in Jerusalem (Acts 1:11), including James and Judas, if not Joses and Simon. There is no great difficulty therefore in supposing that Judas the Lord’s brother wrote the Epistle known by that name.

If the contrary opinion is held—that the writer was an apostle—it is necessary to translate the idiomatic expression in Luke 6:16 and in Acts 1:13 as in the Authorized Version, “Jude [the brother] of James” to agree with Jude 1, instead of “Jude [the son] of James,” as in the Revised Version. And yet in a previous case the same idiom is rendered, “James [the son] of Alpheus,” so that the identification calls for patient discrimination rather than hasty dogmatism.

(11) Simon. He is distinguished from Simon Peter by Matthew and Mark as the Cananean, and by Luke as the Zealot. The first term is the Hebrew (not meaning an inhabitant of Canaan), and the second the Greek name for a Jewish sect holding violent religious and political views, inimical to the Romans. Nothing else is recorded concerning this apostle specially.

(12) Judas Iscariot. This name is always placed last of all in the lists of the apostles. With one or two exceptions each reference to him is accompanied by a phrase alluding to his betrayal of Jesus. He is said to have been [the son] of Simon (John 6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26). He was not of Galilaean origin, like the majority of the apostles, but of Kerioth, a town in the land of Judah (Josh. 15:25), this being implied by “Iscariot.”

[W. J. H.]

Studies in Mark: the Call of the Four Fishermen

“And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishers. And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. And straightway they left the nets, and followed him.

“And going on a little further, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the boat mending the nets. And straightway he called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, and went after him” (1:16-20, R.V.).

The Evangelist has in the immediately preceding verses shown the Servant of Jehovah commencing His ministry of the coming kingdom of God. He thereupon shows that this Servant, in the execution of His momentous mission, was pleased to associate with Himself some of the godly and believing ones of Galilee. Not that there was need on His part for such, or for any associates. Feeble and fallible man does, as a prudential, and even necessitous, measure, seek to counterbalance his own inherent defects by the strength of “big battalions,” or by the wisdom of a multitude of counselors. But this Servant was without limitations (save those that were self-imposed), and competent to carry out all that was given Him to do; and yet we are invited by the Evangelist to remark that directly He stepped forth into the path of public service, He called some fishermen to follow Him in that pathway. It is a circumstance which surely we cannot consider without advantage, since every detail in that divine biography is the exemplification here upon earth of a heavenly principle, for our wonder and instruction, as well as for our humble imitation.

The details of this historical incident, fraught with such far-reaching consequences to the disciples personally and to multitudes of millions through them, are of the scantiest, though, having regard to its important nature, we might have expected an exuberance. By the call of Jesus these men were elevated out of that nameless obscurity in which Galilean peasantry were wont to live and die. This call involved, not indeed that their names are written in the Lamb’s book of life, though this be true (but not truer of them than of every redeemed one), but that their names are recorded in the inspired and imperishable archives of the church on earth, of which church they, with other apostles and prophets, formed the foundation, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:19, 20).

Possessing, as we do, the light of subsequent history upon this event, we can consider the high destiny of these humble men. Founders of world—empires there have been; great as the world counts greatness. But where are Egypt, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and their founders? The names of Simon and Andrew, of James and John, however, are hewn in the rock—foundations of that church against which the very gates of hades shall not prevail. Nay, when earth-kingdoms shall all have perished, and Messiah reigns gloriously, then shall these righteous ones shine forth in the kingdom of their Father. When the holy city Jerusalem descends from heaven to be the seat of government of the kingdom of heaven, manifested in all the glories of fulfilled prophecies, earth shall read the Galilean names again. In the dazzling vision of the prophet of Patmos, where all is glory and perfection and brilliance,’ amid the blazonry of heaven itself, brought down for terrestrial view, we can see twelve names only (Rev. 21:14), and they include these four, once scored, as proof of ownership, on a couple of fishing cobles on the Galilean lake. This is a marvelous record, and where shall we match it?

But if we consider for a moment longer we shall see what an excellent example this affords of that heavenly perspective in which events are set in Holy Writ. Man writes in earthly perspective, that is, human events and persons to him loom large in the foreground, but as he turns from the temporal to the spiritual and to the eternal, these dwindle in importance until they reach a vanishing point. Man magnifies present things in all their uncertainty with a light borrowed from the historical experiences of the doubtful past; consequently the eternity of the future is minimized, and if not altogether ignored by him is lightly regarded and reduced to a point of undefined position and without importance.

In Scripture we have a corrective of this false vision. Man is invited to look through heavenly lenses and to behold what a change divine perspective makes, and how entirely the relative importance of things is thereby reversed. As we look tie see that the angle of vision is increased with distance. Present things become petty, future things are magnificent. God starts with a feeble and sinful worm, and leads us on to behold His infinite and inscrutable grace covering his sin, and advancing the sinner to heirship with God and joint-heirship with Christ. We may also see a momentary suffering expanding into an eternal weight of glory. When we, through pressure of circumstances, are about to exclaim like a peevish saint of old, “All these things are against me,” another examination of the case through this heavenly medium reveals to us that all these things “work together for good.”

It would be easy to pursue this line of thought further to practical profit, but it is necessary to return to the simple narration of the call of the fishermen. Having in view the heights of peculiar eminence and distinction to which these men were to be raised in the future, a human historian would have invested their call with such legendary tales and mythical marvels as the Eastern mind is quick to imagine and skilful to invent. Circumstances of their early lives would be shown to constitute premonitory signs of their future destiny. And the reason for the adoption of such a mode of narration is that the historian would be, like others of his class, seeking to discover the cause of the future greatness of his subject in the subject himself and in his lineage or his early environment.

In Scripture we have a contrasted method, and are shown that the cause of an ultimate position of extensive influence and grandeur in a servant of God is to be sought above rather than below. For God makes choice of human instruments not on the earthly principle of the unique and inherent fitness of the instrument itself, but rather because He sees there material that He can make fit for His purpose. Clearly, therefore, the circumstances under which the actual call was made are of minor importance in a divine record. And in this instance we are certain all the future history of these men was before the inspiring Spirit, for He wrote Rev. 21 as well as Mark 1; yet the narrative is entirely divested of anything approaching earthly glamor. We just have the Lord walking by the sea; the fishermen at their work; His call, holding out to them no alluring prospects; their immediate response. Such simplicity was a deathblow to the pride of the Jew, who would have loved to have seen their lineage traced back to some ancient and honorable family in Israel, as well as to that of the Gentile who would have wished to see that they had been trained in the philosophy of the schools, or in the arts of war and legislation. Had they such qualification’s there might have been ostensible cause for glorying in them; poor and simple as they were, we can only glory in the Lord (1 Cor. 1:26-31).

It may be useful in this connection to make some remarks on the relation of the narrative as given by Mark with those appearing in the other Gospels. In John we have what unquestionably is antecedent and even preparatory to the call as recorded by the Synoptists. But to the significance of this it may be necessary to recur at a later stage of these remarks.

Matthew and Mark use almost identical terms in their respective accounts. There are differences in some phrases, however, all of which we may well believe have their significance and their suitability to the scheme of the Gospel in which they occur. But we leave these points in order to refer at once to Luke 5:1-11, where a narrative is given which contains at first sight such points of diversity from Matthew and Mark that sober men have without adequate reason declared that it relates to a different event, and that it is subsequent in point of time.

In Luke we read that the Lord saw two boats by the shore of the lake. He entered one belonging to Simon, and desired that he would push off a little that He might address the people who were crowding to the water’s edge in order to hear Him. After the discourse He directed Simon to push out into deep water and let down the fishing-nets. Simon obeyed, though dubiously; but an astonishing haul of fish was the result, so much so that his net burst, and he had to seek the help of his partners in the other boat. Peter was conscience-stricken in the presence of this Gracious Power, who, however, assured him that in the future he should catch men. When the boats returned to land, the occupants followed the Lord.

This account, it is stated, presents points of absolute disagreement with Matthew and Mark. The latter make no reference to the preaching of Jesus nor to a miraculous catch of fish. They, unlike Luke, mention Andrew as the companion of Simon Peter, and that Zebedee and the servants were with James and John, who are said to be mending, not washing, their nets. They also record, while Luke does not, that Jesus definitely called the fishermen to follow Him, and that He addressed a separate call to each of the pairs.

On consideration of these points of diversity it must be admitted that in no instance are they such as to render the narratives incompatible one with another. Luke does not contradict Matthew and Mark, nor do they him. It must further be admitted that in no one of the accounts, nor in all of them taken together, have we the whole of the details of the incident. This is unnecessary, and would indeed be impossible (John 21:25). Details not essential to the purpose of the Gospel are omitted. And while these omissions may sometimes prevent us from piecing together the four narratives into one “harmonious” whole, we are not, in consequence, the losers. On the contrary, the Gospels, as we have them, present the truth exactly as it was intended by the Divine Author that they should. It is only shallow-minded man who regards it as a defect in inspiration that one Evangelist does not supply the historical omissions of his predecessor. He would have arranged them so, because they would then form a series of Sunday school exercises to fit the four one with another like parts of a dissected map. What a poor idea of inspiration is in the minds of many!

It is, indeed, believed to be absolutely unnecessary to reconstruct any historical incident in the Gospels, to enable us to understand what each record was meant to convey. It is ours to seek in all humility to understand it in the form it has been given us.

[W. J. H.]

(To be continued)

Studies in Mark: the Call of the Four Fishermen

Now, what is the object of this narrative as given us by the first two Evangelists? Does not this lie on the surface? In each case we have (1) Jesus Himself beginning His public preaching of the kingdom, (2) His call of others to follow Him, (3) His activity. in preaching in the Galilean synagogues, and performing deeds of mercy. Clearly, then, we have set before us the beginning of Messiah’s ministry in which He immediately associates others with Himself in His public service. The objective fact of the call of the four from their temporal duties is mentioned, but no more than this, because no more was necessary. The possible significance of such a brief reference has already been stated.

In Luke, however, we have a great deal more than the bare fact of certain disciples renouncing their possessions to follow the Messiah. We are called to witness, in the case of one of them as a sample of the others, how the Lord, using temporal circumstances in His own gracious and inimitable manner as the media, wrought within the man, teaching him something of His own nature and something of his own evil heart. We are shown, in fact, the moral preparation of Simon for the step of renunciation. Thus, while in Matthew and Mark we have what is objective, in Luke we have the subjective side. The difference therefore of the standpoints is radical, and must lead to what we actually find in the narratives—divergences, though not discrepancies.

Another salient feature of the narrative in Luke is that the event is displaced from its strict chronological position. Such a displacement is for moral reasons, and is not of infrequent occurrence in this Gospel. The call which in Matthew and Mark is in immediate sequence to the Lord’s initial public testimony, is in Luke made to follow, not precede, the cure of the demoniac in the synagogue of Capernaum, and the healing of Peter’s wife’s mother. The truth is that Luke gives us not only the general fact of the beginning of the Lord’s preaching (as in chap. iv. 14, 15), but taking up the single case of His word in the synagogue at Nazareth, gives us to see how grace was poured into and from His lips, delighting many sad hearts, but alas! arousing many evil ones also. He goes on to show that same grace not only speaking, but working for man’s blessing, grouping a number of His merciful acts, that the Savior’s wonderful grace may be the more impressively set out as the Stronger than Satan and the Deliverer of men from those disabilities sin and Satan have introduced. Luke 4 is therefore an example of the topical style which may be said to prevail in this Gospel rather than the chronological.

“And now we have, in the beginning of the fifth chapter, a fact taken entirely out of its historical place. It is the call of the earlier apostles, more particularly of Simon, who is singled out, just as we have seen one blind man, or one demoniac brought into relief, even though there might he more. So the son of Jonas is the great object of the Lord’s grace here, although others were called at the same time. There were companions of his leaving all for Christ; but we have his case, not theirs, dealt with in detail. Now from elsewhere we know that this call of Peter preceded the Lord’s entrance into Simon’s house, and the healing of Simon’s wife’s mother (Mark 1). We also know that John’s Gospel has preserved for us the first occasion when Simon ever saw the Lord Jesus, as Mark’s Gospel shows when it was that Simon was called away from his ship and occupation. Luke had given us the Lord’s grace with and towards men, from the synagogue at Nazareth down to His preaching everywhere in Galilee, casting out devils, and healing diseases by the way. This is essentially a display in Him of the power of God by the word, and this over Satan and all the afflictions of men. A complete picture of all this is given first, and in order to leave it unbroken, the particulars of Simon’s call are left out of its time. But as the way of the Lord on that occasion was of the deepest value as well as of interest to be given, it was reserved for this place. This illustrates the method of classifying facts morally, instead of merely recording them as they came to pass, which is characteristic of Luke.”

Sufficient has now been adduced to indicate that what seems at first so divergent in Luke is in perfect consonance with the character of that Gospel, which ever shows us the Lord of grace, though encountering and even arousing the evil of man, abounding over it with His compassionate love. It may not be necessary, therefore, to go on to show in detail the wealth of moral teaching and instruction contained in this section, profitable as this would be.

It may, however, still be asked, Are the particulars given in Luke altogether reconcileable with those named by the first two Evangelists? It has already been stated that this is not a question of vital importance, and by being led to consider it as such the believer is apt to be diverted from the profitable study of the Gospels. However, for the sake of any who find a difficulty here an attempt will be made to give the details recorded in the three Gospels in their strict chronological sequence.

The four fishermen had spent a long night of fruitless toil upon the Galilaean lake. In the morning Jesus came along the shore, where the boats were drawn up and men and women were at their work. He spake to them the word of God (Luke 5:1). So sweet was the heavenly message that they longed to hear more. It was so contrasted with that voice from Sinai which filled men with terrors, and they pressed upon Him in their eagerness to listen. Now the two fishing-boats were drawn up on the strand and were empty, their crews having left them to wash (Luke 5:2) the trawl-nets which had been used overnight in the deep waters, preparatory to another night’s quest. Simon and Andrew presumably had the smaller boat; Zebedee, the hired servants, as well as James and John, being apparently in the other. They had, therefore, finished the washing of their large nets, and with characteristic energy were now wading in the water near the shore, endeavoring with a hand or casting-net to supply something of the deficiency of the past night’s work. This Matthew (iv. 18) and Mark (i. 16) tell us. They would be within ear-shot of Jesus, and can we doubt that they would draw nearer to hear Him the better?

Jesus then selecting the smaller and more convenient boat for His purpose, bade Simon put it off from the shore. He finishes His discourse; then, knowing the natural anxiety of the breadwinners, He said, “Launch [in the singular, being addressed to Simon as captain of the boat] out into the deep, and let down [this is in the plural, showing that others were present in the boat] the trawl-nets for a draft.” Simon let down a single net, which was filled to bursting with fish. The partners in the other boat are beckoned to come to their assistance, and both boats are filled with the spoil. Simon, convicted of his own lack of confidence and of the Lord’s omniscient power and grace, falls before Him in (confession. The Lord assures him, saying, “Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men.” This, however, was not the call to follow Him.

The boats then came to land. Will not He who cared for the fragments of the multiplied loaves and fishes care that this harvest of the sea be duly garnered? This being done, He says to Simon and Andrew, “Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men” (Matt. and Mark). And going farther along the shore, the sons of Zebedee are seen in their boat mending the nets damaged by the great catch, and He calls them also.

It is by no means affirmed that the order of (events here indicated is absolutely accurate:) but it is affirmed that such an order is neither impossible nor inconceivable, and that it also shows that the statements of the three Evangelists are, as thus regarded, consistent with one another.

Returning now to Mark after this digression, we may observe how the Lord in this call, humble Servant of Jehovah as He was, asserts His sovereign claim. In a peremptory imperative He bade them, Come. The command awoke within them the divine instinct of obedience. This word of authority forever adjusted their mutual relationship as servants to the Master. Later on, in a critical moment, Simon Peter said, “Lord, if it be thou; hid me come to thee upon the waters.” He had learned the absolute rights of the Lord over Him from that memorable day when he forsook all to follow Him.

We may here see the distinction between the earlier lessons of “Andrew and Peter, and what they now learned. Andrew and Peter had found Him to be the Lamb of God, the Messiah of Israel (John 1:36-42). Their hearts burned within them as they listened to His discourses of love and goodness and truth. But now He had come down to them in the midst of their daily toil. He said to Simon, “Give me the use of your fishing-boat as a pulpit,” sitting in it with more majesty than Solomon upon his ivory throne; and then at a word filling it with leaping fish in payment of their scant service. Now He had come nearer still to them in the humdrum of their lives, and they heard Him say to them, Come after Me. The authority of the voice was irresistible, and they obeyed like the fish of the lake, which, hearing the call of their Creator, swarmed along the trackless paths of the deep to do Him homage where He sat in the old fishing-boat.

These fishermen recognized the voice of the King of Israel. They so thoroughly believed His gospel of the coming kingdom that they were ready to admit the absolute rights of the King over them. He of His own wisdom had sought them out, made the selection between them and others, and instructed them to follow Him, conscious of what in His own power He could make them. The anointed king may be obscured in the cave of Adullam; these men obey Him as implicitly as if He were wielding the scepter on the throne of Zion.

Their ready response, however, is the result of previous workings within them. John shows us how they learned His personal glories as Savior. A second lesson was to know Him as Lord. For this they were prepared, as we have seen, by the word He preached and the miracle He wrought. And consequently when His call was given they obeyed with promptness.

Such is the order usually adopted by the Spirit in the induction of a believer into the place of service. For the believer confesses Jesus who died for his sins and lives as his Lord. He is bought with a price to live no longer for self, but to Him who died and lives for him. There are necessarily but few called to a place of renunciation such as that taken by the apostles, but there are no concerns of any believer over which the Lord has not His unqualified rights. Do we all yield Him His own?

(Continued)

[w. J. H.]

Studies in Mark: the Hearing Ear and the Mystery of the Kingdom

20. the Hearing Far and the Mystery of the Kingdom

“And he said, Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parables. And he said unto them, Unto you is given the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all things are done in parables: that seeing they may see, and not perceive and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest haply they should turn again, and it should be forgiven them” (4:9-12, R.V.).

The Lord had by His miracles and signs fully established His title to be heard as the Prophet of Jehovah. But in the result He might adopt the language of Isaiah, and inquire, “Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?” For the nation was like “the deaf adder [asp] that stoppeth her ear, which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.” Jesus, as the anointed King and Redeemer, had called, but there was no response, save blasphemously to ascribe His works of mercy and might to the power of the evil one. The Servant of the Lord did not, however, in view of His repulse both in Juda and in Galilee, abandon Himself to despair like the despondent Elijah of old, and flee from the place of testimony to Horeb. If the nation at large refused to listen, He was mindful of the simple and faithful ones who were “looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.” And from this period onward He addressed His ministry not to the mass as such, but to the individuals who were desirous of divine instruction. “And he said, Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.” EARS TO HEAR. This phrase was used by our Lord more than once, and in each case His accompanying utterance contained a meaning which did not, so to speak, lie upon the surface, but needed faith and love in the heart, as well as the Spirit’s unction, for its true apprehension. In Matthew an abbreviated form of the words is found, “Who hath ears, let him hear.” And in that Gospel it is recorded in one other connection besides in that of the parables. The Lord was speaking to the multitudes concerning John the Baptist and his super-eminence as a prophet, being none other than the messenger of Jehovah and the forerunner of the Messiah, as Malachi had foretold. “And,” said He to His audience, “if ye will receive it, this is Elijah which is to come He that hath ears, let him hear” (Matt. 11:14, 15). Only faith discerned that the King had come in humiliation, and also that the predicted forerunner had preceded Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, not yet, however, to introduce the day of God’s vengeance, but the day of His salvation.

Those who had the ears of faith were called to hear this revelation concerning the extended scope of the prophecy of Malachi, and to know that Elijah was yet to come and restore all things, and also that he had come and that the nation “did unto him whatsoever they listed” (Matt. 17:11, 12).

Luke also records the phrase in one other association besides in that of the parables (Luke 8:8). The Lord was speaking to the great crowds that went after Him with reference to the stern and uncompromising self-denial and endurance which would be the lot of such as became His disciples. The follower of the humbled Messiah, He declared, must renounce all things. Yet His disciples were the salt of the earth, the sole preservative against the universal spread of the corrupting influences of evil. And the Lord concluded this saying by the words, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear” (Luke 14:25-35). For all had not faith, and only faith could understand the new teaching that the way of divine service was not yet in the exercise of power but in the endurance of suffering and shame.

In Mark this brief but striking call occurs in the seventh chapter as well as in this. There we learn of the Lord teaching, in contrast with the law of Moses which concerned itself with man’s overt acts, that man is defiled by the evil thoughts and motives which proceed from his heart. “He called to him the multitude again, and said unto them, Hear me all of you, and understand. There is nothing from without the man that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear” (Mark 7:14-16). The saying was weighty, and only the sons of faith, now as well as then, receive this truth by which men are condemned down to the very core of their being. There must be the “ear to hear”; in other words, the experience of Rom. 6 and 7 as well as of Rom. 3.

In this chapter the phrase occurs again (ver. 23), but it comes with special emphasis at the close of the parable of the sower. And this force appears the more striking when we connect it with the Lord’s call for attention at the beginning of the parable. “Hearken,” He said, and having portrayed Himself as the Sower, He added, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” It was a summons to the individual to free himself from the heedless mass. And as the Lord addressed this appeal to His earthly people, so was His cry reiterated to each of the seven churches in Asia; “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches” (Rev. 2 and 3). Amid general ecclesiastical declension, the Lord requires individual faithfulness in regarding His word and His warning.

WHO HEARS?

Who then were those who heard the Prophet of Jehovah? There need be no doubt regarding the correct answer to this question, since the Lord Himself gave it. Speaking to His disciples, He said, “Blessed are your eyes for they see; and your ears for they hear” (Matt. 13:16). They were His followers, for they had heard Him. As the sheep of the “little flock” they had heard the voice of the good Shepherd (John 10:3, 27). When He was instructing His disciples, He described them as those who heard. “I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you” (Luke 6:27). Again, the Lord said, “My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God and do it” (Luke 8:21). These had hungered and thirsted after the word of righteousness and were blessed indeed, for by the Prophet’s ministry they were filled.

It is instructive to observe that the Lord Himself took the place of subjection. As the Servant of Jehovah He had the opened ear in both His ministry and His suffering, waiting for directions upon Him who sent Him. This spirit of subjection and obedience was according to prophecy: “The Lord God hath given me the tongue of them that are taught, that I should know how to sustain with words him that is weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as they that are taught. The Lord GOD hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away backward. I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair” (Isa. 1:4-6, R.V.). His ear was open as the true Prophet to hear, and what He heard He communicated to men. Thus He said to His disciples, “All things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you” (John 15:15).

The believing followers of Jesus, then, were those that “heard,” and what they heard they declared, as the apostle John wrote (1 John 1:1). But the nation would not hear. It is true that Israel boasted in their great “Shema,” wherein the prophet Moses recalled them to the privilege and responsibility of the revelations under the law (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29). “Hear, O Israel,”

Moses exhorted, “the LORD our God is one LORD,” following this call with a summary of the ten words. But Israel was the “deaf servant” of Jehovah; and now God had raised up another Prophet, of whom it was written, “Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall speak unto you” (Deut. 18:15; Acts 3:22, 23; 7:37). And as Moses had solemnly adjured the people, “Hear, O Israel,” so now One greater than Moses cried, “Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.” What if they did not hear? For those who refused to hearken, that ancient prophecy contained a warning equally solemn. “It shall come to pass that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him” (Deut. 18:19).

THE PROPHET’S PRIVACY

The Lord Jesus, amid His multitudinous and multifarious services for Jehovah in the midst of His chosen people, preserved to Himself seasons of retirement from, or cessation from, public activities, wherein there was opportunity either for personal private communion with His Father (Matt. 14:23; Mark 1:35; Luke 9:18; John 6:15), or for intercourse with His friends and followers. On the latter occasions there were peculiarly sweet and choice communications confided by the Heavenly Teacher to His own intimate circle, chosen by Himself “out of the world.” After the execution of John the Baptist, and the return of the apostles from their mission journeys, Jesus said to them, “Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest a while; for there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat. And they went away in a boat to a desert place apart” (Mark 6:31, 32; Matt. 14:13; Luke 9:10). So also when the Lord saw fit to grant unto the favored trio a glimpse of His personal glory He led them up into the privacy of the mountain side. “Jesus taketh with him Peter and James and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart; and he was transfigured before them” (Matt. 17:1, 2; Mark 9:2). The Lord had matters for the eyes and ears of His own which were not for the populace. This accords with what on one occasion He said to His disciples, “privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see; for I say unto you, that many prophets and kings desired to see the things which ye see, and saw them not; and to hear the things which ye hear, and heard them not” (Luke 10:23, 24).

The apostles sometimes utilized moments of His privacy to lay before Him their difficulties. They came to Him “apart” to know why they were unable to cast the demon out of a young man (Matt. 17:19; Mark 9:28). And again, at the close of His ministry, when certain of them desired to know more concerning the destruction of the temple, and what would be the sign of His coming and the end of the age, they came to Him privately with their questions as He sat on the mount of Olives (Matt. 24:3; Mark 13:3). These were not exceptional instances, for they had been accustomed to such private tuition, as we read, “without a parable spake he not unto them [the multitude]; but privately to his own disciples he expounded all things” (Mark 4:34).

Here we find the disciples under similar circumstances seeking instruction in the significance of the parable of the sower and others. “When he was alone they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parables.” It is interesting to see that others besides the twelve apostles were desirous of being taught, and none of them were denied. And while this teaching may be regarded as exclusive, esoteric, and committed in this manner to these chosen witnesses in order that after the Lord’s ascension it might be promulgated throughout the world, the general truth is important that the ways of God are made known in the hush of the sanctuary rather than in the noise of the camp. The impending destruction of the cities of the plain was imparted, not to Lot in the bustling streets of Sodom, but, to Abraham in the quiet of a torrid noontide at his own tent door. David in the wilderness with his sheep, not Eliab in the camp of Saul, ]earned the mind of God about Goliath. So it was that not to the surging crowds by the Galilaean lake, but to the disciples who came to Him as He was alone in the house, the Prophet of Jehovah revealed the truth concerning the peculiar character of the coming kingdom.

[W. J. H.]

(To be continued)

Studies in Mark: the Hearing Ear and the Mystery of the Kingdom

The Mystery of the Kingdoms

It was not altogether a new thing for divine predictions to be conveyed to men in a form which concealed its import from the many and revealed it to the few. In the Old Testament we read of dreams, of visions, and, though not as frequently, of parables wherein God spoke to man. But we can only refer now to one or two of such instances in which He revealed matters affecting the government of the world. Take, for example, the dreams of Pharaoh. He who gives fruitful seasons, and in His providence fills the hearts of men with food and gladness, foretold events which were of the utmost importance in the administration of the great empire of Egypt. That seven years of phenomenal fruitfulness were at hand, and further that these were to be succeeded by a like period of absolute barrenness, were facts of incalculable value to the statesmen of that land. God who knew and gave these things was pleased to communicate them beforehand to the responsible governing head of Egypt. But the prediction came to Pharaoh in dreams, the significance of which he could not unravel. The heathen monarch and the wisest men of the land were alike constrained to confess their impotence, and compelled to solicit the aid of Joseph, the pious servant of the most high God. He came forth from the dungeon and interpreted Pharaoh’s dreams which to human wisdom were otherwise in soluble.

Again, when Israel was displaced and God had granted universal dominion to the Gentiles, we find Him communicating with Nebuchadnezzar, the first head, but in the form of a dream. This forgotten dream presented an outline-sketch of the four great world-kingdoms (Dan. 2), but, apart from Daniel the prophet, it was unintelligible to the mighty king. In the writing on the wall of Belshazzar’s banqueting hall we have another instance of a cryptic message, needing special interpretation; while the visions subsequently received by Daniel himself required to be explained to the prophet by an angel from heaven.

These examples are sufficient to illustrate the nature of what is called in Scripture a “mystery.” It may consist of a dream, a vision, a parable or a verbal prophecy, the essential feature being that the divine communication cannot be understood without a subsequent divine communication which explains the first. And it will be found that the Greek word, μυστήριον, mystery, first occurs in the chapter of Daniel to which reference has been made (Dan. 2). In the Septuagint version the term is applied repeatedly to the forgotten dream of Nebuchadnezzar and its interpretation. Daniel and his friends “sought mercies from the God of heaven concerning this mystery.” “Then the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision of the night.” Daniel said, “The mystery which the king asks the explanation of.” “There is a God in heaven revealing mysteries.” “He that reveals mysteries has made known to thee what must come to pass.” Nebuchadnezzar said, “Of a truth your God is a God of gods, and Lord of kings, who reveals mysteries; for thou past been able to reveal this mystery” (Dan. 2:18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 47; 4:6). It may be seen therefore that a mystery is a secret thing which would, remain such apart from divine revelation a matter to the knowledge and understanding of which initiation is necessary.

Now, as there was the mystery concerning the Gentile monarchies, so, the Lord said, there was a mystery concerning that kingdom which, according to Daniel (ii. 44) the God of heaven would establish, never to be destroyed. This mystery He set out in His teaching by parables, thereby concealing from the multitude for the time being the meaning which He afterward revealed to His apostles. For He said, “Unto you is given [to know] the mystery of the kingdom of God; but unto them that are without, all things are done in parables; that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear and not understand.” He thus added a solemn warning to the people. Upon the nation at large the sentence of judicial blindness would fall, as Isaiah had prophesied (Isa. 6:9, 10). For the Light of the world was among them, yet they refused to see light in His light; hence darkness would come among and upon them, and even as He was speaking, the truth as to God’s provision in view of their rebellion was veiled from their eyes in parables.

Just what was signified by the mystery of the kingdom will appear in the interpretation of the parables that the Lord Himself gave. The altered character of the kingdom consequent upon the rejection of the Anointed One and the absence of the King is delineated most fully and categorically in the series of parables recorded in Matt. 13. Here we only emphasize the essential element of mystery in the Scriptural sense, viz., not that which in itself is difficult of understanding, but rather that which in both its communication and its reception is dependent upon divine revelation, and, as must necessarily follow, that which is only made known to a selected few who are fitted to receive it.

The New Testament, associated as it is with the advent both of the Son and the Spirit, contains the revelation of many mysteries. Many matters kept secret from the foundation of the world, many truths concealed in Old Testament prophecies are therein brought to light and made known. We read of the mystery of God, of Christ, of God’s will, of godliness, of faith, of the gospel, of iniquity, of the seven stars, of the scarlet woman, Babylon the Great. The secret rapture of the church is called a mystery (1 Cor. 15:51), and so its union with Christ the Head (Eph. 5:32). The setting aside of Israel and the admission of the Gentiles to equal privileges in the gospel is a mystery (Rom. 11:25). Eye had not seen, nor ear heard these things in the ancient oracles. They are now freely given us by God’s Spirit.

THOSE WITHOUT

Those not following Jesus are described as “them that are without,” and no explanation of the parables is offered to them. The term is one peculiar to Mark, not occurring in Matthew or Luke. It is used similarly, however, in the Epistles, where it refers to those outside the assembly of believers. Thus Paul writes, “What have I to do with judging them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within, whereas them that are without God judgeth?” (1 Cor. 5:12, 13). He exhorts the Colossian saints to “walk in wisdom toward them that are without” (Col. 4:5), and also the Thessalonians to “walk honestly toward them that are without” (1 Thess. 4:12). One instance of its adverbial use is so striking and solemn that it may be quoted here: “Blessed are they that wash their robes that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city. Without are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie” (Rev. 22:14, 15). This instance is one of its final and irrevocable sense, no passage being possible from one side of the fixed gulf to the other.

THE JUDICIAL BLINDNESS

Isaiah centuries before had prophesied of the obduracy of the nation and the spiritual darkness that should fall upon it as a people in consequence. The prophet recorded the words of Jehovah to him. He was commanded to “go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.” Such was their condition—in the position, and having the privilege, of hearing and seeing, but utterly oblivious to heavenly sights and sounds. The message went on to warn of what would come upon the nation as a righteous retribution of this gross abuse of their privileges. “Make the heart of this people fat and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn again, and be healed” (Isa. 6:9, 10).

In the Septuagint version of Isaiah, this insensate condition is declared to be the result of the people’s own neglect rather than of a divine infliction, as in the Hebrew text. The Greek version runs as follows: “Go, and say to this people, Ye shall hear indeed, but ye shall not understand; and ye shall see indeed, but ye shall not perceive. For the heart of this people has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.”

Now, in turning to Matthew’s Gospel it will be seen that the Lord, speaking of the complete fulfillment(ἀναπληρόω) of this prophecy, quoted from the Greek version and not from the Hebrew text (Matt. 13:13-15). The people had themselves closed their eyes. Mark and Luke (8:10) only record the reference to the former part of the prophecy which states the condition of Israel—hearing and not understanding; while all three agree in showing that the Lord adopted the parabolic form of teaching in view of their insensate moral state.

John also quotes Isaiah’s prediction, but in a different connection. It is cited at a later stage in the history of Israel’s opposition to their Messiah. Though Jesus did so many signs before them yet they believed not. And since they would not believe, it came to pass that they could not believe. And the Evangelist brings forward the ancient oracle which warned of this blindness which came as a divine judgment upon the nation. “For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said, He hath blinded their eyes and he hardened their heart, lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, and should turn, and I should heal them” (John 12:37-40). This quotation, it will be observed, is from the Hebrew text, and is introduced historically immediately before the final act of unbelief—the crucifixion of Christ. The truth was there hidden from their eyes, even the eyes of the wise and prudent (Matt. 11:25; Luke 19:42).

Through sovereign grace the gospel was offered to the guilty people by the testimony of the Holy Ghost, as is recorded in the Acts. But there was no response from the nation. In the concluding chapter of this book we have the final appeal of Paul at Rome to the Jews as such; but they closed their eyes and ears to this call also. And the apostle applied to them the witness of the Holy Spirit in the same scripture from Isaiah, quoting as in Matthew the Septuagint version, and laying the responsibility upon their own shoulders (Acts 28:25-27). The nation was thereupon abandoned. So far as Holy Writ speaks, no further opportunities of repentance were offered them. And less than ten years later, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, and the Jews scattered over the face of the earth.

By the testimony of the Son of God, and of the Spirit of God, Israel had been summoned to hear the message of God. They refused to hear, and the apostle told them in his final address what was the consequence: “Be it known, therefore, unto you, that this salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles; they will also hear” (Acts 28:28). It was sent to such as would hear.

Thus we see that the prophecy is quoted in the Synoptical Gospels and in the Acts to show that the blindness of Israel was due to their own willful obstinacy, and in the Gospel of John to show that it was the result of the judgment of God. Both aspects are of course true and necessary to a complete presentation of the truth.

W. J. H.

(To be continued)

Studies in Mark: the Leper Touched and Cleansed

9.-The Leper Touched and Cleansed

“And there cometh to him a leper, beseeching him, [and kneeling down to him], and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And being moved with compassion, he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou made clean. And straightway the leprosy departed from him, and he was made clean. And he strictly charged him, and straightway sent him out; and saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man; but go thy way, show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing the things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to spread abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into a city, but was without in desert places; and they came to him from every quarter“ (i. 40-45, R.V.).

We now approach what may be regarded as a new section in the general scheme of Mark’s Gospel. And in this section the incident of the healed paralytic which immediately follows, is coupled with that of the cleansed leper. The change in subject here will be the more readily seen after a brief review of the preceding portions of this first chapter. It has been observed (1) how this Gospel opens by stating circumstantially the credentials of Jesus Christ, the Servant of Jehovah (vers. 1-13); going on to record (2) His public announcement of the good news that God’s kingdom was at hand (vers. 14, 15); (3) His association of others with Him in His ministry (vers. 16-21); (4) His zealous and active beneficence in Capernaum, and indeed throughout Galilee, among those possessed of evil spirits, and those diseased in body (vers. 22-39). And the last-named account of this service of the Lord on the Sabbath and the first of the week is stated in such terms that it forms a tableau of the coming millennial day with its deliverance from temporal ills, which is connected in the prophecies with the personal presence of Jehovah’s Servant, and which will be preceded by the casting of Satan into the abyss where he will be bound for a thousand years (Rev. 20).

Now the Evangelist passes on to illustrate how the Lord was present to relieve a deeper and more serious human need than any yet mentioned. His Galilaean ministry was in the preceding narrative shown to comprise the healing of the sick and the deliverance of those oppressed by the devil. But besides this the nation was legally and morally defiled, and moreover sin had wrought such inherent weakness in the people that, unable to come of themselves, they needed to be brought to the feet of the divine Healer. Two typical cases—the leper and paralytic—are therefore selected for the exemplification of the perfect suitability of the Servant of the Lord to remedy the existing state of physical and spiritual evil among men, the physical being used as a type of the spiritual according to the frequent custom in the Gospels, and in this way illustrating by concrete example the word of the kingdom which Jesus preached.

Before proceeding to consider the solemn significance of the former of these two incidents, it may be well to note that in the third gospel also, the same combination occurs. The healing of the leper and then of the palsied man are there given previous to the account of the call of Levi (Luke 5:12-26). In Matthew, however, the historical order, which is evidently that found in Mark and Luke, is not followed, but the events are set in that connection which most vividly portrays the Kingship of Jesus. There the healing of the leper is placed after that manifesto of the new order of things in the coming kingdom, commonly known as the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 8:1-4), although in point of time the miracle was wrought previously, as Luke shows. And this miracle is followed in Matthew by the healing of the centurion’s servant, and of Peter’s wife’s mother, the stilling of the tempest and the casting out of the demons which then entered the herd of swine. All these events are named before the cure of the palsied man (Matt. 9:1-8), and are followed by the call of the tax-gatherer.

Without now considering the significance of this chronological displacement of details, it is sufficient to note that Matthew gives a fuller and more varied array of witnesses to the character of Messiah’s coming kingdom than was needful in Mark. Here we have only two witnesses cited, whose joint testimony, however, is as valid as that of a more numerous company.

THE CURE OF THE LEPER

The Evangelist describes the cure of the leper in graphic terms, as is characteristic of him. We are called to behold the afflicted outcast coming to Jesus, not standing “afar off” like the leprous ten (Luke 17:12), but in his eagerness approaching Him of whose great power in the kingdom of pain he had heard. With mute entreaties the poor sufferer, “full of leprosy,” as Luke tells us he was, beseeches the Master to exercise His pity and His power. In the intensity of his emotion he threw himself upon his knees before the Lord in that attitude which is so significant at once of reverence and dependence. Then the kneeling suppliant framed his petition in the brief words which are recorded without variation by the Synoptists, save that Matthew and Luke add the term of address, “Lord.” He does not say, as the fervor of his actions might lead us to expect he would have said, “Have mercy on me,” or, “Heal me; cleanse me”; but he expresses his conviction that in the person of Jesus of Nazareth there is a resident power adequate to meet even such a desperate case as this “if thou wilt, thou canst cleanse me.”

The leper’s prayer has been criticized, it being alleged that it lacks faith because there is no expressed appeal to the love and mercy of the Lord. We desire, in passing, to record an emphatic protest against human criticism of the leper’s prayer or of the prayers of any. Prayer is the transmission of the inner cravings of the spiritual nature of man (whether articulate or not) to his God. Who shall intermeddle in this? Who has a right to censure what is meant for the divine ear? If I am an auditor, I may, if needs he, abstain from adding my “Amen” to the petition. This is permitted me, but further I dare not go. Am I competent to examine the naked heart of him who prays, and to unravel his secret motives? The Lord does this still, as He did of old when He openly condemned the prayer of the hypocritical Pharisee for its insincerity.

But the Lord does not condemn this defiled pleader. On the contrary, the appeal instantly calls forth the exercise of those potentialities of the healing mercy abounding in Him, though there was more than the mere act of miraculous power. He was moved with compassion; His whole nature, rising above all that was loathsome and repellent, physically and ceremonially, in the leper, was stirred with intense sympathy for the sufferer. Here we see the tender mercy of God (Luke 1:78) exhibited in Jesus, That we may be encouraged to seek and find true consolation in His compassions towards us, which fail not.

As king Ahasuerus extended the golden scepter of mercy to his beautiful queen Esther, so the Lord stretched out the hand of mercy and touched the unlovely leper, contracting no defilement as another would have done (Lev. 13:46; Num. 5:2). Then He sent forth His word and healed him: “I will, be thou made clean.”

WHAT DOES LEPROSY ILLUSTRATE?

Leprosy was a common disease in Israel, and was brought with them, it has been said, from the bondage of Egypt. Apart from its seriousness as a disease of the body, the law of Moses imposed upon it additional seriousness by the ceremonies of that economy. Other infirmities and diseases receive brief mention only, but the instructions having reference to leprosy occupy a considerable section in the priests’ guide book (Lev. 13; 14).

The priest, acting as the representative of Jehovah in the midst of His people, examined the symptoms of a suspected case, and decided accordingly whether the patient was a leper or not; and if so, condemned him to dwell alone in the place of uncleanness without the camp. The priest only was empowered to decide whether the plague of leprosy was healed in a given case, while a series of ceremonies was prescribed before the healed man could be again acknowledged as one of the congregation of worshippers of Jehovah.

It is easy to gather from this exceptional prominence assigned to it that leprosy is figurative of sin, and especially of sin in that aspect of it which causes the sinner to be excluded from the presence of God and from the privileges of relationship with Him. This intimate connection between the moral and physical in this disease is illustrated by the case of Uzziah, king of Judah, who in a spirit of profane bravado usurped the priest’s office and went into the temple of Jehovah to burn incense on the golden altar. He was opposed by the priests in his sacrilegious act, and he was smitten of God with leprosy to mark his uncleanness of heart and unfitness for the divine presence. “Then Uzziah was wroth; and he had a censer in his hand to burn incense; and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy broke forth in his forehead before the priests in the house of Jehovah beside the altar of incense. And Azariah the chief priest, and all the priests, looked upon him, and, behold, he was leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out quickly from thence; yea, himself hasted also to go out, because Jehovah had smitten him. And Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a separate house, being a leper; for he was cut off from the house of Jehovah” (2 Chron. 26:16-21). At his death he was buried in a field adjoining the burial-place of kings. The uncleanness of the king’s heart was indicated by the leprous signs which arose in his body and demonstrated the justice of his exclusion from priestly ministrations, though he was the anointed king of Israel. His very effort to force himself into the presence of the All-pure brought to view his latent uncleanness.

Leprosy then is emblematical of man’s natural defilement, individually and nationally. And by the cleansing of the Galilaean leper the Servant of Jehovah showed that He had come to purify the sinner from his sins, as He would Israel also, if the nation would take up the language of penitence, and say, “We are all become as one that is unclean, and all our righteousnesses are as a polluted garment” (Isa. 64:6, R.V.). Then would Jehovah’s prophetic promise to His people be fulfilled, “I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned; and whereby they have transgressed against me” (Jer. 33:8). This will be fulfilled in a day to come, but if Israel had known, even then a fountain was opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness (Zech. 13:1).

LEGAL CEREMONY TO BE OBSERVED

It was the function of a priest to pronounce a leprous man unclean, and it was also his function to pronounce a man clean when he was cured. The law was inoperative to heal, and only took cognizance of the fact of a man being healed or not. The work of ceremonial restoration only commenced when the cure of the plague had been effected by other means. This is expressly stipulated in the book of Leviticus “And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: he shall be brought unto the priest, and the priest shall go forth out of the camp, and the priest shall look, and behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper” (Lev. 14:1-3).

Clearly, the legal provision only contemplated one in whom divine mercy and power had wrought a cure. The leper whom Jesus cleansed was such a one. And the Lord bade him to observe the rites of the law in this respect. He was to show himself to the priest “for a testimony,” that the genuine nature of this unusual case of recovery might be attested by the recognized authority in such matters. The priest who declared him unclean was the person most qualified to decide whether he was now really clean or not. To him was he therefore sent by the Lord, who never set aside the law.

But there was more involved in this than the release of the cleansed leper from his sanitary and religious restrictions. The man was a living witness to the fact that God who of old cleansed a hated Syrian had now cleansed a despised Galilean, and this He had done by His Servant, greater than Elisha, but equally ignored by the ruling power. The appointed sacrifices and offerings were to be made, so that Jehovah’s name might be glorified in the obedience thus rendered to His word by the leper in a day of its neglect and dishonor. For this Servant sought not His own glory, but His who sent Him, being obedient Himself, and impressing on others obedience to constitutional authority.

THE SILENCE ENJOINED

There has been much conjecture as to the reasons for the silence imposed upon the man by Jesus: “See thou say nothing to any man.” But from the narrative it will be seen that the leper’s mission to the priests was made to appear by the Lord to be one demanding immediate execution. After the healing Jesus at once sent him off, strictly charging him to say nothing to any one, but to show himself to the priest, who would then have before him indubitable evidence of the reality of this cure. This injunction the man disregarded, and as soon as he left the Lord began to spread the news in the immediate locality, so that Jesus could no longer go into town, but remained in desert places where persons visited Him.

“See thou say nothing to any man” may be compared with the Lord’s direction to the seventy, “Salute no man on the way” (Luke 10:4). In matters of urgency it was necessary to avoid these tedious and elaborate salutations. Elisha gave similar instructions to Gehazi (2 Kings 4:29). The verb (ἐχβάλλω) used of the Lord’s sending him on the errand, while literally meaning “to drive forth,” certainly implies urgency and speed. The man was directed to discharge his obligations to the Levitical priesthood before abandoning himself to the selfish joy of announcing his cure to his excitable friends and neighbors. Divine claims were paramount.

But the healed leper disregarded both the word of His Healer and the express commandments of the law. And there have been those who have sought to justify the act of disobedience, as if grace such as the leper had received absolved the recipient from the responsibility of obedience. On the contrary, “to obey is better than sacrifice,” and He, who told the delivered Gergesene to go home and tell his friends what the Lord had done (Mark 5:19), had wise reasons for what He said to the leper. Silence is a grace equally with speech when in accordance with the will of the Lord.

[W. J. H.]

Studies in Mark: the Seed and the Soil

19. The Sower, the Seed, and the Soils

“And again he began to teach by the seaside. And there is gathered unto him a very great multitude, so that he entered into a boat, and sat in the sea; and all the multitude were by the sea on the land. And he taught them many things in parables, and said unto them in his teaching, Hearken: Behold, the sower went forth to sow: and it came to pass, as he sowed, some seed fell by the way side, and the birds came and devoured it. And other fell on the rocky ground, where it had not much earth; and straightway it sprang up, because it had no deepness of earth: and when the sun was risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. And other fell among the thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. And others fell into the good ground, and yielded fruit, growing up and increasing; and brought forth, thirty-fold, and sixtyfold, and a hundredfold. And he said, Who hath ears to hear, let him hear” (9:1-9, R.V.).

In the fourth chapter a marked change is indicated in the ministry of the Servant of Jehovah. And it will be seen that a modification in His teaching was made at this juncture by the Lord both as to what He taught and as to the manner in which He communicated His message. At the first Jesus announced with authority that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, the appointed time being fulfilled, and all classes were invited to repent and believe these good tidings. But now the Lord commenced to teach that there would be only a partial acceptance of the gospel, and much hostility would be aroused by it, so that the external form of the kingdom would be changed in consequence. This change the Lord placed before His audience in a series of parables, a method of teaching in strong contrast with the plain statements of the Sermon on the Mount, spoken previously, as we learn from Matthew’s Gospel.

Why was this change made? This question may be answered to some extent from the history of the Lord’s ministry up to this point, as it is presented by Mark. Brief and compressed as his narrative is, we are therein shown that the responsible leaders of the people made a studied and determined resistance to the prophetic testimony of the Servant of Jehovah, regardless of the holy and benignant nature of His words and works. Thus, the scribes inwardly condemned Him as a blasphemer because He absolved a man’s sins (2:6). They also with the Pharisees discredit Him because He ate bread with publicans and sinners (2:16). They further accused Him of countenancing a desecration of the Sabbath, because His disciples plucked corn on that day (2:24). The Pharisees and Herodians conspired to take His life (3:6). His relations declared that He was demented (3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem ascribed His power over demons to Satan (3:22). This last charge the Lord said was evidence of a spirit of animosity of such a nature that it could not be forgiven, and would cause the nation to be set aside. So that in these two chapters (2 and 3) there is delineated a complete outline of that implacable hatred to our Lord by the chosen nation which culminated in His death. The hour was not come for His crucifixion, but the spirit that ultimately condemned Him to be crucified was before His eyes. He was thus a rejected Messiah already, so far as the nation as a whole was concerned. He came to the vineyard seeking fruit, and there was none. But if He could not gather fruit for the Father who sent Him, He would sow seed so that a remnant in Israel might bear fruit for the Husbandman. Accordingly, He virtually abandoned the nation at large, and offered His word to any who had ears to hear it.

TEACHING IN PARABLES

Coincident with this recognition by the Lord of a faithful remnant in Israel who would do God’s will in contrast with the rebellious nation as a whole, we find that the Teacher and Prophet of Jehovah adopted a new style of address, presenting the doctrine of the kingdom in the form of parables or similitudes. In the parabolic form the truth was presented in a manner easy of retention by those who heard it. Who does not recollect with ease the simple yet striking parables of the Gospels? Their meaning is not so apparent, however, and, in point of fact, was only to be apprehended in so far as an explanation or interpretation was given by the Teacher Himself to those in a moral and spiritual condition to receive it. The parables were spoken publicly to the multitude, and their meaning unfolded privately to the disciples only.

In Matthew’s Gospel there is an ample record of the Lord’s statement upon this very point, in which he shows the distinction between the mass of the people and the believing remnant, and that this distinction was foretold by the prophet Isaiah. “And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance, but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is being fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive; for this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears for they hear. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them (Matt. 13:10-17).

By these words the Lord placed it beyond question that parables were used by Him for the: delivery, of truths concerning the kingdom in a form which could only be understood upon His own exposition of them to those who received Him by faith. Quaint Thomas Fuller compared the parables to the divine appearance at the Red Sea which was at once light to the Israelites but darkness to the Egyptians.

The quotation from Isaiah shows that the adoption of this form of teaching was in view of the judgment imminent upon the nation. In the prophet’s day Israel was about to be subjugated to the power of the Gentiles and brought into captivity to heathen kings. In the Lord’s day a severer judgment was at hand because the nation rejected and crucified its Messiah. Jerusalem would be trodden under foot of the Gentiles, the nationality of the people destroyed, and a gospel universal in its scope proclaimed. This national judgment, with its far-reaching consequences, was of course foreknown of the Lord, and He communicated the same to His disciples for their instruction before it came to pass, but not to the multitude at large save in parables only, because He was still presenting Himself to the daughter of Zion in both Galilee and Judea as the promised King. Until the Jews had finally rejected their King and delivered Him to the Romans for crucifixion, the Lord continued to offer Himself to them, although the hardened and hardening spirit that refused Him was ever before His gaze. His ministry in parables of the impending change in no wise interfered with their responsibility to receive Him, seeing they did not understand. Therefore “all these things spake Jesus unto the multitudes in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them” (Matt. 13:34), but when they were alone He expounded all things to His disciples (Mark 4:34).

Studies in Mark: the Servant of Jehovah the Lord of the Sabbath

13. -The Servant of Jehovah, The Lord of the Sabbath (2:23-28 continued)

Second-First Sabbath

The parallel account in the Gospel of Luke of the Lord’s walk with His disciples through the cornfields contains a chronological note which does not occur in either Matthew or Mark. There we read, “Now it came to pass on the second-first sabbath that he was going through the cornfields” (Luke 6:1). The occasion is in this sentence specified by the use of a very unusual term, “the second-first sabbath.”

The word (for in the Greek it is but a single word) is so infrequent and so difficult of exact definition, that in many ancient MSS. it is unwarrantably omitted. For this insufficient reason the Revisers have also omitted the word, briefly indicating this omission by a note in the margin that “Many ancient authorities insert second-first.” “Now the witnesses which omit the word are few, though high, and the difficulty of understanding a word nowhere else occurrent, and in itself hard to explain without an exact knowledge of Jewish scripture and usage, accounts readily for the tampering hand of copyists prone to cut knots instead of untying them.... Nobody would or could create a needless difficulty by inserting this [word in sixteen uncial MSS.]; but we can easily account for a few omitting what was hard in their eyes, as it is to most readers still.”

What then is to be understood by this difficult epithet, “second-first”? There have been many explanations, mostly far-fetched, the discussion of which is beyond the purpose and scope of the present article. That interpretation is prima facie most to be commended which is founded on the scripture itself.

Now there is an express injunction in the law of Moses forbidding the Israelites at harvest-time to partake of the fresh corn until the ceremony of the wave-sheaf was passed. This occurs amongst the very particular and explicit regulations regarding the feasts of Jehovah (Lev. 23:9-14). The children of Israel were enjoined to bring a sheaf of the first-fruits of their harvest to the priest that he might wave it before Jehovah. This was to be done during the feast of unleavened bread, or of the passover, as it was also called, “on the morrow after the sabbath.” This sabbath occurring after the slaying of the paschal lamb was considered of especial sanctity, and was regarded by the Jews as a great or high day (John 19:31). It was emphatically the first sabbath, not necessarily in point of time, but in point of importance. The following day, the wave-sheaf was offered to Jehovah, and the succeeding sabbath would be the “second-first.”

On the great sabbath no godly Jew would have partaken of ears of corn, because of the legal prohibition which stated, “Ye shall eat neither bread nor parched corn, nor fresh ears, until this selfsame day, until ye have brought the oblation of your God: it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings” (Lev. 23:14). On the second-first sabbath the wave-sheaf would have been offered, and the injunction just quoted would therefore not be applicable to the action of the disciples, they being ceremonially free to partake of the newly-ripened corn.

SABBATH MADE FOR MAN

The Evangelist proceeds to show that the Lord justified His followers on another ground—by the enunciation of a weighty truth concerning the sabbath which the Pharisees had nullified by their tradition. The distinction of this utterance from the Lord’s historical allusion to the Old Testament is marked in the narrative by the phrase, “And he said unto them.” For He proceeded to introduce to them a new phase of the subject, illuminating it by the truth of God, as it could emanate from Himself only. In their ignorant zeal, under a thin veneer of piety, they had made the sabbath a yoke of bondage grievous to be borne. The Lord pronounced authoritatively, “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.” The object of the institution of the septenary season of rest was not the punishment of man, but his blessing.

