SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Secret Service
Theologian
MISUNDERSTOOD
TEXTS OF THE BIBLE
Chapter
Two
"Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit to
his stature? " (Matthew vi. 27 Luke xii. 25).
ALL the Lords
words were the expression of Divine wisdom, but the words here attributed to
Him savour of human folly. During "the great war" many a would-be recruit has
longed to be an inch or two taller; but no one except "a freak dwarf " ever
wished to add half a yard to his height ! Moreover, no sane person could
imagine that this might be attained by "taking thought"; and yet according to
our text, the Lord represented it as a mere trifle in comparison with the
ordinary cares of life.
The primary and common meaning of
hêlikia is age. But as growth in years brings physical
development, the word acquired the secondary meaning of stature and it is used
in that sense in Luke xix. 3. In Luke ii. 52. also, it is thus translated. But
Bloomfield there renders it age, "as being more agreeable to classic usage"
(Greek Test.); and in his note on Ephesians iv. 13. the same eminent Greek
scholar writes, " Hélikia here does not mean stature but full age"; that
is, the maturity of our spiriftial being - a correction that throws new light
upon the passage. So, also. in John ix. 21 and 23 the parents of the blind man
to whom the Lord gave sight said, " He is of age, ask him." In Hebrews ix. 11,
the only other passage where the word occurs, it means " the time of life" in a
special sense.
In the R.V., the phrase "taking thought" rightly gives
place to "being anxious." The Christian should be always thoughtful, but never
anxious always careful, but never full of care. The Lords words then
might be freely rendered, " Who of you by giving way to anxiety can add a
single step to the length of his life path ? " Reasonable care may extend it by
many a cubit, but corroding anxiety can only ftnd to shorten it. When writing
his fathers memoir, the late Sir .James Paget, the eminent surgeon. used
the striking phrase that his death was due to "that rarest of all causes of
death, old age" And it is not the aged only who undesignedly commit suicide
through failing to "take thought."
Enter ye in at the strait gate
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and
few there be that find it "(Matthew vii. 3, 14).
We are told that in
Eastern cities there are small gates in out-of-the-way corners, which are
approached by straitened (R.V.) and little-used paths, which would be noticed
only by those who seek for them. And, of course, such gates and paths are in
striking contrast to the great city gate and the main road which leads to it.
The allegory of these verses would be understood by all to whom the Lord was
speaking. But Westerners seem to miss its meaning.
As the "wide gate,"
to which the broad way leads, symbolises destruction, the narrow gate must
symbolise life. And therefore the usual exegesis., that the straitened
way " svmbolises a holy walk, is in direct opposition to the teaching of the
passage and of the truth of the gospel. For there can be no holiness of walk
until we receive life as Gods gift in grace. Moreover, the warning which
immediately follows, beginning with the words. "Beware of false prophets,"
plainly indicates that the contrast which the Lord intends is not between an
evil life and a holy life, but between "religion " and Himself. No sane man
believes that Divine favour can be won by an evil life. But that it is to be
won by a religious life is the creed of the human heart the wide world
over.
And this perverted instinct of human nature leads many real
Christians to misread any passage of Scripture that can be perverted to
indicate that the seeming simplicity and "trueness" of the Gospel must be taken
with reserve, and that its words are not to be trusted in the way we can trust
the words of honourable men. For the sinner must needs seek for the way
which leads to life, and knock at the door when he finds it ; and this we are
told is not so easy as the words would