Was not this so at the beginning? When the works of creation were complete and the earth was in a glorious state of perfection and beauty fresh from the hands of its Maker, “on the seventh day God finished his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made” (Gen. 2:2, 3). In that rest our first parents were to participate, but sin entered into the world, and thorns and thistles, and wearisome labor and death. Still, as to original divine purpose, the sabbath was made for man who appeared on the sixth day. And if the people of Israel were to do no manner of work on the sabbath, a merciful and gracious Jehovah provided a double portion of manna on the sixth day. And when the sanctity of the seventh day was enforced by the attendant terrors of Sinai, this was due to the choice of the proud and self-confident people themselves, who placed themselves under the law and its restrictions (Ex. 19:8). The vexatious deprivations associated with the sabbath were therefore derived from man and not from God. In its original nature it was not mere prohibition, but positive blessing.

The Lord declared that the sabbath was made not for Israel only, but for man. It was true that the sabbath was a special sign that Israel was the nation of Jehovah; but it was also true that it existed before Israel’s day, though the responsibility for the observance of the sanctity of the seventh day was placed upon them. Thus Jehovah said to them through Ezekiel, “Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths to be a sign between me and them” (Ezek. 20:12). And the Levites in their worship said, “And [thou] madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them commandments and statutes and a law, by the hand of Moses thy servant” (Neh. 9:14). At Sinai therefore Israel received what had existed as the sabbath of Jehovah from the beginning and what in its original scope embraced all mankind.

“Pharisees might turn the sabbath into an engine for torturing man, but in God’s mind the sabbath came in most mercifully. There were the days of labor which God Himself had known something of in figure, for there was a time when He had wrought and made the earth; and God Himself was pleased to rest on the sabbath, and to sanctify it. Then sin came in, and God could no longer own it, and His word is silent. We read of the sabbath no more until God takes up His people in delivering mercy, and gives them manna from heaven. Then the sabbath day becomes a marked thing, and rest follows, the type of Jesus sent down from above. It disappears from the beginning of the first book of scripture, and reappears in the second. God makes rest once more. He was giving to man in grace when He brought Israel out of Egypt. Of this the sabbath was the appropriate sign.” Law came in by-the-bye, imposing its observance with penalties for disobedience, but from the beginning it was not so.

THE LORD OF THE SABBATH

“The Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.” In these words, to the confusion of the unbelieving Pharisees, the Servant of Jehovah asserted His claim to an absolute authority over the sabbath. In virtue of His own rights He was competent to decide what might or what might not be done on the sabbath, for He was Lord of the sabbath.

This was an important revelation of the dignity of His person, and we find the saying recorded in each of the Synoptic Gospels in connection with the incident before us. But here it is especially instructive to observe that the Servant of Jehovah, so perfect in His dependence, so untiring in His energy, so exquisite in His sympathy, and so tender in His compassion, quietly and unostentatiously, using the simplest form of speech, claimed an unqualified authority which no man ever possessed previously. For, let it be remembered, this Lordship implied more than the Adamic supremacy over the lower creation. This was Lordship over a divine institution which Adam never had. The Son of man, who had power on earth to forgive sins, had power on earth to regulate the sabbath also, for, even as Peter said to Cornelius, “He is Lord of all.”

The ideal sabbath is yet to come. So the apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews, after showing that the rest of God did not come about in Old Testament times, declares, “There remaineth therefore a sabbath-rest for the people of God” (Heb. 4:9). Of this sabbatism the Son of man is Lord, as He is the true Joshua to lead His own into that rest, and to maintain them in it. At that day both the heavens and the earth will participate in the sabbath of Jehovah, whose glory shall fill the whole earth throughout the millennial day. This period to which the prophets witness will be the true sabbath when the second Adam, the Son of man, will rule, and both the heavenly and the earthly departments of His kingdom will enjoy this rest.

SON OF MAN

The Lord advanced this claim of Lordship of the sabbath not as the Son of David, nor as the Seed of Abraham, nor as Immanuel, but as the Son of man. “The Son of man is Lord of the sabbath also.”

This title of Christ is remarkable for more reasons than one. In the New Testament it is found almost exclusively in the Gospels. The exceptions are two passages where the Lord is seen in vision and thus named as the future Judge of men (Rev. 1:13; 14:14) in accordance with other scriptures (Dan. 7:13; John 5:27); and a quotation from the Psalms which is used in Hebrews, “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?” (Heb. 2:6; Psa. 8:4). Stephen, when arraigned before the Jewish council, also uses it (Acts 7:56). In the Gospels it does not occur in the narrative itself, nor in any utterances made by others either to the Lord or about Him, but is strictly confined to His own sayings. And it is by far the most frequent term applied by the Lord to Himself. Thus in Mark’s Gospel “Son” is recorded once (13:32); “Lord” twice (5:19; 11:3); “Christ” once (9:41); “Master” (teacher) once (14:14); “Lord of the sabbath” once (2:28); “King of the Jews” once (15:2); “Sower” twice (4:3, 14); “Master (lord) of the house” once (13:35); “Bridegroom” three times (2:19, 20). But “Son of man” occurs fifteen times, which is more than all the others added together. A similar proportion is found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, while in John “Son” used alone is more prevalent than “Son of man.”

We may now inquire what is the significance of this title assumed by the Lord. This can only be learned by a careful study of the passages in which the title occurs. And with the intention of providing assistance in such a study the various references in the Synoptic Gospels are collated under headings which indicate their general tenor and form a basis for further research by such readers as are so disposed.

The Lord refers to Himself as the Son of man when

1. Foretelling His betrayal, sufferings and death—Matt. 17:12, 22; 20:18, 28; 26:2, 24, 45; Mark 8:31; 9:12, 31; 10:33, 45; 14:21, 41; Luke 9:22, 44; 18:31; 22:22, 48; 24:7.

2. Foretelling His coming glory and kingdom —Matt. 10:23; 13:41; 16:27, 28; 28 xxiv. 27, 30, 37, 39, 44; xxv.

31; xxvi. 64; Mark 8:38; 13:26; 14:62; Luke 9:26; 12:40; 17:22, 24, 26, 30; 18:8; 21:27.

3. Foretelling His resurrection—Matt. 12:40; 17:9; Mark 9:9; Luke 11:30.

4. Foretelling His session on high—Luke 22:69.

5. Declaring Himself the homeless One—Matt. 8:20; Luke 9:58.

6. Declaring Himself the Forgiver of sins—Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24.

7. Declaring Himself Lord of the sabbath—Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5.

8. Declaring Himself the Savior—[Matt. 11]—Luke 9:56; 19:10.

9. Declaring Himself the Sower—Matt. 13:37.

10. Referring to men’s opinion of Him—Matt. 11:19; 12:32; 16:13; Luke 7:34; 12:10.

11. Referring to the confession of His name—Luke 6:22; 12:8.

In the Gospel by John it is recorded that the Lord used the term when speaking of—

1. His death—3:14; 8:28; 12:34.

2. His glorification—i. 51; 12:23; 13:31.

3. His ascension—6:62.

4. His authority to judge—5:27.

5. His personal glory—3:13.

6. Himself as an object of faith—6:27, 53; [9:35].

A consideration of the whole of these references is at this time impracticable; but a cursory glance is sufficient to instruct us that this title is one taken by the Lord in view of the fact that the kingdom of God which He proclaimed was not accepted by the people of Israel. On the contrary, He Himself was met with personal hatred, and in view of the culmination of this hatred in His crucifixion under a coalition of Jews and Gentiles, He adopted the designation of Son of man—a title of wider limits than Son of David. Thus, when Peter, speaking for the other apostles, confessed Him as the Christ, the Lord “charged them that they should tell no man of him. And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he spake the saying openly” (Mark 8:27-32). And as may be seen from the above classification, a great proportion of the passages in the Gospels containing this term allude to His approaching death. The greater part of the remainder refer to His resurrection, ascension, glorification, and to the future manifestation of His kingdom in judgment and glory, which. will be not only national but universal in its scope. But all the passages coincide to point out this title, though of wider significance than “Messiah,” as that assumed by the Lord in consequence of His rejection by the chosen nation to which He expressly came.

The use of this phrase in the Old Testament corroborates this interpretation of its significance. Passing over the general prophetic sense of the term in Job 25:6; Psa. 8:4; 80:17; Dan. 7:13; it is applied by Jehovah to two of His prophets, viz., Daniel and Ezekiel (Dan. 8:17; Ezek. 2:1, etc.). Now both of these men were raised up as witnesses during the period when the nation, on account of its apostasy from the worship of Jehovah, was under a foreign yoke. Sovereignty was transferred from Israel to the Gentiles, and it is remarkable that these two contemporary servants of God who prophesied outside the land of Israel during the captivity are the only ones who are so designated. So that the Lord, in describing Himself as the Son of man, adopted a title hitherto borne only by prophets in exile. It was even then a title of reproach, inasmuch as it indicated that the nation of Israel, like Esau, renounced the privileges of its birthright. But what was the departure in the day of Daniel and Ezekiel to the departure in the day of the Gospel? Was it not an incomparable privilege that the Messiah should offer Himself to the Jews, insignificant as they were nationally at that period, and enslaved moreover to the Romans? But the people deliberately refused Him, whereupon the Lord instructed His followers to proclaim Him no longer in that character (Matt. 16:13-28; Mark 8:30; Luke 9:21), but to know Him as the Son of man who was to pass through the depths of suffering to the heights of glory in the kingdom beyond. This was a difficulty to His disciples then even as it is still; only faith can adequately sustain him who seeks to walk in the pathway of the despised and suffering Son of man.

The Second Man, the Lord from heaven, was in a world different in nature from that in which the First man, Adam, was placed. He was in a world into which sin had entered, and in which it “reigned unto death.” And in this world, when it demonstrated its implacable hostility to all that is divine by refusing to receive Him or to recognize Him, He took the title of Son of man. This title implied that the Servant of Jehovah was in the world outside Eden, the same world into which Cain and Abel, Seth and Enosh were born, begotten in the likeness and image of fallen Adam. But Jesus was “without sin,” Son of man truly, but not son of a man. He was “born of a woman,” but the “Holy Thing” born was the Son of God.

“He was to be the Son of man—a title the Lord Jesus loves to give Himself—a title of great importance to us. It appears to me that the Son of man is, according to the word, the Heir of all that the counsels of God destined for man as his portion in glory, all that God would bestow on man according to those counsels (see Dan. 7:13, 14; Psa. 8:4-6; 80:17; Prov. 8:30, 31). But in order to be the Heir of all that God destined for man, He must be a man. The Son of man was truly of the race of man—precious and comforting truth! born of a woman, really and truly a man, and partaking of flesh and blood, made like unto His brethren.

“In this character He was to suffer, and be rejected, that He might inherit all things in a wholly new estate, raised and glorified. He was to die and rise again, the inheritance being defiled, and man being in rebellion—His co-heirs as guilty as the rest.”

[W. J. H.]

The Necessity of the Atonement

While the Bible is strewn with expressions of God’s love and grace, and kindness and goodness, it is a mistake to suppose, that He ever, for one instant, or in the smallest degree, waives His righteousness, holiness, or majesty. It would be a flaw in the divine character, if one attribute or quality were exercised at the expense of another. There is much misunderstanding about this. Some seem to think that to forgive sin, God simply has to pronounce a decree, to give a command, and it is done. That, they suppose, is all that is requisite. But if that were so, what sort of condition would the universe get into? If the forgiveness of transgressions were a mere matter of emotion in the mind of God, where would be the security of law? It would be gone. God could no longer maintain His throne. If it were once public in the universe, that the infraction of divine laws was of no consequence, that it was only for God to forgive the sin, and there would be an end of the matter, the result would be a moral chaos: there would be no moral stability in the universe.

But the opposite of this is the truth. Because God is righteous He cannot deal with sin in this light and easy way. Did not Christ say— “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matt. 5:18). “Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment” (Matt. 12:36).

Now that is a very solemn thing. It is solemn to recollect that no single sin, of any moral creature, can ever pass, without receiving its due meed of punishment. Righteousness requires this. If God do not thus maintain His laws inviolate. He ceases to be righteous; He can no longer govern among His creatures; His creatures would know that His laws did not mean what they said, and those laws would be treated with contempt; or, enforcing them, sometimes, when He chose, and at other times not, He would be an arbitrary and unreasonable tyrant. God thus being uncertain and variable, He would be disrespected by His own creatures, and the universe would be in disorder.

But someone will say, How is it, then, that free forgiveness is proclaimed in the gospel? Ah! that is what the cross explains. To speak after the manner of men, God was faced with this difficulty; He loved the sinner, but absolutely could not make nothing of his sin! Here was the dilemma; and the way out was found in the gift of His Son, to become incarnate, and in human nature to actually bear, suffer and undergo the punishment due to all my sins. There are two remarkable expressions used to convey to us what God’s nature is: “God is love” (1 John 4:8), but also— “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). Light in His nature demands that all darkness and sin should be banished far from His presence. No one with a spot of sin can come near Him. Indeed, with a spot of sin upon us, we should not want to; our desire would be to flee far away, from that light which we could not endure.

Yet His heart of love yearned to have the sinner in His own home. And He has found out and provided a way whereby it may be done, and that is this— “Christ once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18). But to understand this, we must understand something of the person of Christ. If He had been only man, however righteous and perfect, His death would have been no adequate sacrifice for the sins of millions of human beings. Could an angel—the highest—the archangel—have offered himself—his life was not his own to give; but if given, would be utterly insufficient. Moreover, as Governor of the universe, God could not compound with His creatures for infractions of His laws. His laws would not then be safeguarded from being broken again; for it would be open to another at a future time to take the risk of breaking law, knowing that he or someone else for him, might offer that which would satisfy the Almighty for his crime. It thus seems plain that God could not accept aught from His creatures in satisfaction for rebellion.

What then was to be done? Could God leave sin unpunished, and so have His character tarnished, as One who can be complacent with evil? No! whatever happens, God must maintain His own glory unsullied. But the love that could love unworthy sinners found out a way for their salvation. What the creature could not do, God Himself has done. The Father gave the Son, and the Son in love and compassion undertook the task. He became incarnate, in order to offer in the nature of man, that which the offended Majesty of heaven could accept. And this was no make-believe. He underwent the wrath of God due to sin. Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree. Look at the garden of Gethsemane! He asks, implores, that if it were possible, the cup which even He so dreaded, might pass from him. He was not yet drinking the cup, the cup of the fearful wrath of God against sin, but the mere anticipation made Him sweat, as it were, great drops of blood falling down to the ground. It was not the human sufferings that made propitiation for sin; not the scourge, or the nails, or the mocking; these were sufferings from man for righteousness. Far, far beyond all these He suffered upon the cross from God for sin, “He who knew no sin, was made sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21). No creature could have borne the wrath of God against sin; but He being God as well as man, could do so; and the glory of, His person gave to the sacrifice, a value that was not only profound but infinite.

Now, if ever it could have been possible for God to waive a scintilla of His righteousness, it would have been done then, at the petition of His own beloved Son. But that were an impossibility. You might sooner see the sun drop from the center of our system, and leave us all in darkness and confusion. The law of gravitation could more easily be abandoned, than God swerve a hair’s breadth from His righteousness. Listen to the agonizing supplication in Gethsemane— “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Matt. 26:39). And he went away again the second time, and prayed, saying— “O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done” (ver. 44). Then He went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same thing (ver. 44). Then He arises, and goes with calmness and matchless dignity through all the horrors of that hour; the lacerations of the Roman scourge, from which alone the criminal sometimes expired; the mocking crown of thorns, the ribaldry of the soldiers, the spitting on Him, the smiting on the face, the derisive bowing of the knee, the questionings before Pilate, to whom He calmly says— “Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above” (John 19:11).

How majestically meek stands His figure through these scenes! And yet all this was only preliminary—only the vestibule of the suffering for sin which He must yet enter upon. For this was not suffering for sin: this was suffering from man for righteousness. It was upon the cross alone that He bore our sins; and even then it was not the nailing, or the thirst—these were human inflictions. Beyond and above all this, Jehovah laid on Him the iniquity of us all. The largest human mind can never conceive what He had to undergo, in meeting and bearing the righteous wrath of God against sin. This it was that wrung from Him the cry: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” The cross of Christ stands the eternal witness that the righteousness of God can be neither waived nor abated. If, therefore, God and the sinner once meet in judgment, there can be but one result—condemnation; and if guilt is irremovable, except by the blood of Christ, it follows that punishment and banishment from God must be eternal.

But besides being the witness of divine and eternal righteousness, the cross of Christ is also the witness of God’s unfathomable love. For why was Christ permitted to be crucified? Not for any sins of His own, for He had none. But what we behold there, is the only righteous Man who ever lived, suffering for sin upon the cross: the only righteous Man, forsaken by the ever righteous God! We know well the solution of the riddle— “He was wounded for our transgressions. He was bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed” (Isa. 53:5). Oh! what love in Him to go through all this in order to provide a way of escape for unworthy, thankless sinners! And what love in God to give His Son,— “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

The righteousness of God is a solemn fact. The shallow system of thought called New Theology has no means of meeting it; but Gethsemane and Calvary are God’s public warning to mankind, that the claims of His righteousness have to be met. If they could in any way be escaped or cheated, the Son of God would never have been sent down into this world of ours. But at Calvary He satisfied for the believer every claim which justice has against him, and the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, cleanseth us (believers) from all sin. Thrice happy they who are under the shelter of that blood; terrific will be the awakening of those who are so foolish as to think that they can shuffle through or cheat the claims of divine justice.

E. J. T.

The Parable Itself

The Servant of Jehovah continued His work of instructing the mass of the people in the things of righteousness, and is again found by the sea doing this work. Previously we read, “And he went forth again by the seaside; and all the multitude resorted unto him, and he taught them” (2:13). Now again a very great crowd from the neighboring towns assembled by the sea, and He whose voice was “as the voice of many waters” ministered to them the precious truths of God. But that they might hear, and that He might speak the more conveniently, He boarded a boat, as He had done before (3:9), and sitting thus on the margin of Lake Tiberias, He addressed the standing multitude gathered upon the strand, teaching them many things in parables. From this circumstance the series of them is sometimes called the “boat-parables.”

The Lord spake many, and most probably only a selection of them are recorded in the Gospels. Matthew gives the greatest number, and the seven constitute a panoramic sketch of the kingdom of the heavens in “mystery.”

Matthew 13

Mark 4

Luke

1. The Sower

1. The Sower (8)

2. Wheat and tares

2. Seed growing secretly

2. Mustard seed (13)

3. Mustard seed

3. Three measures of meal (13)

4. Three measures of meal

5. Hidden treasure

6. Costly pearl

7. Great net

As proof that a selection of these parables was made by the Holy Spirit to conform to the purpose of each of the three Gospels it is sufficient to note that Mark inserts one not occurring elsewhere, i.e., that of the secret growth of the sown seed, while Matthew only records three spoken in the house to the disciples. This is evidence of differentiated design, not of effort after a dead level of uniformity in the Synoptic narratives.

It will be observed that the first—that of the sower—is one of the three common to all. This is the longest of the parables, and its interpretation is given with great particularity. Unlike the others, it is not exactly a similitude of the kingdom, the prominent feature being the One who sows the word of the kingdom, although it is true that the varied results of the sowing are expressed.

It is interesting to observe the tripartite character of the parable. Its subjects are threefold—

1. The sower

2. The seed

3. The soils

There are three varieties of unfruitful soil—

1. The wayside

2. The stony ground

3. The thorny patch

There is a threefold gradation in the results of seed-sowing on the unsuitable soils—

1. The seed was devoured before germination

2. The seed sprang up, but quickly withered away

3. The seed grew up, but was choked by the thorns

There is also a threefold degree of fruitfulness in the seed which fell on good ground—

1. Some produced thirty-fold

2. Some produced sixty-fold

3. Some produced a hundred-fold

This is the order of the degrees of fruitfulness given by Mark, but Matthew reverses this order, and Luke only mentions the last— “a hundredfold.”

In comparing the three versions of the parable by the Synoptic Evangelists a close correspondence is observed between those presented by Matthew and Mark, but of the two that of the latter is the fuller. The principal variations in the second Gospel from the first are as follows—

1. The addition of “it came to pass (ἐγένετο)” before “as he sowed,” ver. 4.

2. The “birds” are called “birds of the air (heaven),” ver. 4.

3. The choking action of the thorns described in Matthew by ἀποπνίγω, is expressed in Mark by συμπνιγω, the latter term denoting the suffocation caused by the greater number of the thorns, ver. 7.

4. “And it yielded no fruit” is an addition peculiar to Mark, ver. 7.

5. The good and fruitful seed “growing up and increasing” is also an addition peculiar to Mark, ver. 7. Luke’s account is much abbreviated, while at the same time it contains its own peculiar variations (Luke 8:5-8).

1. Of the seed falling by the wayside, it is added that “it was trodden under foot.”

2. Of the seed falling on stony ground, it is said that as soon as it germinated it withered through lack of moisture; and the fact of the shallowness of the soil, the heat of the sun, and the absence of root is not mentioned.

3. The thorns are said to grow up along with (συμφύω) the good seed.

4. Luke says that the seed which fell on good ground sprouted (φύω).

5. He is also peculiar in using the compound form of the adjective, “hundred-fold” (ἐκατονταπλασίων). Though not occurring in Matt. 13, this term is found in Matt. 19:29. [W. J. H. A

The Perfect Servant

I am thinking of our Lord Jesus as the perfect Servant, and I would like to read some verses in John 13:1-7. Doubtless the Lord refers here to the wonderful place His disciples would be brought into when the Holy Ghost was given. “I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when He, the Spirit of truth is come, He shall guide you into all truth”; and the Lord told them also the Holy Ghost would bring all things to their remembrance. People often use the 7th verse as referring to a time yet to come when we shall know as we are known, but the reference is not to the future, but to the present, though of course future when the words were uttered.

Vers. 7-17. It is a blessed thing to realize we are the Lord’s very own, the objects of a love that never gives up its objects. So we sing—

“The love divine that made us Thine

Will keep us Thine forever.”

But the love of the Lord Jesus is a special love to His own, quite different from the love of God to the world. The love of the Lord Jesus to His own is thus peculiar, and it will be well to see what the Holy Spirit says of His own.

In John 17 the Lord is unbosoming Himself to the Father, and we are put in the position of listening to what was in the heart of the Lord Jesus. Speaking of them, and of all saints, He says, “Thine they were and thou gavest them me.” Oh, how dear they must be as the gift of the Father to the Lord Jesus! The same gift received by two people may be in our estimation quite different according as we estimate the giver. But the gift of the Father! How His love is set on us!

Further, we are His own by purchase and redemption— “bought with a price.” We are His own righteously. “He shall see of the travail of his soul and shall be satisfied.” He endured the wrath and the suffering that you and I might become His forever.

Again, there is another very special way in which we are His own. On the day of Pentecost the Lord Jesus sent down the Holy Ghost, and thus formed the one body. “After ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise.” What does sealing mean? It is God marking us as His own. The gift of the Father, the purchase of Christ’s blood, the sealed of the Spirit—His own in a threefold way. And when sealed, we are baptized into one body, and he that is joined to the Lord now glorified, is one spirit. He is the perfect Savior of His very own. There is no failure on His part, nor in the work of the Holy Spirit. Who can frustrate the purpose of God? “Of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things.”

As the perfect Savior, He died to save us, as in 1 Cor. 15, “Christ died for our sins.” Oh, how precious! What glorious results accrue! Besides, we have now what was not made known in Old Testament times. We have “received,” according to 1 Peter, “the salvation of our souls.” And all because of His death. But He who died for us was raised again, crowned, “exalted a Prince and a Savior.” He is a Savior now; He lives to save us. Will He fail? No! He is able to save right on to the end, through snares and difficulties; the world, the flesh, and the devil may consult to cast us down, but He lives to save us (Rom. 5:10).

Further, He is coming—to save us. We shall see Him. “We look for the Savior the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our body of humiliation” the consummation of all that now by faith we are called to realize in our walk down here from day to day. He is a perfect Savior! He is going to have us in the glory with Him forever! What glad worshipping hearts should now be ours!

But then, what is principally before my mind is the Lord as the perfect Servant. Psalm 50 takes us back to the eternity behind us. Not many O.T. scriptures do this. This one does. He speaks in eternity, that is, before time began. Heb. 10 takes up the words and explains them for us. The highest point of the Psalms is very frequently found at the commencement, and so here—the Lord Jesus raised out of death. He does all the work, but we are joined with Him in the new song. “Mine ears hast thou digged” (ver. 6, margin). Would that we could speak better of this all-glorious Person! The Son of God became the Son of man. He had always commanded before, there was no claim on His obedience. If He took the place of a servant, He did it voluntarily. The Spirit of God is so jealous of the person of the Lord Jesus that nothing is more sedulously guarded.

If He takes the place of a servant, you get, in juxtaposition, His divine glory also. In John 13 you get in symbolic language what Phil. 2 plainly declares. He “who thought it not robbery to be equal with God,” who “made himself of no reputation,” is presented by the Evangelist as “laying aside His garments” —not indeed His deity, but His glory—He humbled Himself. And in wondrous, wondrous grace took the place of a servant —He “took a towel, and girded himself.”

Truth of the same significance is brought out in Isaiah 1:4, 5. But to go back to Psalm 40, “Ears thou hast digged for me” —from which we learn that as man born into the world there was thus His preparedness for doing the will of God.

Man at creation was “very good,” innocent, capable of falling. He had no “free will” as men speak. He was capable of being disobedient, but not “free” to be so. All mankind since have been born in sin—humanity fallen. But in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ there is the contrast. He is the Holy One. “That holy thing that shall be born” (Luke 2:8). The demons knew and acknowledged Him as the “Holy One of God,” and the Lord Jesus spoke of Himself thus, in His going down to death, in Ps. 16, “Thou wilt not suffer thine holy One to see corruption.” He is the only One who lived here on earth in spotless perfection. He never had to retract a single word, or retrace a single step, during those thirty years. After this, at His baptism, we have the Father’s appreciation of that perfect life spent in private; and again at the end of His ministry, on the mountain when He was transfigured, “This is my beloved Son.”

Here the Lord is seen in the glory—His rightful place; the place due to Him. Yet unless He go into death, He abideth alone. He comes down, and His path leads to the cross. God has saved us to be a joy to His Son forever. In John 17 He says, “The glory that thou gavest me, I have given them.”

Here is the Holy One perfect in dependence. From His birth prepared His Father’s business to do. Then in Ps. 40:9, “I have preached righteousness in the great congregation.” Where is the great congregation found? When the males of Israel appeared before Jehovah three times a year. So also the Lord appeared, for it became Him to fulfill all righteousness, and He gave out what the Father gave to Him. “And he said, Ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth.” This is how He was treated in “the great congregation.”

It does delight my heart to think of a Man tried as we are—sin excepted. Paul says, “I know nothing against myself” (1 Cor. 4:4). He knew of no unfaithfulness in his stewardship. He was willing to endure all things for the elect’s sake. Still his judgment was not perfect, and he could say it was a small thing to be judged by man’s day. Ver. 10, “I have not hid thy righteousness,” etc. No, blessed perfect Servant! His were acts of perfect obedience. Oh, that our hearts may be more bowed in worship as we contemplate Him!

Isaiah 1:2-5. The path of the blessed Lord was one of uninterrupted communion with His Father. Here we get divine glory brought out in marvelous juxtaposition with sufferings.

“I clothe the heavens,” etc. (ver. 3)—a divine person speaking. “The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned,” etc. (ver. 4). Marvelous! The Lord a learner! He learned obedience by the things He suffered. He has a tender heart towards those who are His suffering members here. How did He get “the tongue of the learned”? We are apt to become weary because of the way; but oh! we little think of the wonderful interest the Lord has in His suffering members. “That ye sin not” is the standard of a Christian. One may say, “I cannot help it.” Yet the standard is “that ye sin not.” And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous. What then? When we confess, does He then in death take up our cause? No, “we have an Advocate” (Paraclete) on high—the Righteous One—and we have the Comforter (Paraclete) below within us. That is John 13 again. We are passing through a defiling scene. But here in Isa. 1 (ver. 4), the Lord, the perfect Servant, is here on earth. Oh, how blessed to think of the Lord as the One of whom, above all others, it could be said, “By the word of thy lips I have kept me from the paths of the destroyer” (Psa. 17:4).

Ver. 5. “I was not rebellious,” etc.—in contrast to all others, who have gone astray, and are self-pleasers, so unlike the Lord who did the will of Him that sent Him.

Ver. 6. “I gave my back to the smiters” solemn word! In the history of the world there are three instances where the devil is allowed to act without restraint. The first was when the Lord put Himself in their hands— “This is your hour and the power of darkness.” The next time will be when the devil, cast out of heaven, leads the armies of Christendom against Christ. Then again, after the millennium, the last great storm. And then!—never another! For heaven and earth will have passed away, and a new heaven and a new earth have taken their place, and righteousness dwells eternally.

There are three things we look for— “that blessed hope,” “the appearing of the great God and our Savior,” and “a new heaven and a new earth.”

It is like walking along, when we see a mountain peak, and another, and yet another; but we do not see the valleys between. There is a valley of a shorter period of time of which the “seven years” of Daniel, etc., form a part, between the first two peaks, and another of a much longer period, i.e. of a thousand years, between the last two.

“I gave my back to the smiters.” They could not touch Him till He permitted them. He was going to have the joy of carrying out the perfect will of God; to say, “I have finished the work thou gavest me to do.” In this chapter we have had the opened ear, following the digged ear; now we have the bored ear in Ex. 21 Six days are man’s working time; so six years of labor are followed by the Sabbatic year. Here we have the perfect period of service, and the Holy Spirit had before Him the perfect Servant. Ah, but let us see what love does! Wonderful love to come here, to go on here; but, oh! what have we in vers. 3-5? “I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free.” Does it not remind us of Eph. 5, “Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it”? Oh, that every one could say: “Lord, we own with hearts adoring, Thou hast loved us unto blood: Glory, glory, everlasting, Be to Thee, Thou Lamb of God!” Why not “go out free”? Love delights to serve, and where true love is, it will serve. Now He says, “He shall serve him forever” (ver. 6). How that blessed One will be the servant forever! That links us up where we began in John 13. Nourishing and cherishing now His church, in perfect loving service, He desires to have us in uninterrupted communion with Himself; and if it is interrupted He is ready to restore us. But He is our Example. We should love one another as He hath loved us. Love one another in Christ; see each other in Christ, and love as He loved us. That love will manifest itself as He said to Peter, “Feed my lambs”; “Shepherd my sheep.” That is the way to show love—to be marked by unselfishness, and intense desire to serve those He loves so well. May that love constrain us! It is an easy thing to knock down and wound a man, and it is a good thing to be faithful; but we want to help one another. There is a good deal of correspondence between the Lord here, and our own days. “If any man serve me let him follow me.” J. A. T.

Prayer and Worship in Unison With God's Purpose

Prayer and worship should characterize the Christian and the church, now that Christ the Son of God is dead and risen, and we enjoy the immense results by faith—but prayer and worship in unison with the purpose of God is the calling of the bride, the church; not mere isolated action, although that may have its place and be most true for special need. Still, the great characteristic trait should be this—that God has let our hearts into His own secret in what He is doing for Christ. W. K.

Practical Remarks on Prayer: 6. Hindrances and Helps

6.-Hindrances and Helps

BUT besides opposition to the answering of prayer, there are hindrances to prayer itself.

1.-For instance, there are cases in which a person might be sick unto death, and yet in which his recovery could not be prayed for. The apostle John says, “If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death” (1 John 5:16, 17). Upon this the first thing which many will ask will be, What is that awful sin which cannot be prayed for? Well, in the text it is indefinite. The very same act may be a thousand times more culpable in one person than another; and under one set of circumstances than in circumstances of a different character. Ananias and Sapphira told a lie; but they did so in the face of such vivid presence of the Holy Ghost; such light and power and grace, that their lie became a sin unto death: it acquired a peculiar enormity from the special circumstances in which the sin was committed. So Scripture does not define what may or may not be a sin unto death.

There is, however, an underlying principle which requires to be seen, in order to the understanding of this and several similar passages in Scripture. That principle is, that the Lord is now judging in the midst of His saints; and in pursuance of that judgment inflicts chastisement—a chief form of which is sickness, and even death. Scripture furnishes a clear illustration of this in the case of the Corinthians. Not only were gross social vice and sin amongst them, but they were profaning the Supper of the Lord, treating it as a secular feast; and some were even drunken at it. The apostle, on this, tells them that those so doing were eating and drinking judgment to themselves, adding, “For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.... But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world” (1 Cor. 11:30, 32). This shows that sickness amongst God’s people stands upon special ground. It may be on account of sin, and is thus invested with peculiar significance. The deep moral import of sickness in the church is, it is to be feared, but little seen, and less thought of. Thus illness happens to a Christian, and it is at once assumed to be a mere natural event: or, a Christian dies—cut off in the midst of his days, in the full tide of his work, which is left unfinished around him. Now it is a most solemn reflection that both of these events may be the direct hand of the Lord in judgment. If, however, Christians are not spiritual, they do not take a spiritual view of such happenings. Such events were occurring every day at Corinth, and their spiritual meaning was probably quite unperceived, for the saints there were far from spiritual, as Paul says, “I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal” (1 Cor. 3:1). But when God is thus moving in solemn judgment, “it would be lack of communion to pray that such souls might live.” One led by the Spirit would surely be with God, in the necessary, though solemn, assertion of His holiness amongst His people. The language of John, however, is not absolute; he does not altogether forbid prayer, but—albeit significantly—says, “I do not say that he shall pray for it.”

The Epistle of James also treats sickness as connected with sin; but, in cases where there is faith to ask for it, says, “The prayer of faith shall save the sick.” “Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the assembly, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him” (chap. 5:14, 15, New Transl.). The anointing with oil here, is, of course, Jewish, consistently with the general scope of the Epistle, which is addressed not to the church, but to the twelve tribes of Israel (chap. 1:1).

Now these three scriptures (1 John 5; 1 Cor. 11; James 5) distinctly teach that sickness amongst Christians may be an infliction because of sin. If this were more recognized there would be more soul-exercise as to the purpose of God’s dealings with us, and increased blessing would result.

One point should be cleared up before leaving the text in 1 John 5. When the apostle says, “There is a sin unto death,” the death he refers to is not eternal separation from God, but that temporal death of the body, which the Lord inflicts on His own as chastisement. This is made clear from 1 Cor. 11:32, where Paul says, “When we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.” God’s people are judged now; the world will be judged by and bye. Contrast the case of Ananias and Sapphira already referred to, with that of Simon in the eighth of Acts. In both cases the parties sinned, and sinned deeply. Ananias and Sapphira were judged with death. But Simon was perceived to be “in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity”; i.e. really an unchanged man, notwithstanding his nominal belief and his baptism. He is left to be judged with the world; while in the case of Ananias and his wife, awful as was their judgment, it was but temporal judgment, and there is no reason to infer that their spirits will not be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 5:5).

It ought not to be supposed, however, that illness, or indeed, other afflictions, are always chastisements. The branch that bears fruit is purged that it may bring forth more fruit (John 15). And in the case of Job, the grand mistake of Job’s friends was to suppose that because of his terrible affliction, he must have committed some grievous sins. God allowed Job to be afflicted with painful and humiliating ills for his ultimate blessing, and so he does with many a saint to-day. He may send sickness, bereavements, reverses, to break down the flesh, to wean us from the world, to produce brokenness of our wills, and spirituality, or to give warning to the believer where there is lack of carefulness in walk, or incipient departure from the Lord.

2.-The prayers of husband and wife may be hindered; as is taught in 1 Peter 3:7, which should be read thus, “Ye husbands, likewise, dwell with them according to knowledge, as with a weaker, the female vessel, giving them honor, as also fellow-heirs of the grace of life, that your prayers be not hindered” (ver. 7). If the husband do not honor the wife as a co-heir of eternal life, communion in prayer must be hindered, and the effect lost of united prayer.

3.-James gives several moral hindrances to prayer. First, there is “double mindedness”; no real godly earnestness or definiteness of purpose. “Let not that man think he shall receive anything of the Lord” (chap. 1:5-8). Second, asking amiss. “Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your pleasures” (4:3). The word “pleasures,” given in the margin of the Auth. Vers., is correct. It is not “lusts,” but “pleasures” —and that, not necessarily bad pleasures. What is contemplated is self-pleasing, the mere desire of the natural mind; God’s glory or our own spiritual profit, not considered at all; and God’s people (see succeeding verse) living in friendship with the world, which is, spiritually, adultery.

The relation, however, to successful prayer, of the moral condition of supplicants, may be appropriately looked at later on when considering “Promises to Prayer.”

Helps to Prayer.—In connection with opposition and hindrances, let us take notice of a great and substantial aid to prayer, namely, thanksgiving— “In everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto God” (Phil. 4:6). “Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving” (Col. 4:2). Probably the advantage of thanksgiving as an aid to the soul is not fully seen. How often when the well of prayer seems dried, thanksgiving will cause the stream to flow! The recollection of mercies received, and blessings in possession, refreshes the soul; begets the sense that we are in communion with a giving God; and imparts new courage to approach Him with our requests. How many answers are received to prayers gone by, which are not recognized as answers, because in the interval the very prayers that were made are forgotten! Thus is lost to the soul opportunity for praise and thanksgiving; a loss of happy and profitable exercise: but besides that, it is a failure in what is becoming towards God. Is it a fit thing to receive a gift and not return thanks? Between man and man it is a breach of manners; and that God takes notice of such failure towards Him is certain from the case of the ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19). Only one of the ten who had been cleansed returned to give thanks, and how touching is the comment of the Lord! “Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine? There are not found that returned to give glory to God save this stranger!” God looks for our gratitude, and that not only in the heart, but the positive expression of it; expression too, not merely in a general way, but definitely as to definite instances. Praise “is pleasant, and it is comely” (Ps. 147:1). A thankful soul is a happy soul. We can never get into circumstances where we have not cause for thanksgiving, and thanksgiving naturally leads to prayer.

Another aid and stimulus to prayer is private reading—reading God’s word itself, and the valuable written ministry which in the present day He has supplied to His children so abundantly as to be within reach of all. Such reading, in a proper spirit, begets prayer. It awakes the sense of need, encourages confidence towards God, leading to prayer, with blessing as the consequence. In the word, God is speaking to us; in prayer we are speaking to Him—in both together, the circle of communion with God is completed. Neither will do without the other. The Christian who prays without the word tends to become mystic. He who reads much without a corresponding measure of prayer, will get his head stocked with barren knowledge, but his soul will be shriveled.

(Continued from Vol. VII. 376)

[E. J. T.]

Practical Remarks on Prayer: 7. Confidence and Prayer

7.—Promises to Prayer (continued)

4. “And this is the confidence that we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us; and if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desire of him” (1 John 5:14, 15). We have already seen that the formative power in the heart, of the words of Christ dwelling there, and an upright uncondemning heart with confidence in God, are the conditions of successful prayer. In the present verses, all that is assumed. It is supposed that we are asking according to His will, and what we have here is that, so asking, God always hears us. “He is not like man, often occupied so that he cannot listen, or careless so that he will not.” It is a precious and wonderful thing for the creature, man, notwithstanding the fall, to be so restored to moral harmony with God as to be able, under the guidance of the Spirit, to ask according to His omniscient will. We do not read that angels have this privilege. They indeed “do his commandments, harkening unto the voice of his word” (Psa. 103:20), but the intimacy with God which prayer afford is, apparently, conferred upon man only. Surely this bestowment is a proof of God’s desire that man should enjoy communion with Himself. Do we prize this privilege as we should?

But our spirits are not always up to this level, and we have already seen that Rom. 8:26-28 recognizes this case. We know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit helpeth our infirmities. And He who. searches our hearts knows how to take up all that is of His own Spirit in those hearts. As to the result, “we know” that all things work together for good to them that love God. And this gives peace, whether our requests are granted or not. So we are not to restrain prayer because we are not on the highest plane of communion. On the contrary, it is our privilege—in everything—to let our requests be made known unto God (Phil. 4:6). An instructive example of this is Paul’s prayer about the thorn in the flesh (2 Cor. 12:8, 9). For this thing he besought the Lord that it might depart from him. But his prayer was not in the intelligence of God’s mind, who had a better thing in store for Paul, which Paul would have lost had his request been granted. The believer may indeed, as a chastisement, receive that which in unbrokenness he clamors for, but the result will not be happiness —as we read, “He gave them their request, but sent leanness into their soul” (Psa. 106:15). To present our requests, with submission, is, however, always our privilege. The example of Paul shows this. He besought the Lord for his desire not once only, but thrice. In result, such submission was wrought in his soul that ultimately he took pleasure in the very infirmities of which he had implored the removal. A discontented and unsubject heart may reproach God with not answering its prayers; but in the retrospect of eternity, how much cause for praise may be discovered in the requests which our gracious God now refuses to grant.

So far from restraining prayer, we really need more frankness with God. Scripture amply warrants this, and it is illustrated by the case of good Ananias (Acts 9:10-17). The Lord sends him to Saul of Tarsus to receive him after his conversion. But Ananias has a difficulty in his mind, and with beautiful simplicity and reverence, he lays it before the Lord. “Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem; and here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.... And Ananias went his way.” The Lord, it will be observed, does not in the least reprove Ananias; and the incident left on record thus surely gives encouragement to us to tell the Lord with reverential intimacy about all our difficulties. Indeed this episode, and that of Paul in 2 Cor. 12, previously referred to, are strikingly similar as precedents for freeness, yet reverence, of communion; and withal of perfect submission. The two instances are remarkably alike in tone and spirit.

In Philippians we are authorized to bring all our requests to God. “Be careful for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus” (4:6, 7). But here it is noticeable that the promise is not, as in 1 John 3:22, that we receive whatsoever we ask. But, having laid our requests with submission before Him, His peace keeping our hearts and minds, is the present effect. As to the requests, if He do not grant them, it is because He has for us something better. His child should not wish what is contrary to His will. But there is a higher example than Paul—even Jesus in Gethsemane. Not indeed, as so often in our own case, of prayer below the highest level—for even in that dark hour His communion was perfect—but here, as Man, He lays the incomparable exercises of His heart before God, mentioning something which He would desire if only compatible with the divine will. Spreading out the agony of His soul in prayer, He exclaims, “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Matt. 26:39). Here is perfection—alike in His communion as a Man with the Father about the appalling prospect before Him, and also, notwithstanding the prospect, in the absolute surrender of Himself to the Father’s will, the Father’s purpose. Yea, we need more frankness and confidence in our communion with God. “Ye people, pour out your heart before him: God is a refuge for us” (Psa. 62:8).

The promise in Matt. 18:19 is peculiar—it is to united prayer. The essence of this promise lies in the assured presence of the Lord Himself with only two gathered in His name. The agreement in prayer of such a gathering is promised to be acceded to by the Father. But we have already looked at this in previous pages. The promises in John 14; 16 are to prayers in Christ’s name, and may be realized by the individual in his closet. The promise here, however, is to the concurrence in prayer of even only two “gathered together in His name.”

Prayer in James presents most interesting features. First, there is the encouragement to prayer which the Holy Spirit addresses to our hearts by reminding us that Elias who wrought so wondrously was a man of like passions to ourselves; as if to say, “There is an example for you; see what is open to you!” Secondly, James, by the Holy Spirit, makes a positive revelation of facts in Elijah’s history, which otherwise we should not have known. The Historical Books give us the outward acts of Elijah; James reveals the process which brought them about. Elijah’s first introduction to us is in 1 Kings 17:1, where the great drama of his exploits is opened with the simple statement that he “said unto Ahab,” “As the Lord God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word.” This is the first mention of Elijah. Nothing is said of him but that he was a Tishbite of Gilead. Who he was; how it happened that this person with no official authority—no locus standi — should thrust himself into the presence of the king, and make such a dread announcement, the history does not say. But there is a great underlying principle. It is that when the official representation of God is false, God’s Spirit will raise up a witness from outside. It is ever so. “When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him” (Isa. 59:19). And there is nothing in which God’s sovereignty is more displayed than in the instruments He chooses. When the civil rule is apostate, and eight hundred false prophets are loud in the land, He will act by whom He will. Now James reveals the secret of Elijah’s surprising action. That secret was communion with God. “Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit” (James 5:17, 18).

Thus the Old Testament gives us the magnificent public action; James, the prayer on which it was based. This secret dealing of God with His servants is His constant way. David slays the lion and the bear, making experience of the power of God where no one sees him, ere he wields the weapon of faith before the armies of Israel. Moses, a learned man, has with “all that weight of learning,” to pass forty years keeping a flock in the desert, before he is used to face Pharaoh and deliver Israel. And Elijah’s proceedings, which read like the intrepid actings of a hero, are shown to be the product of prayer; and when afterward his communion falls in its level, he is discovered as a man of like passions with ourselves, for the prophet who could boldly confront the majesty of the king flees for his life at the threat of the king’s wife. This shows that it is only as sustained by God that we can act for Him. “Without me, ye can do nothing.”

Thirdly. The example of Elijah is given by James as both illustration and proof of a general principle, namely, that “the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (chap. 5:16). But this translation is admitted to be unsatisfactory. That a prayer which is “effectual” avails much is a truism. If it is effectual it avails completely, and it is anti-climax to say that it avails much when it is already admitted to avail perfectly. Mr. Darby’s translation gives, “The fervent (or, operative) supplication of a righteous man has much power,” which is closer to the original than either the Authorized or the Revised Version. Probably the essential points of the Scripture are—(a) That the supplicant is a righteous man; (b) that his prayer is energetic; not a listless, apathetic, indolent performance, but the prayer of one who means it—as Paul on one occasion speaks of himself as “night and day, praying exceedingly,” etc. (1 Thess. 3:10); or, as Jacob on another occasion, “I will not let thee go except thou bless me.” (c) That prayer of this character has indeed much power. This is the moral which the apostle James enforces.

Fourthly. Prayer in connection with sickness. As system has arisen and been much noised about, which takes the name of “Faith-healing.” This, while ostensibly based upon James 5, is little short of a pretense to miraculous powers. The published writings on the subject include gross false doctrine, which will not here be examined.

But a brief indication of the real bearings of the scripture in question may perhaps be profitable. The passage is as follows— “Is any sick among you? 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 the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess your faults one to another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (vers. 14-16).

Now in these verses we have at the outset a defining note which restrains the application of the passage beyond a certain limit; the application is expressly to the sick “among you,” that is, the assembly of God’s people. This scripture therefore affords no warrant for a popular system of semi-miraculous cures administered to all and sundry. Sickness amongst God’s people stands on special ground. It is sometimes on account of sin, as we have seen; and this passage in James recognizes that the sickness about which the elders were sent for might be such, for it says, “If he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.” Not that this would be always so; but if so, his sins should be forgiven him.

Again, so far from a public proclaimed system of healing, this was essentially private. The sick one was to send for the elders of the church, and they were to pray over him.

Further, it might, or might not, be that the patient would himself have faith to be healed. The faith-healers imperatively require such faith; Scripture does not. The prayer spoken of in James is the prayer of the elders, and in reference to this it is said, “The prayer of faith shall save the sick.” It may be easily supposed that the sick one would himself join in the prayer, and that, with more or less assurance of faith—but it was the “prayer of faith” that carried efficacy.

Finally, nothing could be more outside the scope of the passage in James than the popular notion of faith-healing. The case contemplated in James is clearly one of a very serious nature, where death is imminent; and so also in 1 John 5. The idea of the scripture being used as a substitute for medicines which God has provided in nature is not only unwarranted, but is contrary to the scriptural and apostolic principle of using remedies for ailments (see both 2 Kings 20:7, and 1 Tim. 5:23). It is theological quackery.

7. Prayer in the name of Christ is so large a subject that it is dealt with in a separate chapter —that which follows. [E. J. T.]

Practical Remarks on Prayer: 7. Promises to Prayer

7-Promises to Prayer

The promises to prayer, of which the following are some of the more prominent, are, in general, dependent on specified conditions—

(1) “All things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive” (Matt. 21:22). (2) “If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you” (John 15:7). (3) “Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight” (1 John 3:21, 22). (4) “If we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us; and if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him” (1 John 5:14, 15). (5) “If two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt. 18:19, 20). (6) “Is any sick among you? 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 the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him” (James 5:14, 15). (7) “Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you” (John 14:13, 14; 15:16; 16:23).

1. The condition attached to the first of the foregoing is believing. It will be said that believing, or faith, is necessary to all prayer. Though this is true, Scripture recognizes specific faith about a specific thing. Thus one of the subjects of the miracles had faith to be healed (Acts 14:9); and it is expressly taught in 1 Cor. 12:9 that there is a distinct spiritual gift of faith which some have, and some have not—a gift alluded to in chap. 13 where Paul corrects the tendency to glory in gifts. “Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing” (1 Cor. 13:2). It is perhaps to this special character of faith that the Lord refers when He says, “What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them” (Mark 11:24). Genuine, divinely-given faith, not mystical or fancied faith, is what is here meant. Probably many have experimented upon this promise, only to be disappointed. Mahomet, it is said, audaciously commanded a mountain to come to him, and when his folly was manifest to all, tried to evade humiliation by saying, “If the mountain will not come to Mahomet, Mahomet will go to the mountain.” But the promises of God, and the power of His Spirit, are not bestowed to be the subject of curious experiment, or the means of subserving private ends.

Further, the application of some of the promises in the Gospels was primarily to the apostles, however much the principle of them may extend to the humblest disciple. Take, for example, the promise we are considering. This, as well as the parallel passage in Mark 11, stands in relation to the incident of the barren fig-tree. The fig-tree was a type of Israel, to whom the Lord had come seeking fruit but finding none. He pronounced it fruitless forever. That is a picture of Israel after the flesh, producing only the leaves of profession. Any fruit-bearing must be from the living One— “From me is thy fruit found.” In connection with this the Lord says, “Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this to the fig-tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive” (Matt. 21:21, 22). Now as the fig-tree symbolized Israel in the character of fruit-bearer, so “mountain” here represents Israel as a political system, and accordingly as an answer to the faith of the apostles, Israel has been cast into the sea of the nations, and politically lost.

Still the promise in all its fullness is there, for faith to act upon. It is a large one, and its only limit is the reality of the faith which employs it.

If God give faith He will as certainly give that to which the faith extends.

The next promise, John 15:7, is equally large, and probably also meant for the apostles primarily—though the general principle may be applicable to all. But the limitation is a moral one. Even apostles, to whom the mighty work of inaugurating Christianity was entrusted, could not exercise their great powers as mere power—that Is, apart from moral principle and purpose. Paul, for example, with all his mighty powers of healing, says, “Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick” (2 Tim. 4:20). God had His own purpose in Trophimus’ affliction, a purpose which might have been marred by the uncalled—for interposition of a miracle. And on Paul’s part, his powers of miracles were not given him to be used at random, or at his own will, but in the service of his Master. So also with the church at Corinth. They came behind in no gift; they had miracles and gifts of healing; yet under God’s chastening hand—not to be interfered with—many were sick and many died (1 Cor. 1:7; 11:30-32; 12:28). It is indeed the same principle as that which, already mentioned under the head of “Hindrances to Prayer,” may in some cases, restrain prayer for the recovery of the sick. An unspiritual person influenced by blind sympathy might pray for his raising up, while one more in the secret of communion with God, would discern that such a request was not the mind of the Spirit. So also, the large power of prayer in our text, “Ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you,” is guarded by the moral conditions, “If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you,” conditions which involve not only godliness, but spirituality. If the words of Christ abide in one, they form the heart and mind. They suggest the motives, govern the conscience, and in this happy condition of the soul its requests naturally flow in the line of His revealed mind. Its instincts are correct, its desires according to His will, according to His “words.”

“If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight” (1 John 3:20-22).

Here there are conditions of great importance—a practical conduct pleasing to God, and an uncondemning heart —a good conscience. These are imperative for intercourse with a holy God. False, imaginary deities may accept a compromise, such as penance or gifts. God must have the judgment of evil, in all those who draw near to Him. It is the same with prayer as with worship; there can be neither where there is defilement. “Holiness becometh thine house, O Lord, forever,” is an abiding principle (Psa. 93:5). And again, “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear” (Psa. 66:18). But how blessed that God has provided for all the exigencies of His people in a defiling scene; and hence it is ordained that, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all un-righteousness.” When there is so simple a way of discharge, why should any walk with a burdened conscience? An upright and honest confession, and we are not only forgiven but cleansed. As Elihu says of the soul that has been brought to the moral judgment of itself, “He shall pray, unto God, and he will be favorable unto him: and he shall see his face with joy. His flesh shall be fresher than a child: and he shall return to the days of his youth” (Job 33:25, 26). The importance of this good conscience in connection with prayer is shown by the fact that Scripture links it even with asking the prayers of others “Pray for us, for we trust we have a good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly” (Heb. 13:18). “The prayer of the upright” is indeed the Lord’s delight (Prov. 15:8); and it is the prayer of “the righteous” (in James 5:16) that is said to have much power.

Our text, however, though equivalent to a promise, is not exactly so in form. It is rather, a positive statement that, given certain conditions, we do receive whatsoever we ask, and the conditions show very plainly that success in prayer depends upon a godly life, an uncondemning heart as an inward state, and obedience (“keep his commandments”) as an outward manifestation and test of the state.

But in the verses which precede, there are some interesting points to notice— “My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth. And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him” (vers. 18, 19). First, knowing “that we are of the truth,” in ver. 19, does not mean knowing that we are Christians—which has been taken to be the sense; for the persons addressed were written to because they were Christians; because they knew the Father; because their sins were forgiven them for His name’s sake (1 John 2:12, 13). But, being exhorted to love not “in word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth,” the apostle adds, “Hereby we know that we are of the truth.” That is, that we are actually walking in the truth; that we are possessed by, we are “of, the truth.” Love in deed and love in truth, gives us this consciousness and assurance of heart before God. We cannot enjoy it otherwise. If there are matters between us and God, it is useless to ignore them. God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. But if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God, and receive whatsoever things we ask, because we keep His commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. It is not a question of being, or not being, children of God; it is a question of the children being on terms of happy confidence with their Father. If I owe a man a debt which I ought to have paid, there must be constraint on meeting him, but if there is nothing between us, and I believe in his generosity, I can confidently go to him with a request. Beautiful, happy condition for the soul to be in with God! This passage is a weighty one for the conscience of the believer, but its practical use has been much lost sight of through the misapplication just mentioned. The test is not as to whether we be children of God. It is one for saints to apply to their actual condition of soul. Are we thus before our God—that with an uncondemning heart, we are in communion with Him, and, as a fact, habitually receiving His answers to our prayers?

Secondly, the apostle says, “Let us love not in word, neither in tongue.” This looks like tautology, but is not so. The term “logos,” here translated “word,” is of much wider signification than our “word.” In English “not in word, neither in tongue,” certainly is repetition. But this word “logos” means, in Greek, not merely the word by which thought is expressed, but the thought itself. So that the force of what the apostle says is, that we are not to love in theory (or thought), neither in mere language (“in tongue”), but in deed and in truth.

For there is a pietistic state, by no means rare, in which emotions and thoughts are enjoyed, the truth intellectually delighted in, but without fruition. Love as a theory is held to be very beautiful—but is not practiced. The heart deceives itself. This is loving in thought merely. The text in question is the converse of 1 Cor. 13. There Paul treats of works without love; here it is, as it were, love without works, that is, mere sentimentality. But our passage crushes both of these errors: not only condemns love without deeds, but also deeds without love. It requires deeds, but the deeds must be from love; that is, not in theory, nor in talk, but in acts and in truth. Our God is love, and that alone will satisfy Him in His children—love “in deed and in truth.” How penetrating is the word of God, exposing every mode in which the heart would either deceive itself or deceive others! It is sharper than a two-edged sword, laying bare the thoughts and intents of the heart. Many, in reading these verses, have supposed that the language was mere repetition; that it is not so only shows the wisdom which underlies every word of inspiration.

(To be continued)

[E. J. T.1

Practical Remarks on Prayer: 8. Prayer in the Name of Christ

“And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full... At that day ye shall ask in my name; and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you: For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God” (John 16:23-27). Has the reader ever noticed how a letter-knowledge of Scripture may sometimes hinder its spiritual apprehension? Perhaps it is thus with the expression, “In my name” —so familiar as a phrase, yet its power so slightly understood. The fact is that prayer in the name of the Lord Jesus is one of the special distinctions of the present day of grace. The Lord indicates this by the statement, “Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name,” and thus marks off our position in prayer from that of God’s people in the past. Whether Abraham in Gen. 18, or Solomon, at the dedication of the temple, Daniel in Babylon, or Hezekiah (2 Kings 19:15)—each addressed God suitably according to the character, or the relationship, in which He was known. But the revelation of the divine nature was then only partial. Jesus, however, revealed the Father—yet, until the coming of the Holy Ghost, the disciples’ comprehension of that revelation, of much that He taught, was obscure. In the 16th of John, however, the Lord is about to go away. He had already taught them to pray to God as their Father, but naming Him only by description, as “Our Father who art in heaven”; now, he announces a new thing, based on His ascension. They would approach the Father in His name; that is, not now One distantly described as “in heaven” (for He had not as yet shown them plainly of the Father, John 16:25), but One fully known as THE FATHER: even as John states, “I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father” (1 John 2:13). Praying in His name involves these points—(1) Our title of access to the Father Himself. (2) That so approaching the Father we come in all the potency, all the value, of the name of the Lord Jesus. (3) That the Holy Spirit has come, and gives us, not only consciousness of our position as sons with the Father (Gal. 4:6), but spiritual capacity to use this new privilege—we have access through Christ, by the Spirit to the Father (Eph. 2:18). This, it will be seen, is a deeper thing than the verbal tacking on the Lord’s name as a form at the end of a prayer. Delightful, gracious way, in which the Lord puts it! “I say not unto you that I will pray the Father for you; for the Father Himself loveth you.” He, as it were, introduces us to the Father; and that in the tactful manner of one who would place us at ease in the atmosphere of the Father’s love. Would that we realized more the immense power of our position with the Father, and the value of the name of Jesus in which to draw near! All this, it will be observed, depends upon the vast change implied in the words “because I go unto the Father” (John 14:12). Man in His person would be entering into a position in which man had never been before; and He labors to convey to their minds what would be its significance for them. So far, as to the privilege and power of His name given to us for our prayers. This is the positive side; but there is also a negative. There is what His name excludes, as well as what it includes. “Whatsoever” is the promise, but that is defined and limited by “in my name.” As another has said: “‘Whatsoever!’ Were it alone, it would be boundless, and the Lord would thus have opened the door to all the desires of unbroken will among His people. But He adds, ‘in my name.’ This is His limit—the barrier He sets up.”

Not only, however, do we fail to understand, and fail to use, our privilege of prayer in Christ’s name, but some in trying to explain the matter have not only mystified it but have fallen into error, as witness the following—

“Coming now to what is found in John 16 as to prayer in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, or in the name of the Son (as in chap. 14), it should be first observed that our access to our God and Father is always and only through Christ. As Paul writes, ‘For through Him, we both (Jew and Gentile) have access by one Spirit unto the Father.’ We cannot come in any other way. But coming thus ‘through Him’ before God the question is at once met, What is praying in His name? It could not be using His name as a plea, or entreating to be heard for His sake, because the Lord says, without any limitation whatever, ‘Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.’ By praying in His name, then, we understand appearing before the Father on His behalf, and as warranted to be there by Him, so that we are there with all the Son’s claim upon the Father’s heart, and taken up in the power of the Holy Ghost to utter and pray for, in communion with His own heart, all that He Himself desires to be accomplished for the Father’s glory and His own joy. Praying, then, in His name is to intercede for His own interests, His own desires, objects and ends. If this he so, this character of prayer has no reference to our own personal needs or circumstances; indeed, it could not. And let it not be forgotten that there is a circle in which we have no needs, because we are lost, absorbed in the Father’s counsels for the glory of His beloved Son. At the same time we have full liberty to come at all times, through our blessed Lord, into the presence of God, and to tell out everything that burdens our hearts (Phil. 4:6, 7); only this is not praying ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.’”

There is here either truth, or error, and on such a matter there ought to be no doubt. According to this writer, the Christian has the name of Christ for some only of his prayers; for the rest, that blessed Name is not available. This is of practical importance, for if accepted, it must hamper the believer in the holy exercise of prayer, and greatly restrict the power as well as the liberty and joy of his communion with God. If there be such a distinction, Scripture might be expected to express it with unmistakable plainness; but in Scripture, it may be searched for in vain. Of course one cannot prove the negative: the duty of proof rests with those who assert a new doctrine. No positive scripture, however, is cited, as it surely would have been, if there had been one to cite.

That prayer in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is a characteristic feature of Christianity has already been shown. The Lord intimates this, when, referring to the coming of the Holy Spirit, He says, “And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full” (John 16:23, 24).

He had previously instructed His disciples, “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall he opened unto you: for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall he opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him” (Matt. 7:7-11)?

But this, it will be observed, is based upon the benevolent character of God, not showing how divine beneficence could be extended to evil men, without a compromise of divine righteousness. That is not shown, because the work had not yet been accomplished, on the basis of which only, could God forbear with men, much less bless them, forgive their sins, or answer their prayers. God’s grace to man was as yet administered on the ground of the foreseen sacrifice of Christ (Rom. 3:25). But we are in the period which Christ referred to as “that day” (John 14:12; 16:23). It was then future; but now the great work of atonement has been done, and the position is made clear. Christ is the propitiation for sins that are past through the forbearance of God, as well as the basis for all blessing by God towards sinners at any time. This now is no longer mysterious, but open and manifest. God’s attributes are reconciled in the cross; His righteousness in bestowing blessing is declared; and a sequence of this is that prayer is now in the name of Christ. It could not be so before, for the Lord was in humiliation: He had emptied Himself, and had not where to lay His head. Observe then that the name given us in which to present our prayers is that of Jesus glorified at the Father’s right hand; not the name as despised on earth, but as acclaimed in heaven. And what a name of power it is! Every knee in heaven and on earth shall bow at the name of Jesus —infernal beings also (Phil. 2:10). And in that name—so glorious, so beloved—we are privileged to approach the Father.

Now in ver. 12 of John 14 the Lord speaks of a certain result of His going to the Father. “Greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto my Father.” The next verse is joined to this by the conjunction “and.” “And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name that will I do.” It will be seen then that prayer in His name is a consequence of the position which He was about to take at the Father’s right hand. It is a broad dispensational privilege. So far from being confined to some only of our prayers, His name, according to the showing of Scripture, avails for all. At least, we find that when the Lord announced the new privilege, He did not attach to it any such restriction as that laid down by the article in “The Christian Friend”; and not only is there a conspicuous absence of the limitation, but the Lord’s words in the announcement are really inconsistent with it. Thus He says, “Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name; ask and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full” (John 16:24).

[E. J. T.]

Practical Remarks on Prayer: 8. Prayer in the Name of Christ

8..—Prayer in the Name of Christ

This goes well with the unrestricted privilege conferred; but how ill it would assort with a statement that it related to some only of the believer’s prayers, that it did not extend to his personal needs or circumstances; that these were outside Christ’s interests; that believers might go to God about them, but not in Christ’s name! How would all this match with the direction, “Ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full”? So chilling a declaration would quench anything like fullness of joy, and regret, rather than joy, would be the consequence of such a narrow interpretation as that sought to be imposed. So far no positive scripture for the doctrine has been shown, and the style and manner of our Lord, in speaking on the subject, are repugnant to the very notion. The article says— “By praying in His name, then, we understand appearing before the Father on His behalf, and as warranted to be there by Him, so that we are there with all the Son’s claim upon the Father’s heart, and taken up in the power of the Holy Ghost to utter and pray for, in communion with His own heart, all that He Himself desires to be accomplished for the Father’s glory and His own joy. Praying then in His name is to intercede for His own interests, His own desires, objects and ends. If this be so, this character of prayer has no reference to our own personal needs or circumstances, indeed, it could not.” But this is mere assertion—simply what the writer “understands,” as he says. That, however, is not Christian teaching. “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11). We have no inspired teachers now, so that teaching, to be profitable, must be shown to be based upon that which is inspired—scripture. What a man merely “understands” cannot edify, because he may be right or he may be wrong; and by accepting what he says, I may be allowing my mind to assimilate as truth that which is really error. Teaching must be certain if it is to build up the soul—it must have the certainty of Scripture for its basis. However, it is postulated that prayer in Christ’s name is only about a certain class of subjects which are defined as “Christ’s own interests, His own desires, objects and ends.” But where is the authority for saying that Christ’s “interests, desires, objects and ends” cannot include the “personal needs or circumstances” of His saints? This, again, is pure assumption, a demarcation of the subjects of prayer which is quite arbitrary and artificial. Is it not also a misrepresentation of the heart of Christ towards His people, to say that their interests are not within the circle of His interests? Scripture tells us that He is “touched with the feeling of our infirmities” (Heb. 4.). Even of Israel it is said, “In all their affliction he was afflicted.” “He that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye” (Isa. 63:9; Zech. 2:8). Did He not say to Saul of Tarsus, “Why persecutest thou me?” The shepherd in the parable laid the sheep upon his shoulders, and bore it right home, a figure of Christ’s care over the individual believer all along the way (Luke 15).

“The Shepherd’s bosom bears each lamb

O’er rock and waste and wild;

The object of that love I am,

And carried like a child.”

How then is it possible that the personal needs or circumstances of saints can be foreign to the interests of Christ? It upsets the dearest conception of the character of that blessed One, to say that the circumstances of saints are outside the circle of His interests.

Now, according to Scripture, what governs the granting of requests under the promise we are discussing is not the subjects of the prayers, but their being in Christ’s name—that is, truly in Christ’s name. Thus a prayer about gospel-work (which certainly is Christ’s “own interest”) may be out of harmony with the mind of the Spirit, astray from the Spirit’s guidance as to place, time, or other matters, and therefore not truly in Christ’s name; while on the other hand, a prayer about family, or business, or other “personal needs or circumstances,” may be fully under the guidance of the Spirit, and truly presented in Christ’s name to the Father. The real question then is not the subject of the prayer, but having the mind of the Spirit about it: that is, whether what I ask about it is that which I can ask in CHRIST’S NAME. The subject may be the smallest or the greatest, but if one is led by the Spirit to make the request in Christ’s name, the prayer so presented will be honored. It may relate to any subject—illness, poverty, personal failure, business affairs, difficulties with unreasonable men, yea, everything that affects the pathway of the saint below, just as much as the state of assemblies, the gospel, or missions abroad—for the word is “IN EVERYTHING by prayer and supplication” “let your requests he made known unto God” (Phil. 4). What a deprivation would it be not to have the name of the Lord Jesus in which to go to God about all these things!

But, says the article, “this is not praying in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” In whose name then is it? Has not His sacrificial work laid the basis for answering every prayer that is according to God’s will? About our needs and circumstances, therefore, we go to God in the name of Christ, because He has Himself, in His work, provided for the granting of our requests; and our author’s definition, “all that He desires to be accomplished for the Father’s glory and His own joy” includes every proper subject of His people’s prayers, even if about personal needs and circumstances.

Looking fairly at the whole subject, the difficult point obviously is the absoluteness of the promise to prayer in Christ’s name, all such prayer being granted. And the question naturally arises, What about the mass of requests presented in that name which are never granted? The reply is that those requests, though ostensibly in Christ’s name, cannot have been truly so; Christ’s name having been tacked on as a formula to prayers not inwrought by the Spirit in the heart and therefore not really in Christ’s name, for the mere repetition of the form of the words is not really praying in the name of the Lord Jesus. There seems to be no other conclusion that can be drawn. If God’s word tells us that prayer in the name of the Lord Jesus is granted, and prayers which we have made are not granted, then they cannot have been truly in His name. The “Christian Friend and Instructor” has endeavored to solve the difficulty by a theory that prayer in Christ’s name can only he about a certain class of subjects, and these it proceeds to define, but the definition is so erroneous that it makes the “personal needs and circumstances” of Christ’s people to be outside the circle of Christ’s own interests!

But prayer in Christ’s name is not the only case in regard to which the promise is unlimited. The following promises are as absolute and unlimited as that in question, viz.— “If two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 18:19). “All things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive” (Matt. 21:22). “If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you” (John 15:7). “If our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God, and whatsoever we ask we receive of him, because we keep his commandments and do those things that are pleasing in his sight” (1 John 3:21, 22). “If we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us; and if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him” (1 John 5:14, 15).

Now if the absoluteness of the promise requires that the subjects be curtailed in one case it does so in all. But not in one of these cases is any such limit imposed by the Lord or His apostles. The word is, “anything that they shall ask”; “whatsoever ye shall ask”; “ye shall ask what ye will”; and so on. If the suggested limitation of subjects were intended, here certainly would be the place to expect it; but Scripture is silent on the point; and not only so, but the language which the Spirit of God employs is specifically broad and comprehensive. It is impossible to suppose that all these promises, as well as those to Christ’s name, would have been left unguarded by the restrictions in question, if those restrictions were intended to exist. The limiting of the promise, therefore, in all or in any one of these cases, to a certain class of subjects, must be rejected as a mistaken explanation, and—however well intended—a human invention, and a misleading gloss upon Scripture.

Now it is quite true that there is a class of prayer which is above the level of personal needs and circumstances. Examples of this are the magnificent prayer of the church in Acts 4:24-30; the two prayers of the apostle Paul in Ephesians (first, in chap. 1:16-23, and secondly, in chap. 3:14-21). But that we have not Christ’s name for prayer about personal needs and circumstances, as well as for the more exalted descriptions of prayer just referred to, is pure imagination, and not to be found in Scripture. ALL TRUE PRAYER NOW IS IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST (John 16:23, 24). Doubtless there is a great deal of prayer colorably in the name of Christ, which is not genuinely so, and this is not transmuted into true prayer by adding at the end, as a formula of words, “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Scripture admits that “we know not what we should pray for as we ought,” but “he who searches the hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because He maketh intercession for the saints according to God” (Rom. 8:26, 27). The great requisite for prayer, therefore, is to have the mind of the Spirit about the matter in hand, and this can only he acquired by being morally near to the Lord, abiding in Him experimentally. “If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you” ( John 15:7). Hence the humility, the self-distrust, submissiveness to the divine will, in which spirit only can true prayer be made; but whatever the Father recognizes as in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ will undoubtedly be granted. THERE IS, HOWEVER, NO OTHER NAME IN WHICH TO PRAY.

“In my name” has an exclusive force with reference to prayer, as has been previously stated (page 75). But this limitation is of a totally different nature from that which we have been discussing. This limits prayer in Christ’s name to all true prayer—all prayer which is according to God, whatever the subject. The other confines prayer in Christ’s name to a certain class of subjects.

One or two points remain to be noticed. The article says— “By praying in His name, then, we understand appearing before the Father on His behalf... to pray for... all that He Himself desires to be accomplished... Praying then in His name is to intercede for His own interests, His own desires, objects and ends.”

This is a complete inversion of the truth. We do not appear before the Father on Christ’s behalf, but with His name on our behalf. Christ does not need anyone to intercede for Him! We need His intercession, and blessed be His name, we have it, for He ever liveth to make intercession for us (Rom. 8; Heb. 7). What an upsetting of divine order and fitness this teaching leads to, for it makes the saints intercessors for Christ, whereas Christ is Intercessor for them!

Again, the article says— “Coming now to what is found in John 16 as to prayer in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, or in the name of the Son (as in chap. 14), it should be observed,” etc., etc. Now suppose a Christian reading this when he has not his Bible at hand. What will he think? He will perhaps say to himself, “Prayer in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, or in the name of the Son. What does it mean? I did not know that there was such a distinction!” Well, when he looks at his Bible he will find that the distinction is of the same class as that which we have already considered, namely, without Scripture basis—purely imaginary. Here are the two scriptures in question, and it will probably puzzle any one to discover the distinction referred to. “Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name; ask and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full” (16:23, 24). “Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it” (14:13, 14). Thus it will be seen, prayer in John 16 is stated as “in my name”; and prayer in John 14 is likewise “in my name.” In chap. 14 the purpose is disclosed— “that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” But prayer in John 14 is no more in the name of the Son than in John 16 And prayer in John 16 is just as much in the name of the Son as in John 14. It only remains to be added that the words “in my name,” in the original Greek, are exactly the same in each case. So much for the scriptural accuracy of this teaching.

Now is all this a mere dispute about words? Had it been so these lines would not have been written. But an error in the things of God is never innocuous. A man may believe what he likes about a point in physical science, and it will have no bad effect. But moral or spiritual error cannot be imbibed without harm. In this case there is an attempt, probably all unconscious, to rob the children of God of a precious encouragement to prayer, and of spiritual power in making prayer.

Apart, however, from positive error, teaching of this sort is injurious, from the state of doubt and perplexity which it creates. How few who read the article in the “Christian Friend” will understand what is really meant? But how many will come away from its perusal, with a confused idea that there is something very abstruse about prayer, which they have never heard of before, and which they do not understand now? They have always believed that the Lord’s name was given to them for their prayers. But they are told that that is not so. It only applies to half their prayers, perhaps only to a quarter, perhaps to still less. They must be “in a circle in which” they “have no needs,” and are “lost, absorbed in the Father’s counsels,” before they can pray in the name of the Lord Jesus! At any rate, the question is so perplexing as to which of their prayers that blessed name avails for, and which not, that practically the power and effect of the promise are lost. The distinctions which the Holy Spirit makes in Scripture are deeply important—even the smallest. The distinctions of the human mind, foisted into the things of God, are confusing and detrimental.

“HITHERTO HAVE YE ASKED NOTHING IN MY NAME. ASK AND YE SHALL RECEIVE, THAT YOUR JOY MAY BE FULL” (John 16:24).

[E. J. T.]

(continued)

Practical Remarks on Prayer: 9. Prayer Addressed to Christ

9.—Should Prayer Be Addressed to Christ?

Some may be surprised at any doubt on this point; for the instincts of the soul that has been born anew, lead it out frequently in prayer to the Lord Jesus, as well as to the Father. Still the question has been raised, and it may be useful therefore to refer to scriptures which bear upon the subject.

That which has given rise to doubt is the following verse, viz., “And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you” (John 16:23). Taken as it stands, this would seem conclusive that prayer should not be addressed to the Lord. But the translation is misleading; for two words of differing force in the original are here rendered by the one word “ask.” The word rendered “ask” in the first sentence of the verse is ἑρωτάω (erotao); that in the latter sentence is αἰτέω (aiteo). Thus, “And in that day ye shall ask (erotao) me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask (aiteo) the Father in my name, he will give it you.”

The former word (erotao) originally only meant to inquire, and in classic Greek is used in that sense only; but in Hellenistic, or New Testament Greek, it has the same double meaning as our English word “ask,” namely, both to inquire and to make request, as in the instances: He asked the way to Richmond; he asked water.

The second word, “aiteo,” means only to ask for something. But, “erotao” having two meanings, the question arises, in which of those meanings is it to be taken, in the verse we are considering? and this seems to be indicated by the context, for the Lord had just been answering the inquiries of the disciples; as it says in the nineteenth verse, “Now Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him.” Here the word translated “ask” is “erotao.” Then He answers their questions, and in ver. 23 adds, “In that day ye will not question (erotao) me.” And now, passing on to treat of prayer, He leaves the word of double meaning, and employs one which only means to make request (aiteo), “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask (aiteo) the Father in my name, he will give it you.” So that when the Lord said, “In that day ye shall ask me nothing,” He was not forbidding prayer to Himself, but informing them that in a day soon to come they would no longer be interrogating Him. He, indeed, would not be here to be inquired of; He would be at the Father’s right hand, and the Holy Spirit would be here to guide them into all truth. This verse therefore may safely be said to give no countenance to the view that prayer may not be made to the Lord Jesus.

Not only, however, does this scripture furnish no objection against prayer to the Lord, but we have elsewhere in scripture the highest positive authority for it, namely, Stephen, and the apostle Paul.

“And they stoned Stephen calling upon, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge” (Acts 7:59, 60).

And the apostle Paul tells us, “There was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me” (2 Cor. 12:7, 8). Besides this there are prayers to which Paul gives utterance in the course of his epistles; and these are addressed both to the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, “Now may our God and Father himself, and our Lord Jesus, direct our way unto you: and the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men” (1 Thess. 3:11, 12, R.V.). Again, “Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father which loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts and stablish you in every good word and work” (2 Thess. 2:16, 17, R.V.). Once again, “And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patience of Christ” (2 Thess. 3:5, R. V.).

To conclude. John 16:23 does not forbid prayer to Christ; and there is ample authority for it in the examples which Scripture records for our instruction.

E. J. T.

Probable Nearness of the Lord's Coming

The insidious mistake of ceasing to watch for the Lord’s coming, because of the lapse of time which has occurred since the promise was given, has already been noticed in this paper. Slight references were then made to various conditions existing among the nations, which, viewed in the light of prophetic scriptures, seem to indicate that a world-crisis is approaching. Those references were little more than hints; and it is possible that some more detailed information on the subject may be acceptable to the godly believer, who occupies the position of a spectator—a spectator apart and in spirit removed from the. turmoil of the world.

First: As to the Jews. The reader of the Bible Treasury will be familiar with the truth that, in the post-church period, the Jews will be in possession of their land, and have a definite national existence as a monarchy. Significant, in view of this, is the stir of a national spirit which has recently occurred amongst the Jews; an awakening that is quite new, and which strives to embody itself in action. International Jewish Conferences are now held—a thing before unknown during the centuries of their dispersion. At the conference of Berlin in September, 1908, a resolution was carried that the conference “regards as urgently necessary the union of the great Jewish organizations into one body with a permanent central committee”; and at a meeting of Jews held in Melbourne, Australia, in July, 1906, it was resolved on the motion of Mr. N. Levi, a member of the legislature, “to urge all Jews to record their conviction, that only with the establishment of a legally-secured, publicly-recognized Jewish State in the Holy Land would their wants and aspirations be satisfied.”

A recent proposal (October, 1909) which has attracted some attention is that of Hamada Pasha, the Turkish Minister of Pious Foundations, for a Jewish Settlement near the Baghdad Railway in Mesopotamia. It is stated that the Pasha has resolved to invite Jews of all countries to settle near the railway, and has promised that seventy million acres of land shall be reserved for the purpose. This, however, while philo-Jewish, is probably anti-Zionist. Dr. Riza Tewfik, a member of the Turkish Parliament, speaking in London in the preceding July, said that he regarded “political” Zionism as “a great danger for the Jews,” in view of the fear of the separatist peril that prevails in Turkey: He would rather see the Jews spread over Mesopotamia, or other parts of the Empire, than concentrated in Palestine; and he advised them to dismiss from their minds the idea of autonomy. From this it will be seen that the proposal of Hamada Pasha is rather on the lines suggested by Dr. Riza Tewfik than on those of Zionism.

There is, no doubt, a revival of national aspiration amongst the Jews, though clogged and hindered from several causes. One of these is dissension among themselves; many—having no zeal for their ancient patrimony, nor any exalted national feelings—desire only amelioration of their worldly conditions, and are ready to renounce any other nationalism than that of the land in which they dwell. Thus a prominent man among them (Mr. Oswald John Simon, son of the late Sir John Simon, M.P.) says that “it would be difficult to conceive a plan more detrimental to English Jews” than the attempt to promote among the Jews of England a sense of nationalism distinct and separate from that of their fellow-countrymen of other religious beliefs. Two distinct schools of political view, therefore, may be discerned among the Jews: one, that which still pines for the ancient and divinely-given privileges of the nation, and whose feeling is, so far, a godly sentiment; and the other, which regards such aspirations as the dreams of enthusiasm; and, desiring only worldly ease and comfort, seeks nothing higher than to be admitted to full and fair equality with the citizens of the nations amongst which they reside.

Another obstacle is the jealous feeling on the part of Gentile powers of any Jewish political organization within their territories. Russia, for instance, might promote the settlement of Jews in Palestine, but distinctly objects to any attempt at local organization amongst Jews in Russia. Turkey in the same way may encourage the emigration of Jews to Mesopotamia, but not their concentration with patriotic fervor in the Turkish province of Palestine. All this, however, might be changed in brief time, under the new influences which cannot but result from so mighty an event as the removal of the church to heaven. But the mere inception of a definite political movement by the Jews to obtain Palestine is certainly remarkable, as is also the offer of one of the great powers to befriend and assist it. This is not indeed the putting forth of leaves by the fig tree; but it may indicate that “the branch is tender” and ready to bud.

Secondly; The Roman Empire. The resuscitation of the Empire by a federation of European nations after the rapture of the church is a certain event of the future. The proofs of this were given in a series of articles published in last year’s Bible Treasury, and some tendency in that direction is already observable. Never before in the history of the world has such an appalling enlargement of warlike forces taken place; and yet they are not employed. Along with the multiplication of the means of war, peace prevails. How is this? Since 1871 There has been no European war? Armies are augmented as never before, and navies without precedent; they seem ready to clash together, but yet they do not. No doubt an invisible hand restrains them; God’s purposes are working out; but instrumentally, is not this produced by the tendency among the nations to combine together? Has not the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria, Italy) exercised a potent influence in restraining belligerency? And have not the “Ententes” established by the late King of England between various powers operated in the same direction? Here perhaps may be discerned an advance towards that policy of federation amongst nations which is to develop under Roman leadership after the church is gone.

More plainly discernible, however, is the tendency of the peoples of Europe towards that condition of turbulence, confusion, or anarchy, out of which the Roman Beast is to emerge. This also has been explained in chapter 8 ante. The development during the last fifty years has been rapid and alarming. Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, have come boldly on the scene. Previously they hid their heads, so to say; men scarcely breathed the words. Now these mutterings of the dragon’s voice may be heard rumbling round the world. As another has well said: “The world is conscious at this moment that things cannot go on long as they are; that we are in a crisis of the world’s history which must result in some great disruption. Some will tell us that democracy is the evil, and it must be put down; others, that it alone can save the world. But all feel that things cannot go on as they are....

These fears, even if they magnify the apprehensions of men on one side or the other, are the fruit of the restless working of some principle which man cannot control, and hence his fears; they are the confession of the instability of the order on which he relies; and they presage, and in the world’s history have ever presaged some violent disruption, because they were the expression of the consciousness of the force of what was breaking all up—that passions are stronger than what controlled them. The bonds of society are too tight or too weak. Power is not in them, but in the force which is working underneath them. Some would slacken them to give vent to the power at work; some would tighten them, hoping to break or repress it; some hope, and many more fear; none know what is to come.”

Now Luke tells us of this time: “There shall be... upon the earth distress of nations with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring, men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming upon the earth” (Luke 21:25, 26). And the symbolic language of Rev. 13:1 shows that the emergence of the Roman beast will be from out of a troubled and possibly anarchic condition of the nations—a condition of fear and insecurity, in which the rising of a firm of power would be hailed as a deliverance. The preparations for this are developing before our eyes to-day.

Thirdly. The effort to obtain Egyptian independence has also significance in connection with what Scripture has declared both as to the past and future of that nation. The Lord God declared by the prophet Ezekiel that Egypt was to be “a base kingdom. It shall be the basest of the kingdoms” (Ezek. 29:14, 15). When one contrasts her former splendor and prestige as shown by the monuments with her degraded condition since, the fulfillment of the prophecy is remarkable. For more than two thousand years Egypt has had no independent sovereign; is at the present time a tributary state of a second-class Power, and her finances are controlled by England—this last indeed for her good, but she has for ages been humiliated by forced labor, grinding taxation, and every kind of oppression. In 1866 the Vali, or Viceroy, was granted the title of Khidewi-Misr (King of Egypt), or, as commonly called, Khedive, but this was obtained at the price of increasing the amount of the tribute to the Sultan of Turkey.

Were the prophecies about this country only of the character of that just quoted, we might expect no change; but Daniel shows Egypt in a different state at the time of the end. Speaking of the false king, the antichrist, then to be reigning in Jerusalem, he declares that “at the time of the end, the king of the south (i.e. Egypt) shall push at him.” This argues that the king of the south holds at the time an independent position, and one of considerable power, though subsequently the king of the north overcomes him, and gains “power over all the precious things of Egypt” (Dan. 11:40-43). Now if this is to come to pass in the time of the end (post-church), is it not noteworthy that late years have given birth to a strong movement for nationalism in Egypt? After ages of oppression Egypt begins to lift up her head. In 1896 the papers reported that the young Khedive Abbas was visiting Europe incognito, with the draft of a scheme for establishing Egyptian independence, and that he had had a secret interview on the subject with M. Hanotaux, the French Minister for Foreign Affairs. The years which have since elapsed have produced events which indicate a strong undercurrent of national feeling. Sometimes those events have been indefensible deeds of violence; but clearly the spirit of nationalism in Egypt has been born. It will probably live and grow. In 1907 Mustapha Kamel Pasha contributed several articles to the French press in which, while expressing with great ability the aims of the Egyptian Nationalists, he said that though English imperialists regarded the movement as purely artificial, “repressive measures had led to an extraordinary development of nationalism, which is not Pan-Islamist, but essentially patriotic.” Since then, in September, 1909, an Egyptian Nationalist Congress, in furtherance of the movement, has been held at Geneva. At all events there will be a king of the south of considerable power in the time of the end, sufficiently strong to make an attack upon the potent but false king of Israel.

Notice in passing that when the king of the north conquers the king of the south he is stated to acquire “power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt” (Dan. 11:43). This seems to intimate a condition of material prosperity in Egypt, very different from that of past centuries. Has not this tide of prosperity already commenced to flow markedly since the British occupation of Egypt?

Fourthly. A few words as to the “king of the north” first mentioned. This power is not Russia, as would naturally be the first thought of a European. But we must remember that the standpoint of prophecy is always that land which in the divine purposes is the center of the earth. North and south in prophecy are north and south of Palestine, not of Europe. Hence the king of the south obviously means the king of Egypt, and king of the north in Daniel is that potentate, whoever he may be, who at the time of the end will be the ruler of what is now called Asia Minor, the land to the north of Palestine.

[E. J. T.]

(To be continued)

Probable Nearness of the Lord's Coming: Part 2

(Concluded from page 137)

Asia Minor at present is held by Turkey. Will the Turkish power be the king of the north? In the past there has been a consensus of opinion that Turkey as a power must decay and pass away. The “sick man of Europe” is the derisive name by which the nation has been called. But its final collapse may have been too hastily assumed. However this may prove to be, the world has quite lately been surprised by an outburst of national energy in Turkey in the direction of constitutional reform. Accompanying this is a startling progress in material development. Twenty years ago Constantinople and the Turkish Army were eating bread made from Russian flour; they are now eating of their own country’s growth, while the peasantry are obtaining for their harvest twice to four times the prices formerly paid. Where, near the Sea of Marmora in Asia Minor, the neighborhood was infested with Tscherkess robbers, the chief of these robbers is now a respected stationmaster in the Anatolian Railway. Such is the effect of railways in Asia Minor. The Turkish Administration has engaged the highest engineering talent to advise as to preventing the overflow of the Tigris and the Euphrates. These works, together with that great undertaking, the Baghdad Railway, are fraught probably with great consequences for the Turkish Empire, augmenting its wealth and material prosperity and restoring to order and civilization Mesopotamia, once one of the most fertile countries of the earth. But important as this may be politically to Turkey, it may be equally important in its prophetic bearings. Mesopotamia is part of the Turkish dominions; it was part of ancient Assyria, and “the Assyrian” is another name by which in prophecy the king of the north is designated. The reformation of political institutions in Turkey, and the growth of national energy and prosperity may have great significance when we consider that Turkey represents to-day what in the future time will be “the Assyrian” of Isaiah (chaps. 8, 10, 14), and “the king of the north” of Daniel (11:40-45).

While, however, this shows the possibility that Turkey may prove to be the king of the north, writers of great insight have thought otherwise. Mr. Kelly says, “The king of Assyria will be then the holder of what is now the Sultan’s dominion or the Ottoman Porte. This potentate to the north of the Holy Land will acquire considerable strength, and be found in a state totally different from the excessive decreptitude which we see now. It used to be a common saying with politicians that Turkey was dying for wants of Turks; but this will not be the case then. I suspect that Greece and Turkey in Europe, with perhaps Asia Minor, will form a sufficiently strong kingdom where the Byzantine kingdom was once known, the Turks proper being probably driven back into their own deserts. If this be so, those we now know as Turks will be expelled from Pera, and then the renewed Syro-Greek kingdom will really have its headquarters in Constantinople, will there play its part once more in the great drama of the future, and be, I have no doubt, as thoroughly unprincipled a kingdom under its final shape as ever it has been under its Mohammedan form.”

The question, however, is one for the future rather than the present. What is certain is that Scripture marks out a distinct line of activity for the king of the north in the time of the end, and that geographically Turkey at present holds the position. What is not certain is, whether Turkey will be removed and replaced by another power. There has been a foregone conclusion that Turkey must fade and decay. Predictions were at one time made that the empire must come to an end in the decade 1840-50, but facts have not been friendly to that view. The unexpected often happens. Turkey has survived so far, and there are indications as already stated that she may quite possibly become stronger rather than weaker.

Fifthly. The unrest in India is another circumstance which has the color of the closing days. That in the national re-arrangement of the last times England will ultimately relinquish India is possible and probable. East and west will be more clearly demarked than ever. Prophecy plainly shows that Russia is to be the great leader of the Eastern nations, and her persistent tenacious policy in that direction is well known. Even China and Central India will accept her dominancy. England’s destiny is in the west, as part of the great Roman empire; she has long had the controlling influence in the east, but in the coming time Russia, and not England, is to be the overshadowing power of the east. The upheaval of late in India, possibly more deep and serious than is supposed, tends obviously in this direction. Alienation from England of feeling in India must facilitate the ambition of Russia. The position of Russia as now stated is demonstrable from prophecy, but the proof is too long to set out here.

Whether we look at the state of Christianity or the condition of the nations, the world seems ripe for the coming of the Lord, and an intelligent survey of the situation is perhaps the best answer as to expecting another nineteen centuries before the end of the present period. The statement now given does not claim to be a complete synopsis of signs of the times, but some of the most weighty have been selected, which are here placed in the inverse order of their importance (the last two have already been treated in detail in the January number of this magazine [p. 9]), viz.:

1. Incipient alienation of India from British rule.

2. Developments in the sphere of the future king of the north.

3. Revival of Nationalism in Egypt (king of the south).

4. Tendencies in the sphere of the coming Roman Empire.

a. Towards federation of nations.

b. Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, et hoc genus, preparing for the popular state out of which will arise the great Roman potentate of Rev. 13

5. A revival of Nationalism among the Jews.

6. The revival of the hope of the Lord’s coming; the midnight cry of Matt. 25:6 having long since gone forth.

7. The unblushing movement towards THE APOSTASY which is to follow the rapture of the church.

Attention is drawn to these circumstances, not as being remarkable, though they are remarkable, but as having one feature in common, which to the Christian is more to be noticed than anything else: that is, they are, all of them, PREMONITORY MOVEMENTS TOWARDS EVENTS WHICH ARE TO BURST ON THE WORLD AFTER THE CHURCH IS GONE. When men come with picks and shovels, boring rods, and carts and horses, and begin work at one side of a hill; and when surveyor’s pegs and lines are visible marking out a road on the other side, one concludes that these two are intended to meet, and that the work which we see commenced on the one side will end in the road designed and projected on the other. Just so with the facts which we have been considering. The initial work is begun before our eyes, the completion of which after the church’s removal is marked out by prophecy. India mutters disaffection towards her western ruler. Turkey, presumptive king of the north, shows unwonted and altogether unanticipated energy. Egypt, the future dominion of the south, is in the throes of nationhood, and is allowed the formal title of “king.” The grouping of European governments points towards a re-institution of the Roman Empire—the nations feeling their need of a leader—and that need intensified by the gathering power and threatening voices of the great masses of the peoples of Europe. The Jew is awaking to national aspirations. While sounds are abroad in the world which tell of the coming end of the age, the Spirit of God has roused, and is still arousing, the attention of the church to the hope of the Lord’s return. And the inchoate apostasy, no longer nebulous, assumes such definite shape that the anointed eye can make no mistake as to what it is the beginning of. Such considerations have a cumulative effect upon the godly and thoughtful mind, but the last is by far the most telling and important. The change in the ecclesiastical sphere is distinct and dire, unmistakable and Satanic.

The instructed Christian fully concedes that signs are for the godly Jew, and not for him. No doubt this is so, and were the indications which have been mentioned adverse to the nearness of the coming, instead of for it, the Christian’s fidelity to Christ’s word would still require him to look with daily expectation for that blessed hope. Moreover, it is important to remember that in expecting the Lord’s coming we are looking for a Person, not merely an event. It is a spiritual exercise, not only a mental conviction, and the more spiritual the believer is, the more will his heart be towards Christ, and desirous of His return. What the Lord values is affection for Himself, but the mind may be full of prophetic notions, while the heart has little occupation with Jesus. Still the Christian is not called upon to shut his eyes to the scriptural significance of great world-movements. The Lord rebuked the Pharisees and Sadducees for being able to discern the face of the sky, and for not discerning the signs of the times (Matt. 16:3). We live at a trying epoch. Nineteen centuries have run, and yet the Lord’s coming has not taken place. Not only are unbelieving men saying, “Where is the promise of His coming?” but many believers are wavering, at least so far as to think that it is a mistake to be now looking for the Lord’s return. John the Baptist, it will be remembered, after himself accrediting Christ to Israel, was stumbled at appearances on finding that with the great Messiah’s presence he was left in prison; and so does the faith of weak believers sometimes waver. The Lord, in reply to John’s messengers, gave the gentle rebuke, “Blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in me.” At the same time He pointed John to signs (Matt. 11:1-6). Similarly now, He providentially allows to the wavering disciple a pre-manifestation of movements which are to mature after the Rapture. This might not have been so, and faith would still have been governed by Christ’s word simply. But, equally, faith will not refuse the comfort and aid of such confirmations as may be providentially placed before us. Possibly they may be intended to stir afresh the expectation and hope of Christ’s coming. What if they should be an intimation to us that that coming is now near at hand?

The reader may believe in a second advent of the Lord, and that there will be some who will be alive and caught up into glory, but does he recognize that according to the whole tenor of scripture it is his duty and privilege, if a Christian, to expect to be one of those? Inspired scripture never says they “which are alive and remain,” always we. “Behold I show you a mystery: we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall he raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed” (1 Cor. 15:51, 52). “We look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our body of humiliation,” etc. (Phil. 3:20, 21). “The Lord himself will descend from heaven... then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thess. 4:16, 17). “Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come Lord Jesus” (Rev. 22:20).

E. J. T.

Psalm 73

Although Psa. 73, which begins the Third Book of Psalms, refers directly to the temporal judgment of God in Israel as satisfying the anxieties of heart among the faithful; yet, as these anxieties are of all times, we shall find something to note here.

We see the ungodly having their way, so that God seems to have forgotten, and the heart is curious. But it shows in our case too often that the heart would yet have its portion here at least a portion here as well as one to come. The sorrow at the power of evil in the world is right, but it mingles itself in our minds with liking to have one’s own way and judgment in setting it aside. When the will mixes itself up with the sense of the success of evil, it is either irritated or disheartened so as to give up perseverance in good.

The ungodly prosper in the world. What a riddle! Where is God’s government? What is the use of good? No doubt it was more directly trying when temporal blessings had been made a sign of divine favor. But Christians are seldom separated enough from this world not to feel the success of wickedness, and a desire to take vengeance on it. Mere indifference to it is utterly evil. Thus the path is narrow, and grace must work in the heart to lead us in it to feel the evil in itself, to feel God’s glory cast in the dust by it; but to abide God’s time and way, as Christ did when He suffered.

There is no place of learning but in the sanctuary. There the will is bowed: there God is known: there the eye is not obscured by the passions of the world, and an ignorance of how to do what God alone could do—make allowance for any good, have perfect patience with evil, so that judgment shall be simply on evil, and be true judgment on evil without excuse. Our impatience would be nothing of this, even where the evil as such is justly judged. But in the sanctuary will is silent and God is listened to. His ways are right, and we see things with His eye. The evil is worse, the compassion right, the patience adorable, yet the judgment sure; so that the sense of righteousness is not crossed in the heart, though the will of vengeance is; for the wrath of man does not work the righteousness of God. The judgment is righteous because patience is perfect —far more terrible because there is no passion in it. It refers to God. When we desire that fire may even come down from heaven, self is in it. We do not know what manner of spirit we are of; yet, in one sense, they really deserved it. When God awakes in His own just time, they are as a dream. Their pride, pretensions, all is as a departed image. Faith has to believe this, and leave them there.

But another blessed truth comes out here. He had been foolish, ignorant— “as a beast,” so he says, “before God”; yet there had been integrity and conscience. If he had let his thoughts loose when half disposed to say godliness was no use, he would have offended against the generation of God’s children. This checked him.

How beautiful to see in the waywardness of man’s will these holy affections, this conscience of putting a stumbling-block of the weakest of God’s children, check[ing] the heart, and show[ing] where the affections really are, and that fear of God which shows He is lovingly known—that the new nature is there! It is a great mark of good that God is owned. But what he knows of himself is that he was as a beast in his heart’s reasoning as it did. But, then, mark what is seen. He comes to see that, in spite of all this, while owning his folly, he was continually with God.

Oh, how the full knowledge of self, when we know as we are known, will show the patient unvarying grace of God waiting on us all the way in adorable love and interest in us! Through all his foolishness he was continually with God, and God had holden him by his right hand. Blessed grace! God loves us, cares for us, watches over us, is interested in us; because of His sovereign love, we are necessary to His satisfaction. He withdraweth not His eyes from the righteous. This is a wondrous thought of constant grace. But He is God, and not man. And so, the heart here counts on Him.

Up to this, through all his shortcoming in faith, he could say, “Thou hast holden”; now he says, as in communion, “Thou wilt guide me by thy counsel.” This is not merely holding up unconsciously; it is the mind and will of God guiding us in communion. Hence it is seen when he has judged himself and is in communion; it is not that God does not guide us—make us go according to His own counsels, when we are not in communion, holding our mouths with bit and bridle; for He does. But the soul does not understand it, then cannot speak, as here, in the knowledge of His doing it by His counsel. This He does.

Here we meet, in the full force of the passage, the plain distinction of the Jewish position— “after the glory, thou wilt receive me.” It has been altered [in our Authorized Version] to make more of it for Christian ideas, and the true meaning is lost. Compare Zech. 2:8. After the glory, when this is set up, Israel will be received; but in that glory we shall come with Christ. The heart is now set right by this visit to the sanctuary: “Who in heaven but the Lord?” We, indeed, may have our thought expanded by the knowledge of the Father and the Son; still, the truth abides, only better known. Who in heaven but God, the center and source and all of blessing? On earth, where with such as us not thus fixed on God, there might he distracting desires, there is no source of delight with Him; that is, He is the only one. Singleness of eye is complete. As we are in the world, it does make us feel alone, but alone with God.

So the blessed Savior. “All ye shall be offended in me this night, and shall leave me alone; but I am not alone, for the Father is with me.” In one sense, the heart accepts the dominancy of evil and is blessedly abstracted from all to God. See thus the blessing of this seeming evil. Were all peaceful and good, prosperous in the present and imperfect state of things, the heart would sink into that imperfect state and be really worldly; but the prevalence of evil, though pressing on the spirit (the will checked by the feeling that one cannot dissociate oneself from God’s people), drives to the sanctuary of God. The heart is weaned from this world, and, in a world where evil does prevail, looks up to God, has Himself for its portion alone in heaven, and so nothing along with Him on the earth. He holds the one sovereign place in the heart. Nothing competes with Him at all. As in the New Testament, “Christ is all.”

But this brings in another blessing. This endures. Heart and flesh fail; surely they do. God is the strength of my heart. He stays with divine strength and goodness, and sustains the heart, and is not only a present stay, but an everlasting portion, our portion forever. This leads to a sweet and earnest conclusion. It is good for me to draw near to God. There we learn truth; there we find comfort. He has put his trust in the Lord Jehovah, in One sovereign in power, abiding and faithful in promise. He who does will surely have to declare all His wondrous works. He will be in the place to see and experience them, have the heart to notice and understand them, the joy of testifying the faithfulness of One the heart has trusted. In ver. 20 we have only sovereign power [Adonai]; in the last verse, covenant faithfulness also [Adonai Jehovah].

J. N. D.

Psalm 84

This Psalm is the expression of the desires of those who had long been deprived of the joy of being in the courts of Jehovah during the captivity. It is the expression of the joy of seeing them again, and of taking the road which leads there, even by the valley of weeping, of Baca. The church also moves forward toward the tabernacle of God, but it is that which is not made by human hands.

The subject of each Psalm is ordinarily expressed at the beginning in the first verses. The tabernacles of Jehovah are His house. The faithful is there at home in His rest. One cannot find oneself at rest when the object of the heart is still beyond the point we have reached, even if the place we have stopped at be the most desirable in the world. The first thing which is here presented to us (vers. 1-4) is that the house of Jehovah is the Israelite’s resting-place. “Blessed are they that dwell in thy house; they will be still praising thee.”

But blessed also is “the man whose strength is in thee; in whose heart are the ways,” that is, the ways to Jehovah’s house. Verse 4 contains our joy in hope; verse 6 contains actual experience along the way. Passing through Baca, they make it a spring; the rain also filleth the pools [or, with blessings]; “they go from strength to strength, appearing [each] in Zion before God.” When we begin our course here below, we know God, we learn also more to know Him; it is a feeling which grows and strengthens by communion. God has thereby bound the hearts of Christians. It is the manifestation and accomplishment of His love. The more I know the perfectness of God, the more I know His love, the more also I feel how precious He is to my soul. If my knowledge of God is separated from the knowledge of the love of God, I have not the life of God. The highest perfection of God is manifested to the heart by the first visit He makes to the heart of sinners, and in this respect it cannot be known more by the most advanced child. Here below, the heart of man does not answer to the praise of God. One could not praise Him in the streets of a town: the heart of man is enmity against God. The children of God together enjoy God and prepare to go into a world without an echo to raise the voice of the gospel. It is the desire of the converted heart that God may be praised; and he will be fully satisfied in the house of God. Impossible to find repose of soul till God is praised unceasingly by those that surround Him.

“Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee.” If I have a difficulty, I in my feebleness have need of strength to sustain me in patient endurance. Peter without this strength denied Jesus. We may be weary when we act in our strength, for what is the strength of the flesh? When we act in the power of God, it is impossible. No creature can separate us from the power of God or the love of God. What is stronger? Jesus ever dependent was the strongest, and overcame the world. God has set our rest at the end of a path that we are treading; and it is good for us in order that we may make the experience of our own heart. It is those who are already redeemed who are on the road toward the rest of God. The word of God renders the thing surer than any other testimony could. It is a defile to pass, on the other side of which is the glory. Into this defile we must go down. One may there lose sight of the glory; and the way be difficult; but we have the certainty that it is the road to the glory. God has told us that in this road we shall be despised by the world and in conflict with Satan. He has told us these things before, that, when they come, we might believe His testimony to be true.

Here below we find not the rest but the way; but the way should be in our heart. Thus the valley of Baca, a ruined earth, is changed into a fountain. If we are in communion with God, every difficulty becomes the occasion for the display of the glory of God (2 Thess. 1). The timid child finds joy in the assurance of its mother’s love when some danger presents itself. We are often overwhelmed because our strength is not in God, who would have His grace sufficient for us; which is more precious than the removal of the thorn in the flesh. “The rain also filleth the pools.” It comes not from the earth but from heaven, to which we should be attached and whence we may expect everything. There is no such source of refreshment here below that I may know that God takes extra care of me, to give me water and manna and strength, and, in a word, everything. It is a blessing that we should be thus brought low: He has not done so either to the Egyptians or to the Canaanites. We ought to live on that which cometh out of the mouth of God (Deut. 8:2-5).

The effect of these things is to make one “go from strength to strength.” The difficulties are meant to make us know new strength on God’s part. We are not actually capable of enjoying all that there is in God. Also all is not yet given us. God gets more place in our hearts. The empty or hard places of the heart are manifested; and God has to fill or clear them. The Lord God of hosts, that is to say, the God who governs ail things, He who is faithful to His promises, and who has all things at His disposal, the God of His people, God ever the same. God presents Himself in three different ways: Jehovah or the Eternal, God of Jacob, and God of hosts. “Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed.” There is that assurance, the pledge of divine favor. God regards us in Christ; and all that we ask of Him in the name of Jesus He will do. Better be a doorkeeper in the house of God than dwell in the courts of the world. If our confidence is in man, we shall find ourselves sooner or later where man will fail us; and there is what Satan waits for in order to sift us. To trust in God is the hardest thing, as it lays the flesh under our feet, and self can gain nothing by it, but it is inexpressible joy for the heart.

J. N. D.

Published

LONDON T. WESTON, Publisher, 53, Paternoster Row

Published

LONDON

T. WESTON, Publisher, 53, Paternoster Row

Published

LONDON

T. WESTON, Publisher, 53, Paternoster Row

Published

LONDON

T. WESTON, Publisher, 53, Paternoster Row

TEE BIBLE TREASURY

Published

LONDON

T. WESTON, Publisher, 53, Paternoster Row

Published

LONDON

T. WESTON, Publisher, 53, Paternoster Row

Published

LONDON

T. WESTON, Publisher, 53, Paternoster Row

Published

LONDON

T. WESTON, Publisher, 53, Paternoster Row

Published

LONDON

T. WESTON, Publisher, 53, Paternoster Row

Published

LONDON

T. WESTON, Publisher, 53, Paternoster Row

Published

LONDON

T. WESTON, Publisher, 53, Paternoster Row

Published

LONDON

T. WESTON, Publisher, 53, Paternoster Row

THE BIBLE TREASURY

Published

LONDON: T. WESTON, 53, PATERNOSTER Row, E.C.

Published

LONDON

T. WESTON, Publisher, 53, Paternoster Row

THE BIBLE TREASURY

Published

LONDON

T. WESTON, Publisher, 53, Paternoster Row

Published

T. WESTON, Publisher, 53, Paternoster R9W

THE BIBLE TREASURY

Published

LONDON

T. WESTON, Publisher, 53, Paternoster Row

THE BIBLE TREASURY

Published

LONDON

T. WESTON, Publisher, 53, Paternoster Row

Published

LONDON

T. WESTON, Publisher, 53, Paternoster Row

THE BIBLE TREASURY

Published

LONDON

T. WESTON, Publisher, 53, Paternoster Row

Published

LONDON

T. WESTON, Publisher, 53, Paternoster Row

THE BIBLE TREASURY

Published

LONDON

T. WESTON, Publisher, 53, Paternoster Row

Ransom for All

I quite believe that Christ died for all, but I cannot say that He bore, as a substitute, the sins of all. The word, it seems to me, is very clear on this point in its doctrines, in the consequences that it draws from them, and in its types. So that I take ἀντίλντρον ὑπὲρ πάυτων [a ransom for all] in the simplest and widest sense. Satisfaction has been presented to God for men, but here (1 Tim. 2:6) it is evident these words refer to the desire to make of Jesus, at least of the Messiah, a mediator of the Jewish nation. No, says the apostle, He is so for all. God θέλει (not (βούλεται) that all, not the Jews only, should be saved; He has given, therefore, one Mediator for all, who has made the propitiation which was necessary, and demanded by the Majesty of God, so that the door is open to all through the satisfaction that He has made to the outraged majesty of God.

J. N. D.

Two Addresses Revelation 2-3: Part 1

I will first say a few words about the Book of Revelation itself. I suppose you know that it is nearly the most neglected book in the entire Bible, and yet it is the only book to which there is a very special promise of blessing attached. It commences, “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy.” It is very full of symbols and figures, and that, I suppose, is one reason why people have neglected it, and also because they have not had the key to understand it; but of late years God, in His grace, has opened it up very much, and given a much better understanding than, perhaps, there ever was before, and as the age proceeds, it becomes increasingly important. There are developments which we see before our eyes which we could not clearly see previously in this book. I do not intend to go into the whole book, but offer these preliminary remarks about the book itself. The promise may encourage us, however, to look a little into the book.

In the second and third chapters we have seven churches, and probably, as seven is a number signifying completeness, it is here a symbolic number. The number seven is used as a figure more than fifty times in the book of Revelation. No doubt there were seven actual churches in Asia, indicated in their names here, but there were several more that are not included. Why, then, should these seven be mentioned? They have been selected to give a picture of the history of the church from its first setting up to its rapture. The number is symbolical, and here indicates that it is the entire church that is looked at.

We find Christ taking different characters in the respective epistles to these several churches, and there are two characters distinct from the others in this first epistle to Ephesus and in that to Sardis. Much there is that indicates He has the seven churches under his entire purview. When He comes to Smyrna He drops the general character, and takes a special character according to the character of the church. “And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These things saith the First and the Last, which was dead and is alive.” Smyrna is written to about persecution, and therefore the Lord takes a special character to them— “the One which was dead and is alive.” He had Himself experienced persecution in its furthermost form, and, similarly, to the church in Pergamos and the other churches.

But to the churches of Ephesus and Sardis He takes a general character. Why did He take a general character for Sardis? I believe He referred to the Reformation. At the Reformation a new commencement was made. That was a great work of God that Luther did. In Sardis Christ takes this character— “He that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars.” You see, that is general, and does not relate to the specific state of the church. The moral teaching to the several churches is exceedingly important, and exceedingly blessed. It gives both judgment and encouragement.

The Lord, in the epistle to the Ephesians, takes the character of one who walks in the midst of the golden candlesticks, and He holds the seven stars in His right hand. The golden candlesticks, I need hardly explain, represent the seven churches. There is the Lord, passing and re-passing up and down through the churches. He knows all that is going on, the particular state of everyone; not only of the church, but of the individual. He has eyes like unto a flame of fire, and sees and judges everything; and that he is so discriminating, so piercing in His judgment is full of gracious and blessed exhortation to the individual. Take, for instance, the second verse of the second chapter. “I know thy works,” etc. It illustrates the way in which the Lord recites the several virtues and merits of each particular church. He knew them all, and though He proceeds to judge them, He first of all sets down every item in their favor. Is not that a very encouraging thing for us, a blessed thing that when dealing with our faults the Lord will have in remembrance everything that is true to Himself?

The church at Ephesus was a remarkable church. Ephesus is, I believe, to be in the foreground of all the churches. It was the scene of three years’ labor by the Apostle Paul, and he was the one to whom was given the revelation of the church. It is a representation, a symbolical representation of the church in its first state, and we all know what a blessed state of love, and faithfulness, and devotedness there was in the church at first, so that it came to be said, “Behold how these Christians love one another!” So Ephesus takes the first place, but already there was a symptom of decay. There was the beginning of retrogression, of spiritual decay. When the soul is first converted how full it is of love for Christ. There seems to the man when he gets deliverance from his sin nothing so great and blessed; but, by and by, too often the world begins to steal upon his heart. He leaves his first love; and that which so often happens to the individual has happened to the church collectively.

Now here we get an important thing to notice; that if the church did not repent, the candlestick would be removed from its place. That is, the church having failed, and not having repented, will, as a vessel of testimony be removed. This first epistle indicates that that is the liability of the church. And so it will he. The church as a vessel of testimony has failed deeply and will ultimately be removed. “But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes.” Many might say, “What are these deeds of the Nicolaitanes?” And in the epistle to the church of Pergamos we have the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes. I believe that God has intentionally concealed these. They are not explicitly stated. There have been various efforts to discover them from the derivation of the name, and those who are pleased with that can accept it. To my mind, God has purposely left the statement indefinite so that it may apply to unknown evils that may occur.

Then we come to the first of the promises. “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” There are three forms of overcoming mentioned in Scripture. John speaks of those who overcome the world, and he also speaks of overcoming false prophets, but what is this overcoming? It is an important thing to see that it is overcoming in a lapsed church. Ephesus had fallen, but there is a word of promise held out to those who overcome. Is not that an important exhortation to us? We also are in the midst of a lapsed church, but “to him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” There was a tree of life in man’s paradise, the garden of Eden, but this is the tree of life in the paradise of God, where there will be no going out. So that promise is exceedingly fine and blessed.

Now we come to Smyrna. Notice I have left out the words, “I know thy works.” A translator or scribe thought to improve by putting in “works” in several places. He has put in “works” where it is not wanted, and where it detracts from the value of the parts that should be in. The Lord wished them to know, no doubt, that there was a particular trial of which He knew, and that He was not oblivious of that. And so He does not say anything about their works, but He does say, “I know thy tribulation and poverty (but thou art rich).” That is another illustration of how the Lord has complete knowledge of us. They might be ever so poor in this world, but they had an unfailing inheritance; they were rich for they had eternal wealth which could not pass away.

Then He goes on to say, “I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan.” The word “Jews” may be symbolical or actual. They might be Jews, and not true Jews; but I believe the word has a symbolical meaning towards the traditionary Christianity around us. When merely formal Christians come into contact with real, vital life they do not like it, and they speak and rail against it. That is what we have here. That is a solemn thing. There may be bodies of professing Christians who are of the synagogue of Satan. “Fear not the things which thou art about to suffer, behold the devil is about to cast of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life.” Notice here the Lord knew they were in tribulation, and that they would be put into prison, but it was all under His control. The limit was appointed by Him, and could not go further: they should have tribulation ten days.

So it is with others, as is illustrated by Satan and Job. “He is in thy hand. Do what thou wilt with him, but on his life lay not thy hand.” Satan can only move against the children of God within the limits permitted by God. God’s hand is over it all. God has his eye upon you, and you will not be tried more than He permits; and it will be for your blessing. Here, in the case of Smyrna, they were to be cast into prison ten days, but the exhortation is “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life.” In the earthly law of Israel, faithfulness was rewarded by continuance of life. Speaking of the general status of the people, faithfulness was rewarded by earthly success, but now we have a new standard. We are not under a dispensation when God rewards faithfulness by earthly success. Often it is just the contrary. It is often very different indeed, for tribulation and persecution may proceed as far as death. The crown of life is also referred to by James. So there is a crown of life to those who endure temptation.

The names of some of these churches have a proper significance. In the case of Philadelphia, for instance—one of the best of the churches —the word means “brotherly love.” People suppose, and I do not say they are not correct, that the word Pergamos is significant. It means “marriage,” and here we have union with the world. That is what was the matter with Pergamos, for they held the doctrine of Balaam. Those who overcame were to eat of the hidden manna. That represents Christ, but Christ down here, in His life on earth. The blessed Lord Jesus is now in heaven, and we shall have communion with Him when we get there about the trials of this life. “I will give him of the hidden manna.” Then, again, the next promise is equally precious. I “will give him a white stone, and upon the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth save he that receiveth it.” This is very remarkable—to receive a specific name from Christ; and not only that, but a name which no one knows but he that receives it. Is there not something beautiful in that? When you think of the Lord Jesus Christ and the millions around Him, you think He cannot possibly know each one, but here we find there is a sweet and individual token which Christ gives to the faithful, one which is known only by you and Christ. The white stone was a token of approval in those days, and it is also a token of His personal knowledge. There is something very special and blessed in that. It will be very blessed in the disposition of rewards, when Jesus stands with the faithful around Him to go up and receive your reward, and to have your name confessed before the glorious multitude in heaven. What an honor, what a scene that will be! when the Lord shall stand in the midst of the throng and confess your name. But sweeter than this we have a private reward, a secret name which only we and the Savior know. Is there not something truly encouraging and blessed in such a thing?

Then we come to Thyatira. Those who study the epistles in the light of the theory that they represent church history all agree that Thyatira represents Romanism. One need hardly explain that an eye like a flame of fire illustrates a penetrating eye. “His feet are like fine brass.” That is a symbolical representation of the judgment of the Son. “I know thy works.” Here works is properly put in. There was still a great deal of activity, a great deal of service, but what else was there? “Thou sufferest the woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.” False teaching was permitted. In Thyatira there was a new feature; there was a remnant that feared God. There is also another feature—the Lord’s coming. The Lord’s coming is brought in as a hope, and something to direct the mind to. “That which ye have, hold fast till I come.” This, I need not say, is an exhortation which applies to all times, to hold fast to that which we have. Whatever we have, do not let it slip—do not be a backslider. If you have the truth, hold it fast. Then there is the promise— “He that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations.” This is a remarkable promise. It is to share in Christ’s judgment of the nations mentioned in the Second Psalm, vers. 8, 9. It refers to Christ’s coming and the judgment of the world, it does not refer to Christ’s coming to fetch the church which will be caught away to be with Christ before that. There is the promise that the church will come with Him, and share in the work of judging the nations. Then, again, you get the Lord’s coming, but now in a different way. “And I will give him the morning star.” The morning star refers to Christ in the character of His coming and receiving the church to Himself, before He appears to the world.

I will only slightly refer to Sardis. Thyatira represents Romanism, and Sardis shows what follows. It this case there is no error of doctrine; there is formal correctness. I may appeal to you; is it not very much the state of Protestantism in general? How many there are that are not alive! There is the ecclesiastical church, but where is the life? How much deadness there is. I do not mean the individual; I do not think it refers to the individual, although it may come down to that. The Book has a very close application to everyone of us. The exhortation it gives shows Christ’s perfect knowledge of our state. I will give unto every one of you, He says, according to his works. There is nothing overlooked; no fault is overlooked. Christ’s knowledge is perfect, and there is blessed encouragement and promise to press on and fight the good fight of faith. E. J. T.

Two Addresses Revelation 2-3: Part 2

I remarked yesterday afternoon that the Revelation is very little read; in fact, you may say it is the most neglected book of the New Testament. Practically, it is not read, and yet it is of the deepest importance that it should be. This chapter is full of instruction and encouragement, calculated to minister to our hope, to strengthen us, and raise our hearts and thoughts, and help us on our way. In the strictly prophetic part of the book, there is instruction, but we will not look into that now. A word is necessary as to the “angel of the church” in the first verse. A good many are mystified as to this. What is the angel of the church? The general character of the book is based upon the forms and figures of the Old Testament, and the Jews, you know, had a good deal to do dispensationally with angels. The law was given by the disposition of angels, and Jehovah Himself takes the title of angel. In the 22nd chapter of Genesis we read, “And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham; and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him; for now know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me.” So you see the angel of the Lord, here, is the same as God Himself. God Himself, sometimes shrouds Himself by the title of angel; so the angel of the Lord is frequently Jehovah Himself, and we get a good deal about angels in the Revelation. In scripture “angel,” besides meaning an order of beings a little higher than man, is also used for the mystical representative of one (or more) not actually seen. So it was of Jehovah; so of Peter in Acts 12:15, and of little children in Matt. 18:10.

What, then, is the angel of the church? It is not the separate order of beings called angels; for how could John have sent a letter to an angel? Some state it was the principal officer of the church, but we find no such thing in Scripture as a principal officer of a church. Man has appointed officers and dignitaries of churches, but the modern idea of a bishop is without authority in Scripture; there we find several bishops in one church. Similarly, in the epistles to the churches. There are twenty-one epistles in the New Testament, but only six are addressed to individuals. The rest are addressed to the saints, or laity. That is the contrary of Romanism, which says that the people cannot understand the word. God, on the contrary, sends His instruction directly to the people of God; and the mere addresses of the epistles in the New Testament refute thus a cardinal error of Romanism. This by the way; but the angel cannot be the head of a church; it is a mystical representation, a symbol. It means an assembly of God’s people, and not a particular individual, for in addressing the angel it is said the devil shall cast “some of you” into prison (2:10), and again, Antipas is spoken of as having been “slain among you.” It may be, indeed, that “angel” symbolizes, also, the responsibility of the church, and in that sense would particularly imply all those who are specially responsible for the condition of the church. However, I think I have said enough to show that it does not mean a person, but that it is a symbol, a mystical representation of an assembly, or the responsibility of an assembly.

I tried to explain yesterday afternoon that we get a new departure in the epistle to the church of Sardis. Now in the epistle to Ephesus the Lord had adopted a title which relates to the seven churches—that is to the whole church: it is “he which holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks” —there it is not special, applying to a particular church, as in the case of Smyrna for example. But Sardis represents Protestantism. That was a movement which affected the whole of Christendom; and consistently with this the Lord resumes His position towards the whole church, under the title “he that hath the seven spirits of God, and the seven stars.” In Thyatira, where we have Romanism, then, for the first time, a remnant is distinguished; and this remnant under Romanism, becomes the church of Sardis in the succeeding epistle. His word to Sardis is—and it is a word for Protestantism universally— “I know thy works that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.” That is a remarkable feature of Protestantism. The work of the Reformation was a great and noble work; it recovered the truth of salvation by faith instead of by works. The reformers also taught that the word of God was our sufficient guide. Those were two great principles to recover out of the wreck and ruin of the church of that day. It was a great and noble work, but it was marked by one thing—it was obviously incomplete. What the Church was, was not found. The position of the Holy Ghost, the coming and abiding of the Holy Ghost in the church, as the power of worship, was wanting. The Lord’s coming was not brought out: these principal truths were deficient; and glorious as the work of the reformers was, it was incomplete.

Then again, there is another thing that marks Protestantism. “Thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.” We know what the state was in what is called the Establishment in England —deadness. They had come out from Romanism, and rested at that, perfectly satisfied; went on with their forms of worship Sunday by Sunday, but where was the life? We know what the state was when God raised up Wesley, and Whitfield, and others like them. The remarkable characteristic in Sardis was incompleteness of works and deadness. But there is an exhortation: “Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.” Now that coming is contrary to the hope of the church. We do not look for the Lord to come as a thief. For us His visit is one of love to “receive us to himself, that where he is we may be also.” The threat to Sardis is to be left behind at the rapture, to meet the Lord afterward as Judge. You will find it mentioned in Luke, chap. 12, vers. 45 and 46. It refers to the dead profession of Protestantism going on after the church has been caught up. It is a sweet thing to notice that in the midst of Sardis there were those who did not defile their garments, and we have the promise that he that overcometh shall be clothed in white raiment, “and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.” That is a verse that has puzzled many. What is this blotting out? I believe it is a reference to what has just gone before: the fate of the dead professors. They will indeed be blotted out, no matter how bold their profession, if not ready to meet the Lord at His coming, they will indeed be blotted out. But He says to the others: that will not be your fate, but I will confess your name before My Father and before His angels. Of course, it does not imply that any believer could have his name blotted out of the book of life, but marks off the living as distinct from the dead profession of Sardis. The dead ones, the blotted-out ones, of Sardis, are simply the foolish virgins of Matt. 25.

Now we come to the epistle to the Philadelphians, which is very interesting. “These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no one shutteth, and shutteth, and no one openeth; I know thy works.” It is a precious thing that the Lord could leave it at that with those of Philadelphia. It is quite enough for the faithful to know that He knows. “Behold I have set before thee an open door, and no one can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.” This open door is one of the great privileges of the present moment. If you have looked at all into the future, after the church has gone, you know what a different state of things there will be then. Now, you can get into a railway train, and speak to someone about the gospel; you can preach in the streets, if not hindering traffic, and no one complains. You can print the gospel, and circulate it far and wide. There is, then, an open door everywhere, but there is this—we do not know when it may be closed. We do not know the moment when the Lord Jesus may come and catch up the church out of the world. The whole state of things will then be altered, and in the days of the Beast, nothing will be allowed, religiously or commercially, that has not his awful mark. Christian, use while you have it this great privilege of an open door. “For thou hast a little strength” —it is not much strength— “and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.” All these things are most precious to the one who has walked according to Christ’s word.

Then there is a prophecy. “Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.” That refers to a revulsion of feeling toward those who have the particular testimony of Christ. The time would come when opponents would be compelled to own that the despised ones were loved by the Lord. Have we not seen something of this sort? I remember when the Lord’s coming was a thing absolutely unknown, and when mentioned was scouted; when in every pulpit it was taught that the coming of the Lord meant death, and the real truth about the Lord’s coming was ridiculed and opposed. What do we find to-day? The truth has spread everywhere, and people are acknowledging what fifty years ago they rejected; and not only so, they now acknowledge in great measure their indebtedness to those who have been God’s instruments for bringing out this and other truths. So we can see before our eyes some fulfillment of the Lord’s promise that He would extort an acknowledgment from those who had opposed the truth. Indeed one may say that there is danger to ourselves in this; some would even give place and recognition to “the Brethren,” as a new, and now acknowledged, denomination of Christendom. But we do not want this. It may be pleasing to the flesh to be spoken well of, but we do not want acceptance by, and incorporation into, the Babylon of Christendom. “Come out of her, my people,” is the standing cry with reference to Babylon. Babylon and Philadelphia are at the opposite extremes of the scale, and we would at least aspire to, make our aim for, the character of Philadelphia, however earnestly we repudiate any claim to be Philadelphia.

In the next verse we read, “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.” What does that mean? Some think it means the “great tribulation”; it is not, however, tribulation, but temptation. There is going to be an hour of terrible temptation in this world, when God will be given up, and the name of Christ will be absolutely abandoned. After the church has gone, a Satanic flood will come across the earth, and the temptation will be to give up God altogether. But it cannot come while we are here. “I will keep thee from the hour of temptation.” Atheism is rife, and there is a general tendency to give up Christianity altogether. The great temptation seems to be throwing its shadow before, and we do not know how soon the church may be caught up. Immediately following that is, “I come quickly; hold that fast which thou hast, that no one take thy crown.” You see there is a crown; a crown of life as was seen yesterday afternoon, and it will be given to everyone that awaits Christ’s coming.

Laodicea represents the last state of the church, which will be rejected at the translation of the church. Christ will tolerate it no longer. “I will spue thee out of my mouth.” When that takes place, the people of God will have been caught up. He will spue out deadness, but it is a different deadness to that found in Sardis. These were boasting of richness, and we have a reflection of it in what we see around us to-day: people are becoming more blatant and boastful; they do not want truth at all. That is like those of Laodicea. But there’s another mark. “Neither cold nor hot.” Well, I am sure we should be very sorry to be lukewarm, but there is a great danger of getting into that state. We do not like such a character ourselves. We do not value a person who is neither one thing nor the other. If there is a thing in this world which is worth being hearty about, it is Christianity, and remember the testimony which God has given us in His word. Oh, let us see that “neither cold nor hot” does not represent our state. We want to be more warm towards Christ. “Anoint thine eyes with eyesalve.” There is inability to see things as they are; but there is this blessed remark, “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten; be zealous, therefore, and repent.”

There is a blessed promise for the worst state of the church, and of the individual. Christ is outside the church, but He is knocking at each individual door, and “if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” There is many a church in a state of deadness. The minister over it is dead; perhaps there are hardly any in his congregation that are not dead. Perhaps there is not one, and what is to prevent the same thing going on when the living ones have been caught away? Of course, we know that at the Apostasy dead profession will be thrown off, with Romanism at its head, but that will be later. Meanwhile, when all the living are caught away to meet the Lord there is nothing to show, as I see, that the dead profession may not continue for a brief time. Brethren, we occupy a very solemn position. Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea are all around us. The first three churches pass into one another (and indeed the third into the fourth), but the last four run on concurrently to the end. We have not to wait for Laodicea to be manifested. Laodicea is here already, and no one can tell whether the Lord may not at any moment descend into the air and catch us away forever, spuing the corrupt profession from Him. Meanwhile let us not be Laodiceans; let us seek to be true Philadelphians. We do not know when the Lord Jesus may come. There are symptoms visible which seem to indicate that it may be very near. Remember the state of Christendom. What a change has come over it during the last twenty years! And some years before that, to be an infidel was thought a strange thing. Now it is common. Now you have denominations giving up Christianity. Well, the time will come when Christ will stand it no longer; He will take His people up, and spue the others out of His mouth. May the Lord give us greater earnestness suitable to the times. May He remind us of the open door, that great privilege which we have now, and grant that we may use it, not being ashamed to confess Christ. “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess before my Father and before his angels.”

E. J. T.

Room for Christ

If at the Savior’s birth the world had “no room” or welcome for Him! on the other hand, what a welcome has the Savior secured for us to the “many abodes” of the Father’s house on high (John 14:1-3), where indeed is no “scant room.” Cast out by the world, there has He gone, and thence will He come again to receive us to Himself, that we may be where He now is—and with Himself forever. For Him then, we wait, who comes quickly. Even so; come, Lord Jesus.

Scripture Queries and Answers

Q.-Would you kindly explain through the Bible Treasury the meaning of

“Who shall declare his generation” (Isa. 8)?

“Who shall deliver me out of this body of death” (Rom. 7:24)?

“So then I myself with the mind serve God’s law” (Rom. 7:25).

“For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2).

“All them also that love his appearing” (2 Tim. 4:8). Do not all Christians love His appearing?

R. M.

A. (1) Isa. 53:8. Differing interpretations of this clause are by no means wanting. But if the words preceding indicate the wicked travesty of our Lord’s trial before the Roman governor” his judgment was taken away” —so it would appear that the prophet, under the sense of the nation’s overwhelming wickedness in compassing the rejection and death of Jehovah’s Righteous Servant, is led to cry out, “Who shall declare” such a generation as could be so guilty— “for he was cut off out of the land of the living”! (2, 3 and 4). Rom. 7:24, 25; 8:2. The converted or renewed soul—not yet brought into the Christian state of liberty and peace, but nevertheless truly born of God, as were also the Old Testament saints—has a new and holy nature not previously possessed (i.e. when unconverted), and delights in the law of God, yet finding itself powerless for good, because of indwelling sin (ver. 20). To will is present, but to work out the good is not. The body being thus under the power of, and enslaved by this fatal “law of sin and death,” is here called “this body of death,” dead because of sin. Hence the cry, when the soul’s powerlessness is felt and acknowledged, for a deliverer—found in Jesus Christ our Lord.

Looking to self for power has ceased; another is the Object before the soul, and so deliverance is found, and strength. “So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God,” whereas before, as sold under sin, it was no longer “I” but “sin” that dwelleth in me!

Scripture Queries and Answers

Q.-(4) “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2).

(5) “All them also that love his appearing” (2 Tim. 4:8). Do not all Christians love His appearing?

R. M.

A.-(4). So too, no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit, the believer knows himself to be in Christ Jesus, where no condemnation can possibly be. Under a new rule or principle—a law—it is the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus risen. He breathed into the disciples and said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” The law of sin and death inherited from Adam has no longer its authority. “Sin shall not have dominion over you.” There is the effective working of a new and living law —a law of liberty and power—so that now the righteous requirement, or demand, of God’s holy law is fulfilled in us who do not walk according to flesh (as once we did), but according to Spirit—the Spirit of God.

(5). 2 Tim. 4:8. The love of His appearing or manifestation in glory is what is in the heart of every Christian. Then shall we be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. There may not be intelligent knowledge of the manner and meaning of the event. But the soul that can say, “We love him, because he first loved us,” delights in His manifestation. And every one that hath this hope on Christ purifieth himself even as He is pure.

Scripture Queries and Answers: Isaiah 53:12

Q.-Will you kindly say whether, in your opinion, there is any good reason—critical, exegetical, or other, for preferring the following rendering of Isa. 53:12 to that of the Authorized Version: “I will give him the great for his portion, and he shall divide the strong for a spoil”?

C. J. C.

A.-This rendering was substantially so given in our first printed English Bible (Coverdale, 1335), as well as previously in the early Wycliffite Manu scripts of the fourteenth century. But these versions were made from the Latin Vulgate, which (as well as the Greek Septuagint) was itself but a translation; so that these English editions were translations of a translation, and not made from the original Hebrew of the Old Testament.

Tyndale had, however, set the way in taking the original languages of the Scriptures as the text from which an English translation of the word of God should be given; and had issued in 1525 his (first printed) version of the New Testament translated from the Greek. He also began an English version of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, but did not live to do much more than the Pentateuch. It was not until the appearance of the Geneva Bible (of 1560 and later) that a direct version from the original tongue of the Old Testament was given in English, and this is how the verse is there rendered— “Therefore will I give him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoyle with the strong”; followed by the Bishops’ revised (1568), “Therefore wil I give him among ye great ones his part, and he shall divide the spoyle with the mightie.”

The distinguished Hebrew scholars (amongst others) appointed in 1607 to give us our excellent King James’ Version were therefore acquainted with these two renderings of the verse, and had to face the consideration of their respective faithfulness to the original. And, as we see, they were led to accept the sense as given in the ancient Syriac Version, and adopted by Pagninus, Leo Judah, Castalio, the Geneva, Bishops’ and Diodati’s (Italian), as the more correct rendering of the Hebrew. Our Revisers of 1884 also have confirmed this conclusion, in which also J.N.D. and W.K. apparently concur, with many others.

All hangs upon the view that is taken of the two Hebrew particles (beth) and (eth) (translated “with” in both clauses of the sentence of our Authorized Version). In support of the rendering submitted by the querist the first particle is assumed by some to be used here pleonastically, rather than as (usually) a preposition. But this treatment of the second letter of the alphabet as a connective with its object of the Hebrew original of the verb “divide” finds no corroboration or countenance from any part of the Old Testament, and would appear therefore to be a philological impropriety.

Also as to the second (eth), Prov. 16:19 (his) and verses 9 (his) and 12 (“with the transgressors”) of our chapter all go to confirm the rendering “with” in the clause we are considering. Hence the majority of the best Hebrew scholars, so far as I know, are in accord with our Authorized and Revised Versions.

How then are we to understand the words? The prophet by the Spirit of God describes in metaphorical language the future triumphs of the earth — despised and suffering Servant of Jehovah (compare chap. 63:1). What are the “great” ones of the earth in the presence of Him to whom Jehovah will divide a portion? He is heir of all things and above all. But if He be thus singled out from all others by Jehovah Himself (“to him will I divide”), yet will He deign to divide the spoil with the strong. He loves to share with others what He has rescued from the power of the enemy. Such is His grace as the reigning Son of man (compare Isa. 11:14; Jeremiah 51:20-23; Zech. 10:3-12).

Scripture Query and Answer: A New Heart

Q.-Is it scriptural to teach that the believer in Christ has “a new heart” now?

K.T.

A.-The context in which these words are found (Ezek. 18:30, 31; 36:25-27) describes the great moral or spiritual change to be effected in the house of Israel in a day still future.

Similar expressions in the New Testament, such as, God “purifying their hearts by faith,” “having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience” (Acts 15:9; Heb. 10:22), etc., reveal the change now wrought in Jew and Gentile who, believing “the gospel of our salvation,” have been given to rest on the Savior’s atoning death and resurrection. Hence, we have new affections, new desires, being born of God—made partakers of a Divine nature—and have the abiding in-dwelling Spirit of God. Yet have we the old sinful nature still. It is unchanged and unchangeable (that which is born of the flesh is flesh); but “condemned” in the cross of Christ— “our old man is crucified with Christ,” and the believer is now called to reckon himself dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.” But sin is no longer to reign in our mortal body that we should obey it in the lusts of it. And if we walk in the Spirit we shall not fulfill the flesh’s lusts.

Scripture Query and Answer: Groaning

Q.1 Can a child of God who knows the truth of Rom. 8 (e.g. verses 1-10) say with truth, “O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from this body of death?”

Q.2. Does the “groaning” of Rom. 8:23 and that of 2 Cor. 5:2, 4, refer to the same thing as Rom. 7:24? or do they support it? E.T.

A. 1. The wretchedness of Rom. 7:24 arises from the discovery in the soul born of God (but not yet delivered and sealed by the indwelling Spirit, which is the Christian position), of his powerlessness to do the good he desires to do. Truly delighting in the law of God after the inward man, he yet sees (not only another, but) a different law in his members warring against the law of his mind, and bringing him into captivity to the law of sin which is in his members. Hence the cry for deliverance from this body of death. Jesus Christ risen is the Deliverer, and there is no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus; for the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed the Christian from the law of sin and of death. The Holy Ghost now dwells in him; so that he can do, and does, the things that he would, as led of the Spirit. This wretchedness is therefore gone forever in the case of the believer who now sees himself as in Christ Jesus; as no longer in the flesh (though in the body), but in the Spirit. The Holy Ghost given is spirit of sonship, not of bondage, and we await, as does all creation, “the manifestation” of this sonship of which the Spirit is the firstfruits. We are in the liberty of grace, and look for the liberty of “the glory” of the children of God.

2. The groaning of Rom. 8:23 is explained by the preceding and following verses (17-28). The presence of sin, both within and without, with its effects all around, make us groan as did our Lord (in Him is no sin), Mark 7:34. We suffer with Christ here, but soon all will be exchanged for glory, when “clothed with our habitation which is from heaven.” In no way does the “groaning” coalesce with the “wretchedness” of Rom. 7, as from this the one “in Christ” is already delivered.

Scripture Query and Answer: The Eternal Son of God

Q.-Is it right to view Christ as the Son of God only since His birth into this world, or is He the eternal Son?—K. H.

A.-Not only is the Lord Jesus, Son of God as born into the world (Luke 1:35; Acts 13:33), but this title is equally His from all eternity, as Scripture plainly reveals. Or how otherwise can we understand the following statements?

“Whose Son is he? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son” (Matt. 22:42-45; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44)? “God gave his only begotten Son” (John 3:16). “God sent not his Son into the world to judge,” etc. (John 3:17). “God sent his only begotten Son into the world” (1 John 4:9, 10). “God sent forth his Son” (Gal. 4:4). “Say ye of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemist, because I said, I am the Son of God” (John 10:36)? “The Father sent the Son” (1 John 4:14). “The Son of his love... the firstborn of every creature, for by him were all things created,” etc. (Col. 1:13-17). “God... hath.. spoken unto us by his Son... by whom also he made the worlds,” etc. (Heb. 1:1-3). “Melchisedec.... without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God” (Heb. 7:3). “We know that the Son of God is come” (1 John 5:20).

These scriptures are surely plain to a simple mind; and Dr. Adam Clarice’s rationalistic reasoning as to the Eternal Sonship of our blessed Lord has no just force. He was answered by Abraham Scott in 1828, and subsequently by Richard Treffry, jun., in his well-known work, “The Eternal Sonship of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The Scriptures

One God is the living center from which all flows; one Christ the living center round which all its truth circles, and to which it refers, though in various glory; and one Spirit the divine sap which carries its power from its source in God to the minutest branches of the all united truth, testifying of the glory, the grace, and the truth of Him whom God sets forth as the object and center and head of all that is in connection with Himself, of Him who is, withal, God over all, blessed for evermore. J. N. D.

The Secret of Blessedness

Psalm 1.

The thesis of this Psalm is the blessedness of the godly man, in contrast with the certain doom of the sinner whenever the time may come for judgment to be executed. Blessedness is a preferable word to happiness, inasmuch as the former attributes to God who blesses, what the latter word, as used by man, assigns to fortune or chance. Still the word blessed is to be understood as meaning what is usually implied in the word happy. The psalm is thus an answer to the almost universal inquiry of mankind after happiness. It shows us where true happiness—real blessedness —is to be alone found.

Happiness is a positive state of existence; but so truly is this world “a vale of tears,” that the idea of happiness most familiar to men’s minds is a negative one, and views it as depending on the absence of pain, weariness, disappointment, sorrow. Scripture itself stoops to our weakness in this respect, and represents’ the future happiness of the saints as partly consisting in entire exemption from every kind of grief. “They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more: neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.” “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.” Again, “There shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away.”

But there are deeper and surer sources of unhappiness than any of the afflictions thus enumerated; the sources, in fact, from which all these afflictions flow. But for sin, not one single sensation bodily pain, not one moment’s mental anguish, would have been experienced by a single member of the human family. Not that present exemption from these effects can be secured by moral and spiritual deliverance from sin, which is the cause. The godly suffer as well as others, and in many respects, more than others; but this prevents not their blessedness. It may and does hinder the perfection of it; but not its reality. In this world of evil, a man without sin would be the greatest sufferer on the earth. Of this we need no other proof than the Man of sorrows, who was “acquainted with griefs.” But who doubts His blessedness? It is in Him indeed that we have the only perfect instance of the character here described. It is not given as a description of Him, but of any godly man, and, primarily, any godly Israelite. For all the godly partake in reality of Christ’s character, though in Him alone has it been perfectly exemplified.

In the description here given of the godly man, his character is viewed first negatively and then positively. The first verse shows him exempt from those deeper sources of unhappiness from which all afflictions have really sprung; while the second reveals the positive secret of his blessedness. As for the first—it is not, “Blessed is the man that feels no pain, sheds no tears, suffers no loss or disappointment.” No “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.” We have here a double climax. First, as to the characters named: secondly, as to the attitude described. The ungodly—sinners—the scornful. Walking — standing—sitting.

“The ungodly” are the least culpable in this climax of evil. Their fault is negative. They know not, love not, fear not God. He is not in all their thoughts. They do not wish to remember Him, or to know His will, or obey His commands. “Without God in the world” is the solemn portraiture of their state. Such people have their counsel—their habits of thought—their grounds of judgment—their principles of conduct. In all these God has no place: they are ungodly. Blessed in the man that heeds not their counsel, that follows it not. It includes all the maxims of the decent, reputable, hut ungodly part of society; persons free from gross vices, but with whom self is the master-spring—the main object. Even with their freedom from gross vices, this is the case. They would not for their own credit, frequent a low tavern; but neither would they, and for the same reason, attend a cottage prayer-meeting. It is respectable to go to church, or to a well-cushioned fashionable chapel, and they go there; but it is equally respectable to attend the theater or concert room, and as it is even more agreeable it is more willingly practiced. For these and a hundred other habits and deeds such maxims are pleaded as, “We must do as others do.” “What good is there in being singular?” “We must act conformably to our station.” “This or that is expected of us.” “What harm is there in it?” These are but a small specimen of that which is here termed “the counsel of the ungodly.”

“Sinners” add to the ungodliness of the former class, positive ways of evil, wicked habits and pursuits. These differ according to constitution, early education or the lack of it, and a number of influences beside. “Every one hath turned to his own way.” One may be a way of violence, another of fraud, and another of intemperance. Blessed is the man who equally abstains from all —who “standeth not in the way of sinners.”

“The seat of the scornful” is occupied by the one who has so hardened himself against God as to mock at sin, deride the piety of others, and make a jest of sacred things.

Then, as to the second climax, to be in movement, walking, clearly affords more hope of being turned in a right direction, than where evil has been deliberately chosen, and a person stands in the way of sinners. But to be seated, and that in the scorner’s chair—to be at ease—where God, and Christ, and heaven are only named to point a joke or raise, a laugh; this is, beyond a doubt, the crowning attainment of such as call evil good, and good evil. Yet not only from this final maturity of shameless vice, but from all the steps which lead on to it, the subject of the psalm abstains. In the scorner’s chair he declines to “sit”; in the way of sinners he will not “stand”; in the counsel of the ungodly he refuses to “walk.”

Where then does he find the positive secret of his happiness? The psalm informs us, “His delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.” Man must have a positive object, or he cannot be satisfied. He is possessed of an understanding and of affections, for which employment must be found. On the nature of this employment more than on anything besides, does man’s happiness depend. Let the understanding be either unoccupied or ill occupied; let the thoughts rove at random, or be fixed on subjects corrupt in themselves, and debasing in their tendencies; let the affections cling to objects in themselves unsatisfying, and which separate from God; or let the affections, directed towards proper objects, be destitute of those objects: how in any case that has been supposed, can the soul be happy? And if the soul be unhappy, mere bodily ease and accommodation serve but as a mockery of its woe. On the other hand let the thoughts be rightly directed and diligently employed: let the affections be in habitual exercise on their proper, suited objects, and circumstances are of little power to hinder happiness in such a case. Such occupation for both the understanding and the affections is found in the word of God, here called, “the law of the Lord.” We must not restrict the expression to the “ten words” spoken on Sinai, or even to the whole law given by Moses. It is used of the entire revelation which God at that time had vouchsafed to man; and as it was in and to the nation of Israel that this revelation had been given, the name of God here used is that of His covenant relation with Israel— “Jehovah.” “His delight is in the law of Jehovah.” What a number of thoughts are suggested by this statement. We have the idea of authority, for it is a law that is in question, however extended the signification and use of the word. But it is an authority cheerfully acknowledged. His delight is in the law, and how evident it is that the Lord Himself Jehovah must be both known and loved, for the heart to find its delight in His law —His word. For us, of course, divine revelation is now much more extended still: it comprises the revelation of God in the person and work of Christ, already come. God has thus made Himself known in a much more personal way than in Old Testament times; so that while the authority of the word is no less absolute, the affections find a personal object to rest upon, much more distinctly manifested, and love takes the place of law. I speak now of the terms by which the whole revelation as known by us may be designated, and of the difference between these and the one here used— “the law of the Lord.” But even in the Psalmist’s day, how easy the yoke of a law in which his delight was found! His delight was in it. Surely there is no less for us to delight in, now that God is fully revealed, and revealed as Love.

But lovely as is this portraiture of a man whose delight is in Jehovah’s law, this is not the whole of what is presented here. “In his law doth he meditate day and night.” This is the natural result of delighting in it; and by a happy reaction the result becomes, in its turn, a cause of increased and ever increasing delight. The more we delight in God’s word the more habitually shall we meditate therein; and the more we meditate on God’s word the more shall we delight therein.

Just as a man’s speech or writings is the means or instrument by which he communicates his thoughts, and makes known his feelings, so is God’s word the instrument or means by which He makes Himself known. Meditation is the means by which we, on our part, become possessed of that which is made known. In the case of a fellow-creature, suppose I find all my happiness in keeping company with him, listening to his discourse; or, supposing him absent, in reading his letters or writings, pouring over their contents, repeating them to myself and following out the trains of thought to which they give rise—clearly, in such a case, it is my delight in the speaker or writer, my admiration of his character or abilities,. my sympathy with his thoughts and principles and pursuits, my attachment to himself, which accounts for the delight I have in his writings and discourses. So, if my delight is in the word of God, and if in that word I meditate day and night my thoughts whenever released from pressure returning to God’s word, and flowing spontaneously in that channel, it is because God Himself is known, loved, and delighted in. If it be, then, the secret of true happiness which is here unfolded to us, what is it but that God Himself alone suffices for the happiness of his intelligent creature, man? “Delight thyself also in the Lord, and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.” “The Lord is my portion, saith my soul.” “Whom have I in heaven but Thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.” “The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup.” Such breathings as these are expressions of the counsel of the godly. Even as to the means of enjoying Him as our portion, other scriptures are not wanting. “Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage forever; for they are the rejoicing of my heart.” “Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and Thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart.’’ See also Psa. 19:7-11; and the whole of Psa. 119.

The happiness attendant on the character and course of the godly man is described in verse 3; first under the figure of a tree, and then in literal terms. What a picture does the former part present! “A tree” —one of the loveliest objects in creation—a specimen of living beauty. “Planted” —not a wilding, growing from seed scattered hap-hazard by the wind, and alighting anywhere—but planted: some skilful eye discerning the suited situation, and some careful hand removing all obstructions to the future growth of the tree thus planted in a generous soil, with every advantage of watchful culture that could be bestowed upon it. “By the rivers of water”; and not dependent, therefore, on the fitful shower, though profiting by it whenever it falls. A river at the roots, this tree is secure from drought. What a lively representation of the man who depends not for happiness or usefulness on any creature supplies, who leans not on an arm of flesh, but trusts in the living God, and finds all his springs in Him. “That bringeth forth his fruit,” and “in his season” too. Not like “untimely figs” which the tree casts unripe and unfit for use; but in his season, the time when it is expected, having reached maturity, and being fit for every end to which it is adapted. So the godly man—active when in health and vigor, patient and resigned when sickness compels retirement, firm when firmness is required, yielding and submissive when it is for God’s glory that he should be so— “he bringeth forth his fruit in his season.” “His leaf also shall not wither.” Instead of any decay in his profession—that which man’s eye meets as the leaf in the tree—that profession is sustained in ever fresh and changeless vigor and consistency, by the life from which it springs. “And whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.” Such is the literal statement of the blessing from God which attends the godly man. But this requires a little close attention.

In present result, judged by any human or earthly standard, this statement would not seem to be verified. When we hear the psalmist himself exclaiming, “Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant, broken down all his hedges, brought his strongholds to ruin, set up the right hand of his adversaries, made all his enemies to rejoice”: when we hear him asking, “Wherefore hast thou made all men in vain?” (Psa. 89:39-47): and when we hear Christ Himself saying, “I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for naught and in vain” (Isa. 49:4; see also Matt. 23:37)—it is evident that, “whatsoever he doeth shall prosper” is not to be taken as an absolute promise to be fulfilled in every sense, and in every case, and at all times. “What things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law” (Rom. 3:19). This follows on a number of quotations from the book of Psalms; so that this book would seem to be included in the term “the law.” It was Israel to whom “the law” was given, whether in its narrower or wider sense; and we have seen that the name of covenant relation with Israel is the name here used. Now it was part of Jehovah’s covenant with Israel, that obedience should be attended with prosperity. “Blessed shalt thou be in the city, in the field, the fruit of thy body, the fruit of thy ground, cattle, kine, and the flocks of thy sheep” (see Deut. 28:3, 4). The first thirteen verses indeed may be read as an exposition of the words before us, “whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.”

But then these promises are to the nation in case of their obedience. Jehovah’s government would secure all this blessedness and prosperity to His nation, if obedient. But the First Psalm treats of a godly man, not an obedient nation; nay, of a godly man, in contrast with the wicked. This, as to character, we have seen in the first two verses, we are to see it shortly in results. But the very presence of the ungodly, and even of scorners, implies a testing time for the faithful; and, as unfolded largely in other Psalms, the great test is the suspension of this word as to any present fulfillment, so that instead of the godly man prospering in all he does, it seems as though the wicked were in prosperity and the godly persecuted and forsaken. But this is not brought out here, and where it is, it is only for the present. There is a judgment impending, the effect of which will be to remove the ungodly, and leave only those as the righteous congregation, who, in the presence of the ungodly, and of the trial inseparable therefrom, have sustained the character of the man here described. In other words, a remnant, distinguished from the wicked part of the nation, by the character here given as that of an individual godly man, will become the nation, when the judgment has swept the ungodly away; and then of each such person it will indeed be true, “whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.”

“The ungodly are not so”: entirely contrasted in character, whatever prosperity they may have for the present, it is shortlived, and they themselves, like “the chaff which the wind driveth away.” Think of the difference between the tree planted by the rivers of water, and the chaff which the wind driveth away! It is only till the judgment that the wicked can be supposed to prosper; but that judgment is sure, and “the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.” They are mingled together now, however different in character—; dwelling in the same city, perhaps under the same roof, sitting at the same table, or sleeping in the same bed. But judgment will distinguish accurately between the one and the other. And mark well, there is no hint here of the translation of saints to heaven, such as we are now taught to expect at the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. This was a mystery never revealed till apostolic times—till redemption had been accomplished, the Holy Ghost had come down, and the earthly people had not only rejected and crucified their Messiah, but rejected the last offers of mercy through His death, by the Holy Ghost come down from heaven. Then, when nothing remained but for sovereign grace to call out from every nation a saved people to be associated with an earth-rejected Christ in His heavenly place and glory, then it was revealed, that He will perfect His work of grace by descending to raise His sleeping, and change His waking, saints—all being caught up together to meet Him in the air, and so be forever with Him: a translation of the whole body of the saints from earth to heaven, not dependent on any judgment to fall upon the wicked.

This is our hope as Christians; while, on the other hand, the judgment treated of in the first Psalm, and throughout the Psalms, is a judgment by which the wicked are removed, and the righteous left as Jehovah’s congregation on the earth. It is the judgment of Luke 17:24-37, Matt. 24:37-41, and numerous scriptures besides, in which we read of the wicked being taken, and the righteous left. Meanwhile, “the Lord knoweth” (both discerns and approves) “the way of the righteous”; “but the way of the ungodly” (however seemingly successful now) “shall,” in the time of judgment, surely “perish.”

W. T.

A Section of John's Gospel

Notes of an Address on John 13.

It is necessary in order to get full enjoyment from a chapter that we should know something of the general character of the book, and particularly in the Gospels, we need to have some inkling of the structure. Now here in these five chapters, from the 13th to the 17th, we have a special section which has a character of its own. From this time Jesus never spoke in testimony to the world. Now it was communion of the Lord’s heart with His disciples—except the 17th chapter, which was between the Lord Jesus and the Father, but which, however, they were permitted to hear. All this was a private thing between the Lord and His disciples, and had nothing to do with the world. They were shut in, away from the world. It relates to a new character or period of time.

There are distinct sections in the Lord’s life. For example, there was His early life, of which we hear practically nothing except a brief mention in Luke 2:40-52. God has not told us about those thirty years. Then there was His baptism by John, when He was acknowledged by God with the words, “This is my beloved Son in whom I have found my delight.” Following that, the temptation. Satan was going to try Him. He had succeeded with the first man, and now all his power and subtlety were concentrated on the Second. The Holy Spirit led Him into the wilderness, where He foiled the art of the tempter and issued victorious. And now the account ends with “the devil leaveth him for a season.” This is an epoch in the life of Jesus, and gives character to the succeeding period up to our chapter.

You remember the parable of the strong man “No man can enter in to a strong man’s house and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man, and then he will spoil his house.” Jesus had bound Satan to a certain extent, although he was conquered only so far. Now, for three years the Lord goes about spoiling the strong man’s house. He delivered the poor woman who was bowed together for eighteen years; He healed the man with the withered arm; He gave the deceased son back to his mother; and the Gospels are full of the wonders that He wrought against Satan’s power in every form. He bound the strong man and spoiled his house. He also spoke the truth of God everywhere, preaching the word through the villages. We must remember that the Lord was a great preacher. He said, “Let us go into the next towns that I may preach there also; for therefore came I forth” (Mark 1:38). We are apt to forget the power of His word in thinking of His miracles. When He sent the disciples forth He Himself “departed to teach and to preach,” and His voice was heard throughout the land.

But now we come to another section of the Lord’s life. There were certain Greeks who came up to the feast who said to Philip, “We would see Jesus” (chap. 12:23, 24). “Jesus answered saying, The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified.” It was the particular hour to Him, and in the next verse He refers to His death. At the thought of that hour He says, “Now is my soul troubled.” Yes, as that hour approached His soul was troubled. This was the culminating hour of His life, and we can truly say in the beautiful words of Sir Edward Denny

“One hour there is on history’s page;

Pre-eminent o’er all the past;

‘Twill shine and shine from age to age,

While earth, while heaven itself shall last.”

All the works He did, and the words He spoke, led up to this, and all would not have availed for us but for this solemn hour (John 13:31, 32). He refers to the same in John 17:1. What was the hour? It was when He met God about our sins. It was a wonderful hour when Jesus bore the penalty of sin, when He went to the cross and was made sin for us—He who knew no sin. Yet there is another feature of this hour. I quoted from Luke 4:13 that Satan departed from Him for a season. Now, however, he leads the multitude on to destroy Him.

When He sent the seventy forth, He told them to take neither purse nor scrip, and they lacked nothing. Now He says, “He that hath a purse let him take it, and likewise his scrip, and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one” (Luke 22:35). They were no longer under His visible protection. He was going forth to enter upon that great work which He has so completely performed. Satan had left Him for a season, but now he was working through the people, so that the Lord says, “Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves? While I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hand against me; but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.” Here was a great change. This was Satan’s hour. When all this was about to take place He retired from testimony to the world and closeted Himself with His disciples before entering on His sufferings. “Having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.” Satan brought before Him all the horrors of that hour—the horror of contact with sin, when He who knew no sin was made sin for us. But with all this before Him did it cool His love? No, not for one moment. He loves you and me—He will love us right on to the end. His is a never-ceasing and never-changing love, and He will love us still through all eternity. His hour was come—the culmination of all He came for. This great event was spoken of before the world was, “In the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God” (Psa. 40, and Heb. 10).

John commences chap. 13 by introducing the person of the Lord and His position. It was the manner of John to do this. In opening the Gospel he presents the person of the Lord, beginning with a brief but important statement concerning that blessed One. He opens this section in a similar way. His Epistle also has this characteristic. He does not begin as Paul does, but has a style of his own. John breaks in suddenly with a presentation of the person of the Lord. The Revelation also shows the same. The first chapter is a symbolical vision of the person of the Lord. It is what we might term the Johannine manner. It is always the person of the Lord prominent in the foreground.

When we come to these communications (chap. 13.), what is the first thing He brings out? Not salvation, for we know already that we are saved to all eternity. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, but we do need provision for keeping us clean while on the journey, and the Lord gives this at the opening of the chapter. It was a beautifully gracious action on the Lord’s part. “He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.” Just consider who He was—He made the worlds and upholds them by the word of His power. This was a symbolic action, setting forth His present work of keeping us clean, and it is more explained by Peter’s characteristic attitude during the process. “Lord, dost thou wash my feet?” The Lord’s reply is, “What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter.” That is, there is a hidden symbolical meaning which Peter knew nothing about, or he would not have said, “Thou shalt never wash my feet.” “Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Simon Peter saith unto him—(like his usual impetuosity)—Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.” This brings out the intention of the Lord’s act. “He that is bathed needeth not save to wash his feet.” That is just how it stands with us—we contract defilement by the way; we feel how often we commit sin while on the journey. “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.” When any one sins what he has to do is to confess his sin, and the Lord will forgive at once. It is not merely judicial forgiveness, but cleansing—we are clean from the sin and communion is restored.

Now why should a believer go on with sin upon his conscience when the moment a sin is confessed it is forgiven? But it is true that many believers carry a burden which they ought to get rid of. When David said to Nathan, “I have sinned,” Nathan answered immediately, “The Lord also hath put away thy sin.” So you see the moment a sin is confessed we are clean every whit. We occupy the happy position of being justified ones, but are we clean? How different everything would often be on the Lord’s day morning, for instance. Sometimes the hymns are not from the heart as they would be if all had been through that little process beforehand; but when this has been done worship rises in fullness and power. We cannot be happy with the Lord with unconfessed sin on our consciences, but it is beautiful to see His way of keeping us clean while we are left here. It is so full of graciousness and love, and consideration for us. You see He not only washes their feet, but wipes them with the towel. He is the perfect Workman, and does not leave His work unfinished. There was nothing rough or unkind in the way He did it, and they were to do for one another as He had done for them. It should be so with us too. We are to bring the word to bear on one who is in the wrong, but only in love and grace as He did. He stooped in humility and took a low place, and we should take the same. It seems very striking to me that He wiped as well as washed their feet. It shows the perfect way in which He did everything. A good workman always likes to turn out his work nicely finished, and the Lord did not leave the disciples to wipe their own feet! We can never alienate His heart. Though we may lose hold of Him, He never loses hold of us.

We will now pass on to the scene where Jesus is troubled at the thought of Judas betraying Him. He says, “One of you shall betray me.” It was not so much that it was Judas, but that it should be one of those who had companied with Him and had seen His works and heard His words.

In vers. 23 and 24 we see the different characters of Peter and John. They both loved the Lord and were loved by Him, but how different they were! John was gentle and a character the Lord could enjoy. He, as man, had a personal love for the man John. But with Peter “there was too much of Peter,” although he was a great man and the chief of the apostles. It is sweet for us to know how the Lord appreciates the individual character of His saints. Some are gentle, some are more active, and fitted to grapple with the sterner work of life, while others. are fitted only for gentler service. But we know that He will give to each the right place in glory, for He knows all about us. Although Peter was the chief of the apostles, and his name was always put in the foremost place, it was through John that he obtained the information he wanted.

Judas is a sad and solemn character. It seems strange to us that he should proceed with his evil designs after he had been pointed out by dipping the sop, but it is probable that he never thought that the religious leaders would proceed to such lengths. He did not know, as he afterward found out, that he had betrayed the innocent blood. We read that after the sop Satan entered into him. That is a remarkable word, for though we read of many cases of men being possessed by demons, this is the only time we hear of Satan himself entering into a man. There are two who are called “the son of perdition,” Judas and Antichrist, or the man of sin.

Under the circumstances this is a remarkable expression in ver. 31, “Now is the Son of man glorified.” It seems contradictory in view of the cross, but it was moral glorification in the rendering of a perfected obedience. We have all sinned and come short of the glory of God, but He was the sinless One. Then He goes on to say, “God shall straightway glorify him.” This He did, we know, when He received Him up into heaven; that is, straightway, without waiting for the coming kingdom, for He was the Man who had fulfilled in His life all the Father’s will, in perfect, loyal obedience, and God could not wait for a future time, but would straightway glorify His Son.

This section of the Gospel is exceedingly beautiful, but we have no time to dwell more upon it now, save just to notice vers. 34 and 35. I am sure we all want to love one another. In John’s Epistle he says, “We know that we have passed from death unto life because we love the brethren.” And here we have, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” These are two important points. If there is love to the brethren it is a testimony to ourselves that we are His. Love in our hearts is sure to manifest itself and so become a testimony to the world. We cannot all preach, but we can all show love to our brethren, and that is a direct testimony both to ourselves and to the world. What we want is more love in our hearts, and if love is pre-eminent there must be blessing. “Hereby perceive we love, because he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.” You say, “Oh, but that brother wants too much love.” Perhaps so; yet nevertheless you should be willing to lay down your life for your brother. Love would not think of stopping short even at that—and we ought not.

E. J. T.

Shadows at the Sunset

At eventide there was a great congregation of the afflicted of Capernaum at the house of Simon Peter. Those who had scruples in coming to be healed on the Sabbath now came freely. Those who feared the tyranny of an apostate priesthood came under cover of the lengthening shadows. And prostrate ones, fearful of the fierce rays of a noontide sun, were brought to Jesus in “the cool of the day.” And He who in the garden of Eden sought the guilty pair at eventide as they shrunk abashed from His presence (Gen. 3:8), had come from heaven to seek and to save their suffering and groaning sons.

The Lord of glory held a great reception that night, but the throng was not such as is found in the courts of the world’s great ones. He was indeed greater than Solomon, but no Queen of Sheba was there with her gifts. Truly the day is coming when all nations shall fall down before Him, but those who did Him reverence then were but a company of invalids. Nor did they seek His face in vain. They found that He whose scepter shall in due time exercise its unchallenged sway over the governments of this world was supremely potent even then in the kingdom of affliction and pain. With the resources of His omnipotence blending with the exquisite sensibilities of His perfect manhood, He passed, while the twilight shadows deepened, through that motley assemblage, laying hands of beneficent healing on every poor sufferer (Luke 4:40), and expelling demons with a word (Matt. 8:16). How well did Jesus prove Himself that night the Servant of Jehovah! What occasion did He give for Capernaum to exchange the spirit of heaviness for the garment of praise, and to take up the language of the prophetic Psalm and sing to God, “Bless Jehovah, O my soul; and all that is within me, bless His holy name. Bless Jehovah, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits; who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases” (Psa. 103:1-3).

We shall do well to reflect upon this vivid picture of the Lord’s loving service, given in all three of the Synoptical Gospels. For we are still in the shadows. We form part of the creation which, in its entirety, groans and travails in pain even yet (Rom. 8:22), waiting for a deliverance still to come. In our weaknesses we need an all-sufficient One to sustain and to deliver; “until the day break and the shadows flee away.”

Truly we have no warrant for believing that the Lord has secured to His own a present exemption from the physical and mental disabilities common to mankind. Neither have we warrant for believing that the power He exercised in New Testament times over the sick bodies of men is continued to His present witnesses. In those miracles of healing He demonstrated once for all His power as the First Cause, dispensing with all material remedies as intermediaries, accomplishing His purpose with a word or touch. He was pleased to use a plaster of figs for the recovery of Hezekiah, but the king knew that it was Jehovah who had healed him, as he said, “He hath both spoken unto me, and himself hath done it” (Isa. 38:15). And we, encouraged by the personal activities of Jesus recorded in the holy Gospels, may use our medicinal remedies in the assurance of His equal activity to-day both in sympathy and in power to heal.

“Thine arm, O Lord, in days of old,

was strong to heal and save;

It triumphed o’er disease and death,

O’er darkness and the grave;

To Thee they went, the blind, the dumb,

The palsied and the lame,

The leper with his tainted life,

The sick with fevered frame.

And lo! Thy touch brought life and health;

Gave speech, and strength, and sight;

And youth renewed and frenzy calmed

Owned Thee, the Lord of light.

And now, O Lord, be near to bless,

Almighty as of yore,

In crowded street, by restless couch,

As by Gennesareth’s shore.

Though Love and Might no longer heal

By touch, or word, or look;

Though they, who do Thy work, must read

Thy laws in nature’s book;

Yet heal and quicken, soothe and bless,

With Thine almighty breath;

And be our great Deliverer still,

Thou Lord of life and death.

Though Israel did not know the Messiah, the demons were inwardly conscious of the personality of this Servant of Jehovah, and would have declared it aloud. This the Lord forbade, as in the synagogue. He did accept the fourfold witness of the Baptist, the Father, His own works, and the Scriptures (John 5:32-47), but He, the Holy One of God, disclaimed all testimony from beneath. In that wisdom which He possessed so perfectly as a Man, He, anticipating the unfounded charge against Him of complicity with Beelzebub in the expulsion of demons, and to give no occasion of stumbling to any of the Father’s “little ones,” publicly renounced all association with the works of darkness, so that all might know that these things were wrought by Him in His Father’s name alone.

MORNING PRAYER

The work of mercy over, the healed ones and their friends retired to their homes. Capernaum was soon wrapped in a healthy slumber not known for many a day. Was it so in the house of Simon Peter with the faithful and devoted Servant of Jehovah? We know not whether the long night-watches were spent by Him in sleep or not. We know He slept in the storm-tossed boat when His disciples were filled with terror. We also know when His apostles fell asleep “for sorrow,” the silence of Gethsemane was broken by His agonized pleadings to His Father. As to this particular night, however, while we recognize that what others did was no rule for Him, since Scripture is silent, it will profit us nothing to speculate further. But this we are informed that He rose up a great while before day, and leaving the sleepers to sleep on, He went away into a place of solitude, and there was praying.

In the parallel passage in Matthew, though no reference is made to the Lord’s morning vigil, a prophecy is cited from the Old Testament which may therefore rightly be considered in this connection. “When the even was come, they brought unto him many possessed with devils; and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all that were sick, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, “Himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases” (Matt. 8:16, 17).

This passage is taken from the prophecy relating to Jehovah’s righteous Servant, as it was translated from the Hebrew in the Greek Septuagint Version. It is a prophetic utterance of what the believing and suffering Jewish remnant will penitently confess in a future day when they recognize their guilt in rejecting and crucifying their Messiah. “Surely he hath borne our griefs [sicknesses] and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.”

The passage in Isaiah evidently does not refer, as the verses which immediately follow do (Isa. 53:5, 6), to the atoning and substitutionary sufferings of Christ, but to the effects of His service among men which the Jews, blinded by unbelief, regarded as a visitation from God, so that they said, “He is mad”; “this man is not of God”; “He hath a demon,” esteeming Him to be a Gehazi, a Uzziah, “stricken, smitten of God and afflicted.”

The Spirit of God, however, in Matthew records this instance of extensive healing energy at Capernaum as an illustration of the manner in which the prophetic oracle was fulfilled. So that we are left in no doubt as to its true application. In the narrative of His taking, the infirmities and bearing the diseases, there is not only the sense that the Lord removed these things from the sufferers, but also that He took them upon Himself; so that He became a “Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief [sickness]” as stated in the verse preceding the quotation (Isa. 53:3).

It was thus Jesus was “touched with the feeling of our infirmities” (Heb. 4:15), and thus that He qualified Himself to be our sympathizing High Priest on high. Not that He took these physical infirmities upon His own body, but He bore them upon His spirit. His acts of healing were not acts of power solely, but acts of sympathy also. He as none else could fully estimate the physical pain, the mental anguish and the moral ruin represented before Him. When the deaf and dumb man was before Him, He looked up to heaven and sighed (Mark 7:34). At the grave of Lazarus He groaned in the spirit, was troubled, and wept copiously (John 11:33-38), so that even the Jews said, “Behold, how he loved him.”

It was therefore not only Omnipotent Power, but Infinite Love concerning itself intimately with the physical disabilities of our race, coming into contact therewith, and exhibiting His matchless sympathy. There was a partial expression of this loving regard in the Old Testament, when Jehovah brought His people through the wilderness. “In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old” (Isa. 63:9). More could not be till the incarnation, and Jehovah was now present in Israel in the person of the sorrowing and sympathizing Son of man. How keenly affected therefore was His spirit as the suffering Galilaeans crowded to Him as their great Physician for healing. It was an evening of sorrow, and how much there was for Him to do and to suffer before the morning came, the morning without clouds. Did not He look on to that morning of liberty and glory? Did He not say, “I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished?” (Luke 12:50).

Was then this burden upon the Lord’s spirit throughout the long night-watches? Were the Psalmist’s words fulfilled in Him; “I am weary with my groaning; all the night make I my bed to swim; I water my couch with tears” (Psa. 6:6)? and again, “My voice shalt thou hear in the morning, O Lord; in the morning will I direct my prayer unto thee, and will look up” (Psa. 5:3)?

This may have been so, but the specific subject of this early communion between the Servant and the One who sent Him is not revealed, only the fact is certain, that He sought the solitudes “to pray.” As on another occasion He was “alone praying” (Luke 9:18), exemplifying what He also taught—the importance of secret prayer (Matt. 6:6). This privacy was only to be secured by such an act of self-sacrifice as this. The needy crowd surrounded Him in the evening, and a similar throng would seek Him in the early morning. The Lord therefore went out into the night-chills, always keenest in the hour before the dawn, to secure a period free from interruptions, thus subordinating the activities of His service to the confession of His dependence upon God. What an example for us in the strenuous life of to-day!

The following extract relates to our subject: “Here also we have the dependence of the Lord in all this. We must modify this by no specious pretext, as if the Lord’s prayers were the only untrue ones ever offered among the assembly of saints. His arm was not shortened; He clothed the heavens with blackness, and made sackcloth their covering; He dried up the sea, so that their fish stank; He could do what He pleased, but this state of things [shown by the Lord’s prayers] is easily and blessedly explicable. The Lord God had given Him the tongue of the learned, that He might know how to speak a word in season to him that was weary. He wakened His ear morning by morning. He opened His ear to hear as the learned, and now, with this early-wakened ear He went forth to hear, and to hold that blessed communion with the Father, where, in a world of evil, alone His soul could find delight and refreshment, and where He renewed the strength of His joy—the conscious ground of His coming forth into the world; and in the apprehensions of His soul, all [this] passed in intercourse with His Father. [It is] the most blessed, perhaps the most interesting, part of all our Savior’s life, and where He brings us in spirit with Him, into His Father’s presence, into His Father’s bosom, where He pours all His request, and passes through the evil [of the world] in the strength of it. Oh, it is a blessed portion! Are we to suppose the Savior the only Man who never had it?”

POPULARITY SHUNNED

Simon Peter the host was disturbed to find his gracious Master had departed. And he with others sought His whereabouts with an anxiety we can well imagine. A crowd also collected from near and far, all anxious for further knowledge of the Prophet who had wrought such mighty and merciful deeds of healing for the sons of Israel.

When the ardent disciple found the Lord, he said to Him in his excited impetuous way, “All are seeking thee.” Bright visions of the glorious kingdom were before this newly-called fisher of men. Did it not say in the prophets that all should know the Lord, from the least even unto the greatest? His exuberant fancy saw in the Capernaum crowd the earnest of the thousands of Israel flocking to confess themselves subjects of the Savior-King. The Lord did not rebuke Peter for vain thoughts, or crush his enthusiasm as ill-timed and misplaced.

But the Lord’s hour of triumph had not yet come, and He knew what was working in the hearts of the populace, while Peter did not. Jesus did not commit Himself to men in Galilee any more than in Jerusalem (John 2:23-25). Not seeking popularity or importance in the eyes of men, He expressed His will to go forward in the service of His Father. “Let us go elsewhere into the next towns that I may preach there also; for to this end came I forth.” Preaching, not miracles, was the chief end of His mission, and accordingly we find Him continuing His blessed service throughout the synagogues of Galilee, preaching and casting out demons. [W. J. H.]

The Shepherd and the Sheep

There is something exceedingly sweet and attractive in the teaching of the word of God, where the figure of a shepherd is used, and it would be difficult to find a scripture that has given more comfort to the children of God than Psa. 23, where the sheep throughout is the speaker—in the first three verses speaking about the Shepherd and His gracious ways; and in the fourth and fifth verses speaking to Him.

“The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want.” This is no empty boast, but a most blessed certainty, for possessing the Lord as a shepherd secures everything. As a result of that relationship there is satisfaction, peace, divine guidance, restoration of soul, assurance of protection from all evil, comfort in the most trying path; provision worthy of the Giver, an over-running cup, with goodness and mercy following all one’s earthly days; and finally a dwelling in the house of the Lord forever. Who can estimate the value of these grand and righteously secured privileges? How empty are all the pleasures of the worldling in comparison! how transient are his joys! how unsatisfying at best; yea, the world itself would be no gain to one going into a lost eternity. In Isa. 40 we get something of the greatness and glory and tenderness of the Shepherd of the believer’s soul (1 Peter 2:25). All nations before Him are as nothing, and they are counted to Him less than nothing and vanity; they are as a drop of a bucket, and as the small dust of the balance; but we are told that “he shall feed his flock like a shepherd; he shall gather the lambs with his arms, and carry them in his bosom.”

What a combination of almightiness of power and infinite tenderness. Oh! what mercy, that poor sinful, helpless man should be so dealt with. In this scripture it is the Holy Spirit, through the prophet, speaking of the Lord; but in John 10 it is the Lord speaking of Himself as the Shepherd, and also of His sheep. He says, “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.” David, the shepherd lad, keeping his father’s sheep in the wilderness of Bethlehem, was faithful to his trust, and for the sake of a lamb put his life in jeopardy. Let us hear what he says (1 Sam. 17:34), “David said unto Saul, Thy servant kept his father’s sheep, and there came a lion and a bear, and took a lamb out of the flock; and I went out after him and smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth; and when he arose against me I caught him by his beard and smote him and slew him. Thy servant slew both the lion and the bear.” Surely, this is given by the Spirit of God as a type of Him who is the good Shepherd. But proof as it is of David’s extraordinary prowess and devotedness, how very faintly it shadows forth what the good Shepherd went through to save the sheep that was lost.

Truly-

“None of the ransomed ever knew

How deep were the waters crossed,

Nor how dark was the night that the Lord passed through

Ere He found His sheep that was lost.”

Wonderful love! wonderful love! that led One so great, so glorious, to undertake and accomplish the sinner’s salvation. Speaking of His sheep He says, “I give unto my sheep eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand.” Oh! what an infinite gain to be one of His sheep, possessing life eternal with such pledged security. Does this catch the eye of one who desires to be thus blest? Then take heart and listen to what the Lord Jesus says in the same chapter, “I am the door; by me if any man enter in he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” “I am the door,” shuts us up to the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation; the one way of getting it, reminding us of Peter’s weighty words in Acts 4, “Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.” The Lord proposes one condition, be it Pharisee or publican, be it king or peasant, be it old or young, “By me if any man enter in.” Nothing could be simpler, nothing more definite; no one ever acting on that word was denied admission to salvation, liberty and satisfaction, which are the three eternal blessings held out in grace and love to all who will trust Him. “I am the door, by me if any man enter in he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” While the door is open, enter while you may, for when once the Master of the house is risen up and shut to the door, your last opportunity will have gone forever.

J. A. T.

The So-Called Apostles' Creed: No. 11

(Continued from page 110)

Then, turning to another class of considerations— “certain passages in the Gospels themselves which are incompatible with the miraculous birth narrative” —we select one (Mark 3:21), “And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him, for they said, He is beside himself.” Concerning this the remark is made, “Could Mary have thought for one moment that her eldest Son was mentally unhinged had she known what she must have known had the birth stories reposed on fact? The supposition is impossible, and the other Synoptists accordingly suppressed this highly disconcerting episode.” No doubt, after this last pronouncement our confidence in the author as a textual, no less than as a historical critic will be greatly strengthened. That at any rate is what he next proceeds to, the textual examination of the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke. It would perhaps be out of place to follow there in detail; but the conclusion he comes to must be heard.

First, then, as to Matthew— “(1) Matthew’s Gospel in its opening chapters originally affirmed Jesus to be the Messiah, proving this by descent from David through Joseph, who was stated to have been his real father; (2) at a somewhat later stage the verses (1:18-25) were inserted between ver. 17 and chap. ii. 1, which certainly link on naturally to each other; (3) and that then, this insertion having been made, i. 16 was altered to correspond.”

Then as to Luke: “The upshot is that in Luke, as to Matthew, (1) the original intention was to present Jesus as the descendant, through Joseph, of David; (2) that Luke 1:31 represents a later interpolation whose tenor runs altogether counter to the Evangelist’s original conception of Joseph and Mary as the parents of Jesus (Luke 2:27, 41); (3) and that the words “as was supposed” in the description of Jesus as the son of Joseph (iii. 23), were inserted with an obvious harmonizing purpose.” That is to say, the two birth narratives are frankly legendary, the concoctions of a later age which found a necessity of making Christ’s humanity differ in origin and character from that of men in general, and minute inspection of the text reveals where they have interpolated a story to that effect!

Having now disposed of that matter to his own satisfaction, the author turns next to meet some whom he mentions as sufficiently removed from stupid orthodoxy to be worthy of his attention. He acquits them of holding what to him is the very extreme view that “there must have been something physically and materially miraculous in the fundamental structure of our Lord’s manhood”; but quarrels with them for allowing that “in His inmost essence there was that which amounts to a difference between Him and the race not in degree, but in kind.” He will not have even that. That would mean an “unrepeated irruption” of another sort than he is prepared to admit, and, if not pressing for the doctrine of the miraculous birth of Christ, it still makes for something, as he sees, best explained by that fact. Entirely opposite is the case he affirms. It is simply in degree, not at all in kind, that the difference lies. “It is not that there is in His case an endowment to which all other beings are, and must be, strangers.” It is not this that makes Him unique. Wherein then does it consist? “The truth of the incarnation” (we might wonder wherever within the four walls of the idea such a things as “incarnation” can find room), it is said, “while quite independent of a supernatural birth, does involve a special relation between Jesus and God, and the consciousness of it on Jesus’ part. This relation, not relationship at all in the usual sense, does not consist in a union of being, and personality, and essence; but in a perfect filial disposition, a closeness and intimacy of communion with God. His was a sonship or divinity, not of nature and substance, but simply of character.”

As contributing to this uniqueness of Jesus, which is to serve as a substitute for His miraculous birth, the doctrine of divine immanence is then brought in, “of which the incarnate Son is to be regarded as the supreme and crowning instance. God is no ‘absentee God,’ but immanent in creation. ‘All are parts of one stupendous whole, Whose body nature is and God the soul.’ We think it strictly legitimate to say that just as there is only one kind of light, whether candle or sun, and one kind of goodness, so there is only one kind of divinity—one divine Spirit pervading and transcending the universe, the same above all, and through all, and in all. Jesus was the highest illustration the world has seen of this divinity, this indwelling presence of God. God therefore did not come into the world when Jesus was born. He is immanent in humanity from the beginning. This is not to deny that Jesus is the Son of God; but to affirm it in a deeper and truer way, for this wider incarnation in humanity requires as its complement the special incarnation in Christ.” And this pre-eminence “of degree not of kind” is to be the nature of our valuation of His supremacy, not any longer that “doctrine of an absolute supernatural person” which is “a legacy of mediaeval orthodoxy!”

This is a fair sample of the use made of “speculative and evolutionary theories, doctrines of divine immanence, pantheistic identification of God and man,” etc., in new interpretations of the incarnation. It gives an instance too of the critical and other objections to the virgin birth which lead our lecturer to maintain silence upon it.

If there is reserve on the question of the birth of Christ, of how He entered the ranks of humanity, there is no lack of freedom in treating of what is thought to be involved in His assumption of human nature. The one led the lecturer practically to delete from this part of the Creed all but the indefinite, the mere verbs being retained. The other leads him to expatiate on matters concerning which the creed, wisely (may we not say) is silent. The question is asked, how far did Christ, in becoming man, become subject to human limitations? in what respects were the limited and circumscribed conditions incident to humanity imposed upon Him in becoming partaker of it? A hard question, a difficult question, this is confessed to be; but still claimed as legitimately arising from consideration of the fact itself.

Now it must be confessed this is a question that readily prompts itself. It is no new one, but a problem we have all met before. Has it not suggested itself to all of us many a time—what did it mean for the Son of God to become man?—for instance, as to such of His divine attributes as omniscience? How does His possession of this consist with the growing wisdom natural to, and distinctly predicated of, His developing manhood? He was from all eternity God, all wise, all seeing. He is seen as a man growing in wisdom as in stature. How are we to understand these things? How reconcile them? On what principle are they to be explained? Are we to look for light in the consideration of what He may have surrendered in becoming man, or of what He may have assumed in the way of limitation in the sphere of His mental or intellectual equipment? Is the New Testament presentation of Christ, can even the figure of the historical Jesus manifested in the Gospels, be left intact, if we make any such admissions? And this is but an instance, one out of many of the questions raised when Christ’s coming in flesh is the subject—that the child born at Bethlehem, growing up at Nazareth, found in fashion as a man throughout, should at the same time be very God, omniscient, omnipotent, eternally God the Son! What mysteries are here!

In the attempt to adjust these things, is it at all to be wondered at that questions arise, that in fact we find ourselves face to face with the apparently inexplicable? Are they insoluble then? May it not be that in large measure they will ever remain so? After all, does our belief in the wonderful truth of “God manifest in the flesh” depend upon our ability to solve all the metaphysical problems it involves? Is it not rather a case where the words of another apply with particular cogency and force, “God allows many things to remain mysteries, partly, I believe, that He may in this way test the obedience of our minds; for He requires obedience of mind from us as much as He does obedience in action.” Would that we could ever carry this thought with us in all our study. There is mystery surrounding the whole question of the relation of Christ’s humanity to His deity. We cannot but be impressed with it.

Well, in what we cannot understand, can we not simply acquiesce in its mysteriousness, and see in that tact a God-given test of our obedience of faith? Is it not more wise than the futile endeavors so commonly made to solve it? “wiser,” in Bellett’s words, “than to pretend to test by the prism of human reasoning the light where God dwells”? Questions no doubt seem inevitably to arise as soon as we begin to consider or reflect on the great fact of Christ’s incarnation. We need not be philosophers to feel their force, and it is remarkable how little philosophy has effected in the way of solution of the questions perplexing us all. But when quite at the end of ourselves as far as reasoning can take us, when baffled in our best endeavors to reach anything like rational conclusions on the subject, we can still, in that subjection of the mind to God which faith teaches, acknowledge the truth of the word, “No man knoweth the Son.” That is a wise attitude which gives “a holy sensitive refusal to meddle, beyond one’s measure and the standard of scripture, with what must ever be beyond us.”

By all means, nevertheless, if difficulties can be relieved, subject to this consideration, let them be so. Wherein our dullness results from lack of attention to Scripture, more detailed exegesis, or a fuller emphasizing of what their import is, can only be welcomed. But is it not a remarkable fact that all that has generally resulted from attempts to define, and theories to account for the wonderful truth has been but a deeper sinking into the morass upon which the unauthorized venture has been made? For the true nature of the venture has too often been no humble effort, in submission to the word, of meeting difficulties; but a vainglorious and pretentious essay, in the strength of merely human wisdom, of nullifying them, of reducing to commonplace intelligibility that which inherently is a great mystery.

Can we take as free from this charge the school of thought represented in what is being reviewed on this occasion? Among the many theories professing to explain as to Christ on earth the coexistence of different modes of being in the one personality, there is one of modern appearance which secures a large amount of favor with theologians to-day, known as Kenoticism. To many of us perchance the name may be all but unintelligible. We may share also in the objection of a critic from the other side who “finds no great assistance when homely English is exchanged for ambitious Greek, and scholars speak of Kenosis, and a Kenotic theory.” But the school of thought so denominated, the set of ideas set out under that title, has so dominated the theological definitions as to Christ’s person of recent years that it cannot be quite passed over. We owe it to the lectures under review also that, having taken up in each case what seem the original sources of their leading ideas, we give this very significant one also a passing consideration.

Kenoticism, as has been said, is a popular theory. This by reason probably of the way in which it seems to perplexed minds to relieve difficulties by bridging over the apparent disparity between the divinity and humanity of the incarnate Son. The great thing seems to be that, whatever else, we must endeavor to escape anything like the idea of dual personality. To this idea, it is said, many find that the mere, exclusive perusal of Scripture tends; and we need to be fortified against this false impression by some such definite constructive theory as Kenoticism supplies. Now it is remarkable, as F. W. Grant has said, how near to dual personality we must come to comply with all that Scripture presents as to Him. Yet, needless to add, it is something quite distinct and different from such a conception as the complete delineation of Him which Scripture presents. But this Kenotic theory, it is thought, more amply affords escape from trace of the idea of dual personality in Jesus Christ come in flesh.

At this point, however, some definition of the theory had better be given. The late F. W. Grant has given some attention to it, and shown that this modern phase of Christology is actually more of a survival than a discovery, being closely allied to the ancient Apollinarian heresy, in large measure, indeed, a mere “rounding out of the elder doctrine to any consistency.” From his pages a definition of it might well be taken; but as a Presbyterian presentation of it is at hand (from a distinctly less sympathetic standpoint than the lecturer’s, however), let us take it. Prof. Orr, in his “Sidelights on Christian Doctrine,” thus introduces it— “There is another way which in modern times has been attempted of removing the difficulty of the two states of Christ’s Being while on earth, viz., by affirming a complete surrender of all divine functions, and even of divine consciousness by the Son, during the period of His earthly humiliation. This is the so-called Kenotic’ theory of the incarnation. It is based on the statement in Phil. 2:6, 7, that the Son, existing in the form of God ‘voluntarily emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.’ This is taken to mean that, during His earthly life, the Son ceased to exist in the form of God, even as respects His heavenly existence. The place of the Son in the life of the Godhead was for the time suspended. The Son gave up His glory, even His self-consciousness, and consented to be born as an unconscious babe in Bethlehem. He grew into the consciousness of His Godhead, as He grew into the knowledge of His Messianic dignity. Only after His resurrection and exaltation did He resume now in our humanity—the glory He before had with the Father.”

A “kenosis” on the part of Christ in becoming man is, so far as the mere term goes, certainly a scriptural expression (Phil. 2:6, 7). The word is derived from the Greek equivalent of what appears in the Authorized Version as “He made himself of no reputation,” rendered in the Revised Version “emptied himself.” It is very questionable if any extraordinary or subtle meaning was in the writer’s mind when he used it. However, by diligent distillation a significance was extracted from it on which has been built up a complete theory of the human nature of Christ. As mere theology this may best be left to stand or fall on its merits. But when it comes to be a question of claiming the ἐχένωσε of Phil. 2:7, as scriptural basis of the theory, and when, reflexively, the passage is sought to be interpreted in the light of all that now attaches to the technical theological term “Kenosis,” it is surely open to us to protest that this is not only an overstraining of the passage, but an illegitimate use of it.

The particular design of the opening verses of Phil. 2 is to impress not only by precept but by example the great lesson of self-abnegating love, the moral sweetness and beauty of that spirit which can assume, for the sake of serving others, the place of lowliness and self-sacrifice. “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” To lowliness of mind and esteem for others, the opposite of that factious strife of self-seeking and vainglorious self-esteem which are so natural to us all, the apostle exhorts the Philippian saints. Ethically there could be nothing more beautiful, the proverbial counsel of perfection to such as we are, it might seem, yet is it nothing more than the characteristic Christian spirit in practical display. “Lowliness of mind,” it has been said, is so characteristically a Christian virtue that even as to its etymology the term is practically unknown until it appears in New Testament phraseology. At least, if not exactly not to be met with before, it is never in its full content and meaning that classical writers use it. Its real force and significance could in fact only come out after Christ had come, only after He had exhibited that which it expressed. For where or when has appeared among men a spectacle to be compared with that which the apostle goes on to describe? Wherever was lowliness like this, where such self-renunciation, where such condescension, where such a filling of the servant’s place in obedience to love? Without question an example absolutely unique.

[J. T.]

(To be continued)

The So-Called Apostles' Creed: No. 13

(Continued from page 144)

Then, as to what is specifically alleged regarding the limitation of knowledge on Christ’s part. This is to set out on what is certainly a bold undertaking. It would need, to justify it, both clear indication of its necessity for complying with the general presentation of Him in the Gospels, and verification of a very strong order when it descends to such particulars as proof texts. How little the first is true we have in measure, seen. Will the second prove any better? The Gospel testimony in its totality does not fit in with a Christ so kenoticised as to be bereft of all knowledge superhuman. Can proof of such limitation be supplied from single features of it? There are three references given to prove that Christ’s knowledge and intelligence were of the ordinary human order. Mark 6:38, “How many loaves have ye?” The question was asked, it is said, “because He did not know!” His request for information was prompted by His need of it! And that thus we see that for ordinary knowledge of ordinary things He was restricted to our ordinary channels of information! Remembering what another of the Evangelists, an eye-witness of the miracle too, has told us, “This he said to prove him, for he himself knew what he would do,” this is really too puerile to detain us.

John 11:34. The like may be said of, “Where have ye laid him?” — “asked because He was not aware and wished to be informed of where His friend’s burying-place was.” That He who was conscious of the fact of His friend Lazarus’ death while still in the place where He stayed two days to allow it to occur in His absence, who timed His return to suit the circumstances, and who by His declaration at the beginning of this interesting course of events— “This sickness is not unto death but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby” —makes it evident how clearly He had precognition of the whole sad episode and its happy sequel. That He was dependent on ordinary means of information for this detail, really what can be said of this? An indication of His limited humanity found where every single feature might seem to declare Him God all-wise and all-powerful too! Could sympathetic interest in such a detail as the place of burial not prompt the question, without making such a call on imagination as to conceive Him who knew so much ignorant of this? Of these two supposed instances of Christ’s being reduced to requesting information in the sense of needing it ere He was conscious of a fact, it is hard to say which is furthest from proving that to be the case. The answer to them is so obvious, and has been so often given, that it is really incomprehensible that they should still be advanced as proving limitation of knowledge!

The only real occasion of momentary difficulty presents itself in the third reference now to be alluded to (Mark 13:32). This is the great stronghold, invariably the proof text of all who assert limitation in our Lord’s knowledge. Being out of His own mouth also, this apparent repudiation of any knowledge of a superior grade seems all the more forcible. As has been recently admitted, however, the fact that this is the only occasion when there is any approach to a confession of ignorance on Christ’s part, and that even so it only refers to a single item not strictly cognate, leaves the contention somewhat inadequately supported. Solitary or not, however, the expression demands most careful consideration. For, on the face of it, it does occasion difficulty, this acknowledgment of ignorance, if such it be. If such indeed it be, for one of the first questions that readily prompt themselves immediately the difficulty is felt is—Can this really be an absolute and unqualified disclaimer on the Lord’s part of any light on the subject? Are we really to imagine Him personally and absolutely as much in the dark as, say, “men” or “angels,” concerning what is spoken of? Consider for a moment how strange that would he. After all that Christ claimed to know, and professed to reveal as to the future, that just here the store of His knowledge should give out!

This same prophetic discourse of the Lord’s, of which the verse forms a part is, remember, His emphatic reply to the request of His disciples for a sketch of the future. No mere disquisition on things moral, clothed in the imagery of Jewish Apocalyptic literature, is this; but given as true prophecy. And after all this opening out of what that future contains, particularly as given by Matthew in its fullness, the whole course of events evidently before the mind of the speaker right down to the consummation of the age, Himself filling no small but the chief role in them, after all this we are to imagine that Christ’s knowledge of the future, as of everything else, was of the same limited kind as our own, because He avows for Himself, in the capacity in which He was then speaking, unacquaintance with the day and hour of His own return and the establishment of His kingdom! In this case, as in the others, reason from what in the passage itself is apparent as to what Christ does know, and the kenotic interpretation sought to be put upon it will not stand. Any idea of absolute limitation as to the order or nature of His intelligence is seen to be quite incompatible with both the kind and extent of the knowledge already displayed. Granted that, as their expression has it, a lacuna or blank in His eschatology here appears. What of that? Does it follow inevitably that personally and in an unqualified sense the Teacher Himself was in a state of complete ignorance regarding the detail needed to fill it out. It did not belong to the class of things He was to intimate: does it follow therefore that it was beyond the range of those things with which He was intimate?

Any degree of intimacy, it is said, any kind of knowledge beyond that which men or angels possess, Jesus emphatically disclaims, “knoweth no man, no not the angels, neither the Son!” Is that so? Are we absolutely bound to give the verse just that construction? Does it necessitate that we take the intelligence of the three several parties mentioned, all round and in its entirety, as having a common denominator, so to speak? That would indeed be a large inference. Even the isolated verse itself gives too slender a basis for it. Think of it as applied to men and angels. Is it open to us to argue that the angelic and human intelligences are of the same order, because their non-intelligence of a certain matter is here affirmed as a common feature? Why then are they so clearly distinguished? so particularized?— “no man, not the angels.” Why again in the case of the latter is the negative so emphasized— “no man, no, not the angels?” —with the additional consideration also that the sphere of their activity (if the bearing of that on the scope of their knowledge is taken into account) so far transcends man’s— “no, not the angels which are in heaven”? Not much in common there really between the two orders of intelligences! It seems rather a case where, with quite a different, essentially different, denominator, in regard to a particular matter, and in a particular sense, a common numerator appears.

Only the more emphatically does that apply to “neither the Son.” If the fact that here is a matter of which even angels in heaven have no cognizance is so exceptional as to need such emphasis, how carefully must be weighed the still more unprecedented “neither the Son.” And if being classed with men in this proves nothing intrinsically in their case, how much less in the Son’s. The ministers of prophecy in Old Testament times knew what it was to have to seek out— “searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify” in the revelation of which they were the vehicle. Are we to imagine Christ Himself in the same condition of requiring it to be revealed whereto His prophetic announcement applied? Thereafter, the sufferings and subsequent glory of the Messiah which these announced, with the resulting economy of blessing, gave occasion for desire on the angels’ part to look into these things. Was the Messiah Himself in no better case than they when here in the capacity of Prophet He put Himself alongside them in disclaiming knowledge of a time-note in His eschatology?

To understand the Lord’s assertion, the great matter first of all seems to be not to carry it beyond the matter concerning which He used it. It applies to something special. Where are we authorized to make it general? This disavowal of official cognizance of the precise date of the prophetic crisis is, by the Kenotics, regarded as an unqualified declaration of nescience, which is to be taken as applying wholesale and all round to the whole sphere of our Lord’s consciousness. We are told, “It is the ascription of a real nescience, not of an ignorance operating in one part of His personality and not in the other, nor. an ignorance simply assumed for a certain purpose while a real omniscience remained latent, nor yet the pseudo-ignorance which meant that, while He knew this thing as He knew all others, He had no commission from His Father to communicate it to others.”

Now, it may be quite legitimate for some to scoff that “a god-man, possessing at one and the same time two wills and two separate kinds of knowledge, and using now this and now that as occasion arises, is at once a figment of theologians and a contradiction in terms.” But, for one who receives the account of the Gospels as inspired of God, the mysterious relation of divine and human, and the presence and activity of each in the sphere of His knowledge, as of all else in Christ’s person, revealed there, cannot be so curtly dismissed for the mere lack of an adequate explanation as to either the inter-operation of, or the connecting link between, the two. The fictitiousness of the theological conception is of little account. To it being a contradiction in terms, one must demur, so long, at least as long as there are no proper terms present for it to contradict. What do we know of essence, personality, or consciousness as applicable to God incarnate to make positive assertions as to Him psychologically? In our own personality even are there not depths enough unsounded? How much more in the one Personality where mystery is superimposed on mystery.

There used to be a phrase in common use in this connection in Presbyterian circles. “Communicatio proprietatum” was the rather clumsy and pedantic name for a principle which in its measure is simple and clear enough. Its usage was somewhat as follows. The term was reserved for occasions when the usage of language about Christ was such as seemed to interchange the divine and human, such as to attribute to Christ as God actions or prerogatives proper only to His human nature, and vice versa. As the Confession of Faith had it, “Christ in the work of mediation acteth according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet by reason of the unity of the Person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in scripture attributed to the Person denominated by the other nature.” A scripture instance being the text, “Hereby perceive we the love [of God] because he laid down his life for us.” Not that we can therefore say “God died “; but that that Person who laid down His life, and did so as man, was also God. It is easy to see how such a principle as this “cornmunicatio proprietatum” is liable to abuse were it to be applied to actions, properties, or prerogatives of Christ where Scripture has not gone before us; but in itself it is a sounder and really much more intelligible system than this newer style of reasoning about His person makes for. Unlike the older principle, which might conceivably pass into over-subtlety of distinction, the characteristic feature of the modern theory is that of denying anything approaching the departmental, if so it might be called, in what Christ knew, said, or did, and resolving all assertions of His knowledge, speech, or action into absolute statements, true in the most unqualified way of the Lord Jesus in the unity of His person. We are on perilous ground here altogether; but as the quotation from Grant already alluded to has it, “The ways in which the Lord is presented to us in Scripture show how near to dual personality we have to come in any simple apprehension of its statements.”

With the Gospels in our hand will it be claimed that Christ Jesus, even as incarnate, had, and manifested as occasion called for it, His own intrinsic essential knowledge of things, knowledge proper to a divine person, and differing in kind as much as in degree from our knowledge which is always derivative and limited, that at the back of everything this remained intact. As Prof. Orr says, “Behind all human conditionings are still present the undiminished resources of the Godhead. Omniscience, omnipotence, all other divine attributes, are there though not drawn upon save as the Father willed them to be.” Omniscience, present though not drawn upon, quite meets the case of our verse here, “Neither the Son.” The idea of absolute nescience, of an unqualified negation of knowledge cannot be entertained if He who made the statement is to remain for us true God as to His person. Become partaker of flesh and blood, He who would not draw upon His omnipotence in commanding the stones to be made bread for His sustenance as a man, would not either in this case fall back upon what in His omniscience He could not but be cognizant of; but observing in full measure the conditions proper to the humanity He has taken, “the times and seasons which the Father hath set within His own authority,” are left there, and the prerogative of announcing or revealing them not usurped. In the capacity of Prophet the Son knows not officially of that day and hour.

Further, as the Son, still here in humiliation, though for the future all judgment committed unto Him, and as the God-appointed ruler in that kingdom reserved for Him till the arrival of this unrevealed day and hour, “neither the Son, but the Father” has a moral fitness and congruity all its own. For, in the working out of the divine purposes in regard to that kingdom, it is noteworthy that all is spoken of as carried into execution not by the Lord Jesus Himself; but by God the Father on His behalf. It is no question of Him asserting His disputed rights as divine; but of God the Father establishing Him in righteousness in that place of glory and honor He has so richly earned as man. To man it is, according to God’s counsel, that the world to come is to be subjected. And it is as Son of man Christ is to receive the kingdom and reign. All the emphasis is upon His manhood. And, as Bellett would say, morally this is perfect too, for in that consideration there cannot but be remembrance of the humble, emptied condition He assumed in becoming man, the servant-form and servant-place He took for God’s glory. Now Mark it is especially whose province it is to present the Son of God in His service; Christ as the true Servant. And in his Gospel alone, as has been often noticed, that last element in our verse, “neither the Son but the Father,” is to be found. Are we not then to see in it just such an added moral touch as is suited to the presentation of Him which that Gospel was divinely designed to give, and find assistance in understanding it from that very fact? How strong and beautiful an expression of the true servant-character there is here then in this abnegation of concern as to what properly lies with the Father to make good. “The servant knoweth not what his lord doeth.” It was more than the form of a servant Christ assumed in becoming man. The spirit and qualities proper to that position He showed forth to perfection in the humble path of dependence and obedience He trod. Fittingly from such a servant in such a path comes this disclaimer of knowledge of a matter not belonging to His sphere as such. The kingdom He is to receive in the capacity of a servant. Not by the right and title of what He was as God does He assume control, but on the ground of what He has done, and as the reward of all His toil in that unique path of obedience He trod is He invested by the Father with the administration of all things. All waits on the activity of God the Father for its establishment, and of such things even as the right hand and left hand place of honor in it Christ declares that they are not His to bestow, but are reserved for the Father’s appointment. What wonder then if, of the day and hour of its advent, the One who chooses to consider Himself less Heir-apparent than Heir-appointed disavows the knowledge. “Not mine to give” in the one case said the Lord. “Not mine to know” in effect He says here. Entire moral perfection.

May we not consider that the objection founded on this verse is effectually disposed of by such considerations, or, if difficulty remains, that it may yield to further study on such lines? It does, at all events, appear futile to seek light on it, or elucidation of the profound and mysterious question of how divine and human knowledge are united and were related to each other in the person of Christ in the days of His flesh, along the line of metaphysics or psychology. How much worse to found on this verse, and in this way, a denial of their co-existence! It is quite conceivable that we may never come to know the nature of the connecting link between the divine and human in Christ’s person. His own declaration, “No man knoweth the Son but the Father,” would prepare us for this. Many theories have been constructed to account for the relation between the two, many attempts made to forge an intelligible link between them. It was but to be expected that from the surveillance of theologians this would not long be omitted. Where the word itself had, with its usual disregard for mere mental perplexities, confined its testimony to the bare fact of the two natures in one Person, Christ Jesus, God and man, without concerning itself with explanations of the nature of their relation, dogmatic theology, which considers itself to have been bequeathed the task of thinking out, and construing to intelligence, doctrines implicit in the New Testament, has over and over again essayed to explain such relation. It was characteristic of that working of the human mind upon divine things which we call theology to make the attempt. Yet, the ingenuity of the various conjectures notwithstanding, failure is stamped upon them all.

[J. T.]

(To be continued)

The Spirit of God: Part 3

“The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saving, I saw the Spirit descending like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining upon him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost” (John 1:29-33).

Two works of our Lord are referred to here—what may be called His great earthly work, and His great heavenly work. On earth His work is—and what can be so great?—to take away the sin of the world; not only the sins of us who believe, but the sin of the world.

Did you ever, by the way, know one that quoted the phrase correctly? Have you ever seen it employed aright in any liturgy that ever was framed? I do not recollect it so much as even once, although familiar with rather many of such compilations. Evidently, the truth intended is not before hearts, nor even understood, but confounded with something different; and hence men cite the words falsely. This shows the all-importance for the truth of cleaving to the only unerring standard, the written word of God. Christ is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world; but the Holy Ghost in this connection carefully abstains from saying “sins.” It is constantly assumed, when persons read the passage, that Christ has taken away the “sins” of the world. Now this would be another thing altogether, and confounds the text with 1 Peter 2:24.

When John the Baptist gave his testimony, in pointing Him out to his disciples, saying, “Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world,” he did not mean that He was then effecting it, nor yet that, when He died on the cross, the sin of the world would as yet come to an end. Then and there no doubt He laid the basis for taking it away. The only work which could ever take away the sin of the world was the blood-shedding of the Lamb of God. Yet the sin of the world is not yet gone. If sin were taken away out of the world, no wickedness could be known or exist any where longer. There would not be an atom of evil left.

When, then, will the sin, that the Lamb died to take away from the world, be clean and forever banished from it? In the new heavens and the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. It will not vanish away till then. As believers, your sins are undoubtedly forgiven, but this is another thing. Your sins are now blotted out by the precious blood of Jesus if you believe on Him, “whereof the Holy Ghost is also a witness to us” (Heb. 10:15-17). Hence we read: “You now hath he reconciled” (Col. 1:21); but He has not yet reconciled “all things” (ver. 20). He has shed His blood for the purpose, and that blood is beyond doubt a perfectly efficacious sacrifice, whereby all things are surely to be reconciled to God; but they are not reconciled till He comes again. There is still suffering, sorrow, and death; there is corruption and violence, unblushing idolatry, and heartless infidelity; there is still every kind of human iniquity and rebellion against God going on in the world as much as ever. Yet the work which, as a righteous ground before God, will remove all this evil out of the world, is done; and God has accepted it but not yet applied it to the world, though He is so doing to believers. When the Lord takes the world-kingdom, it will be richly applied and for a long while, but not in absolute and everlasting fullness, till “the new heavens, and the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” Then there will be left remaining no more sin nor effect of sin in the world. It will be completely gone. Then will it be proved how true it is that Jesus is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.

I am aware that people lay stress upon the fact that John said, “which taketh away,” as if it were then going on; but this is a very ignorant way of using Scripture. For instance, one goes into a druggist’s shop and gets there a bottle of laudanum labeled “Poison.” This does not mean that the poison is working now. If the druggist says it is laudanum which kills a man, he does not mean that it is then doing its work, but simply that, when it is applied to a man, it will kill him. People confound what is called the absolute or ethical present with the actual present. One is sorry to be obliged to use high-sounding words about this matter; but it is difficult to convey what is wanted in simpler language, and it is important that it should be conveyed accurately. Even learned and devoted men —and you know very well that I do not wish at all to question their ability—have sadly mistaken in this matter.

But a man may be a great scholar, and not wise in Scripture. Not a few of the greatest scholars have been rather heterodox. Great learning does not necessarily give even good sense. Further, a man may have both learning and good sense, and yet not be spiritual. If you had ever such ability and attainments, you would still require the teaching of the Spirit. Assuredly this is what one constantly finds, if much used to commentaries and writings upon the Scripture, as some Christians have been in their time. You would find it dull work to pore over their discussions, if you had reason to examine the folios and quartos that have passed through the press; you would prove how very little Biblical learning has to do with the real intelligence of the word of God. Learned as many of the writers of these commentaries were—and some of them were also able men indeed—yet somehow or other, when they took up the Scriptures, they failed to apply Christ as the one key to unlock all. They rarely seem to speak out of the possession of the truth; and this is the only way to understand the Bible. You can never understand it unless you have Christ and Christ’s work, and its present result in power for the soul, clearly before you, in order out of this to interpret the word of God, which then to a large extent becomes an explanation in God’s own language of what you have already got. You have already life in the Son of God if you are a believer; you have by His blood the forgiveness of your sins; you have by faith entered the family of God as His children, and have been sealed by the Spirit till the day of redemption.

Let me bring the matter home to you. I had great difficulty in finding a few verses of a Paraphrase which we might sing to-night in a certain connection with my subject. Be assured that I do not wish to find fault—the very reverse. But then I could not agree to sing what was not true. I should have liked to have found something scriptural to celebrate about the Spirit; but I could not. I found a prayer to seal us by His Spirit. But how could one sing that, any more than, when I put my coat upon my back, I could ask a man to put it there? If you are sealed, it is a fact, and it is a fact that abides. It is not an uncertainty. It is not something that requires to be repeated. There is no such thing as being again sealed by the Spirit.

It is not a partial blessing, or constantly in need of renewal, just as you have to take food every few hours. This is not the case with the sealing of the Holy Spirit. It is a privilege once given which continues, however important it is that we should not grieve Him but be dependent on His action and be filled with Him. Clearly then he who wrote the. Paraphrase referred to was not aware of this; and the consequence is that he was in no little uncertainty when he came to the Spirit’s operations. I see in the 60th Paraphrase, and no doubt it is the same all through, “Oh, may Thy Spirit seal our souls.”

I could not sing this, nor could I ask you to sing it; because, if I believe the Scriptures, He has sealed my soul, and He has sealed yours if you are now children of God in the liberty of Christ. If you are not in liberty, you need to be sealed. It is the sealing of the Spirit that brings not life but liberty into the soul. You recollect the apostle’s words— “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” Now, in a previous verse of the same chapter he says “The letter killeth” (referring to the law), “but the spirit giveth life.” Thus, if one take up the Old Testament and abide in the mere letter, no spiritual blessing is gained. If one take, for instance, the various offerings and merely think of a Jew bringing his bullock or sheep, or perhaps a pair of birds, to the altar, what is there in this to quicken the soul? Nothing. The consequence then was that the Jews who simply brought their birds or beasts to the altar lived and died Jews, and never went to heaven at all. But any of us drawing from these symbols that there is Another who must settle his case with God, that there was to be an unblemished One to take up the cause of the sinner atoningly, and that this sacrifice is none other than Christ’s, passes at once from dead offerings to the Lord made sin on the cross. There is the spirit that quickens.

When a man is quickened, he does not always receive liberty. I have known a soul (who, I cannot doubt, being quickened, has gone for thirty or forty years without being sealed at all) to remain still in great bondage of spirit, a lady who passes too much of her time in capricious judgments, too harsh here, too light there; the end of all which is that she finds the word a two-edged sword, which, while it has an edge against other people. has also one against herself. Constantly doubting whether such or such a person is saved, she goes from one thing or person to another, but always comes back to herself, and never yet has seen for her own soul that God rolled everything upon Christ, never yet for her own need been able to rest on Him as the Lamb. The consequence is that she is not what Scripture calls “saved.” It is not that she doubts He is the Son of God, but she constantly hesitates about her own interest in Him when it comes to the point. She is like a person who would say, “I am not content with the High Priest confessing the sins of the people. If I could only hear Him mentioning my name and my sins, it would give me true comfort; but I only hear about sins in general, which I cannot believe to be a confession for me.” This is not the faith of the gospel really. The word of God’s good news says, “Whosoever,” for He knew a great deal better than to indulge souls in such delusions.

Supposing for a moment, that there was such a thing as naming anybody, do you not know that there may be hundreds of the same name? Thus a person would on this principle be always in doubt whether his own sins were really confessed: so that, if one were to be indulged in a desire so selfish, neither he nor others could ever get solid peace at all. Graciously therefore does God say “Whosoever.” Surely any of you that have had questions about your soul are covered by the words “whosoever believeth.” Again, “If any man thirst.” Just see the blessed ways God has taken to open the door and to bring sinners in. He loves to save. It is the delight of God to reconcile to Himself. It is glory to the name of Jesus when a poor sinner comes and casts himself upon His precious blood. He is the Lamb of God, and the very fact that He is so is the best possible ground for a soul to come now, no matter who he may be or what he may have done.

It is not true that Christ has taken away—still less that he was then taking away—the sins of the world; for if this were done, not a single soul would be sent to hell. Everybody would be saved if all the sins were taken away. If faith were still necessary in order to apply it, the believer would be comparatively uncertain, or in danger of self-righteousness; for all his difference from a lost soul must then lie in what is personal: God’s grace would be the same absolutely for all. But this contradicts Scripture.

The consequence of this mistake is the more serious, because it leads to other and if possible worse mistakes. In the Roman Mass Book they say “The Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world.” Christ, according to their doctrine, has taken away everybody’s sins; but nobody gets to heaven unless, besides that, he is faithful to the church, and does what the priest tells him unless he obeys not only the commands of God, but also those of the church, availing himself duly of the seven Sacraments. And so there is a hope that, being thus faithful to the church, he may get to heaven at last. Is it not a very poor kind of salvation? Is it God’s?

It is God alone that can save; none but a divine person. The church needs to be saved, and therefore cannot save. The whole notion is radically false, and while opening the door to the delusion that everybody’s sins are gone, it brings everybody’s sins upon them after all, because if after being baptized they sin again, Christ does no good to them, and the whole work has to be done over again. Such is the doctrine of the Council of Trent, yea of East as well as West. Indeed it has so affected other bodies that there is scarcely any Protestant body in Christendom that has not been more or less injured by this dangerous departure from the word of God. This shows the importance of even one letter. The “sin” of the world is right— “sins” would not be true. It is never said that our sins are gone except to the believer. Where it is written that Christ bore our sins in His own body on the tree, it is the believer’s sins that are referred to. There is no such thing as His bearing the sins of every person in the world; but if you come out of the world, if you confess the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior, you find your sins are gone. Christ has done the work. God gives you to know by His word and Spirit that you are forgiven. This is the doctrine of Scripture, so that there is the fullest comfort—without reserve, and without hesitation—in virtue of the mighty work of the Lord Jesus. But the full effect of His earthly work will only be when every trace of sin is gone in the eternal scene of righteousness and glory.

We come now to His heavenly work. What can it be? Many are not aware that Christ has done a great heavenly work. I do not speak of His priesthood, nor even of His advocacy before the Father. He is a Priest to give us sympathy in our suffering, and He is an Advocate to give us restoration when we have sinned. For alas! you know believers may sin, and do sin; and the Lord Jesus is Advocate with the Father; as John says— “If any man sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” [W. K.1

The Spirit of God: Part 4

But there is another blessed work that John refers to here in the verses we have read, and what is that? “The same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.” Yet the Lord Jesus never baptized with the Holy Ghost till He went to heaven. It is from heaven that He does so, and this is clearly brought before us in the Acts of the Apostles, to which you can now refer. You may see it for yourselves clearly promised for the last time in chap. 1:4, 5, “And being assembled together with [them], commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which [saith he] ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” Do not suppose that this was confined to the apostles, or to those who were Christ’s immediate disciples. The apostles were prominently before His mind, but not exclusively.

Accordingly in the next chapter we find that, when they were all with one accord in one place, suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a mighty rushing wind, which filled all the house. Just as the wind did then fill the house, so the Holy Ghost came to constitute them God’s house. Cloven tongues, like as of fire, sat upon each of them. There was the personal as well as the general presence of the Spirit of God. He did not appear like a dove, but like cloven tongues of fire. He came like a dove on the Lord Jesus; for the Lord Jesus had no sin: not a taint of evil was in the flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ. He was a perfect man—, not even knowing sin; and, that this might be, He was conceived of the Holy Ghost.

If He had been born in a natural way, He must have had sin; but the power of the Highest counteracted this, so that He should be born of woman, yet “A body hast thou prepared me” without sin. This wonderful truth was set forth in the peace offering, where the flour was mingled with oil, without leaven, which represents the corruption of our nature. But there was no leaven in the meat-offering. Oil, the constant symbol of the Holy Ghost, was mingled with the flour to make the cake, and, when the cake was made, oil was poured upon it. This was admirably fulfilled in our Lord Jesus. First, the Holy Ghost came upon the virgin, and the power of the Highest overshadowed her; and next, when He was about thirty years of age, the Holy Ghost descended upon Him without blood, because He was without sin. And God the Holy Ghost comes down on us.

But see how strikingly our case resembles, and yet is differentiated from, our Lord Jesus Christ. We are of a sinful nature, but born of the Spirit. There is by the word of God the action of the Holy Ghost: we are born of water and of the Spirit. The Holy Ghost does not come on us until we rest on Christ’s redemption. The problem was, How could the Holy Ghost come and dwell in what was unclean? Now the efficacy of the blood of Christ is to make us perfectly clean in the sight of God. This is what redemption does. The precious blood of Christ “cleanseth us,” it is said in Scripture, “from all sin.” Do you believe it? Do you really bow to what God declares, that “the blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin”? We see the reason why the Holy Ghost was never before given to a sinful man. I do not say He never operated on such; on the contrary He did so in every believer since Abel. But He never was given, never sealed a believer, till the blood of Christ left him without spot or stain. There is the Spirit of God quickening the soul when a man is a sinner; and there is the Spirit of God now sealing him, when he, a believer, rests on the work of Christ. So our Lord Jesus told the disciples that they were to be baptized with the Holy Ghost. They were already quickened, being for years true believers, but they were not yet baptized in the Holy Ghost. But now He goes up to heaven to send down the Holy Ghost; and this is most distinctly shown in the second chapter of Acts, vers. 32, 33, “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore, being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.”

The Holy Ghost was given to Christ twice—for Himself while He was upon the earth, for us when He went to heaven: and this is the reason why the Holy Ghost never leaves the church, because He is given to the church in virtue of Christ, and not because of our good behavior. The Holy Ghost is given to Him, and it is through Him and because of Him that the Holy Ghost always abides. If the Holy Ghost were to leave the church, it would be as good as saying that Christ was no longer worthy of the Holy Ghost abiding. God could not say so; and this is what makes the Holy Ghost so precious. And so the Lord told them in the fourteenth chapter of John, “He shall abide with you forever” (ver. 16).

To be sure there are people who do not believe this. I do not know whether it is the case now, but some forty years ago it used to be a regular practice for known evangelical men to put forth a little document every year calling for united prayer that the Holy Spirit should be shed forth again on the church—that we should have a fresh effusion of the Spirit of God. Is not this a very serious thing? Suppose that people were to begin to pray at the end of the year that Christ should die again! Everybody would look aghast, thinking it a denial of the faith. But is it less really preposterous, is it not equally unbelieving, to pray for the Holy Ghost to be given again? He is shed, and being shed, He abides forever.

Do you tell me, that the Spirit is to be shed again in this world’s history? I grant it; but this will be for Israel, and for the Gentiles when Israel believes, as it is beautifully shown in the High Priest going into the sanctuary and coming out. Perhaps you recollect that the hells which were on the vestments of the High Priest gave forth a sound when he went into the most holy place, and when he came out. The hells ringing when he went in would answer to the gift of the Spirit of God to us, the church, when our Lord went up on high; and the bells ringing when he came out, to the fresh testimony of the Holy Spirit when Israel shall be brought in. But there is no such doctrine as the Holy Ghost shed repeatedly for the church. When He was sent down, He was given to abide with us forever. I am aware of all the darkness in the middle ages—of the revived superstition and the fresh and abounding rationalism in the present age; nevertheless, the Holy Ghost abides. Yet I do say that the Holy Ghost abides, because Christ said it, after He obtained eternal redemption, as it was because of this that He went up into heaven itself. It was not a temporary redemption, like that of the Jews, who were taken out of Egypt, but might be carried off to Babylon. It is otherwise with the church of God. The Lord Jesus brought in eternal redemption, and the consequence is that the Holy Ghost comes down and abides forever.

So far our Lord’s case differs, on Whom the Spirit came down like a dove, because there was a perfect absence of evil; no question of the smallest sin or taint, or anything to indicate corruption in our Lord. This could not be said about us, and therefore did the Holy Ghost descend in the form which He assumed for the disciples, “like as of fire.” Fire always marks the judgment of God. The Holy Ghost could not have come upon the disciples if there had not been God’s judgment dealing with their sin in the work of Christ. But there was more than this. There appeared cloven tongues, because it was to be a question of testimony. Not so in Christ’s case; for He is the One testified of. We are called to be witnesses of Him. We know but are not the truth; He only and emphatically is the truth to be witnessed to. Cloven tongues formed a beautiful emblem of the power of the Holy Ghost put forth in making believers witnesses to our Lord Jesus Christ. Cloven tongues—no longer one language as of Canaan, but more, every tongue of every nation under heaven—point not to Jew only but to Gentile, so that the expressiveness of the symbol seems unmistakable.

Such then is the fact: let us now enter a little into the doctrine. Notice, first, that the Spirit of God, and we are speaking of the gift of the Spirit, is never mentioned until a man has already believed. Always bear this in mind. The new birth makes a man a believer; the gift of the Spirit comes when he is a believer. The gift of the Spirit brings him into liberty—not into life. The truth of Christ brings him life, and the Spirit of God takes His part in quickening; but the Holy Ghost is given to him already a believer; and this seals him in perfect liberty. For this reason you will observe that in the earlier chapters of the Epistle to the Romans we have the sinner looking to Christ and His blood, and not one word about the Holy Ghost yet, because the idea is to present Christ, not to distract him with what works within him. The Spirit does work in order that he may look to the true object, but the Holy Ghost is never an object of faith, which Christ is. When a man has received the gospel, when he rests upon the blood of Christ, the love of God is shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost given. This is the first mention of the Holy Ghost in the Epistle to the Romans. We come to no less than the fifth chapter before there is any allusion to the working of the Holy Ghost in the believer; and then we hear of the love of God shed abroad in the believer’s heart by the Holy Ghost.

“Perfect love casteth out fear.” But it is God’s. Whenever we turn upon our own love, or take any satisfaction from it, it is a poor sign of state or faith. Real love always has a high ideal of the object that is loved, but never of itself. God’s love in Jesus is a perfect love, and casteth out fear. There is no perfect love except the love of God in our case, not ours to God, but His to us. His is perfect love, and only so; and this alone casts out fear. I know that He loves me so perfectly that He not only gave His Son to come down and bear my sins on the cross, but that I should be as He is in heaven. There are two ways in which Christ shows perfect love: first, by coming down to bear all my sins and stripes; secondly, by going up to heaven to give me His glory. Meanwhile He sheds on me the Spirit, that God may dwell in me and I in God. Such is the perfect love of God. Christ was carrying out God’s mind, God’s affections, God’s great purposes; and all this is exactly what the Holy Ghost bears witness to. “For all the promises of God in Him are yea, and in Him Amen, unto the glory of God by us. Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God, who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.”

Passing over some most instructive chapters in the Epistle to the Romans we come to the eighth, where we are told— “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.” We need not read the next clause, because it ought not to be there; and one may safely venture to predict that, when the new version of the Scriptures comes out, none will find it there. “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus; for the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” This is the first reason assigned why there is no condemnation—sin and death are no longer a law to the believer, because the Spirit of life in Christ risen has liberated him. He has a new life; and the Holy Ghost has been given to him. “The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” The allusion is to what the Lord did on the day that He rose from the dead. He told Mary Magdalene to go and tell His disciples, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.” This was His message. He put the disciples, as far as could be, in precisely the same relationship with God as Himself. He could give them (not Godhead, but) the place He had as the risen man before God. Up to that time He had to hear sin, and death in rejection and atonement were always before Him. Now everything evil was behind Him, and glory in heaven before Him. Now He says, this is your position as well as Mine: “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.” And that message brought the disciples together, “the doors being shut for fear of the Jews,” and the Lord entered the closed doors just as easily as if they had been open.

You will notice that the first thing He did—after giving them the comforting announcement of peace, peace for them, and peace for others—was to breathe upon them. And what breath was that? His resurrection breath — life in resurrection power — “Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” It was the resurrection life of Christ breathed into the souls of the disciples. I do not say that it was a thing that could be felt physically, or seen, of course. Such is not the nature of the spiritual life. The wind may be a figure of it, but it is not a material thing palpable in an outward way. Yet it is a reality—a present reality—much more so than the old life, which itself is quite impalpable. The wisest who cry up the present time are no wiser on this point Than the sages of former times. Yet life is not more momentous than wonderful; and how solemn to think that, when it leaves the body, all efforts to restore it fail! You may galvanize a dead body and make the limbs move, but electricity is not life. Even in natural life you come to a barrier that no science can penetrate—no microscope can discern, no tests can analyze; but there it is, an inexplicable secret to man—a thing that shows the finger of God, where all the discoveries of science only bring out more clearly the fact that man cannot solve its enigma.

If such is the case with natural life, how much more so is it with the spiritual—that life that comes from Christ and enjoys Him forever! With this law the Christian has to do, as the Jew with the ministry of death and condemnation written on stones: “The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” Death, of course, was the end of the first man. The resurrection of Christ is the believer’s power of entrance into the new condition where there is no change, or sin whatever. You may tell me the Christian may sin, and quote passages from Scripture to prove that; but they do not mean that the new life has sinned. It is because a man has not kept the old life in order. The old man is like a wild beast, which you have to keep like a wild beast under lock and key. We are responsible to do so. Nothing can be more shameless than to hear a man who has broken out into sin say, “Oh, it was not I that sinned, it was the weakness of the flesh.” If you live in the Spirit, you are bound to mortify the flesh with its affections and lusts. It is unchristian-like for any man to excuse his wickedness by talking about the flesh. No doubt it is the fact; but he is bound to keep the flesh under, and there is power in the Holy Ghost given him to deal with the old man.

(Continued from page 89)

(To be continued)

[W. K. ]

The Spirit of God: Part 5

In Gal. 5:17, correctly translated, we read “The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other; that ye may not do the things that ye would.” Our version runs, “So that ye cannot do the things that ye would”; but this is quite wrong. What the word of God, properly rendered, says is good and true, “That ye do not the things that ye would.” The Holy Ghost is given to the believer, and the action of the Spirit is directly contrary to the flesh, as the flesh is contrary to the Spirit. “Lo, I come,” said Christ—who indeed was the only one that could say it unwaveringly— “Lo, I come to do thy will, Ο God “; but we are responsible, being set apart for the purpose—sanctified unto obedience and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. This does not mean that we are merely to obey and that the blood of Christ repairs our disobedience. The meaning is that we are sanctified to the same kind of obedience as Christ, whose blood gives us confidence that our sins are by grace forgiven.

The allusion in 1 Peter 1:2 is to what took place at mount Sinai, when blood was sprinkled on the people, and they said, “All that the Lord hath said will we do.” But they did not. They were disobedient; and the blood witnessed that they must die the death because of their disobedience. We start with the precious blood of Christ, while at the same time we are called to obey as Christ did; and what comes in to meet our delinquencies is confession of our sins, or the washing of water by the word. This is the meaning of the washing of the disciples’ feet by the Lord Jesus before He went to heaven. It was to show His own here the work He is gone to heaven to do for them. Peter at first refused to let his feet he washed; and then, when corrected, asked that his whole body should be washed; but he was wrong in both respects. He did not know, if one be already washed with the washing of regeneration, that no more is wanted for the removal of subsequent faults than to have his feet washed. In other words, the particular evil that may be contracted in walking through the world requires to be removed. “He that is washed (bathed) needeth not save to wash his feet.” If at first wholly washed, as every believer is, he needs only partial cleansing, in other words the washing of his feet, when he subsequently does wrong. Peter did not lose the benefit of being born of water and the Spirit when he afterward sinned grievously. If not a true saint he would have gone and hanged himself, like Judas. Therefore the very thing the Lord prayed for was that his faith should not fail. Judas, in the despair of his heart, went and perished miserably. Peter did not, although he committed a great sin, because the Lord prayed for him, and afterward indeed took particular notice of him— “Tell the disciples and Peter” — the only one mentioned, and why? Because he was the one that most needed it. How gracious is the Lord! How full of tender mercy! He is the spring, the unfailing giver of all grace. Once in Him all your sins are gone, and yourself brought nigh as alive to God. This is the true place of every believer. “The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.”

You observe two reasons are given why there is no condemnation. The first is, that Christ gives a life which God cannot condemn; whilst the second is, that God has already condemned (not merely the sins, but) the sin that gave them birth. The whole of our evil is already condemned in the cross of Christ—the wondrous Christ of God. These are the two grounds why there is no condemnation. And the effect is that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us. Not in any Jew, but in every Christian; for every Christian loves God and loves his neighbor, and these are the two great moral aims of the law. How can a Christian not love God, who first loved him? And does not the Christian love his neighbor? Does he not go forth every day of his life to serve not only his neighbor and friend, but even his enemy? This is what the Christian is called to; and this is what every real Christian does, although not so fully as he ought, “that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Just so far as a Christian walks in the Spirit is the righteousness of the law fulfilled in him. It is a remarkable fact that the people who were under the law never kept it, and that those who are not under the law are the only people that do keep it, and this because of the delivering power that God has brought in through Christ.

Let me here recall to your notice the constant danger of a soul that has been awakened, to mix up the work of the Spirit with that of Christ. It is always on the look out for fruits. As you are, you had better say nothing about fruits yet. If you seek to find fruits before you enter into peace with God, you never can find peace. No man ever found peace with God by looking within himself; and God never meant any to find peace save by turning to Christ. Do you not hear Him saying, “Having made peace by the blood of His cross?” This is not within but without you. It is something wrought for you by Christ, and Christ alone: and the quickening of the Spirit is not to furnish ground for peace within you, but to prove that you are nothing but a poor guilty sinner, thus forcing you out of yourself to rest on the work of the Lord Jesus Christ. The tendency of the anxious soul is to look within, for confirmatory marks of the Spirit. But so long as he does not rest on the work of Christ, he never can have peace.

For saints there is another danger. When you have peace, beware of separating, as is too often done, the Spirit from Christ. Men say you need the Spirit of God to sanctify you. Rather you need the Spirit of God constantly to direct your eyes toward Christ. There are these two dangers then: one for a man who is just awakened; the other for him who has found peace with God. The saint cannot go in safety unless he has the Spirit of God fixing the eyes of his heart on the Lord Jesus. This is the point the apostle refers to at the close of chap. 3 in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians.

But I would say a few words on a preceding verse. “Now the Lord is that spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty”; and I will show you how difficult it is—not in reality, but in appearance—either to understand the Scriptures, or to give them even a right outward form. People often think that if you have “spirit,” or any other word in a verse more than once, it must always bear the same meaning. Here this is not the case. “The Lord is that spirit.” How should “spirit” be printed? I answer unhesitatingly, with a small “s.” “Now the Lord is that spirit.” The “Spirit” would be downright heterodoxy. Who would tolerate such a notion as that the Lord Jesus is the Holy Ghost? One can understand how in the “Shepherd of Hermas” (a most offensive little treatise, and really heretical, which in the second or third century used to be read in public worship) there occurs a confusion and worse between the Lord Jesus and the Holy Ghost; but this no where is or can be in Scripture.

The fact is, that the meaning of the verse is connected with what was quoted before. The apostle was contrasting the old covenant with the new, and he says, “the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” Christ, under the letter of the old, quickens; the letter of the old without Christ does not. “Now,” says he, “the Lord is the spirit,” i.e., of the old. The letter cannot quicken, but the spirit does. It is the Lord that is meant by the Passover, Red Sea, Manna, etc., as also by the burnt, meat, peace, and sin offerings; and so one might go through all the letter of the law. “The Lord is the spirit “; and this is the reason why I should print “spirit” with a small letter, though it is not so in my book. It may be different in your Bibles. But if not, you must remember the copyists were not inspired, any more than the printers, translators, or critical editors. The question is the bearing of the truth of God; and I affirm that the doctrine which confounds the Lord Jesus with the Spirit is not true. Is it not impossible, therefore, to print “spirit” in that verse with a capital “S” consistently with truth? For this would identify the second person of the Trinity with the third, which is wholly untrue.

But the moment you come to the next clause, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is,” you must have a capital “S,” because the Holy Ghost is meant. The Lord has gone on high, but the Holy Ghost is sent down below; and He it is who now seals the believer, bringing him into liberty in Christ. Thus what the apostle first lays down as a principle is that the spirit of the old forms of the law always pointed to the Lord Jesus. “The Lord is the spirit.” Then besides this, the Spirit of the Lord is now come down from heaven to anoint the believer, and seal him in virtue of redemption.

Not a few passages might be quoted bearing on the same point. I might go through almost the whole of the epistle with the same result, each having its own special bearing, and all perfectly-harmonious; but this is scarce necessary.

What I want is to lay before your souls the truth of God as to this the great Christian privilege. Have you not only Christ for your life, but the consciousness that your body is the temple of God? I know there are many who would think this a most extraordinary thing to claim. Let me tell you that— “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his”; he does not belong to the Lord as a Christian unless he be sealed. He may be quickened, born of God, and converted. But the proper power, the true distinctive mark, of a Christian is that he is sealed with the Spirit; and the sealing of the Spirit comes in answer to the redemption of Christ Jesus.

Wake up then, wake up, beloved children of God, to your great privileges! Those who are ignorant of the gospel may call you presumptuous. In truth you can never worship or serve God as you ought, if you do not enjoy your proper privileges. You need to do so in order to be at home with God, to gain confidence in His love, and glorify Him. The spring of all power to perform duty depends on the simplicity with which your soul enters into your relationship with Christ. Even in common life relationship affects as it should govern all our actions. The duty of a servant is quite different from that of a master; and a similar rule holds good in all our social relationships. There is a walk, and a worship too, belonging to the children of God, and to none else. You cannot mix men of the world with those that are of God without dishonoring Him. Indeed the effect of such a union is ruin practically to the souls of both; because, as the child of God cannot raise up the worldly to his own level, he must come down to the level more or less of the worldly man; and this is why in many of the liturgies they mingle both in an offensive alliance that suits neither, with language of a wholly inconsistent kind. A Christian is not getting forward with God who tries to please both world and church; if he follows God’s way, all will go well with him. We are members of the family of God—heirs of God with Jesus Christ. Even on earth the family life is the highest type of bliss for man. And God has a family, in whose well-being He takes special delight. Suppose a person were to go into a household, and, pretending himself a friend of the children, should put it into their heads that possibly the chief of the house was not their father, you would say, “What a villain he is, to try and spoil all the peace of that family!” And if this would be bad in your families, to play a like part is a great deal worse in God’s family. It is as insulting to God as it is injurious to His children; and though people may do what they like with God for a while, the day is coming when they will have to own their folly and sin.

I beseech you, therefore, to be faithful to the Lord. Let me urge on you, in the name of the Lord Jesus to search and see whether these things are so. If you are not children of God, the door is open, the way is clear, the Savior is waiting. If you simply come as poor sinners, the Lord will in no wise cast you out. But come as sinners in the sense of your sheer need, in the confidence of His grace. Do not come as if there were a doubt that had to be cleared whether you could succeed or not; and the Savior will meet and serve you at once. When the Syro-Phoenician woman came, she spoke as a Jew. She cried, “Son of David.” What right had she to say, “Son of David, have mercy on me”? No more right than a Frenchman has to repair to an English consul and ask his assistance; let him go to the French consul. The Son of David was for Jews. When the two blind men so appealed in Matt. 9, had they to wait for an answer of peace, when they confessed their faith? When two more at the end made the same call near Jericho, did the gracious One rebuke, or reply in grace? The woman of Canaan was wrong—somewhat as worldly people when they say, “Our Father, who art in heaven”; for He is not their Father at all, but will judge them by the Lord Jesus. But if a person comes and says, “God be merciful to me a sinner,” will He then say them nay? The Lord would not at first answer the woman’s prayer, because she went on mistaken ground. And when the disciples would have done with the case, ashamed of her crying after them, He had to correct their impatience with His maintenance of God’s order: “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Then she said, “Lord, help me!” When she dropt to this, the Lord answered her, “It is not meet to take the children’s bread and to cast it to dogs. The moment she hears it, the truth flashes on her soul that she was not of the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but a dog. She sinks to the lowest place, and says, “Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” She took the place of truth, and got the blessing of grace. The lack of this keeps many souls from obtaining the blessing. They are unconsciously in a false position. They assume to be worshippers when they should not. If they confessed themselves poor sinners needing to be saved, they would find the Savior at once. If you can and do say, Abba, Father, he assured you have the Holy Ghost; and if not progressing in the Christian race, see and judge what hinders you, and if you are not grieving the Holy Ghost; search the word of God, and follow Christ! Amen.

W. K.

(Concluded from page 103)

The State of the Soul After Death: Part 1

The state of the soul after death is a subject which deeply interests us all. The rejection of the coming again of Christ to receive the saints, and to judge the earth before the end of the world, and the losing sight of the distinctive importance given to the resurrection, in the New Testament, has given in the common evangelical faith, and that where sound in the main, an absolute character to the vague idea of going to heaven, exclusive of all other conception of happiness and glory. But scripture spoke too plainly of the Lord’s coming and the resurrection of the saints, to allow the thought of going to heaven when we die to maintain the absorbing place it held in the minds of the pious. Strange to say, going to heaven is not spoken of in scripture, unless in the one case of the thief upon the cross, going to be with Christ in Paradise. Not that we do not go there; but the scriptural thought is always going to Christ. Since He is in heaven, of course we go there; but being with Christ, not being in heaven, is what the scripture puts forward, and this is important as to the state of the spiritual affections. Christ is the object before the soul, according to the word, not simply being happy in heaven, though we shall be happy and in heaven. I speak of it only as characterizing our habits of thought.

Poor human nature is apt to fall into Scylla to avoid Charybdis. It is apt, too, to follow its own thoughts, not simply to receive the word of God. There was a re-action, and the recovered truth of the Lord’s coming and the first resurrection obtained an importance in some minds, which eclipsed the going to heaven when we die, too vague and too little formally scriptural to satisfy those awakened to search the word. It was stated that the soul sleeps, is unconscious till the resurrection, even by some who in the main were sound in the faith, while with others, this notion carried them on to deny not only the immediate bliss of the departed, with Christ, but that we ever went to heaven, and what constitutes distinctive Christian hope. Alas! soon very many were led to deny the fundamental doctrines of the gospel.

My object now is not to enter into controversy with these last, who deny the immortality of the soul; it has been done, and done more effectually, by more than one; my object is to give a plain scriptural statement and proof from scripture, that there is immediate happiness with Christ, for the departed Christian. It is an intermediate state, and so, as to His position as a man, is Christ’s, though He be in glory. The departing Christian waits for the resurrection of the body—and then only will he be in his final state in glory. Men speak of glorified spirits, scripture never. The purpose of God as to us is, that we should be conformed to the image of His Son, that He may be the firstborn among many brethren. “It doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when He shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” “As we have borne the image of the earthy, so also we shall bear the image of the heavenly.”

This was exhibited for a moment when Moses and Elias appeared in glory with Christ at the transfiguration (see Rom. 8:29 John 3:2; 1 Cor. 15:49; Luke 9:28-36). This, and to be forever with the Lord, received to Himself in the Father’s house, is our eternal state of joy and glory. This latter part is seen also in the account of the transfiguration in Luke, where they enter (Moses and Elias) into the cloud, whence the Father’s voice proceeded. See also 1 Thess. 4:17. But this is our eternal state, when Christ shall have come and received us to Himself, raised, or changed into His likeness, when our poor earthly body shall have been fashioned like His glorious body (Phil. 3:21). God hath wrought us now, already, for this selfsame thing and given to us the earnest of the Spirit (2 Cor. 5:5). To be with the Lord and like the Lord forever is our everlasting joy, and that the fruit of God’s love, who has made us His children, and will bring us into the mansions prepared in our Father’s house.

Two things belong to us: first, to be like and with Christ Himself; and, secondly, to be blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Him. Redemption has made this ours; but we are not in possession. We have only the earnest of the Spirit, though God has wrought us for that selfsame thing. The first point, being like Christ, we have already spoken of, though what has been cited there introduces us with scriptural authority to the second; “so shall we ever be with the Lord.” But I add here other proofs of the second point, namely, that our portion is in heavenly places. It is distinctive of believers who have believed and suffered with Him. God, we are told, will gather together in one, under Christ, all things, both which are in heaven and which are on earth (Eph. 1:10). So we read all things were created by Christ and for Christ (Col. 1:16, 20); all things will be put under His feet as man (Heb. 2; 1 Cor. 15:27, 28; Eph. 1:22). But we read in Heb. 2 That all things are not yet put under Him. He sits now on the Father’s throne, not on His own (Rev. 3:21). God has said, “Sit at my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.” He is (Heb. 10) expecting till His enemies be made His footstool. The time will come when not only all things in heaven and earth will be reconciled (Col. 1:20), but even things under the earth, infernal things, will be forced to recognize His power and authority. Every knee shall how to Him and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ, the despised and rejected of men, is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:10, 11). For this we must wait.

But in this gathering of all things in heaven and earth under one head, Christ, our part is in heavenly places, and as it is our portion now in spirit, so it will be our part in glory. Nor is there any real separation between these two. Of course we are not in glory now, there is no need to insist on that, but that is our calling now, that which we are redeemed to, and wrought for, and wait for. Now we have the treasure in earthly vessels, and groan, being burdened. When we are out of the body, groaning is over, and we are with Christ in joy; when He comes we shall have a body suited to that heavenly place, we shall be in glory. Thus in Eph. 1:3, “He hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.” In 2 Cor. 5:1, “We know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.” In Phil. 3:20, “Our conversation [citizenship, our relationship in life as Christians] is in heaven”; and in the same chapter (ver. 14) where you have ‘high calling,’ the true force of the word is ‘calling above,’ as may be seen in a Bible with a margin. We are called to be up above there. So in Heb. 6:19, 20, we read that Christ is entered within the veil, that is, heaven itself (9:24), and as our forerunner. So, Heb. we are partakers of the heavenly calling. As united to Christ by the Holy Ghost, we are sitting in heavenly places in Christ—not with Him yet, but in Him, that is our place. So when the Lord comes, He gathers indeed, as Son of man, out of His kingdom, all things that offend and them that do iniquity. But the righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Hence Moses and Elias, not only are manifested in glory on earth, to show the state of the saints in the kingdom, but they enter into the cloud, God’s dwelling place, whence the Father’s voice came.

It is thus, clear that as God will gather together in one, all things, both which are in heaven and on the earth, our part is to be like Christ in glory, and with Him forever, and that in heaven itself, blessed with all spiritual blessings (as Israel with temporal ones) and in heavenly places (as they in earthly). If we are joint-heirs with Him (Rom. 8:17) we have what is yet better, to dwell in the Father’s house where He is gone. Hence it is clearly and distinctly expressed (Col. 1:5), that our hope is laid up for us in heaven, and Peter tells us (1 Peter 1:4) that an inheritance, incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away, is reserved in heaven for us.

All this clearly shows our blessings are where our hope enters, where our forerunner is gone; what our glory is, celestial, not terrestrial. We shall bear the image of the heavenly and shall be forever with the Lord. He has gone to prepare a place for us in the Father’s house, and will come again to receive us there to Himself. He has declared, “Father, I will that they whom thou hast given me be with me where I am.” One might expatiate on the blessedness of this, the wondrous place given to us, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness towards us in Christ Jesus! but my object now is to give the scripture statement of our blessedness and the proofs of it. What I have said gives our calling the same throughout, from the moment we are called, to the glory of eternity. There is no other, there is “one hope of our calling.” God has called us to His own kingdom and glory; we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Their Father’s house is the home of His children.

But this has not told us in distinct statements what the intermediate state is, though it has shown us, as a general principle, where all our blessing is, what redemption has obtained for us. The God of all grace has called us to His eternal glory by Christ Jesus: wondrous love! but an integral part of Christ’s own glory, for what is a Redeemer without His redeemed? And once I believe that the blessed Son of God has died for me as man on the cross, nothing that a creature, whose life He has become, can have, is too great as the effect of it. The whole object of the Epistle to the Hebrews is to show that our portion is heavenly, in contrast with the Judaism which was, and when Israel is restored will be, earthly. They had a high priest on earth because God —sat between the cherubim down here. Such a High Priest became us; holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, made higher than the heavens. Why? Because our place and portion are with God there. Our place and calling are in the heavenlies. All had to be suited to this; the excellence of the sacrifice and the service of the priest.

But how far does the word of God show us our intermediate state, between the time of our being in this tabernacle, in which we groan, and having it glorified, when Christ comes and shall change our vile body and fashion it like His glorious body?

Once we have understood the previous passage, and that our calling and portion are heavenly, all is simple and plain. Our citizenship now and always is in heaven. How far we enjoy it when we die, is the only question; more than here or less? God is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live unto Him (Luke 20:38), though dead for this world, they are for Him as alive as ever, and so for faith.

But it is alleged they sleep. There is no ground for this whatever. Stephen fell asleep, that is, died. It was not his soul fell asleep after death; those which sleep in Jesus shall God bring with Him (1 Thess. 4:14), but these (ver. 16) are the dead in Christ. Some have fallen asleep, that is, had died (1 Cor. 15:6), the same word as sleep in Jesus, in 1 Thess. 4. This contrasted with being alive, in 1 Thess. 4, with remaining to this present, in Corinthians. It is just simply dying, and a beautiful expression to show they had not at all ceased to exist, but would wake up again in resurrection, as a man out of sleep. This is clearly determined in the case of Lazarus (John 11). The Lord says, “Our friend Lazarus sleepeth, but I go that I may awake him out of sleep.” They thought it was taking of rest in sleep; then said He plainly, “Lazarus has died.”

That is, sleep means, plainly, dying; and awaking is not awaking the soul as if it slept apart, and so leaving it, but bringing back from the state of death by resurrection. A Christian’s falling asleep is neither more nor less than dying; a soul’s sleeping is a pure invention. People living upon this earth fell asleep, that is, they died. That is what is means in plain speech and nothing else, and we do learn clearly in scripture the state of those who die in the Lord.

[J. N. D.]

(To be continued)

The State of the Soul After Death: Part 2

(Concluded from page 86)

Paul knew that God had wrought him (and he speaks of it as to all Christians, as their common faith) for glory, and did not wish to die (he unclothed) as if weary, but that mortality should be swallowed up in life. Christians have Christ as their life, as they have Him as their righteousness, and this being so, as to death itself (2 Cor. 5:6), they are always confident, knowing that whilst they are at home in the body, they are absent from the Lord: Life, eternal life, in Christ they have, but here it lives absent from the Lord, in the earthen vessel; when it leaves the poor earthen vessel which makes it groan being burdened, it will be present with the Lord. Is that better or worse? and where is He? Is it (though it has already the Holy Ghost as the power of life) the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, going to sleep and knowing nothing? Is that the confidence he had, who saw such a power in this life in Christ, that he was not, as his object, looking to die, but mortality to be swallowed up by it; yet when it lost the tabernacle which made it groan, it was not capable of anything but helpless sleep? And remember, Christ is our life; because He lives, we live. Have we lost our connection with Him when we die? Does He sleep in us?

Again (Phil. 1), Paul was in a strait betwixt two, to depart and be with Christ, which was far better, dying—mark what he was speaking of—gain, though living was Christ. That is, he, having the blessed joy of knowing Christ was his life, and living entirely for Him, so that it was worth his while to stay, yet found it far better, gain, to go to sleep and know nothing of Christ or anything else! not having a thought of Christ or possibility of serving Him, his desire, as to his own joy, was to go to sleep and know nothing of Christ at all! Is it not perfectly evident, that when he speaks of being with Christ, and of its being far better than serving Him here, though that was worth while, he speaks of the joy of being there? Who would think, if I spoke of the satisfaction and gain of going to somebody and being with him, I meant I was going to be fast asleep and not know I was there?

But we have more. The Lord declares to the thief, who alone of all men, in that memorable hour confessed Him, that he should be with Him that day in Paradise. Was it not happiness He promised him, being with Christ and in Paradise? Does that mean that he should be fast asleep and know nothing? I ask if it be not supremely ridiculous and flying in the face of the very point of Christ’s words. The statement occurs in Luke, who, all through his Gospel, after the first two chapters, which are consecrated to the poor pious remnant who waited for Christ, and gave a most lovely picture of them—God’s hidden ones in the midst of rebellious and unbelieving Israel—after these chapters, I say, the Evangelist gives the testimony of divine grace in the Son of man and the present state. He proceeds with the genealogy of Christ up to Adam, and then unfolds all through his Gospel, the grace that in the Son of man blesses man, and blesses him now and in a heavenly way. It is not dispensational like Matthew, but grace, and present grace, and heavenly grace by the gospel, the present state of things. It answers, as far as it goes, to the testimony of Paul and the Acts.

Now the poor thief, while a most bright and eminent instance of the power of grace and faith, confessing Christ as Lord, when everything contradicted it, naturally did not go in knowledge beyond his countrymen. He was sure that He who hung upon the cross would come in (not, into) His kingdom, and prayed that Christ might remember him then, in blessed confidence in Him. The Lord’s answer was, according to the whole tenor of the Gospel, You shall not wait for that. I bring salvation by grace: to-day, this selfsame day, you shall be with Me in Paradise—the fit companion of Christ in blessedness.

This, then, is the portion of the departed saint, to be with Christ in blessedness, absent from the body and present with the Lord. I am aware of the miserable subterfuge, by which it is attempted to read it: “Verily I say unto you this day, Thou shalt be with me in Paradise.” It not only destroys the whole characteristic point of the passage, according to the tenor of the Gospel it is found in, but it perverts the order of the passage, as it destroys its sense. “To-day” is at the beginning of the phrase to give it emphasis in answer to “when Thou comest.” There is the solemn assertion, “Verily I say unto thee.” To add “to-day” to this is simply puerile, destroying withal the allusion to the request of the thief, which only hopes to be remembered when Christ should come in His kingdom. “No,” says the Lord, with the solemn “Verily” which He used, “you shall not wait till then; this day you shall be with Me.”

What is the sense of “Verily I say unto thee this day”? It only destroys the solemnity of the assertion, but, “Verily I say unto thee, This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise,” more than fulfilled the hopes of the thief, and revealed to us other than earthly joys, when we leave this world to depart and to be with Christ. The wickedness of the Jews as an instrument, fulfilled the promise in breaking his legs, as it did that in which the work of redemption was accomplished, which gave the poor thief a title to be there.

Such too was the expectation of Stephen, when death arrested his course here. He saw Christ and looked to Him to receive his spirit. Did He receive it? And was it only to put an end to his service and joy alike, and put him to sleep?

The intermediate state then is not glory, for that we must wait for the body. It is “raised in glory”; “He shall change our vile bodies and fashion them like his glorious body.” But it is blessedness where no unholy evil is. It is being with Christ Himself, the source of joy ineffable. The hopes and “always confident” of Paul, of Stephen, were not disappointed, nor did the assurance given by the Lord to the thief, fail of fulfillment. I ask if the bright hopes spoken of in 2 Cor. 5, Phil. 1, in Acts 7, and the Lord’s words to the thief, for any honest mind, can mean going fast asleep and knowing nothing? When the Lord described the state of the rich man and Lazarus, did it mean that either the wicked or the just were asleep and knowing nothing? I shall be told it is a figurative description. I admit it fully; but it is not a false one, and it is not a figure of men going to sleep and knowing nothing.

But further, if 2 Cor. 5:6-8, means being happy with Christ, it means being happy with Him when we die. Death is the subject spoken of, for the apostle had despaired of life (2 Cor. 1), and “Absent from the body and present with the Lord” is not resurrection; it means leaving the body, not taking it. “Departing and being with Christ”. is not His coming and raising or changing us to be in glory. The apostle is speaking there again of death, remaining here or leaving the world. It was “dying” which was gain (Phil. 1:21). Life and death are in distinct contrast in ver. 20, and then ἀναλύω is used for dying (ver. 23), as is ἀνάλυσις in 2 Tim. 4:6. The attempt to apply ἀνάλύω or ἀνάλυσις to Christ’s return because it is used for breaking up from or leaving a festival, is a poor conceit, contradicting the express statements of the passage. The word means “disuniting or destroying what is united,” and so is used for “death.” Neither Philippians nor 2 Tim. 4 leave a trace of doubt in the matter. The effort to pervert Luke 23:43, and Phil. 1:20-23, is only a proof that the force of the passage cannot be got over, and the character of the effort to set them aside betrays itself.

How a spirit enjoys Christ we cannot tell as to the manner of it, but there is no difficulty whatever. My spirit enjoys Christ now in spite of the hindrance of the poor earthen vessel it is in, and though now we see Him not, yet we rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory. It is not my body which enjoys Him now, but my soul spiritually with the hindrance of the earthen vessel, and absent from Him; then, without the hindrance of the earthen vessel, and present with Him. The believer may rest perfectly assured that departing from the body, he will be present with the Lord, and if His presence is joy to him, that joy will be his. No one would be more anxious to press the Lord’s coming and our waiting for Him, and the importance of the resurrection. I would urge it, as I have urged it, on the saints, and indeed upon all in its due place: but not to weaken that all live to God, even if they are spirits in prison, nor the excellent joy and blessedness of being with Christ when we depart, that to die is gain. It has justly cheered and shed heavenly light on many a dying bed, and yet will, if the Lord tarry; and the scripture is as plain as to the happiness of the saint on his departure, as to his being with Christ, far better as to joy, than the most successful service here, as it is that Christ will come and take all His saints to be with Him forever in glory, like Himself, though the latter is the full and filial state of eternal blessedness, when the marriage of the Lamb withal shall have come, when we shall be forever with the Lord.

J. N. D.

Studies in Mark: 21. A Summarized Statement of Service

XV. A SUMMARIZED STATEMENT OF SERVICE

“And Jesus with his disciples withdrew to the sea; and a great multitude from Galilee followed: and from Juda, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumea, and beyond Jordan, and about Tire and Sidon, a great multitude, hearing what great things he did, came unto him. And he spake to his disciples that a little boat should wait on him because of the crowd lest they should throng him: for he had healed many; insomuch that as many as had plagues pressed upon him that they might touch him. And the unclean spirits, whensoever they beheld him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. And he charged them much that they should not make him known” (3:7-12, R.V.).

The Lord who knew the thoughts of those around Him in the synagogue, and was grieved at the hardening of their hearts against the many gracious testimonies of the gospel, knew also the evil intentions of the Pharisees and Herodians who left the synagogue in company that they might together concoct some scheme for His speedy destruction. This intimate knowledge of the secret plottings of His enemies aroused no animosity in the heart of the Savior, neither did He, to counteract their plottings, organize some “plan of campaign” amongst His adherents, as a political or social agitator might have done. But in the serene dignity becoming the Servant of Jehovah who was governed alone by the will of Him by whom He was sent, He withdrew Himself from the immediate neighborhood. Supremely trustful in the perfection of His manhood, omniscient also as to His Godhead, yet He did not adventure Himself where danger threatened. As He had refused to cast Himself down from the binnacle of the temple, so He retreated from the vicinity of those who sought His life. The hour wherein to deliver Himself into their hands had not yet come.

Jesus therefore, accompanied by His disciples, betook Himself to the coast of the Sea of Tiberias, as the inspired history states. Then in a pregnant sentence, the more striking because of the account of Pharisaic unbelief and enmity which immediately precedes, the evangelist sums up the widespread interest which the words and works of the Lord had awakened. If the religious leaders despised Him, the toilers and sufferers of the house of Israel congregated to hear more of One who healed the sick and preached the gospel to the poor. Crowds flocked to Him from all parts —from Tire and Sidon in the north, from Perea beyond Jordan on the east, from Idumea in the south, and even from Judah and Jerusalem in the center of the land. The report of Him that traversed every part of Galilee (Mark 1:28) spread beyond in all directions, and multitudes, hearing what things He did, gathered to Him (see also 1:45). But how few had real faith in Jehovah’s Servant! How soon were the words of the prophet Isaiah fulfilled, “Who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Loan been revealed?”

It was a simple arrangement most certainly; and for this reason the incident is commonly passed over by those who are in search only for profundities, and who imagine that only what is vague and mysterious is to be prized. But a great feature of the Gospels is that both here and elsewhere they show how our Blessed Lord glorified the common and ordinary things of daily life. Pity it is if we miss the truth that divine power and love reach down to the humdrum— “the daily round, the common task.” The Servant of Jehovah required no accompanying “pomp of circumstance,” no gorgeous ceremonial, no cumbrous paraphernalia. His service was in simplicity, making use of just what was at hand. A madly impetuous crowd was hindering Him in His labors. A little boat rocking on the Galilaean lake is therefore commissioned to serve His purpose who was speaking words such as man had never heard, and doing works such as the world had never seen. There was a time to speak in the synagogue; there was a time to speak in Solomon’s porch. But at this time it was most fitting that the small boat should be the pulpit. Let us learn the lesson of heavenly wisdom, and amid the throng and hubbub of life be ready to avail ourselves of the humble vessel near at hand from which to speak to the glory and praise of the Master.

THE MISSION BOAT

The great crowds that sought Jesus to hear or to see or to receive somewhat from Him were selfish, as all crowds are. They had no consideration for others, nor for Him whose benefits they desired. The afflicted ones especially, in their eagerness to obtain healing, pressed upon (literally, “fell upon”) the Lord, to His great inconvenience, if not danger, besides interfering in this way with the activities of His service. The Lord therefore instructed His disciples to arrange that a small boat should attend upon Him; so that He might from a point of vantage declare the gospel of peace to the multitude, and be secure from the thronging of the disorderly people.

The Lord here, by His action, gave no countenance to the dreams of ascetics, and of such as seek to glorify God by the “neglecting of the body.” The body was His instrument of service, and He adopted prudent measures to prevent injury to it from the struggling crowds. The means were simple yet effective, and at the same time forbid the notion that the Lord despised the corporeal substance. Was it not the body “prepared” for Him, and in which He had come to do the will of God? It is true that subsequently wicked men scourged and smote Him, and He submitted to their contumeliousness with unexampled meekness. For then the will of God led the obedient Son of man to deliver Himself into their hands. But before this hour had come we learn, as in the passage before us, which, be it noted, is found in this Gospel only, that the Lord took such precautions as were needful in this emergency, if we may call it such, so that He might the more effectively perform Jehovah’s service. It may surely be inferred that the servants of Christ, while not allowed to pamper or indulge the body, are not, on the contrary, permitted to despise it, but rather enjoined to present it “a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God.” In the natural order of things the outward man decays, but there is no scriptural warrant for the belief that it is well-pleasing to God to hasten that decay either by our wilfulness or by our neglect.

TOUCHING JESUS

The numerous cures wrought by the Lord Jesus incited those that had plagues to push forward among the crowd in the hope that they might get near enough to touch Him and obtain healing for themselves in this manner.

Plague is an uncommon word in the New Testament. It is used in Luke’s Gospel in speaking of the works wrought by Jesus in the presence of the two disciples sent to Him by John the Baptist from prison: “In that hour he cured many of diseases and plagues and evil spirits” (Luke 7:21). The word is also twice applied by Mark to the disease of the woman suffering from an issue of blood (Mark 5:29, 34). Literally meaning a scourge, it probably included the severer forms of complaint from which relief was sought.

This effort to touch Jesus was evidence of strong faith on the part of those that sought healing in this way. The bold faith that stretched out weak hands to Him was mute, inarticulate indeed, but nevertheless genuine as the Savior knew, and could never deny. “He filled the hungry with good things.” The poor were feeble, pain-racked, dying. They touched Him, the great Physician, in blind trust as little children. And in the words of another evangelist, describing a similar occasion, “power came forth from him and healed them all” (Luke 6:19).

This action is the converse of the touch by Jesus Himself which was so significant of the outflow of healing power to the patients whom He blessed. The touch is used in the Old Testament as expressive of the divine communication of power to individuals, as in the case of Isaiah (6:7), of Jeremiah (1:9), of Daniel (10:10, 16, 18), while in that of Job is used with reference to the infliction of personal trial (1:11; 2:5).

It will be of interest to summarize here the instances recorded in the Gospels where we find the Blessed Lord bringing Himself in this manner into personal contact with the sufferers whom He healed. He touched—

(1) a leper (Matt. 8:3; Mark 1:41; Luke 5:13).

(2) the hand of Peter’s wife’s mother (Matt. 8:15).

(3) the eyes of two blind men (Matt. 9:29).

(4) the eyes of two other blind men (Matt. 20:34).

(5) the eyes of the blind man of Bethsaida (Mark 8:22).

(6) the tongue of the deaf stammerer (Mark 7:33).

(7) the ear of Malchus (Luke 22:51).

(8) the bier of the widow’s dead son (Luke 7:14).

(9) the terrified disciples on the mount of transfiguration (Matt. 17:7).

In addition to this phrase (“He touched”), which is so beautifully expressive of the intimate way in which Jesus identified Himself with the circumstances of suffering and pain from which He delivered those who sought Him, we find another which is closely related. We also read that He laid or put His hands on persons for healing or for the communication of strength. In some cases these terms appear to be used synonymously. Thus it is stated in Mark and Luke that babes were brought to Jesus that He might touch them (Mark 10:13; Luke 18:15), while in Matthew the desire is said to have been that He should put His hands on them (Matt. 19:13). In recording the grant of this request, Matthew and Mark say He laid His hands on the infants (Matt. 19:15; Mark 10:16). Mark uses the two terms similarly in his accounts of the cure of the deaf stammerer, and of the blind man of Bethsaida (compare. Mark 7:32 and 33; 8:22 and 25).

Other instances in which it is recorded that Jesus laid hands on persons in the bestowal of healing or power are in the case of—

1. the daughter of Jairus (Matt. 9:18, 25; Mark 5:23, 41; Luke 8:54).

2. the demoniacal youth (Mark 9:27).

3. the bowed woman in the synagogue (Luke 13:13).

3. a few sick folk (Mark 6:2, 5).

4. every sick one that came to Him at Capernaurn (Luke 4:40).

5. Peter on the waves (Matt. 14:31).

These numerous cases in which He either touched or laid hands upon those whom He healed testify not only to the striking activity of Jehovah’s Servant, but to His personal interest in the individuals who came to Him to be blessed. And in this feature of His character we all have the most intimate concern, while the contemplation of this grace which cares even for the individual need, should lead us to adoration.

DEMONIACAL WITNESS REFUSED

This great concourse of persons that came to Jesus from all parts of the land was evidence that a report of Him as the Healer of Israel had spread in all directions, and that there was an eagerness among the poor of the flock to seek His face for blessing, in spite of the evil judgments pronounced upon Him by the religious leaders. Here also were voices loudly testifying to Him before all as the Son of God. But alas! this testimony was “from beneath.” It was not of man, but of Satan, whose works He had come to destroy. “Unclean spirits whensoever they beheld Him, fell down before Him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.” In like manner, the demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum acknowledged Him, but there He was owned as the Holy One of God (Mark 1:24).

The Lord refused both the one and the other. “He charged them much they should not make him known.” The time had not come for their confession. In a future day infernal beings shall publicly bow to the name of Jesus (Phil. 2:10). But in the day of His humiliation the lowly Son of man will not have evil spirits to speak forth His praise as the Holy One or the Son. He chose other witnesses, as the narrative goes on to show. And one of them, Simon Peter, taught by the Father above, confessed Him in this double character—Son of God (Matt. 16:16) and Holy One of God (John 6:69, R.V.).

Such testimony the Lord valued and honored, and proceeded to choose twelve of His disciples who should be His accredited witnesses, not only during the term of His earthly ministry in the favored land, but in a more active sense in all the world after His ascension.

[W. J. H.]

Suddenly

The grace of God bestowed upon king Hezekiah was very great. He succeeded king Ahaz who had gathered together the vessels of the house of God, cut them in pieces, and shut up the doors of Jehovah’s house; also in addition to making him altars in every corner of Jerusalem, and in every several city of Judah high places to burn incense unto other gods, he had removed the brazen altar, and substituted for it one made after the pattern of an altar he had seen at Damascus, on which he elected to offer his offerings. Hezekiah, however, on his accession, changed all this, opening the doors of the house of the Lord and sanctifying it in eight days, so that in sixteen days they had made an end; and we read, “Moreover all the vessels which king Ahaz in his reign did cast away in his transgression, have we [said those entrusted with the duty] prepared and sanctified, and, behold, they are before the altar of Jehovah” (2 Chron. 29:19). This altar, “the altar,” is alluded to seven times in the same chapter, as we have the blood, sprinkled upon the same, four times—of the seven bullocks, the seven rams, the seven lambs, and of the seven he goats, for a sin offering for the kingdom and for the sanctuary. The prevalence of the perfect number (seven) is striking, as also that the atonement was “for all Israel,” for so had the king commanded the burnt offering and the sin offering. What a moment it was when, the burnt offering having begun, “the song of Jehovah began also with the trumpets, and with the instruments ordained by David king of Israel. And all the congregation worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded; all until the burnt offering was finished” (vers. 27, 28)! Space forbids to dwell upon the delightful scene, so, with the Holy Spirit’s comment, we say, “And Hezekiah rejoiced, and all the people, that God had prepared the people; for the thing was done suddenly” (ver. 36).

There is a day coming when, as the prophet Malachi tells us, “the offering of Judah and Jerusalem shall be pleasant unto Jehovah, as in the days of old, and as in former years” (3:4); and this will be consequent upon another sudden event, even that described in ver. 1 of the same chapter, viz., “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith Jehovah of hosts.”

There is, however, what comes home to us in a nearer way perhaps—the birth of the holy Babe —(whom it was Simeon’s joy to confess as “Thy salvation,” for that Babe was Emmanuel, God with us!) In lowly guise and garb was He to be a sign to Bethlehem’s shepherds, even the One concerning whom the angel of the Lord spake to them these wonderful words, “Unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Savior which is Christ the Lord.” Further, “Ye shall find the Babe wrapped in swaddling clothes lying in a manger”! What depths of lowliness and heights of majesty do these words unfold! Do we wonder that “Suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good pleasure in men” (Luke 2). “And the child grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon him.” “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.” “He went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.” Of all that Jesus did, both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, were the apostles witnesses. Coming to His own [possessions] His own [people] received Him not, but slew Him and hanged Him on a tree. Nevertheless, God raised Him up the third day and showed Him openly, before He was received up into heaven. Moreover, when He had by Himself purged our sins, He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

To Him now ascended are believers united. And of this the relentless persecutor of those who called upon that name is to be the witness. Saul, armed with letters to his co-religionists, went to Damascus to bring the saints, whether men or women, bound unto Jerusalem to be punished and put to death. Paul’s own testimony in Jerusalem, on the stairs of the castle, is— “As I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto mc, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” and, to his question, the answer from heaven is, “I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.” Thus was the present glory of the Lord Jesus, and for our sakes His having become poor, made known to the chief of sinners, for in that Name is salvation, the forgiveness of sins, as the angel said to Joseph, “Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.” We forbear on the present occasion to dwell on how in it all is to be discerned the revelation of the mystery—the very words indicating that the poor persecuted ones were His, in an especial way, “for we are members of his body” (Eph. 5:30).

Acts 2:2, 3, gives us, we may reverently say, the joy of the Holy Ghost in taking up His habitation in that which the precious blood of Christ had fitted to be His dwelling-place. “And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.” “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.’’

When Paul and Silas, after considerable trials in their pathway of service, arrive at Philippi (where only women, but no “man of Macedonia” is apparent), and where, consequent on rebuking a young woman with a spirit of divination and commanding the spirit to come out of her, these servants of the Lord find themselves in a dungeon, with backs sore, and feet made fast in the stocks, they made it the occasion, not of murmuring—, but of praise— “they prayed and sang praises unto God, and the prisoners heard them”; can we wonder that “suddenly” there was a great earthquake, and immediately all the doors were opened, and everyone’s bands were loosed, or that the Lord of all gave to His servants not only a man of Macedonia, but all his, for “he believed in God with all his house” (Acts 16:32)?

Is it not striking when on the holy mount, Peter, in mistaken zeal, asked for what would have put his Master on a level with Moses and Elias, and was rebuked by the “voice that came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son, hear ye him” (Mark 9:7), that we should read, “And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves,” as if the lawgiver and the prophet had made haste to depart at such a belittling of their adorable Lord! We need to be much on our guard, as saith the Master Himself, “Watch ye therefore, for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning; lest coming suddenly, he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you, I say unto all, Watch” (Mark 13:35-37).

There is, however, that blessed hope which puts every “suddenly” into the shade, for “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump... the dead shall be raised incorruptible and we shall be changed.” May we therefore have grace to be so waiting for Him as to open to Him immediately when He comes. W. N. T.

Thoughts on the Kingdom in Man's Hand and God's Purpose

The two feedings clearly represent the grace of God going forth, first, to man with some strength left, therefore still under a measure of responsibility though on the way to utter failure-the remnant of faith. And second to man at the last extremity, perfectly helpless, at the point to die. Jew and Gentile alike under sin, all under the judgment of God. In the one case the Lord going out from the mountain fed them on the plain; in the other, after He had gone up into the mountain and sat down. On the plain the bread was given before the day had passed. In the mountain three days had elapsed. On the first occasion the disciples, having enough food for themselves, come to Jesus that the crowd may be dismissed in order to buy food for themselves. On the second the Lord calls His disciples to Him and tells out all His loving anxiety and compassion for the crowds and commences to give that which was more than sufficient for their own need to be a superabundant supply for the whole crowd. Twelve Jewish band-baskets of fragments were gathered up after the first feeding-one for each tribe of Israel. Seven large baskets, enough for the whole world-of the seven loaves were taken up.

1 Sam. 15:26-35 brings to view the last act of iniquity which fills up the cup of rejection and wrath -it is an act of personal violence though but a rending of the garment-endeavoring to compel the spiritual man to perform a fleshly act-to countenance-fleshly worship for the sake of fleshly profit. This is refused; the rending of the garment follows: the rejection complete; but outward acknowledgment still continued upon solicitation for the sake of the public example in the hewing in pieces of the chief thing in it which had lifted up itself (Agag- “tall,”, “very high”) against God; then follows (vers. 34, 35) the separation of the fleshly thing and the spiritual never again to meet.

Thus, John refuses fellowship, with and witnesses against Herod as the, political part of the earthly system, who thereupon rends the mantle of his body, which when Jesus, the spiritual Man, hears of, He withdraws. (Matt. 14:1-13.) Then follows the refusal of the spiritual man to have any fellowship with the religious part of the system, that is as to their doctrine (Matt. 15:1-29), rejecting it (ver. 7-9), hewing it in piedes and going forth from them unto the Gentiles (vers. 21, 22). Chapter xvi. 1-4 shows the rejection of the whole thing from first to last in all its forms, suggests the rending of the Aida of the mantle (ver. 4), and again the spiritual man leaves them and goes away (ver. 5-12).: bring out the hewing in pieces of the evil thing harbored by the professing system, and verse 21 The plain declaration that the consequence would be the rending of His body by the professing system; though still continuing to acknowledge it outwardly.

Verses 22, 23, describe the hewing down of the fleshly things of nature in the heart of the remnant of faith represented in Peter, in whom the corrupt thing has found its perfect development. Like Agag he comes cheerfully in his unbelief and self-righteousness to the Lord, saying, Surely the bitterness of death is passed; “This shall in nowise, happen unto thee;” but turning round with a word the Lord smites down and hews in pieces the natural things of men, saying, “ Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offense unto me.” The tendency of Peter, as a specimen of natural man at his beat estate, was to bring his fleshly abilities and perfections before God as fit for service and worship, and the Lord had to teach him at the lake of Gennesaret that as to power for service he was utterly helpless and unable to save himself, and as to meetness before God in worship, the very best things of his natural heart proved him a Satan, a tempter, and an odor of foul savor. Previously (vers. 13-10) the Lord had expressly revealed the new thing which He was about to bring in in place of the old one which He had rejected, and the truth upon which alone it could be established. Yet Peter is found ready to ignore and give up the work of God for the sake of his natural affection, and willing that the foundation-stone should not be laid, since to do so would cost him the object of his heart’s desire. But the Lord shows him that nothing of nature must be weighed against the will of God, since He alone knows what is profitable, and that the time was near at band when it would be according to His mind that each man’s doings would be weighed out to him. And in order to encourage His weak ones in the difficulties of the wilderness which separated between the house of bondage out of which He was leading them and the land of promise into which He was bringing them, He gives a promise that before they shall be called upon to taste of death at all, death which all were to be prepared for need be, they should see the Son of man coming in His kingdom.

Thus was the separation between the natural and the spiritual man finally complete-each went his own way, the one mourning for the other even unto the day of His death, but never attempting again to cure the smart or heal the wound, but ever treating the earthly things as past all cure at the point to die, the grave of judgment yawning for it, waiting only to put it out’ of sight in order to fully manifest the better thing.

1 Sam. 16 reveals Jehovah working out in secret the counsels of His own will. In chapter xiii., Jonathan appears as type of the Lord Jesus in His character as the Messiah, the king of help (Melchishuah); in chapter 14: 1-30, Jonathan is a type of Christ as the Servant-Prophet, the One like unto His brethren (Ishui-” like,” similar”); in chapter xiv. 31-46, Jonathan foreshews Jesus as Priest and Sacrifice, the Lamb of God, the Gift of God, (Jonathan” whom the Lord has given”). In chapter xv. Samuel appears as a type of Jesus, as the witness for God against the corrupted professing thing, and a link between the rightful heir rejected, and the new man appointed of God to possess the kingdom.

Chapter 16 describes the choosing and anointing of the new man in secret. Samuel is sent to fill his horn with oil and anoint, asking in place of Saul the one whom God had provided among Jesse’s sons. He fears Saul’s anger, but id directed to take a heifer for sacrifice with him and go to the house of Jesse at Bethlehem. The elders tremble at his coming but he assures them be comes peaceably, and sanctifies Jesse and his sons, calling them to the sacrifice. Eliab-” to whom God was a father”—is first looked on and refused, because though he had outward appearance he wanted heart. Then Abinadab” whose father is noble”—is not chosen; and Shammah— astonishment”—likewise. At length when all had passed by unchosen, David the youngest (the beloved) keeping the sheep is sent for and brought in. He was ruddy, had beautiful eyes, and goodly to look to. And the Lord said, Arise, anoint him, “for this is he.” Samuel did so, and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward, and Samuel rose up and went to Ramah.

(Continued from page 287.) (To be continued.)

To the Editor of the Bible Treasury

Dear Sir,

Referring to query as above, I ask leave to submit as follows, from which it will be seen that it is quite possible for a man to be not only an able, and even an eloquent, preacher, but also an inspired prophet of Jehovah, and yet perish miserably amongst His enemies, fighting against God.

What nobler or more glowing words can be found than the utterance of Balaam as recorded in Num. 24:4 et seq.? yet what can be more appalling than the awful history of his subsequent life, and of his last end? “Balaam also, the son of Beor, they slew with the sword” (Num. 31:8); and a part of his prophecy was fulfilled in his own discreditable death—and beyond “I shall see him, but not now; I shall behold him, but not nigh.” No, wretched Balaam! no, indeed! But how awful to

“dwell

Full in the sight of Paradise,

Beholding heav’n, and feeling hell.”

If Balaam’s fearful case be not enough, we have the Lord’s own solemn declaration in Matt. 7:22, “Many will say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name cast out demons? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you”! And again. In Luke 13:26, another plea is raised, “We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets”! But only the same stern, sad sentence is pronounced, the sentence of everlasting despair, “Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.”

It is thus seen that it is even possible, after having partaken of the Lord’s Supper for years “eaten and drunk in thy presence” —to pass eternity at the table of demons indeed!

What then can be done to avert a doom so terrible? The gracious Lord Himself furnishes the reply, “Whosoever shall hear these sayings of mine, and do them, 1 will liken to a man who built his house upon the rock.” Or, as in John 6:40, ‘‘This is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” This then, according to the word of God, is His way of deliverance from the wrath now abiding on every unbeliever, and from the wrath for evermore—to commit oneself unreservedly, for present and eternal salvation, to the Christ of God; trusting not at all to one’s own works, whether preaching or teaching, or aught else, but wholly to Himself and His one perfect work for the putting away of sins by enduring its dread penalty. Then follow His steps through grace to glory, to glory for evermore.

In Dover churchyard a quondam church minister’s body lies enhumed. This is his epitaph: “Life to the last enjoyed Here Churchill lies.” This has been slightly altered: “Life to the last enjoyed? Here Churchill lies.”. Churchill had been in “holy orders” for years, and “Then” as he says— “Then I threw off the cloak!” And in Dover churchyard he lies, and lies, and lies.

GEO. S-M.

Truth, Pyrrhonism, Dogmatism, Christianity (Duplicate): Part 1

MY DEAR BROTHER,—I wish to say a few plain, commonplace, practical things, which I think I can best range under the heads, “Truth, Pyrrhonism, Dogmatism, Christianity”; and if you think them fit for your miscellany, they are at your service, and I trust may benefit your readers.

First as to the terms. By “Truth” I mean revealed truth—that record which God has, in infinite mercy and wisdom, given to us in the divine Scriptures. “Pyrrhonism” I adopt as a term expressive of doubtfulness of mind— “what is truth?” without the heart to prosecute the inquiry. By “Dogmatism” I mark the profession of truth without the practice. “They say [and say rightly perhaps] and do not.” By “Christianity” I understand the living expression of gospel—grace—the apostle’s “faith, hope, charity.”

TRUTH

“Truth” I hold to be definite, unchangeable, and perfectly revealed in the Scriptures. These are, as regards man, the only fountain and depository of truth. As to its essence and living embodiment, it is found alone in Him who said, “I Am THE TRUTH” —happily for us, “the way and the life” also. If others hold not this, it is their loss. They have not the anchor that can be trusted in the storm. Truth, I deny not, may, be matter of long and hesitating and anxious inquiry. Because truth, which is but the expression of the mind of God, though perfectly revealed, is not at once, and of necessity, perfectly understood—not even by those who are called “wisdom’s children,” and are “born of God.” “We know in part, and we prophesy in part.” But truth itself, in the Scriptures, is perfect, absolute, and unchangeable. There is much in the apprehension of this. It removes doubt from the pathway, and is the hinge of all true inquiry. It lays open the well, and how its living waters may be drawn. It points to the oracle, and the temper in which it must be consulted.

As to the study of truth or its investigation, it must be with intent to obey, and not to speculate. “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine.” The disciple’s place, and not the Master’s, belongs to every student of the truth. Moreover, if success is to crown the study, truth must be sought for its own sake, or rather for its Author’s. If the secret bent and purpose is to feed the imagination, or to gratify the lust of knowing, then know this, that thou shalt be “ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” On the other hand, “If thou criest after knowledge, [understanding thy lack of it,] and liftest up thy voice for understanding, [in earnest to possess it,] if thou seekest her as silver, [with an estimation of its value,] and searchest for her as for hid treasure, [willing to dig the field over rather than fail in thy search,] then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God.” “When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is pleasant to thy soul, discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee.” It is the heart’s estimation of the truth that quickens diligence in its pursuit; and it is this also, and not the mind’s dry activity, that determines the rate and measure of advancement in it.

“Buy the truth, and sell it not”: no price is too and to open His own doors for its reception. But great for its purchase—no gain sufficient to repay its loss. This is no direction for this world’s marketing: but it tells us plainly why so few obtain what so many profess to seek. “Wherefore is there a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom, seeing he hath no heart for it?” Albeit the fool of Scripture is this world’s wise man. To him, then, who would advance in the knowledge of the truth, Paul’s direction to Timothy must not stand in the letter only: “Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.” And he adds, “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine: continue in them; for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee.”

In the communication of truth, when it is drawn directly from the divine word, or, it may be, learned from others, and verified by that word (for all are not alike successful diggers in the mine, though all should alike possess a value for the ore), it is definite and determinate. When teaching ceases to be definite, it ceases to be powerful; for it ceases to be truth that is taught. Teaching that swerves from this may not cease to be exciting or attractive, but it ceases to edify. “He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord.” But he who deals out truth that is unascertained and indeterminate, first imposes on himself the chaff for the wheat, and then practices the same deception upon others. To present truth in the plainest and severest garb, and to unfold it in terms level to the commonest minds, is the plain duty of every teacher who is in earnest in what he does. But to seek to popularize truth by diluting it—to drape it so that its proportions are hidden—to adorn it by the efforts of imagination, in order to make it palatable, and so to win for it a place in minds that have no love for it, nor intention to practice it, is to “sow the wind, and to reap the whirlwind.” Spiritual truth can only be apprehended by the understanding becoming spiritual; and the attempt to bring it within the grasp of the unspiritual mind is at best but to leaven and corrupt the truth, instead of using it as a lever by which to bring up the soul to God. Confidence in the truth, or faith, is content to let God work, there is a bustling activity that is ever thrusting itself forward—a running where there are no tidings prepared; which, though it may put on the guise of zeal for the truth, is in the issue no better than sowing in unploughed land. There is divine wisdom in the exhortation of the Lord to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, when he says, “Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns.”

I speak not here against pressing the message of the gospel upon unwilling hearers; though in this, both time and wisdom, and an open door, should be sought at the hands of the Lord; and there should be care that love be never absent as the chief handmaid in the work.

But truth can never he popular in this world. Altogether apart from the testimony of Scripture, even philosophers are puzzled “to know how it is that men should love lies, where they make neither for pleasure, as with poets; nor for advantage, as with the merchant; but for the lie’s sake.” And we know who has said, “Because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.” Truth shows men’s follies and by-ends too clearly, and sheds too broad a light on the masquerading of the world, ever to be welcomed by it. It is only “he that doeth the truth [that] comes to the light.” It is a sort of twilight that men like to live in; or to walk by the light of a fire that themselves have kindled, and sparks that they have compassed themselves about with. And this they are allowed to do, as long as truth is mingled with men’s thoughts and speculations, instead of shining with its own clear light. All human over-valuing, and self-conceit, and false fancies, are detected by the truth; and things that sparkle and look bright by the world’s candle-light, lose their luster when brought into the light of day. This men cannot afford, for it strips the world of its glory, and shows it as a base counterfeit. Supposing the light of truth to be let in upon men and their pursuits, and their estimation of themselves (to go no further), does any one doubt that it would make them feel themselves to be poor, shrunken things, where the heart had not Christ to fill up the place of that which the truth takes away?

But it is the very province of the truth to exhibit things as they are. It is the light which makes all things manifest. There is no object, therefore, unless I would be untrue to my own ends, as they themselves will be ere long manifested in the light, in so disguising truth as to make it pass through the world unrecognized in its claims, and without accomplishing a single purpose for which it is given. But this is done when it judges neither the conscience nor the ways of those by whom it is professedly embraced. The pleasure that may be professed by such a reception of the truth, or the profit, is as nothing; and I ought to blush, if I have only gained for it a welcome on the condition that it shall be deposed from its authority. It is like making truth a harlot to minister to the lusts of the mind. God is the communicator of truth, and He has given it that the heart may be brought into subjection to His authority, as well as into acquaintance with Himself, His works and ways. If I deal with truth at all, for my own profit or the profit of others, I am bound to do it in subjection to God. Hence the apostle’s declaration, “We have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.”

Man, under the guidance of the Spirit of God, is only the interpreter of the heavenly oracles. Hence arises a limit in the service of truth. I must cease to interpret when I cease to understand. It may be the consequence of my negligence that I do not understand. Be it so. The acknowledgment of this may prove a spur to my diligence (especially if I bear in mind the word, “to him that hath shall be given”); but it is certainly no warrant to cover ignorance by the pretense of knowledge. How many expositions of Scripture are to be met with, whose contradictions amongst themselves show that it is not truth that is presented, but the uncertain and ever-varying notions of men. What, then, in writing, or in oral teaching, profits? The definiteness of truth; truth, doubtless applied by the Holy Spirit to the conscience and the heart—still, the definiteness of truth. That there may be an effect where this is absent, I do not deny. But what is it? The effect of making people think, if they think at all, that Scripture is as vague and pointless as any exposition of its declarations. Still, I affirm that truth is definite or it is not truth. Boundless in its extent it is, and infinitely varied in its application, but always definite. Where this definiteness is not grasped, uncertainty and unpreparedness for action are the necessary result. An easy-going orthodox profession may be satisfied with vagueness and generality, nay, with vapidness and insipidity; but if the truth is to detach souls from the world, to bring into peace and liberty, and to direct to the just hope of a Christian, it must be definite.

But what of those who are impatient of whatever goes beyond their own conceptions of truth, and who imagine that the perfection of teaching lies in a perpetual ringing the changes upon known and acknowledged, but elementary, truths? I say nothing of those who look rather for excitement than for building up on their most holy faith. But in regard to the question proposed, I say, let the condition of Christians generally furnish the reply. And I add, let those beware who have professedly, through the truth, escaped from that position. Especially let those who are teachers of the truth beware, for the streams will not rise higher than the level of the spring; and there is always a (more or less marked) correspondence between the character and condition of the teacher and the taught. People that are caught by the imaginative, the sentimental, the shallow and wordy, as well as those who are captivated by the comprehensive and earnest, will infallibly bear its stamp. Moreover, it is not everything that is true which profits. I add, where popular effect may become a snare, the example of Philip, in Acts 8, may well furnish instruction to the heart. But above all should be studied the way in which He, who spake as never man spake, detaches, by the truth He presents, the multitudes that were gathered around Him, from all false expectations which they might have associated with His words and mission, through carnality or a worldly mind. The sermon on the mount (Matt. 5, etc.) and John 6, stand out as prominent examples of this. It is a sore trial to our poor hearts to be obliged, by the presentation of the distinctiveness of truth, to count upon following the experience of the Master, as it is recorded in John 6:66. “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” But this was only a legitimate, though sorrowful, effect of the Lord’s faithfulness to His mission, as uttered in the presence of Pilate, “To this end was I born, and for this purpose came I into the world, that I should bear witness to THE TRUTH. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”

For the truth’s sake all imitation of others, in their modes of communicating it, should be eschewed. Wherever this folly is perceived, it prejudices the mind and often closes the door to acceptance. Moreover it has the effect of making the message appear unreal in the hands of him who is delivering it. Simplicity of purpose and aim will stamp its own impress on the mode of communication; and the vessel will under this power be seen as God has fitted it, and not distorted by the attempt to emulate that which it may be most unlike, both in original character, and in training for the work.

(To be continued)

Truth, Pyrrhonism, Dogmatism, Christianity: Part 2

“Pyrrhonism” will not require many words, nor will there be occasion, in what is here designed, to advert to Pyrrho or his philosophic system (if the term system may be applied to that which advocated universal doubt and the mind’s perpetual equilibrium). But Pyrrhonism may exist without the name. And amidst the breaking up of conventional modes of thought and the felt insufficiency of the common standards of orthodoxy, if superstition does not take the place of truth, binding down the conscience to a usurped authority, that on the one hand forbids the conscience to find rest where God has placed it, even in the blood of Christ, and on the other puts a bar to the soul’s direct appeal to His holy word, there is especial danger of the mind becoming weary and indifferent in the march after what is vital, and so taking refuge in the question, “What is truth?” as if it allowed of no definite or sufficient answer. This state of mind, in degree, may infest the church, as well as become the prevalent folly of the world. The producing causes are to be found in the very constitution of the human mind, when acted upon by the peculiar influences of the present and similar times. Besides, there are many things short of the patent dislike of the truth that may tend to keep the mind in a state of hesitating equilibrium. The real solution of many a perplexing and doubtful case is to be found in the Words of Christ, “How can ye believe who receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor which cometh from God only?” or, in the sterner declaration, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” The world is in direct antagonism to the Father; and hence inasmuch as the world, in whatever form, has its hold unrelaxed upon my heart, I shall be indisposed to listen to the communications of the Father through the Son. I do not oppose; I do not disbelieve; I only doubt. I doubt the meaning here; I doubt the application there; I doubt the possibility of carrying it out in this place. But know this, O doubter! that truth will never be truth to thee nor to thy soul, until it is translated unto action! Truth appeals to thy conscience, to thine affections, to thy duty, with all the authority of the God of truth. At first it deals with thee about ruin or redemption. It next claims to be formative of thy motives, to be the guide of thine actions, the director of thy thoughts, the animator of thine hopes, the overseer of thy whole inner, as well as thine outer, life. Truth exists not for thee, if thou refuse to it thine obedience and thine heart.

DOGMATISM

By “Dogmatism” I do not mean that undue positiveness of manner in asserting the truth which is ordinarily designated by this term, but rather the condition of mind in holding the truth which endangers its becoming a matter of opinion, instead of, as the Lord expresses it concerning His words, being “spirit and life.” The first may be prejudicial to the truth by the repellent attitude it assumes; the second destroys its power by evaporating its very spirit and life. Principles, for which so many are ready to contend, and contend rightly when viewed as evolved by the vital power of truth, apart from this become worthless and deceptive, and soon degenerate into opinions only and the dogmas of a sect. It is not that grace and truth, in expressing themselves, will not assume those definite forms, which are rightly enough called principles; but if these are to be practically of any worth, it is in their being animated by the energy of the inward life. There is a form which springs from the energy of life and is self-evolved; and there is a form which is superinduced, and, if it does indicate the absence of life, is repressive of it. The Scripture speaks of both in the passage, “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” Truth to the dogmatist is but a mold which impresses an outward form. Truth, to the earnest Christian, ought to be, and is, what the root and sap are to the plant or tree. The apostle thus addresses the dogmatists of his day, and his words demand the attention of a willing ear in ours— “But if thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?” To these I but add the words of the Lord to His disciples, “If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.”

CHRISTIANITY

“Christianity.” We now leave the ground of objective testimony, or the expression of authoritative truth, and come upon that of subjective experience, or the living expression of this truth. The question now is, supposing truth to have been rightly taught and rightly received, what will be its legitimate effect? This is answered in the directest way by the apostle in the summary he gives of the effect of the gospel on the Thessalonians. He speaks of them as remembering their “work of faith, and labor of love, and patience of hope, in the sight of God and our Father.” And this answers to his expression in 1 Cor. 13:13, “Now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three.” There is that in the revelation of the truths of heavenly grace which thus acts by the power of God on the soul when it is yielded up to its power. The “work of faith” is seen in its turning the heart “to God from idols,” in all the intensity of the contrast between utter emptiness and vanity, and eternal living fullness. The “labor of love” expresses itself in the outgoing of life’s energies in the service of Him who, in the all-commanding and constraining power of infinite and unstinted love, makes Himself known to the soul, and by love thus enchains and leads it captive. “The patience of hope” takes the definite form of waiting for the accomplishment of the promise of Him who said, “I will come again and receive you to myself, that where I am, there ye may be also.” Hope shows its power in the soul by sustaining the patience while “waiting for God’s Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead [with all the pregnancy of this mighty truth in power and love and grace] even Jesus, who delivered us from the wrath to come.”

Now these are presented not as the ripened fruits of long experience in the truth, but as the very first results of the reception of gospel grace: the upspringing of heavenly fruit from a virgin soil when first brought under culture by the hand of God; the well-tuned harmony of the soul touched in its chords by the skill of infinite love. The Lord Jesus Christ was the spring and object of their faith and love and hope; and the conscious presence, to their faith, of Him who was their God and Father, gave a solemn reality to all that the truth had brought home to their hearts. “The work of faith” was there; and “the labor of love” was there; and “the patience of hope” was there. Nothing of the divine testimony was inert. Indeed, apart from this living energy, Christianity has no existence in this world. The truths by which it was first evoked remain, and the divine power remains which gave these truths their living expression; but Christianity exists only in this living expression. Many things which marked the bright course of the early church have passed away, but these are emphatically said to remain, “faith, hope, charity, these three”; without which Christianity is not.

Should not, then, a right presentation and a right reception of the truth of the gospel be still productive of the same effects? Should we not view it as a defective gospel, either as preached or professed, if these effects be absent? God’s grace must not be limited: but I am speaking of the responsibility which the truth brings to the soul. The effect of the gospel is not here limited, as it is so often now, to the heart having obtained peace by it, or even the knowledge of the possession of eternal life. If the heart rests in faith on the divine truths on which Christianity is based, must it not claim for them an energetic and a transforming power? Where God is working, I own it becomes the soul to tread softly. But in what are called “revivals,” I think I see this—on the part of God, souls awakened in an extraordinary degree, and many doubtless brought to Christ; on the part of man, nature largely acted on, often a defective gospel presented, and the mind concentrated too much on its own assured and joyous feelings. The result of this is, to a large extent, even where the work is real, the rearing of hot-house plants, which wither and show the yellow leaf when the extraneous heat and forcing influences are withdrawn. Conversion is not everything. Fervor will not stand in the place of truth engrafted in the soul. Activity is not the only sign of spiritual life and power. “I am so happy!” may be welcomed as the soul’s expression of a sense of having found in Christ what it could find in nothing else. But there is another word of Christ to be heard besides “Thy sins are forgiven thee”: it is, “If any man serve me, let him follow me.” It is a great thing that the practical aim of Christians be not lowered. True revival I take to be the leading back of souls to see from whence they have fallen, and to repent and do the first works. The sure token of a revival in the church (I do not mean the fact of frequent conversions) will be found in Christians being led solemnly to lay it to heart, whether the church is in a position to meet the Lord, and whether it is a true and faithful witness for Him in His absence. There are the dangers of all times, and there are the special dangers of our own; but the fullness of the truth as communicated to us by God is sufficient to enable the simple and dependent saint to meet them all, and so to find the special blessing promised, by the lips of Him whose name we bear, “to him that overcometh.”

Ever affectionately yours,

Undervalued Saints

It is well to have our judgment respecting the Lord’s own, as indeed in regard to everything else, formed and governed by the word of God.

In Mary of Magdala we have one whose character has been foully aspersed, as though she had been an impure woman. Scripture does not so speak of her, nor should we, though men may call institutions founded for poor fallen ones after her name. What is recorded is, “out of whom he had cast seven devils” (Mark 16:9). It may be noticed moreover that, in the three instances of this immoral class given us in the Gospels, the Lord does not disclose their names. His grace had met the woman of Samaria (John 4), as also the sinner of the city who found her way into Simon’s house (Luke 7); and to the one brought into the temple (John 8) He does not indeed speak peace, nor would He then condemn, but as the true light that searches the conscience of all He says to her, “Go, and sin no more.” Mary of Magdala had in a special way been under the power of demons. We were all at one time the willing slaves of the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience. But Mary showed her appreciation of the mercy that had been extended to her by being one of those “who also when he was in Galilee followed him and ministered unto him” (Mark 15:41); and—although she was not as well instructed as her namesake of Bethany, or she would not have brought sweet spices to the sepulcher to anoint Him, yet she showed the depth of her devotion to His adorable person by remaining there even when Peter and John “went away again unto their own home.” She is a fitting type of the church, knowing the Lord when it was yet dark, and commissioned by Him to deliver that wondrous message to the disciples, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, unto my God and your God.”

In Song of Solomon (where we have the language of days yet to come of the Jewish people as Christ’s earthly bride) it is twice said, “My undefiled” (chaps. 5:2; 6:9). Could we imagine therefore the Lord using Mary of Magdala as He did if it had been otherwise with her?

“Quartus the brother” (Rom. 16:23) is also sometimes looked down upon because nothing special is said of him, as is of others, in a chapter which so exquisitely discriminates amidst so many lovely traits. But is it nothing to be “the brother Quartus”? Are we not exhorted to “let brotherly love continue” (Heb. 13:1)? to be “kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love” (Rom. 12:10)? Was it not a commendation of the Thessalonians that in his First Epistle to them, Paul writes “as touching brotherly love ye have no need that I write unto you, for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another” (4:9)? And whilst brotherly kindness is to be added to by charity or love, itself is to be added to “godliness” (2 Peter 1:7). Yes, we are to “love as brethren” (1 Peter 3:8). Let us therefore esteem Quartus “the” brother.

In Obadiah also (1 Kings 18) we have one who we are told was governor of Ahab’s house, a king who did more to provoke the Lord God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him! As if, however, to guard our minds against entertaining unworthy thoughts about the one who was over Ahab’s house, because he was servant to such a master, the Holy Spirit is careful to tell us, “Now Obadiah feared Jehovah GREATLY.” We may well, therefore, pause before we pass judgment on him, for “the fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do His commandments” (Psa. 111:10). And the first act recorded of Obadiah is, “For it was so, when Jezebel cut off the prophets of Jehovah, that Obadiah took a hundred prophets and hid them by fifty in a cave, and fed them with bread and water.” A noble deed, which might have cost him his life, had it come to the knowledge of Jezebel, Ahab’s wife, for she, we are told, stirred Ahab up to work the wickedness which he wrought. Though the world may and does hate the ways of a godly man, yet it knows in such an one there is what can be relied on for truth and uprightness. No wonder, then, that when Ahab wants to know how the land is faring under the word spoken by Elijah, “there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word,” if he goes himself through one half of the land unto all fountains of water, and unto all brooks, he chooses Obadiah to go through the other half on the important mission.

When unexpectedly Obadiah meets Elijah, he does him obeisance; and when commissioned by the prophet to tell Ahab, “Behold, Elijah,” he pleads, not without reason, that to deliver such a message might endanger his life. For he knew the murderous search that Ahab had made for Elijah in every nation and kingdom, and he feared that when he had delivered the message the Spirit of Jehovah might carry the prophet away. It is, then, as the occasion seemed to demand it, that he himself tells Elijah what the Holy Spirit also records of him in the narrative. Was it wrong in Obadiah to wish not to throw away his life needlessly? Did not the Lord Jesus say to His disciples, “When they shall persecute you in this city, flee ye to another” (Matt. 10:23)? Again, let us not forget that when assured by Elijah that he would surely show himself to Ahab that day, Obadiah was obedient, and forthwith “went to meet Ahab, and told him.” It were better to have Obadiah’s care for God’s people and his obedience to His word through the prophet, than rashly to cavil at the servant. Let us admire the grace that could maintain the man in such a king’s palace, even as it did Daniel when he was made “ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon,” or, in other words, prime minister to that, at one time, most idolatrous first monarch of world-empire, Nebuchadnezzar.

Turning again to the New Testament, we forbear to say much on Erastus, the chamberlain or treasurer of the city with which his name is linked. There have been godly treasurers, as the one serving under Queen Candace; and he and Erastus are not to be belittled in view of the word, “Let every man wherein he is called there abide with God” (1 Cor. 7:24). If he be the same Erastus as is spoken of in Acts 19:22 as ministering to Paul, and as abiding at Corinth (2 Tim. 4:20), we may thank God for such a saint, bearing in mind that “not many mighty, not many noble are called”; and that, as to honor, we should take the lead as regards one another, not in expecting, but in paying, it according to Rom. 12:10. Where the circumstances preclude this abiding “with God,” then indeed, as Christ’s bondmen, we should seek disentanglement from what prevents our having “always a conscience void of offense toward God, and toward men” (Acts 24:16). We are called to glorify God in our body. Further, as Christians, partakers of a “heavenly calling,” we have, for us, the contrast in 1 Cor. 4:8-16 to Psa. 45:16, where the future earthly people of God are in honor when the King’s throne is established in Zion, and the arrows are sharp in the heart of His enemies whereby the peoples fall under Him. Then, it is judgment (vers. 3-6), the glory and majesty of the Mighty One riding prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness. Now, it is grace, not judgment; the Lord Jesus on high, not yet reigning. When He reigns, we too shall reign, for we are His joint heirs. Meanwhile, we are called to be followers of Paul—sufferers with and for Christ; as the apostle John could say, “Your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ.” “If we endure, we shall also reign with him” (2 Tim. 2:8-13; Rev. 1:9).

W. N. T.

Waiting and Watching

The Holy Spirit, while faithfully recording the failures of the returned remnant from the Babylonish captivity, directs our attention again and again to some lovely features which had been produced in them by the grace of God. Ezra, Haggai, Zechariah, and Nehemiah had all been used of God to minister blessing and encouragement to the remnant; many evils were removed, and the authority of the word of the Lord was acknowledged and obeyed. The Lord undertook for them; not with the same manifest interference and terrible majesty, and judgments, as when the nation was delivered from Egyptian bondage; yet quite as certainly in His over-ruling providential care. But here, as in everything else entrusted to man, there ensues failure and declension, till, within the space of fifty years from Nehemiah’s visit to Jerusalem, the condition of the remnant had become truly deplorable, as disclosed by the prophet Malachi.

Surely, to the eye of faith there is a present-day parallel to this; to the Lord’s dishonor, and our shame. May grace save us from being blind to it; but rather keep us sensible of it, leading us to walk humbly and prayerfully and watchfully. One thing, however, is always certain—that God never leaves Himself without witness; so the same prophet is used to point out a small remnant of the remnant who in their day of distressful circumstances met the mind of the Lord. “Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another, and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.” Then follow promises of blessing for those who feared, and served the Lord, and terrible judgments announced for the wicked. The declension had been rapid, and the then existing testimony had the appearance of an expiring spark; then the curtain dropped, for the book of Malachi closed the prophetic testimony of the Old Testament.

This is succeeded by four centuries of silence; but while Jehovah was silent the cultivated intellect of man was allowed to shine with its mightiest achievements. During that time the unrivaled philosophers, orators, statesmen, sculptors and warriors of Greece flourished, but instead of bringing about a deliverance for the human race, it has been said that this gifted race was eaten up of its own corruptions. Thus God in His wisdom demonstrated that man by wisdom knew not God. In the New Testament we find that the time had arrived for God to break the silence. We read in the Epistle to the Galatians that when the fullness of time was come God sent forth His Son.

Jehovah had announced the glad tidings in the garden of Eden, that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head. He had said to Abraham, “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed”; yea, all the scriptures were pointing forward to the advent of a great deliverer. All heaven we know was interested in that momentous event. It was there the glory of the eternal Son was known; there He was the object of worship for all the heavenly intelligencies. “By him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things subsist.” But He was about to empty Himself, to lay aside His glory—not His Deity—and to take a servant’s form. Oh, mighty stoop! oh, wondrous incarnation! Do we wonder that the mind of heaven was reflected on the earth? that highly favored ones, just a few, were in God’s secret?

Such was the case. When the curtain is lifted what a testimony do we get of Jehovah’s faithfulness and grace! The spark of testimony had not expired, the light was not extinguished. No, no, that was God’s concern, and He had kept it alive for His own glory. Gabriel was sent to the temple to tell Zacharias that his wife Elizabeth should bear a son, who was to be named John. He would be great in the sight of the Lord, and would be filled with the Holy Ghost from his birth. Further, he would go before the Lord in the spirit and power of Elijah, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. This was the great forerunner of Jehovah’s. Christ. Subsequently, Mary too was visited by Gabriel at Nazareth, who told her that she should bring forth a son whose name should be called Jesus. And in answer to her difficulty the angel said, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

Here let us notice the character of the remnant that God had reserved to Himself. Zacharias and Elizabeth, obedient ones, walking in all the ordinances of the Lord blameless; Simeon, just and devout, who was in the current of God’s thoughts, and who was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost that he should not see death before he had seen Jehovah’s Christ. There was also praying Anna, serving God with fastings and prayers night and day. There were Joseph and Mary, simple and devout, controlled by the mind of heaven. There was nothing of human greatness in any of these, nothing to attract the attention of the world; but oh! how highly favored of God.

Now we are waiting for the second advent; we are looking for that blessed hope. The Lord Himself said, “In my Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so I would have told you; I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am ye may be also.” His coming for us is doubtless all of grace; and every saint, all who are indwelt by the Holy Ghost, will be taken then. The presentation in glory will be of the bride complete.

The thought of the faithful only being taken and the worldly saints who failed to watch being left to go through the tribulation, is quite foreign to the teaching of God’s word. But there will be, doubtless, great differences in the actual state of God’s saints at the Lord’s coming; and it is our privilege to gather up from the New Testament scriptures just what will meet the Lord’s mind as to our state. There are some helpful words in Luke 12, where the Lord Jesus says, “Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags that wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; and ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord when he will return from the wedding, that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately. Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching; verily, I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them. And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants” (vers. 33-38).

Now turn to John 21, where, as has been said by another, we have things presented designedly mysterious. Peter and John are representative men. Peter, to whom the Lord entrusted His sheep of the circumcision, has a very prominent place in the early chapters of the Acts—days of power and wonders and signs; but the Lord had said to him, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest; but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God.” He thus sealed his testimony with his blood to the glory of God. Those days of power terminated; but John represents that which will exist up to the Lord’s coming. So we read (ver. 20), “Peter turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved, following, which also leaned on his breast at supper and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me.”

Is not this intended to convey the thought that what is seen in John and mentioned in this connection will exist till the Lord comes? John is seen following Jesus—the One who has left us an example that we should follow His steps. “He that says he abides in him ought, even as he walked, himself also [so] to walk.” He is the disciple whom Jesus loved. It was a real joy to his heart that Jesus loved him, and his appreciation was expressed in calling himself “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” He leaned on the Lord’s breast at supper, which tells of sweet and blessed intimacy; and the more reverently intimate we are with the Lord, the more intimate He will be with us. May we cultivate it. John was in the secret of the Lord as to the betrayer, and how manifestly this comes out in his Epistles. May we, too, in this day of many antichrists, keep close to the Lord, and be in His secret as to the evil around in its true character. And may we also, in response to the Lord’s “Surely I come quickly,” be able, with the deepest affection and desire, to add with John our “Amen; come, Lord Jesus.”

J. A. T.

What Is the World and What Is Its End? Part 1

This is the question I would now discuss, according to the light Scripture affords us. Nor am I going to forget that the world we live in has taken a Christian form.

And first, What is the world? Men are apt to think that this world is as God made it, and that all things continue as they were at the creation, only that man has made great progress in prosperity and civilization. Now, in material comforts, none will deny it, though the men of a past age would hardly think our refinements comforts; and, while passions subsist, the difference is not so great as is supposed. Men have telegraphs, railroads, Armstrong guns, and iron-clads; but I hardly know in what respect they are the happier for it. It is a question if they have not excited the passions more than they have satisfied them. Children are not more obedient, families not more united, servants not more honest and respectful, masters not kinder, wives not more faithful. Morally speaking, I do not see what the world has gained. It thinks better of itself, and vaunts its powers: I do not know that this is any advance. Christianity, as light come into the world, has made a difference. Men do not do in light what they do in the dark. But if we look beneath the surface, even that is not much. But the world is in no sense as God made it. He overrules all, has patience with it; but He never made it as it is. He made Paradise, and the world has grown up as it is through man’s departure from God. It has been destroyed once since, because of its wickedness. It is conscious at this moment that things cannot go on long as they are; that we are in a crisis of the world’s history which must result in some great disruption. Some will tell us that democracy is the evil, and it must be put down; others, that it alone can save the world. But all feel things cannot go on as they are.

I do not participate in men’s judgments in this respect; but these fears, even if they magnify the apprehensions of men on one side or the other, are the fruit of the restless working of some principle which man cannot control, and hence his fears; they are the confession of the instability of the order on which he relies; and they presage, and in the world’s history have ever presaged, some violent disruption, because they were the expression of the consciousness of the force of what was breaking all up—that passions are stronger than what controlled them. The bonds of society are too tight or too weak. Power is not in them, but in the force which is working underneath them. Some would slacken them to give vent to the power at work; some would tighten them, hoping to break or repress it; some hope, and many more fear; none know what is to come. “After us, the deluge,” has become the proverbial expression of self-importance, but the accepted utterance of general fears. The Christian knows that God overrules all things, and he does not fear in this way, but for that reason he is more calm and clear-sighted, less interested in the maintenance of particular forms, and hence more interested in judging the effect of principles on them. And, if indeed taught of God in this, guided by His word in the knowledge of what the result will he, yet a large number of Christians, however, add to the delusion, because even among them, man’s capacity for doing good is worshipped. Yet even these are getting uneasy at the influence Popery has acquired and is acquiring.

What is, then, the world? It is a vast system, grown up after man had departed from God, of which Satan is actually, though not by right of course, the god and the prince. Man was driven out of the place in which God had set him in innocence and peace. He gave up God for his lusts, under the influence of Satan, who thus got power over him. His way back to the tree of life was barred by divine power. He has indeed built a city, where God had made him a vagabond, and adorned it by the hands of artificers in brass and iron, and sought to make it agreeable by those who handle the harp and organ. But he is without God in it. Left without law, the world became so bad that God had to destroy mankind, save eight persons, by the deluge. Under law man plunged into idolatry, from which no prophetic warnings could ultimately deliver him. God sent His Son; God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them. But man would have none of Him. He was cast out of the vineyard and slain. The world is a system sprung up from man’s disobedience and departure from God in its origin, and which has turned God out of it as far as it could when He came into it in mercy. Hence the Lord says of it as a system, “Now is the judgment of this world.” That is its state of sin. But it is also a system in which men have been proved in every way, to see whether they could be recalled or recovered from this state, by promises, by law, by prophets, yea by God’s own Son. Especially among the Jews was this process carried on, as represented under the figure of a vineyard, where the owner sought fruit, but no fruit was to be had. The servants, and even the only-begotten Son, were killed. And when we look now at the principles and motives of the world, are they other than the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life? Do not pleasure, gain, vanity, ambition govern men? I do not speak of exceptions, but of what characterizes the world. When we speak of men rising in the world, getting on in the world, is it not ambition and gain which are in question? Is there much difference in what Cain did in his city, and what men are now doing in theirs? If a Chinese, who had heard a missionary speak of Christ and Christianity, came to London to see what it was, would he find the mass of men, the world, governed by other motives than what governed the mass at Nankin, or Pekin, or Canton? Would they not be seeking gain, as he would have done there, or pleasure, as they do there, or power and honor, as they do there? What is the world in its motives? A system in which men seek honor one of another, and not the honor which cometh from God only. In a word, the world having rejected the Son of God when He was here in it, the Father set Him at His right hand-fruit of that solemn appeal of the blessed One, “O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee, but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.” Then comes the sentence, “All that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.”

But it will be said, Yes, but now Christianity has come in: that applies to the heathen world. I answer, “The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.” The lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life are not found only among the heathens; if comparison is to be made —now much more among Christians. But it is important to take up Christianity, because, not only does faith recognize it as the truth and true revelation of God in Christ, but it has in sum formed the world in its present condition. If I go to inquire what the world is, I cannot turn to heathens or Mohammedans; I must look to Christendom. This is what characterizes the state of the world. Now I have already spoken of the motives none can deny which govern men in it—as pleasure, gain, ambition, vanity. They may pursue these things, preserving a good reputation before men; it is only another snare to make Pharisees of them, or without conscience. But they pursue this, and a man is morally what he pursues. He is covetous if it be gain, ambitious if it be power, a man of pleasure if it be pleasure, and so on. But we must look at Christendom itself. At the beginning—the exhibition of the grace and power of Christ’s operation by the Holy Ghost in raising men above human motives, and uniting them in the enjoyment of heavenly things with one heart, and so displaying a care for each other which the world does not know, and a deadness to the world which is the opposite of the very principle of its existence—pure in walk and unselfish in its ways, the church forced itself on the attention of a hostile yet admiring world. Now, and for centuries, the seat of anxious and tortuous ambition, of crimes and deceit of every kind, haughty power over others, and worldly luxury and evil, characterize what pre-eminently calls itself the church. The name of its most active supports has passed, in common parlance, into the name of cunning, falsehood, and want of conscience. The world has been driven into infidelity by what calls itself the church.

Take the Greek church. Where does ignorance reign pre-eminently? There where its clergy sways. Where all seems fair as regards profession, infidelity reigns universally in the active-minded population of the Romanist system. As to Protestantism, everyone knows, because there all is open, how it is sunk into infidelity. Christianity only adds this additional feature to the world’s history, that the worst corruption has come in—the corruption of what is best. The Reformation was caused mainly because the iniquity of the church was intolerable. This was predicted by the apostles; so that it confirms, instead of shaking, the faith of him who believes and reads the word; but it teaches that reference to Christendom does not do away the proof of Satan being the prince and god of this world. He has proved it more than ever, by making that which was brought in as a witness of God to be the seat of the power of his own corruption. Taking in Christendom as a whole, what do we see? Mohammedanism has overrun the eastern part and Popery the western. The north of Europe has been delivered from the latter—and what is its state? Overrun with infidelity and Popish tendencies. I do not mean to deny that the Spirit of God is active, and that good is done in the midst of all this. I believe it, and thank God for it. But that is not the world, but a distinct power which works in the midst of it. In influencing the world and its government, Popery has made more progress the last thirty years than the power of truth. We may deplore it, but it cannot be denied. The world is far more guilty by having Christianity in its midst. But it has not ceased to be the world.

Remember, reader, that it was at the death of Christ that the devil received the title of “prince of this world,” and, as to his religious influence, is called “the god of this world,” who blinds the minds of them who believe not. God did not call the devil the prince of this world till He had fully proved and tested it. But when it followed Satan wholly in rejecting His Son (the few who owned, adding confirmation to it by their fear), then the name is given to him. When God’s throne was at Jerusalem it was impossible; but, when the true ruler of it was rejected, then it was plain Satan was its prince. The intrigues for power when the empire became Christian proved, not the exclusion of Satan from the throne of the world, but his acquired dominion over what was called the church. No doubt the cross gave his power its death-blow in the sight of God, and of faith, but not in the world. There it was his victory; and the Christ was called up to sit at the right hand of God, till His enemies were made His footstool. Then men stumbled on the stone. When it falls in judgment, it will grind them to powder.

Now, though Satan’s worst reign is his religious one, far the worst, even when the blasphemous beast is raging (Rev. 13), as any one may see in reading the character of the second beast, yet he reigns anywhere only by the corrupt motives of man’s heart. We may add, indeed, the fears of a had conscience to his means of power. He leads men astray by their lusts, and then gives them his religion to quiet their consciences, which he cannot cleanse. He makes religiousness (characterized by certain forms which strike the imagination, and a diligent activity in what flesh can perform) minister to the power of those who rule for him, and excites the passions of men to contend for their religion, as for something in which their own interests and honor are concerned; thus making religion the activity of the flesh to sustain, superstitiously or through interest, a system, and capable of any wickedness to sustain it, so that wickedness becomes religious wickedness, and the conscience even thinks it is doing God service, while Satan’s craft directs all this to his own ends. Still, outside all this direct system of Satan’s religious power, he governs the world—the Christian world, as all the rest and more than the rest—by men’s ordinary lusts. But the eager pursuit of gain is more ardent than ever, leading to less scruple in acquiring it; and pleasure holds its sway over men, in defiance of Christ, as it did when there was no such motive to restrain them. War rages as it ever did, conquest and oppression range over a wider sphere than of old, while the nominal power of Christianity, with all men’s boastings, has receded to smaller limits than in the seventh century, when it ruled over known Africa, filled Asia, and was almost the established religion of China.

Such is the world which is attached to its own objects—grandeur, power, pleasure, gain, not to Christ; and thus is enslaved to him who governs the world by these motives. The external system of Christianity, instead of delivering souls from them, is the seat of the highest exercise of these worldly principles; and where it is not the sphere of the concentrated influence of them, it is sunk into philosophy and unbelief.

What, then, is its end? Judgment, speedy judgment. Of the day and the hour, no man knows: it comes as a thief in the night. The world will not get really better. The thoughts men have of its doing so, are one of the worst expressions of its evil confidence in man, man’s development, man’s energies. Man is to be made better. Nay, Christianity, say some now, is only a phase of man’s history; and now we are to have a better. What is it to come from? What are its motives?

(To be continued)

[J. N. D.]

What Is the World and What Is Its End? Part 2

Commerce, we are told, civilizes. Education enlarges and improves the mind. Commerce does take away grossness and violence; but gain is its motive. Its earnest pursuit tends to destroy higher motives, and to make a moral estimate of value sink into money and selfishness. It has nowhere elevated the tone of society, but the contrary. It has not stopped wars; it has caused many. Commercial nations have, in general, been the least scrupulous, and the most grasping. Excuses may be formed; but none but a commercial people would make a war to sell opium. What has education done? It enlarges the mind. Be it so; of course it does. Does it change the motives which govern the heart? In no way. Men are more educated than they were; but what is the change? Is the influence of superstition really diminished? In no wise. On the contrary, the infidelity produced by dependence on man’s mind has forced men, who are not personally established in divine truth, back into superstition, to find repose and a resting-place. One of the worst signs of the present day, and which is observable everywhere, is that deliverance from superstition and error is not now by means of positive truth; but that liberty of mind, sometimes called liberalism, which is bound by no truth, and knows no truth, but doubts all truth, and is simply destructive. Go anywhere and everywhere, to India or England, Italy or Russia, or America: deliverance from superstition is not by truth, but by disbelief of all known truth. The blessed truth of the gospel is a drop of water in the ocean of mind and error. And even Christians reckon, not on the Spirit and word of God, but on progress, to dispel darkness. It is building up Popery and mere church authority, without the soul knowing truth for itself, for those who dread with reason the wanton pretensions of the impudence of the human mind; which, satisfied as to its own claim to judge, has no real taste for, or interest whatever in, truth itself. On the other hand, the utter absence of truth in church pretensions, and its claim independent of godly fruits, drive even honest minds, not divinely taught and guided, into the wanton pretensions of that mind which has no truth at all. The manifest conflict of the day is between superstition and the mere pretensions of man’s mind (i.e. infidelity as to all positive truth, or standard of truth, or acquired truth). Neither superstition nor infidelity knows any truth; nor have they any respect for it. One recognizes authority; the other is the rejection of it. One is the Church, so called; the other, free thought. Faith in the truth is known to neither. I appeal to every intelligent person if this is not a true description of what is going on: rest in authority; or the mind of man is to find out truth. Where it is no one knows—the business of man’s mind being to disprove any existing claim to it. One of them is no better than the other: church authority, the most hostile to God and His people, as the judgment of Babylon shows all the blood of saints is found in her; but the other, a rising up of man against God, which will end in his destruction.

It is as needful, in referring to the state of the world, to refer to its religious aspect as to the lower and more material motives which govern it. I do not doubt for a moment (God forbid I should) that the Spirit of God acts for the blessing of some in the midst of all this scene, but it does not affect the state of the world. It is one of the striking phenomena of the liberal, or infidel party, that where it is free. (that is, where it is not itself oppressed by Popery), it prefers Popery to truth. Truth is divine, and it cannot be borne. Popery is human, and liberality will be liberal to it, not to truth. So governments, save when too rudely pressed by it, pander to Popery, because it is a strong and unscrupulous political power. Truth does not concern them. If it presses on their party, it annoys them. All this has an evident tendency—the giving power to superstition as long as governments hold their own, but when human will grows too strong, a breaking up of all that, and the destruction of the whole system. A well-known specimen of this has been seen in the French Revolution.

If we turn to America—to what (to many) would be the most attractive part of the new world—what do we see? Large profession and religious activity, but the churches the great promoters of the dreadful conflict now [1862] going on; Christians more worldly than the world; money supreme in influence; and the world, save as partially prohibited by law, overrun with drunkenness, preeminent in profane swearing, and demoralized by the corruptions which follow the absence of family habits. Intelligence, activity, energy, education, reign there. None of the supposed hindrances of the old world exist there. None can have been there and not have seen in this immense country the amazing development of human energy; but, morally, what is the spectacle it affords?

The world, then, has been evil from its origin, for the horrors of idolatry cannot be denied. Christianity, then, has been corrupted by man, and has not reformed the world—is actually the seat of its greatest corruption. Commerce, a partial civilizer of men, absorbs them with the lowest of motives—money, and is wholly indifferent to truth and moral elevation; for it, a good man is a man with capital. Education, which also frees from what is gross, has not, with all its pretensions, changed the motives, ameliorated the morals of men, nor even freed from the bonds of superstition, save as it has set aside all positive truth, and every standard of it; and thus, while wounding infidelity on one side, riveted the chains of superstition on the other. I appeal to facts. Is not Popery or Puseyism, on the one hand, and infidelity on the other, what stamps the activity of England at this moment? It is not otherwise elsewhere. Will God be the idle spectator—whatever His patience with men, and how blessed soever the testimony of His grace—will He be the idle spectator without end of the enslaving power of superstition, and the rebellious rejection of truth by the pretended lovers of truth, who cast down all foundations? He may, He does testify, as long as souls can be won and delivered. But is He to allow the power of evil forever? He will not. He will allow it to fill up the cup of falsehood and wickedness. He declares that evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse; but they are filling up the cup of wrath for themselves. He is patient till no more can be done. “The iniquity of the Amorites,” He says, “is not yet full”; but then He will remove the evil and bless the earth.

My object is not here to enter into any detail of prophecy; it has been amply done elsewhere. But as the course of the world’s history points to judgment, the removal of the power of evil by power as the only remedy, so that the end of this scene is judgment, is as clearly stated in scripture as possible. I do not mean the judgment of the dead and the secrets of their hearts before the great white throne, but the judgment of this visible world. God has appointed a day in the which He will judge this habitable world (such is the force of the word οἰζχουμένη) in righteousness, whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Jesus from the dead. Man has multiplied transgression, and will continue to do so till judgment comes. But the central sin of the world, that by which its true character has been stamped, is the rejection and death of Christ. But whom the world rejected, Him God has raised from the dead, and to Him all judgment is committed. Every knee shall bow to Him; and the more boldly they have rejected and opposed Him, the more terrible will be their judgment. But all man’s pride, and vanity, and pretensions must come down (Isa. 2:10-22; 24:19-23; 26:21; Zeph. 3:8).

So the corrupt and idolatrous system. “And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will show unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters; with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: and upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great wonder” (Rev. 17:1-6). “And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; and the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth” (Rev. 18:21-24).

So the haughty power and rebellion of man. “And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are the spirits of demons, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty” (Rev. 16:13, 14). “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called the Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords. And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; that ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh” (Rev. 19:11-21).

Figures these are, no doubt, but figures whose meaning is plain enough. Thus, “Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth” (Dan. 2:34, 35). “I beheld till the thrones were set, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame” (Dan. 7:9-11).

Such, then, is the end of the world as it now is. The Christianity which it professes will have increased the severity of its judgment. They that have known their Master’s will, and not done it, will be beaten with many stripes. Can we say that Christendom, as it now subsists, is the least like the heavenly state in which we see the disciples in the New Test. (Acts 2-4)? True, we find there that they soon declined, and that evil came in. But the record that tells us this, tells us it would wax worse and worse, and ripen for the judgment which surely awaits it. Flee from the wrath to come.—J. N. D.

(Concluded from page 42)

What the World Is and How a Christian Can Live in It

“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 John 2:15). “Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world, is the enemy of God” (James 4:4). To the serious and thoughtful, the question comes up often and earnestly—What is the world? What is it from which we are to keep ourselves unspotted? There are three senses in which the word world can be used; literally, it means the order or system according to which human affairs are managed on the earth. The earth itself is called the world, because it is the platform on which the world-system operates, and the people who live according to this world-system are called the world also. They may thus be distinguished: the world-space, the world-people, the world-system. When we read that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, it may be understood that He came into the world-space, and in so doing He necessarily came in contact with the world-system, which hated Him. He said to His disciples, “Ye are not of the world, even as I am not of the world,” that is, you are not under the system governed by it, finding your life in it. He that is a friend to that system is an enemy to God, because it is self-governed, not subject to God.

Take, for an illustration, the military system. When a man enlists in the army he finds everything provided for him: the paymaster’s department supplies his funds, the quartermaster’s department clothes him, the ordnance department arms and equips him. It is arranged for him that he shall go here, and lodge there; there are regular hours for drill, dress, parade, roll-call, etc., etc., and to this system he is bound when he enters the army. It is very significantly called a little world in itself, so complete and systematic are its arrangements. This is but a faint illustration of the all-governing system called the world, where every want of man is provided for—every faculty brought into exercise.

Man wants society; the world provides the social system; this is a perfect study in itself. Position is everything, it is sought for at great trouble, and no expense is too great to secure it. Behold the great ladder, “Society,” with its countless myriads; some striving to climb higher and higher, others to hold creditably their present position. What a tremendous power to absorb heart and mind the social system possesses! Again, man wants political government, protection of life, property, rights; this necessity the world-system fully meets. And what a complete arrangement there is for what we call business! The working system of the world is perfectly amazing. Men of mere muscle find work; inventive minds have full scope for their “genius”; artistic souls revel in their world of sculpture, painting, music, poetry; students sit and study problems; writers write books; the very lusts and luxury of some furnish means of livelihood to others. It takes all kinds to make a world, men say.

Man is a very complicated creature. A good many different things taken together are needed for most; a little business, a little politics, a little society, a little study, and a little religion. Man is naturally religious. The word “religion,” which we use so much, only occurs five times in the whole Bible. Religion is not godliness, for worshippers of idols are religious. Religion is as much a part of man’s nature as his intellect or memory; being therefore so important a part of the man-nature, the world-system has a special provision for Its necessities, complete in every part. One is very sensitive to tender impressions—has a love for the beautiful; fine music, imposing ceremonies, and religious rites are provided for such an one. Another is free and outspoken in his nature; he must have opportunity to give vent to his feelings unrestrained. Another is cold, reserved, reasoning; a stern orthodoxy just suits him. One of a conscientious, self-depreciating disposition, must do penance in some shape or other, and his requirements are also met and provided for, and so on. There are creeds and doctrines and sects for every variety of temperament, for every shade of the fleshly “religious” feeling.

Could any system be more admirable and complete? Nothing left out. Enough of joy and satisfaction to keep this great moving mass of humanity thoroughly occupied, and measurably contented; their hearts are kept busy; their minds are kept busy; if one thing fails, another is provided; even death and bereavement are not left out of the calculation, for the world-system has its arrangement of funerals, mourning attire, visits and notes of sympathy, and all the varied accessories; and so the world is able to tide over sorrows before long, and occupy itself just as before. Now God is leading some, a very few, to see that all this business, politics, education, governments, science, inventions, railroads, telegraphs, social arrangements, charitable institutions, reforms, religion and all, are of the world-system. And this system is becoming more and more perfect every day. “The progress of the age” is only the worldly element developing itself. Whatever Christ’s present relation to the world is, that is the Christian’s too—the place which the Lord is in above, and the place that He is not in below, defines our place. Whence is all this? Will it surprise any one to hear that Satan is the god of this world, the prince of the power of the air, and manager of this stupendous system? His is the energy, his the presiding genius, he is its prince. When Jesus Christ was on earth, the devil came and offered Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. For, said he, that is delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will I give it, if thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. Here we have the curtain lifted, and the real object of all human religious worship exposed. Scripture describes him as “full of wisdom, perfect in beauty,” arraying himself “like an angel of light.” Who can wonder if unthinking men, yea, and the more thinking ones, are deceived and deluded? How few have their eyes opened to see, by the word of God, and the anointing of the Holy Ghost, what the world really is. Some think they have escaped from the snare of worldliness, if they have given up the so-called worldly pleasures, and become members of churches, or religious associations, not discerning that they are just as much in the world-system as before; only, Satan, its prince, has shifted them from one department to another, to quiet their uneasy consciences and make them better satisfied with themselves.

The question now arises, if these things are so, what is the remedy? How are those who are in the broad way, and living according to the world-system, to escape from its control? How shall we know what is of the world, and what is of God? The apostle says, “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” The Christian’s normal mode of life is being governed by Christ, as a man’s body by his head; where there, is health, there is no motion of hand or foot, except as the head says “move.” In just this way Jesus Christ is the Christian’s Head, and he is under His immediate direction in all things small and great. This is how Christianity cuts at the very root of worldliness, for man’s free-will is the foundation principle on which the world-system is constructed. But the principle of the Christian life is dependence on God and obedience to His will. Satan’s great aim is to get up a system for man which will be a perfect substitute for God’s Spirit-leading. This will be his final masterpiece, and this is the prominent feature of the great apostasy fast approaching. Satan openly, and in his own person, will declare himself to be god of this world, a full revelation of what is now hidden in mystery.

Is it not high time then for Christians to awake out of sleep, and to see to it that they are not in any way associated with a system so fast ripening for judgment? But you say, How can we help it? Are we not bound by necessity to these things by our trades and professions, as members of government and of society? “Business must be attended to.” Yes, this is a necessity that everybody admits; but mark, the very fact that everybody admits it, stamps it as not of God.

“This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” Faith does not look at outward circumstances, at what is possible or not possible; faith disregards what seems, and look at God. People all about, on every hand, will tell us what it is necessary to do, and not to do, here among men, for what suits man is their standard and measure; but the child of God walks right along, paying no attention to what they say, for what suits God is his standard and measure. They have the way all marked out as plain as can be, and perfectly reasonable and satisfactory; but that is nothing to one who walks by faith. He knows that whatever is universally agreed on as the right way must be wrong (Luke 16:15), that is the broad way.

For instance: everybody says that a citizen of the country, a Christian, should be interested in the government of the country to which he belongs, and ought to vote, so as to help to put good men in power. God says differently; in many places and ways He tells me that, as His child, I am not a citizen of any country, or a member of any society; my citizenship is in heaven, and I have henceforth to do with heavenly things; the cross of Christ has crucified me to the world, and the world to me; if I give my mind and heart to these earthly things I shall be the enemy of the cross of Christ. Be not conformed to the world. What then shall we do with governments? Why, submit to them, since God orders them; and when they impose tax, pay; and make supplication to God for kings, and all in authority. All therefore that a Christian has to do with politics is to be subject to the powers set over him, not only for wrath but also for conscience sake. It is true that in Christ he is heir of “all things,” including the earth in which the world-system has now its operation, yet (as to Abraham in the land of Canaan) God gives him not so much as to set his foot on for a present inheritance, “The just shall live by faith.” If, then, the true child of God refuses to vote, it is not so much that he thinks voting in itself wrong, as that he has given his vote and interest to the Man in heaven, whom God has exalted as King of kings, and Lord of lords. He has, beyond it all, lost his interest in these things, by virtue of something he has found which is far more attractive. He sees, too, that the world in spirit and essence is ungodly, that its boasted reforms and improvement are all tending to shut out God from the heart of man. He desires to stand as a witness for the truth, and for God, and of the coming judgment, at the appearing of Christ, when men are congratulating themselves on peace and safety. He desires that by these means others may learn through him to escape the snare by which Satan is entrapping the mass of mankind.

We who are saved are to be distinct, as taking side with a rejected Christ, against the world which has crucified Him; and marked as men of a heavenly race, blameless and harmless, children of God without rebuke in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom shine ye as lights in the world. This is the great mission of God’s children. But to live in this way costs something. It is to be like a single rock in a rapid river. Everything around it is on the move, all tending strongly one way; there is constant pressure, pressure, pressure, but there it stands amid an endless opposition, which would surely sweep it away, if it were not Rock. When we learn to take the words of God and practice them, and bear testimony to them in our lives, then the storm comes. To belong to a so-called church is easy enough, and to do as others do—to be an honest man and good citizen—brings no persecution; one may be all that and yet go with the current. But to shine as lights in the world for God, provokes the world’s enmity; wherever Christ is seen, just so far is He hated; if He is seen in me I am hated on that account; but if I enjoy a fair reputation, if no one has anything against me as a Christian, what then? If the life of Jesus is not made manifest in my mortal body, Christ is not discoverable in me.

The matter stands thus. When once a person has really come to know God, or rather to be known of Him, he is drawn upward, by union with Christ on high, from participation in the things of the world-system, and it is a fitting question, How can he turn again to the weak and beggarly elements? Now he has become a son of God, and has life, eternal life, in Christ, and is one with the Head revealed to him through the word, by the Spirit, how can such an one who has come to know God, be interested in the world? Should we see a boy eating bitter, worthless fruit in an orchard, while on the very next tree there were delicious applies, we should judge that he did not know of the good apples. So likewise if a man is heartily engaged in any of the things that make up the man system, can he, we ask, can he know God? And this is why the words of God come not as definite orders: thou shalt not vote, thou shalt not be honored in this evil age, thou shalt suffer shame. No, but they are just in such a way that the loving disciple, whose selfish heart is broken, and who only wants to know the mind of the Lord, may find out the secret, by being more with Christ, in order to be more like Him, and transformed from this present evil world; not like the old commands in the Levitical law—thou shalt, and thou shalt not—yet plainly there, and easily discerned if the eye is single. This is a wonderful provision, that the heart of love finds no difficulty in discovering the will of God; while the heart that is not sincere can do nothing else than find excuses and invent ways of passing by a distasteful path. A good illustration of this may be found in a family: here is a loving, dutiful son, who learns the ways and mind of his father, and all is very easy and natural for him; but another son, left in the same way, takes ever so many advantages. He knows, or might know; but since he cares only to please himself, he can say, I did not know, You never said I should not do so and so, or that I should not go to this place.

To conclude. You must needs be in contact with the world-system to some degree, but this contact is never to be one of fellowship; what concord can there be between Christ and Belial? “I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.” Jesus, who was not of this world, suffered and was straitened; the loneliness and tribulation were real to Him, and they will be real to us just as we follow in His steps. Are not too many of us taking a comfort and satisfaction, and enjoying a home feeling that is entirely unwarranted under this godless world-system? Home here, where Christ is not! We are homeless wanderers and weary pilgrims, yea foreigners, if we be Christ’s. Contact with the world there must be, while we are in it. But are we not brought into contact at many points where there ought to be no contact at all, and would be none if we were bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus? Many are the deceptions wherewith the enemy allures the heart, even of God’s children: religious meetings, service, Christian fellowship, in all of which the flesh can participate, are substituted for living by faith in the Son of God! The godly of old, whose report has come down to us that they pleased God, were despised; the offscouring of all things, even unto this day, having their conversation in the heavens. In contrast with them we are honorable. We live too much according to the world-system to be brought into conflict with it, and the result is we are disloyal as subjects of Christ, and we escape the cross and its reproach. The word stands unalterable. All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. There is a narrow way; may we be of the “few” who find it. We carry our passports with us. We are sealed by the Holy Ghost, and are only waiting for the shout to be caught up into the air, to meet our Lord and be forever with Him. What a blessed hope!

J. N. D.

What to Forget and What to Remember

Philippians 3:13, 14

“One thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.”

We lose the fine sense and force of this by applying it to our failures. But in that noble passage, the third chapter of Philippians, Paul was not recounting failures. Far from that! He states how he had renounced everything that belonged to him in the flesh: “what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.” This was one of the things behind him: it was at the beginning of his course. But had he failed about this? And was it failure that he referred to, when he spoke of “forgetting those things that are behind”? Had he lapsed from the high standard with which he started? No! It was still his mind. Not only had he counted all things loss for Christ, in the fervor of first love; he still did so. “Yea, and I count (present tense) all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord.” Was his mind a bit less strong now? Nay; it was stronger. Had he sobered by time? No, he was more enthusiastic; for while in the past he had counted all things but loss for Christ, now he counts them but filth (dung, ver. 8). This is not failure; it is success. His soul has grown in the strength of its sentiments, and he cannot find figures too strong or words too forcible to convey his sense of the superiority of Christ, and the inferiority of all things else. The simple fact is that they are beyond comparison. This was the vantage-ground from which the apostle spoke of “forgetting”; he would forget the past and go forth to fresh achievements.

Now, however uncommon it may be, this is normal Christian experience. Christian experience is not a perpetual series of restorations after failures. It is rather making good one step, and not resting there, but pressing on towards the goal. It is here that the forgetting things that are behind finds its place. But how often it is said, after some sad breakdown, “Let us forget those things which are behind, and reach forth unto those things which are before,” etc. Is it not a debasement of this passage to apply it to our miserable failures? Indeed it is doubtful whether we ought to lightly forget our failures. On the contrary, are they not often a wholesome recollection that helps us to humility? While the forgiveness on confession of our sins is full, we sometimes miss the moral lesson that they should teach us. Was it not so with Peter and his triple denial of the Lord? On the sea-shore after the resurrection, the Lord thrice asks Peter if he loved Him. He doubtless saw that though Peter was now ready to thrice avow his love, and indeed was grieved at his love being questioned, yet that he needed to be reminded that he had three times denied the Lord. Jesus took this delicate and gentle method to remind Peter of his fall, without even mentioning it, How like that is to the truth and faithfulness, as well as the grace of the. Lord! Was He not doing thus, what He had done before—washing a disciple’s feet? We may take our failures too lightly, and if we do, the Lord may have to remind us of them, as He did Peter. But when He does so, it is for our good, for our blessing, and for promotion in His honorable service. Thus it is in this episode, so trying to Peter’s soul, that Jesus confers upon him the high commission to feed His lambs, to shepherd His sheep, and grants that even his old age should be crowned by martyrdom for His name’s sake (John 21:15-19; 2 Peter 1:14).

Failures then were not what Paul referred to as things to be forgotten. The Christian may have a true, not an exaggerated, sense of some service done for the Master; THAT is the thing to forget. Forget the things behind; they are set down in the Master’s record, safe in His memory; forget them yourself, and go forth to fresh exploits, pressing towards the mark for the prize of the calling on high of God in Christ Jesus. Some Christians are quite non-progressive, resting comfortably on the past; they recount their conversion and things done in years gone by. They are living on the past, instead of forgetting it and pressing forward. This is the true intention of Phil. 3. It may be wholesome to remember failure, though not so as to discourage ourselves; but it is wholesome to forget any service we may have done, and, filled with thoughts of the future, press forward towards the mark for the prize.

Now what are we to remember? It is comparatively easy to think of what the Lord has done for us, of the blessings which He has made ours. But there is one thing which we are too apt to forget; that is, what it cost Him to gain all this for us. Now that we may be continually reminded of this, the Lord instituted His Supper; the bread symbolizing the body, the wine the separated blood. This is the first and principal in the list of what the Christian is to remember. Sweet and precious privilege to surround the Lord’s Table, and eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of Him. This remembrance stands on a pedestal by itself; it is sui generis.

But there are some other weighty remembrances enjoined upon us, and which seem to have a special application to our day and generation. “REMEMBER YOUR LEADERS, who have spoken to you the word of God; and considering the issue of their conduct, imitate their faith” (Heb. 13:7, New Transl.).

The renascence of divine truth given to the church in recent years is a great and remarkable fact. Luther’s work, and that of Mr. Darby, seem analogous, as revivals granted by God to His children; but in the latter case Christians were privileged to learn what Christians had not known since the days of the apostles. Neither the primitive fathers nor the Christians of the Reformation had the truth as we have it to-day. But Mr. Darby, Mr. Kelly, and all the bright band of laborers who were divine instruments in the great work, are now gone. Are they to be forgotten? The word of God tells us to remember them. Not, however, in that spirit of idolatry which is ever a tendency of the natural heart; not by sounding their praises and “building the tombs of the prophets.” They are to be remembered and honored by attention to what they taught us from the word of God. The One Body of Christ, as the ground of gathering, was amongst the cardinal truths recovered. The leaders, however, are scarcely in their graves before prominent men arise and say that we can no longer hold to that, and weakly propose to surrender it. That we are gathered on the ground of the unity of the church was one of the great positions which in their day the leaders battled for. Are we still to hold that truth, or to dissolve into voluntary companies of Christians, associated according to their own will, under terms and conditions of their own devising?

In the epistles to the seven churches, there are two eminent calls to “remember.” To Ephesus the solemn exhortation is, “Remember whence thou art fallen” (Rev. 2:5); that is, the church is rallied to consider what had been her primary status and position. Say not, “This is the message to a past church”; nay, “He that hath an ear” is to “hear what the Spirit says” to all the churches. In the recovery of truth in recent times, the nature of the church was a prominent clement, and the coming out of Brethren from the denominations was not a claim that Christians were entitled to meet in little companies with liberty of ministry and according to their own will or fancy, but it was a claim to be gathered together by the Spirit unto the name of the Lord Jesus, and on the ground of the One Body of Christ. The church! Is there anything so dear to the heart of Christ as His own body, the church? Are we to give up the ground of the church, or to hold it fast?

The second “remember” is addressed to Sardis. Here there had been a great deliverance. The evils of Thyatira were no longer in her midst. But Sardis had gone to sleep, she had a name to live, but was dead. And when there has been conflict, and Christians have got out into the light of truth, there is danger of their thinking that they may now take a rest, and go to sleep. They have the form of truth, and think that that is enough. This is the danger when the Spirit works a revival or recovery in the church. But then comes the call to “remember” —remember what? “How thou hast received and heard, and” —give up?—no, “hold fast, and repent.” And how, let us ask, have WE received and heard? Think of the abundance of truth that has been given to us; the wealth of scriptural instruction which we have received; the warm-hearted response which the truth met with when first brought out or recovered. Let US REMEMBER ALL THIS, and “hold fast” (Rev. 2:3). “I come quickly; hold that fast which thou hast” (Rev. 3:11). There are “old prophets” who would seduce us to give up, and to seek an easier path. THE LORD EXHORTS US TO “HOLD FAST.”

Bringing now together the scriptures which we have been looking at, the course of the church in Rev. 2 and 3 appears as the very antithesis of that bright and upward path to which Paul exhorts in Phil. 3. In a word, Paul as a leader has not been remembered, either in the individual course he mapped out for us in Philippians, or in the church-truth of Ephesians.

May the Lord grant us to remember our leaders, who have spoken to us the word of God; to remember the bright position from which the church has fallen; and above all, bearing in mind God’s grace in reviving a remnant in the midst of the failure, to REMEMBER HOW WE HAVE RECEIVED AND HEARD, and HOLD FAST AND REPENT.

Who Gave Himself

These precious words occur six times in the New Testament, and we propose to look at them in the following order, viz.; (1.) In the Epistle to Timothy where God is so fully revealed as a Savior God, we read, “God our Savior, who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who GAVE HIMSELF a ransom for all, to be testified in due time (1 Tim. 2:3-6). Could there be a finer declaration of mercy than is here given—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one God, sheaving here their willing mind for salvation to every creature? He, the Word made flesh, “having found eternal redemption,” said before His ascension to the right hand of the majesty on high, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). Man must be brought to the knowledge of the truth, and of his own utterly lost and ruined state. And God does indeed grant repentance unto life, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, the one Mediator, who needs no virgin Mary, no saint, nor angel to turn His heart toward men. He is the “one mediator... who gave himself a ransom for all.” His one sacrifice needs no repetition; for “this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God.” The testimony since that day has gone, and is going, forth. Are my brethren and sisters everywhere praying for it, and are we every one seeking to adorn in deportment and dress the doctrine of our Savior God in all things? Surely, it is not only that we know His willing mind to save us, but we can also say, “Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy Calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose (who can thwart it?) and grace (who can measure it?), which were given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.” (2) In Galatians— “Who GAVE HIMSELF for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil age according to the will of our God and Father” (1:4). Yes, not only for sins of worldly lusts, but for sins of religiousness, whatever would belittle Christ Jesus our Lord, and the infinite value of His grace in which we have been called. For if we are His, we have tasted that the Lord is gracious; and God forbid that we should allow anything that adds to the sufficiency of “Jesus Christ, who hath been evidently sets forth crucified amongst” us. May we rejoice that what we were has been judged in His cross, and may we have constantly before our souls the grace of our Savior God, so that we may say, as said the apostle indignantly, “I do not frustrate the grace of God; for if righteousness come by law, then Christ is dead in vain” (Gal. 2:21)!

But it is our privilege to live not as men in the flesh. How then? We are blessedly entitled, each one, to say, “I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and GAVE HIMSELF for me” (Gal. 2:20). Oh, what a satisfying object for our hearts, the loving Lord, who still loves us each so devotedly, having washed us from our sins in His own blood (Rev. 1:5)! It is quite true that He has loved us, but this verse, correctly read, brings before us His continuous love. “Unto him that loveth us, and has washed us.” May we everywhere and in everything find our all in Him, and be strong in His grace!

The Lord Jesus (Matt. 16:18) spoke of the church, to Peter, as “My church.” We know it is also “the church of the living God” (1 Tim. 3:15); “the church of God which he has purchased with the blood of his own” (Acts 20:28). Of Christ, however, it is written in Ephesians, “Christ also loved us, and GAVE HIMSELF for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savor” (5:2). How affecting is this, “and gave himself”! How much it cost Him! Hence, the believer is accepted, or taken into favor, in the Beloved. What motives for a holy walk, and for all that the apostle enjoins upon us in the rest of that chapter!

Again, we have (Eph. 5:25) “Christ also loved the church and GAVE HIMSELF for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” That He might present it to Himself, not to another! Does it not thrill us? It ought so to do. It should make us, in view of such love, very subject to Him now, and to His word; walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, who is rightly jealous of His glory. May we, too, be so, and value naught else!

Lastly, in Paul’s Epistle to Titus, how touching an appeal! We there read (1:1, 2) of “the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; in hope of eternal life, which God that cannot lie, promised before the world began.” This hope of eternal life is quite consistent with the believer’s possession of it now. It is God’s gift to him. But there were those who, professing to know God, in works denied Him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate” (ver. 16). We are looking, however, for “that blessed hope, and the appearing of glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who GAVE HIMSELF for US, that he might redeem is from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works” (2:13, 14). The blessed Lord Jesus is no inferior person of the Godhead. Whilst, as the Savior, He gave Himself for us, it was not to win us to good works only, but to Himself; and in making us zealous of good, it is “to Himself.” May we then indeed, whilst thus engaged, see to it that we seek the honor that cometh, not from man but, from the only God, that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ our Lord! Aught else is valueless. When the work of faith, and labor of love, and patience of hope, in our Lord Jesus Christ, are in the sight of our God and Father, all is well, and as it should be; man’s praise is not sought for. May it be so with us for His name’s sake, until He come!

NV. N. T.

The Word of God: Part 1

When God made man, He did not make him as he is, any more than the world as it is. He made everything good, but He was not pleased to put forth His power to keep everything good. He was pleased to put the creature to the proof. He tried the creature in two great spheres above and below. The angels fell before man; and the chief of those that fell above is the great tempter. No man can account for sin, for the ruin of the world, in any other way than Scripture reveals. Many a man has essayed to do so. The brightest wits and the greatest minds have attempted it; but they have never conceived anything that was not rubbish when they have not followed the word of God. Some have endeavored to account for sin by supposing that there are two Gods—a good one and a bad one; because there are evidences of goodness all around us, and there are too plainly the evidences of badness. This hypothesis, I need not stay to show, is sheer folly. There is but one who is Almighty; and man cannot get rid of the consciousness of One—not merely one thing but One Being—One who has power and will and purpose, One who has affections no less than mind, but who, nevertheless, subjects the creatures that He made to a moral probation. If He kept everything from falling, there could be no such trial at all. All would be mechanical or chemical; and the wonderful scene of the conflict of good and evil—of good wrought by His grace in the heart of man, and rising above Satan’s power and wiles of evil—would be quite lost. What is still more important, the active display of love and righteousness on God’s part, of moral qualities reproduced in repentant believing man, would be completely destroyed, if it were merely divine power so keeping the creature that there could be no failure.

But evil never came from God—only from the creature once innocent, now fallen, that kept not his first estate, but chose to do his own will and have his own way. An angel did this first. Man was misled by him who, straying and exalting himself, beguiled others both in heaven and on earth. That creature is called Satan—the Devil. All efforts to get rid of this fact have proved utterly vain, so much so that the boasted lights of antiquity fell consequently into one or other of these notions: either that God is everything, which denies sin; or, secondly, that there is no such being as God at all; while both cases led to worshipping ever so many false gods. Witness now the two greatest philosophers of Greece who have exercised perhaps the largest and most enduring influence over civilized men outside the Bible—the one the head of Pantheism, the other of Atheism. There is what man’s thought ends in when it is logically carried out. Man in his fallen estate may reason God away; yet he excludes God, not from his conscience, but in his reason; for at the bottom of the man’s heart who does so there is the uneasy feeling that what he sees around him did not grow like a potato—least of all, he himself and his fellows. He feels that, though fallen, he is a moral being who will have to give an account of his action; and to whom but to God— the One who made him and all things?

The creature, having fallen from God, has lost the truth. No longer innocent, he has God as his Judge. Satan lost Him first, forever and his angels. Man and his race have lost Him; but oh what mercy now shines on us! Yet you, dear friends, every one of you, like myself, once had Him not. Have you found Him? Do you know Him? Do not tell me you cannot. You cannot of yourselves: man cannot by searching find out God. But God can reveal Himself. It is true, a keen infidel who is still living [?] said the contrary—said it was impossible for God to make a revelation of Himself; but the book in which he, a Deist, said this proved the folly of it. If an infidel can make a revelation of his mind to do people mischief, I suppose God can make a revelation of His mind to do men good. Is not this reasoning a sound and sufficient answer? Can any man, save an atheist, deny the force or the reality of it? If a had being can reveal his mind to ruin, cannot the All-wise and All-good reveal His mind to save? Of course He can. The notion, therefore, that God cannot reveal His mind is not only false but denies that He is light and love—a falsehood that is contradicted by the very effort to argue in its support. The writer makes a revelation of his mind, such as it is; and we reply, If man can make a revelation of his mind, surely God can of His: otherwise you are reduced to the absurdity, that what is possible to man is impossible to God. Is this reasonable, or is it folly? Can any man in this room maintain that, what a man can do in his feeble way, God cannot do in His blessed and almighty way

Now the Bible lets us see from the first—and it is worthy of God—that no sooner had man turned against God through the instigation of a mightier rebel than himself, than a way of escape for man on God’s part was opened up in hope. Man succumbed to Satan working upon the will of the woman. Ah! how natural it is, as most know quite well—how true to the heart of both. The woman’s feelings get entangled, and she is deceived. A man, if God were not concerned, properly loves his wife, and can not bear to leave her alone. His affections engage him; everything as a man and a husband combines to make him go along with her, although here alas! it was rebellion against God. This is exactly what Scripture lets us see in Adam and Eve. The devil knew what he was about. Eve was deceived—Adam was not. She was drawn into sin, and through her Satan misled Adam into sin boldly; and such has been the history of many a man and woman since then.

This does not throw blame on the woman only. They must divide the sin between them; and he is a base man who would try, as Adam did afterward, to throw the whole on his wife. But it is the effect of sin. He, who ought to have been her shelter and protector, first followed the bad example and then betrayed her—as it were, an informer against her. How degrading is sin! So it was from the first, and is to the last.

Now, let us look at God. We have seen enough of Satan and enough of man for the moment; let us turn to Him who here comes on the scene, and whose first word shows the havoc that the devil had made. “Adam, where art thou?” No readiness to meet God now—no candor, confidence, or truthfulness; man hides himself, in despair, behind the trees in the garden, with a bad conscience. “Adam, where art thou?” Man was gone from God. This is the state of man still, of all mankind, of every one of us naturally. I do not say that we all abide there now. Thanks be to God, He is a Savior God. But He judges sin. In Himself He is light and He is love. Our sins make Him a Judge: His grace made Him a Savior. We all naturally think of God as a Judge, because we all naturally more or less have a sense of sin; and guilt always dreads a moral account, the retribution, the judgment of God. Conscience erects a judgment-seat, even before man must rise from the grave to stand before the great white throne and give in his account. A man may try to get rid of it, and he may do so while pre-occupied. He may drug himself with ample material in this poor stupefying world, with its varied and intoxicating pleasures; but the moment of sobriety, the anguish of self-judgment, comes, and God is on the judgment-seat of conscience.

Scripture says that God did then deal with man —fallen man—to lay his sin upon his conscience, and to trace its root to the evil personage that had brought it in, and to announce the glorious truth of grace meeting the evil and ruin, of grace providing a righteous way of escape. If ever there was a worthy purpose for revelation, this must be one. And this is exactly what Scripture reveals. It is not the dream of the gods coming down to indulge themselves in wickedness, as some of the greatest wits in this world have believed. They had sunk low enough to receive that their deities were drunkards, fornicators, thieves and liars. Such were they whom the heathen adored, and amongst the heathen were some of the brightest men that ever lived. It was not for want of intellect or refined culture, nor for want of learning any more than logical power, that they fell into such gross deceits. No one can say this who knows the history of the world, and of the men upon it.

Apart from the Bible, there is sin, misery, ruin, and death. Scripture lets in the light of God, and that light assuredly is far from being the lurid menace of punishment merely. It reveals incomparably more and brighter things than the awful scene where sinners are judged for their sins. This there is and ought to be for those who defy and reject grace—for those who in the face of the Savior’s cross deny God coming down to man, deeply pitying him, and fully providing for his salvation. The Bible accounts for sin but never justifies or slights it. Man, under Satan, wrought that evil thing. The Bible shows the way out of sin, and that the only way to the Father is by the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, coming into this world, and that, too, given and sent by God, not implored by man. Not man devised the plan or even sought that God would of His mercy carry it out. Man never thought of it; for he with a bad conscience never expects good from God. For his soul to be saved, and his sins to be blotted out, for God to love him, and to put the best robe upon the poor ragged prodigal, for the father at the very start to embrace him, and then to bring him into such a place of joy as he never knew before—man never had so much as an inkling of grace like this.

(To be continued)

[W. K.]

The Word of God: Part 2

Yet this the Bible shows is God’s love to sinners, especially in the New Testament. But the man that does not believe the Old Testament is not to be trustee about the New. If a soul cavils about Genesis, I should not trust him about Romans. I know there are men who say that the New Testament is a grand book, and will confess that the first chapter of John is more sublime than anything Plato or Aristotle ever wrote. To be sure it is, infinitely so. But the man that pretends to exalt John and depreciate Moses I would not trust for a moment, because that which Moses was the instrument of revealing lays the foundation for all that John gives us. You cannot understand the blessing of the Second man—the last Adam—unless you have seen the creation and fall of the first man, Adam. There is, therefore, between the Old and New Testaments an organic unity. Nothing more remarkable than this, however much one may differ from the other.

When you see a tree, you do not require a philosopher to tell you that, when it is complete, it has all its parts with striking appropriateness—that the deep root, which penetrates the soil and gathers the materials of nourishment for the trunk and its offshoots, is as necessary for its growth as the branches and the leaves—that what is unseen is as thoroughly ordered by One who perfectly knew, as that which is visible; and that from the tree man reaps benefit, and even the cattle, for God takes in everything. Not a little tiny insect, not the greatest of quadrupeds, not a human being, that does not in some way or another reap all suited good from God; and even those things that might seem to be obnoxious in themselves form part of a vast scheme of God’s contrivance, of His forethought, of His abundant provision for the wants of men or beasts here below. There is no stinginess, if I may say so, about God. He does not merely give us the things we absolutely need. This is not the way God treats man or any creature. You have only to look when the sun shines, you have but to think of the rich beauty of the earth around you—though it be a groaning creation—to see what pleasure God takes in goodness abounding. He did not make things to die, but to live in endless variety. He declares that He is not the God of the dead but of the living—this no doubt said in the highest sense is in every other way true. You see a blighted earth now; but even the blighted earth everywhere bears its testimony to the beneficent wisdom of its Maker.

But earth and sea and sky just as plainly afford traces of some dreadful evil that has passed over all —of an enemy’s hand that has been there and sown evil. There is not a tempest that rages, there is not a volcano that pours out its destructive lava, there is not a blast of lightning, but tells that there is, above, below, around, disorder in this once untainted universe. And how much more, when you come down to the moral evil under which groans every town, and every hamlet; ay, perhaps every home, even the happiest hearth, has had its blight. And whence comes this? From God? Never. A being of perfect goodness and power, who would make the world and man as they are, is morally an impossible thought. But God never made the world as it now is; He did make it, but He made it good. God did not create anything unworthy of Himself.

And just here is where the value of the word of God comes in. The Bible hears witness of the grace of God meeting the ruin that man and Satan have wrought between them. It is not merely goodness in natural things, but in holy love, which, recognizing and judging the evil fully, nevertheless comes down to get rid of it, and this at His own expense, and, let me add, by suffering beyond all measure. What is all that the men who ever lived have had to endure compared to the sufferings of Christ? I do not speak of what man did against Christ, but above all of what God did in His cross. You do not believe it! Then you must settle this with Christ Himself. What was there so bitter or awful in the cup He had to drink as God’s making Him sin for us, when He forsook Him? How do we know? He who is “the truth” declares it—said so on the cross—said so with His dying lips, when even false men will sometimes speak the truth: how much more He who never said aught else but the truth, who is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life!” Yet for our sins He died, and tasted death as none other ever did. He tasted not merely death upon the cross, but therein the judgment of God. And there is the ground on which God can be a God of all grace, the basis of grace reigning through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. For He who thus died is risen—risen to be the Savior, as He is if rejected the Judge.

Accordingly the foundation principle of this—the first germ of this weightiest of truths in the Bible—is given in the same chapter which shows us man departing from God—man forsaking God, and not God forsaking man. God forsook His Son on the cross, that He might not forsake the poorest of sinners that looks to Him. In that chapter (Gen. 3) you have a Savior revealed to hope; and such is the allusion of the “everlasting gospel” in the Revelation. Does not this show you what a wonderful book the Bible is? It stretches over many centuries. It was written, parts of it, by kings, and by shepherd-boys, by priests, by soldiers, by civilians; by what one might call comprehensively men of every class, from the fishers of the Galilaean Sea to the learned Jew of Tarsus, one of the most famous seats of philosophers at that time in the world, the rival of Athens. And yet in all the vast scope of its variety, Scripture stretching in its penmen from the days of Moses to those of the last apostle, in its themes from eternity to eternity, there is under all honest tests the most perfect harmony.

Beware, then, of those who would have you give up Moses. Listen not to the siren voices that would seek to charm you away from the truth of God, and more if they dare to tell you that they are not undermining the Bible, but only denying Moses. Alas! my good friends, to deny Moses is to undermine Christ; for Christ says that Moses wrote of Him. Christ had no question; and this is what satisfies a plain man that believes in Him. People may talk about evidences; and, of course, it is all very fine to do so with those who are not familiar with the subject, and have scanty knowledge of the original tongues. Of one thing let me remind all whether knowing these languages or not—and it is this. Many a one knows a little Greek and some less Hebrew; but what of that? You know English; but it does not follow that you have at all a mastery of the language. Remember then that most of the young men who learn Hebrew and Greek at college are very far from having a mastery of these languages. Most have a smattering, and this is all. They are then turned off to their parishes and pulpits, where they have no time to become real scholars, as they ought not to pretend to it. This is not said out of the slightest disrespect; but simply to show you the folly of supposing that merely cunning through a grammar and a few works in a foreign tongue makes it really known. Not at all. Most graduates (no matter what the degree or where) would find it hard to translate unseen Hebrew or Greek. They do not know either of these languages in the least as you all know English; and yet for all that would any of you set up to be great English scholars? Even ordinarily fair and easy translation (to which few are equal without effort and preparation) is but a small step in learning. Enough however on that point.

But I press this upon you—that God has in Christ’s testimony given the believer incomparably better proof than all evidences put together. Do you believe in Him the Son of God? I am now speaking to such. Some might appeal to persons who have no living faith but a mere creed, to those who talk about the Lord Jesus Christ, as others would of Socrates or Gautama Buddha, who are yet perfectly certain that the facts are true, and that His recorded words are substantially authentic. This is coming down low enough. Yet on the lowest of all grounds, on that of creed, men have still some respect for the authority of the Word made flesh of Him who is perfect Man and true God. Now, not only is He spoken of in this word, but He speaks of God’s word authoritatively and unmistakably.

There is no use to try and shirk the truth by mustering difficulties and saying, “Ah! we don’t know that.” Here is a book unlike all other books, bearing the stamp of truth and holiness upon it as no other book ever written. Here you have testimony borne to the blessed One, by His apostles, whose lives and works, miraculous or not, were a bright evidence of His divine truth, grace, and power. What totally different men they became, from what they were! They used to be prejudiced, narrow-minded Jews, utterly indifferent to souls, wholly wrapt up in their own dry traditions. See how in a short time, amazingly short indeed, all was changed, and changed in virtue of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ applied to their souls by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. They gave it as their testimony—sealed not merely by blood but by a course of such lowly yet faithful devotedness as the world had never seen—that the Lord Jesus uniformly treated the Bible (that is, of course, the Old Testament) as beyond question the word of God; that Moses wrote the law; that it was not Moses’ talk, which later authors wrote—not merely traditions and legends strung together partly by himself, partly by people who lived after him: the Pentateuch was written by himself. And thus in all sorts of questions you find not only His authority coming in, but the man Moses himself, as the inspired servant. of God, appealed to by the Lord. “He [Moses] wrote of me.”

How happy it is that a plain man or woman, or even a child, can feel the force of this testimony Every one of you will stand before the Lord Jesus, who is the Judge both of the dead and of the living; and He has pronounced judgment upon this question. Ought it not to be fairly faced? Do you believe men—perhaps young daring men who have studied Hebrew, but with the most superficial knowledge of the Bible? or do you believe the Lord God in the person of Christ?

Look at the position of the world when the Son of God came down and gave this testimony. He stands between the two Testaments, as it were—at the end of the Old, at the beginning of the New. He pronounces upon the Old. He divides it into its parts—the three divisions with which every Jew was acquainted—the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets: the Psalms taking in the poetical books, the Prophets comprehending more than we call prophetical, the Law embracing the books of Moses. There you have substantially the Scriptures called the Old Testament. The Lord, when risen from the dead, bore testimony to the authority of these books (Luke 24). Surely you do not think that even an ordinary man carries his prejudices into the life beyond the grave!

In this world men may make mistakes, but not in the next: all illusion is then over. Just think of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. You find the rich man there waking up to the reality of things. Then he cries “Father Abraham!” Then he feels what sin is, and its immediate torment, although there be not the final sentence, but the separate state. That rich man then feels how blessed is the once wretched beggar—wretched in this world—but blessed in the next, where angels carried him to Abraham’s bosom. Blessed picture of God’s goodness at length to a long despised sufferer, who clung in faith to His truth. In vain the rich man prays for his five brethren, that some one would go and warn them lest they should have his portion in torment. What does Scripture say? “They have Moses and the prophets.” Moses—not some prophet in the days of King Josiah who wrote a religious romance for the Bible in Moses’ name. Do you ask, Who speaks so wickedly? Possibly the voice of a faithless Jew or a blaspheming Gentile? I grieve to say it is too common a voice in Christendom, echoed in Scotland.

Is it not a portentous thing that men should come to such a pass? To deny the genuineness of the books of Moses is a daring insult, not only to the Scriptures, but to the Son of God Himself. It is giving the lie to the Savior, and the Judge of all. Yet men are to be found who deny to Moses the Books of the Law—most audaciously of all, the last one that professes to come most directly from his mouth. Nevertheless if there is the least trustworthiness in Deuteronomy, it is what Moses said himself. It is not merely what he collected, or what he caused to be written, but what he uttered also.

Of course by this nobody means—except Jews perhaps—that Moses wrote the last chapter about his death and burial. I do not say it is impossible, and that God might not have revealed these things to him. But there is no need to assume any such anticipation. There is an evident break after the closing and crowning song of Moses; and the last chapter is clearly, in my judgment, added by an inspired person who took up and thus continued the record of the enlarging and developing purposes of God. No need therefore, for any bit of superstition—as I conceive it is—in supposing that Moses necessarily wrote the account of his own death. There are in Scripture evident traces of the hand of an inspired editor—of one raised up by God to put the books of the Bible together. You must remember they came out separately. Not only have they been combined —since, but there are, here and there, what one may call inspired insertions. God can give an inspired editor as well as an inspired writer. Every Scripture is inspired, and so was the person who edited it and added these joints and hands when the time came to close the canon of Scripture. It is only unbelief that makes difficulties out of that which is plain enough.

But what shocks every spiritual and even moral sensibility is that any person bearing the name of a Christian—nay, of a Christian minister—should couple fiction with the books of Moses, as if they were only a religious novel founded on traditional facts and documents—on what it was conceived Moses might have said—put together ever so many hundreds of years after the legislator died. Divine wisdom has taken particular pains on this point. Christ says, Moses wrote so and so; it is not somebody else imputing it to him, but Himself vouching for Moses in a way that He does rarely for any other. “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” And so it has been. Those who hear not Christ in the Gospels, reject His resurrection.

We ought to feel thankful that Scripture is so written; because it is the fatality of unbelief to degrade man as well as God—not really to exalt either. Unbelief, too, is blind enough to attack the very thing that is strongest, requiring therefore no support by arguments drawn from other passages. Take a quite different illustration. There are those that idolize the virgin Mary to the depression of the Lord Jesus; yet how remarkably Scripture contradicts the notion, and protests against it by anticipation! It is left for our instruction in the Gospels that the virgin Mary never asked the Lord anything but what the Lord, instead of granting at once, modified at the least. Again see how God guards against unduly exalting Peter as the head (practically as a foundation-stone if you please) of the Christian church. In the very chapter from which men deduce the idea that he is the rock of the church, the Lord calls him Satan. Strange rock he to be sure! Peter was a very honored servant of God, but even such an one may at times say or do something utterly reprehensible. Therefore it is we cannot trust ourselves. The Christian is a fool who trusts himself; and therefore the Lord rebuked Peter for our profit, as well as for his own. The very God who was going to use and to honor Peter still proves what Peter was in himself. The moment he looked away from the Lord, he was as liable as any other to be turned aside into some evil snare of the devil.

Apart from the Lord, you are nothing and can do nothing.

(Continued from page 19)

(To be continued)

The Word of God: Part 3

(Continued from page 36)

But again observe God from the very earliest bringing in what the book of Revelation calls the “everlasting gospel.” How remarkable a phrase is this! Many a man has read and cited these words in chap. 14 of the Revelation; many have thought of them; and not a few have explained the thought unwisely, no doubt. The phrase never occurs except in this one place. Why is it called the “everlasting gospel”? There is always a propriety and a force in every word of Scripture. Let me tell you, as far as the Lord enables me. In the last book of the New Testament the Spirit of God recalls the first revelation of Christ in the Old Testament. In the garden of Eden, in the paradise that was blighted and lost by sin, God did not fail to point to the Seed of the woman—the bruised Seed of the woman, remark—that was to bruise the serpent’s head. Is not this gospel? Has it not been blessed gospel from the very first? Is it not also the gospel to the very last— “everlasting gospel”? There is as yet no allusion to His being sacrificed for us. This could not be until offering or sacrifices distinctly came in. Nor was there yet a revelation of Him as Savior of His people from their sins. His people, of course, had to be called first, and their ruin shown first and last, salvation being fitly explained afterward. It is not the notion of priesthood. It is not the figure of a captain. Still less is it the truth of the head of the church. All these things were revealed in their due season. But the last book in the New Testament sends you back to the first book of the Old; and thus you hear the blessed voice of Christ, as it were, reverberating through all Scripture an “everlasting gospel.” And why so? Because God ever takes pleasure in saving souls, and, in order to save sinners, there must ever be an “everlasting gospel.”

I speak at present of those that hear the truth—of those that listen to the word of God. Infants are not now in our view. Not that there is the least doubt that God’s grace does save little children, but there is a somewhat different way of course. It is wholly unscriptural that God punishes babes if they are not christened. There is not the slightest ground for a thought so unworthy of God, so harsh to man in one way, so self-exalting to him in another. You may ask how one can know. Do you know it? How do you know anything? Through Jesus—the same One brought in to prove the Bible. Jesus the Lord shows us very clearly that the God who gave the law is greater than the law itself, and that God was showing Himself in divine grace to be much greater than in judgment. The judgment of God is a solemn certainty; but the grace of God a still deeper truth. God manifest in the flesh, God present upon earth in the person of His own Son, shows us what God feels about little children. The disciples did not like to be troubled with them. They thought it was too bad to take up their great Master’s time with mere children. How did the Lord answer it? He took them up in His arms and blessed them—a good lesson for the disciples. How often they need the Lord to correct their inadequate notions! If the Lord took up and blessed little children, does it not tell me what God feels about them. He does not bless little children on earth to send them dying to hell. But if they lived to rebel against His word and against His Son the Lord Jesus, if the children when grown up dare to despise Him that died on the cross, if they refuse to accept the Savior proclaimed in their ears, is there anything God resents more strongly? It is bad enough for one man to lift his hand against another; and we justly abhor the man that would lift his hand against his father or his mother. But when we think of what Father sent His Son to be a Savior how awful the wickedness of despising both, and therein of rejecting the gospel of salvation!

People pretend that they do not mean evil when they say man is but a developed monkey. But such ideas originate from the desire in man to get rid of responsibility and of God. None of that folly! You are moral beings; you have souls, you have consciences. You know very well that you are not brute beasts. You consciously have in your souls, in spite of all efforts, a dread of God, a fear of punishment for sins. A hare does not sin, nor a horse or cow; and you would be shocked at the philosopher who tried to prove that a horse, cow, or hare, had a sense of right or wrong, no less than a man. You might not be able to answer the sophistry, but you would feel that he was deceiving you.

Man is conscious of sin, and fears God; but God sent His only-begotten Son to save sinners. Hence all is changed for those that believe, and for more too. Look at the blessed change that has come over us in these very lands. Time was when our ancestors ran wild in woods, when our forefathers were stained blue, when they sacrificed their fellow creatures, and when the most shocking immorality prevailed. Elsewhere a man might marry several wives; but in this very land several men lived with one woman; and in this very land children, and even men and women, were burned in honor of their gods who were not God. What has changed all that? The name of Jesus. Even those that are not won to the True, but try to prove there is no God at all, reap incalculable benefit from the purging away of all that detestable filth and cruelty. What swept it away? Was there no cause for it? Leave that irrationalism to the infidel. But one cause adequately accounts for such effects: only the name of Jesus—indisputably His name. Before His name was known these abominations flourished. Even the Romans, with all their power, only sinned after another manner —perhaps more decently; yet were they idolatrous and unclean. Is this the case where men really believe in Jesus? Nay, is this the case outwardly where men, even without living faith in the Lord Jesus, still respect the Bible?

I was speaking to a particularly wicked skeptic the other day in London, when he said to me deliberately, “I do not believe the Bible; but if I had the power, I should have the Bible read by everyone.” How strange such homage to the Bible! He acknowledged the moral power of the word, and that there was nothing like it. Frankly, however, I do not believe he would thus use power if he possessed it: you can never trust men of this stamp; yet is his remark an unmistakeable and unwilling testimony to the power of Christ and His word.

On the other hand, people who hold the Bible only in the intellect are in danger of letting it slip altogether, and of becoming downright infidels. A tendency of that kind is at work among young men now. They begin more than ever to talk disrespectfully of those who are ministers. Now, it is not my business in any way to uphold the clergy; but still I have a horror of pulling down religion that is a reality, and I have the greatest love for many clergymen. Everything that is real, righteous or good—whether it be in what people call a state-church, or in a non-established Christian society—whatever is of God I would honor and love. And every one who is of God—every man who is a minister of Christ, not merely in word but in deed and in truth—is surely to be honored and loved. I may not agree with him; and of course he may not agree with me. You cannot expect one to uphold another if they differ rather seriously. But, then, you must remember that all other things are small compared with the word and Spirit of God, with Christ Himself and with Christ’s redemption. What ecclesiastical difference is to be compared with the revelation in Christ, or of God in the Bible? Of course those differences have their due importance: and let me say that I felt them important enough to leave all that was dear to me in this way on earth. Still, we surely ought to rank Christ’s person and God’s word unhesitatingly above ecclesiastical questions.

And see how simple it is. The only possible means for men to know God is through His making Himself known to men. I admit that for a long time the word of God was not written. For more than two thousand years the word of God was not yet written. Men had no more than the word of God spoken, and that little word uttered in the garden of Eden—supplemented by the promises that came afterward, as well as by manifestations that God gave from time to time—was quite enough, when God had not added more, for men to live and die and go to heaven upon. Nor is it absolutely necessary that a man should read. “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” How many had only “heard” that word, and truly looked for the coming Savior! A man’s whole life is affected by this, not by deep study, but whether he rests entirely on Christ or he is trying to save himself. What a change faith in Christ effects! Receiving Him as the Son of God with my heart, and my conscience bowing to the truth which convicts me, I love Him because He first loved me. Is not this the gospel? And there in germ at least it was in Eden— “the Seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head.” It is the everlasting gospel.

[W. K.]

(To be continued)

The Word of God: Part 4

Long afterward—and there was wisdom in the arrangement—when man’s age began to be shortened to its present limit, God made a written revelation. Some make merry at the idea; but the time will come when they must weep. Faith sees divine wisdom where incredulity mocks. Do you not see that when man’s age is expressly said to be shortened to threescore years and ten (Psa. 90), Moses, the man of God, was first used to write down this word? Scripture, therefore, is more than the word. It was the word before Scripture, but now Scripture is God’s word written by inspired men. So all Scripture teaches. Any one who is familiar with the New Testament will admit this. “Every scripture [is] given by inspiration of God.” This is an important statement, because it shows that the Holy Spirit was providing for what was not yet written—for the Gospel and the Revelation of John, as examples, not yet written.

Every scripture—whether what was written or what was going to be written—every scripture is given by inspiration of God.

I am perfectly aware that some learned persons translate it thus “Every scripture, being inspired of God, [is] profitable.” What difference is there? A shade in the form—nothing in the substance. The difference is that the one rendering is the assertion that it is inspired of God; the other admits or assumes that it is inspired of God. Whether it be an admission or an assertion makes no difference for anything at present before us. The point is that it is inspired of God, if you believe the apostle Paul.

The entire subject is opened out remarkably in the second chapter of 1 Corinthians where is shown the part the Holy Ghost takes in three ways. It is by the Holy Ghost that the things are given (ver. 12); and the Holy Ghost it is by whom we receive what is by Him revealed and communicated (vers. 4-16). Supposing you had a revelation of the mind of God, if it be not communicated in fit words, others would not be able to apprehend it. The truth would be seen but dimly; just as light passing through a colored medium seems to alter the color of the thing it falls upon. But the Spirit of God cares for duly communicating in words the truth of God. Then, again, your minds are not capable of taking in the truth: but the Spirit of God deigns to work in man. In what believers? The apostles or the early disciples only? God forbid we should be so unbelieving! The very thing that has preserved the church of God all through the ages has been the possession of the Spirit. This is a cardinal truth of Scripture. Every godly Presbyterian or Independent or Wesleyan Methodist or Anglican has the Holy Ghost, just as much as the people whom they call —I do not call them—Plymouth Brethren.

It is not at all a question of setting up any one class, of course one’s own; to my mind a low, bad and perilous conceit. Were a man to rise with the cry, “You cannot get the Holy Ghost unless you join us,” I might well reply, “My friend, has the Lord not shown you that it is never a mark of the truth for people to draw others into their ranks by promising the Holy Ghost to such as join themselves?” Such pretensions ought rather to warn off. The Spirit is received by the hearing of faith (Gal. 3:2), by believing the gospel; and, thank God, the gospel of salvation, if preached by but few, is confined to none. It is no doubt an excellent thing to have the gospel preached, not alone simply and freely, but fully; and I have a judgment where it is simply, freely, and fully preached, thought it might be unbecoming to say where. Of this it is for other people to judge in their consciences, examining the word of God. But this I do say—every real child of God who is resting by faith on the work of Christ has the Holy Ghost. Consequently he has the Spirit of power, and not life only. The new nature or life is not the same thing as the Spirit of God, because the new birth is called a new creation, and the Holy Ghost is not a creature, but a divine person. How few know they have the Spirit of God!

I remember being much struck with an instance of this some years ago. A poor Christian friend had been a bad man in his early days, a smuggler; so that, as you may suppose, he was a very rough sort of man before God brought him to a knowledge of himself; but he was a genuine saint of God in the after-part of his life. A physician, who was also a friend of mine and a Christian, attended him when very ill, and ordered certain things. The man looked up simply, and said, “Well, sir, I must be careful what I do and what I take; for you know, my body is the temple of the Holy Ghost.” The physician thought the man utterly deranged; so little are people used to such language in daily walk. It is all very well, they think, to have all that in the Bible; but they never think of hearing it in common things. Yet the aim of faith is to bring the things that are in the Bible into every-day work; and it is from want of this that so many Christians do not know, walk, and worship, better than we see. They think the Bible is something to be kept quite apart from ordinary life. On the contrary, scripture is given to be inwoven and to interpenetrate with every duty and joy and sorrow of every day. Would to God that we lived, and so reflected, it better! Would to God that our worship, wherever we might be, and all our conversation, were more simply a savor of Christ to God!

People sometimes give religious conversation a bad name, because they know that, when a rogue wants to get money, he is apt to come with a grave face and talks “Dear brother,” and all that kind of thing, in order to accomplish covetous ends. But can this justify others who are afraid that it is downright hypocrisy to be brimful of the Savior and the things of God? There can be no question, indeed, that the Savior meant, and the apostles also, as inspired by the Holy Ghost, that we should really he every day waiting for Christ —that we should be in all things great or small serving the Lord Jesus—bearing shame and trial, insult and injury, with patience, yet joy, as pleasing the Savior. Take, for instance, a Christian with a capricious master. If the servant does not think of Christ, he may be always murmuring and complaining of his lot; whereas if he does or bears all to Christ, he accepts each burden gladly in His name. Faith in Christ changes the whole face of things where it is a present living reality. How is this made good? In the power of the Spirit who directs the eyes to Christ.

The Spirit of God is, however, given to every man—not in the world, but in the church, to the believer only (1 Cor. 12). There is no such thing as the Holy Ghost sealing an unbeliever. The Society of Friends consists largely of morally respectable persons; but herein their doctrine is fundamentally wrong, in that they hold that the Spirit of God is given to every one absolutely. This is a total mistake. For the grand difference between the church and the world is that the world has not the Spirit—seeing not nor knowing Him; but the church possesses the Spirit, and, what is more, the Christian also. That gift is true both individually and collectively; and the consequence is that both the church and the individual are bound to walk and worship in the Spirit. A solemn responsibility indeed! And the way it works is this; the Holy Spirit does not glorify Himself. Still less will He glorify man in his natural state. Nay, He does not even glorify the church. He is here to glorify Jesus. This is the test, the chief and best— “He shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you” (John 16:13-15).

I have not gone into any great detail. I would rejoice to enter into all the books of the Bible, as I have been doing, indeed, of late in more than one place; and therefore the subject is fresh in my mind. But I have endeavored to speak to you in the plainest simplest manner as to, that which is most important for your souls; and I do entreat of the Lord that He may awaken in your heart more firmness of faith in these days when so many are departing from the truth.

A short time ago, a certain dignitary in the land that borders this on the south published a sermon to the Jews, urging them to abandon their faith and to accept the Messiah. To this a Jew replied that he thought it would be imprudent and unreasonable for him to give up a religion which even his lordship admitted to be of divine authority, for a further revelation of which he was not sure; more particularly as so many bearing the name of Christians were now abandoning Christianity. It was a humbling rejoinder; and all, too true; not that it will avail him for a moment when he stands before the Lord Jesus Christ for judgment.

Still it is a solemn fact that men are becoming skeptical: and the reason partly is this—the unreality of much profession, not to say of many who are really Christians. We ought all to take it to heart. I believe that, just so far as we do not walk according to Christ, we are hardening the hearts of unbelievers. What profanity to use the gospel to make people decent men and women without being Christians at all! For, if it is merely a creed-faith, men think there is not very much to choose between a Christian and an infidel. Though I have referred to the putting down of open immorality and downright wickedness of all kinds as the effect of Christianity even outwardly received, still the one thing for the Christian is this, that at all times he should be able to say, “For me to live is Christ” —not merely to belong to Him, but, “For me to live is Christ.” How is this done? By the Holy Ghost giving the word power in the soul, with self so judged that Christ may be all. God grant that He may work so in us all! Amen.

W. K.

(Concluded from page 51)

Bible Treasury: Volume N8

Table of Contents

Two Letters on 1 Corinthians 9:27

Lectures Introductory to 1 Kings: Chapter 1-8, Continued

Lectures Introductory to 1 Kings: Chapter 1-8

Lectures Introductory to 1 Kings: Chapter 12-15, Continued

Lectures Introductory to 1 Kings: Chapter 12-15

Lectures Introductory to 1 Kings: Chapter 17-22

Lectures Introductory to 1 Kings: Chapter 18

Lectures Introductory to 1 Kings: Chapter 19

Lectures Introductory to 1 Kings: Chapter 3-8

Lectures Introductory to 1 Kings: Chapter 9-15, Continued

Lectures Introductory to 1 Kings: Chapter 9-15

Actualities of the Rapture

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertising

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

The So-Called Apostles' Creed

Atonement

The Bible

Biblical Deluge and Modern Science

Brotherly Love and Love

Building a House for Jehovah

Christ: Not Judaism, Nor Christendom

Christ the Truth

Christ the Way

Continuance in Divine Things: Part 1

Continuance in Divine Things: Part 2

Continuance in Divine Things: Part 3

The Dealings of God With Peter: 1. In the Gospels

The Dealings of God With Peter: 10. In the Acts of the Apostles

The Dealings of God With Peter: 11. In the Acts of the Apostles

The Dealings of God With Peter: 12. In the Acts of the Apostles

The Dealings of God With Peter: 2. In the Gospels

The Dealings of God With Peter: 3. In the Gospels

The Dealings of God With Peter: 4. In the Gospels

The Dealings of God With Peter: 5. In the Gospels

The Dealings of God With Peter: 6. In the Gospels

The Dealings of God With Peter: 7. In the Gospels

The Dealings of God With Peter: 8. In the Gospels

The Dealings of God With Peter: 9. In the Gospels

Enduring Temptation and Entering Into Temptation

Errata

Errata

Existence Between Death and Resurrection

Fragment: 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Fragment: Christ the Test

Fragment: Coming to the Father

Fragment: Full of Faith, Grace, and Power

Fragment: Latitudinarian Unity

Fragment: Quickened With Christ

Fragment: Service of and Communion With Christ

A Full Christ for Empty Sinners: Part 1

A Full Christ for Empty Sinners: Part 2

A Full Christ for Empty Sinners: Part 3

A Full Christ for Empty Sinners: Part 4

Hebrews: Its Aim, and for Whom Written? Part 1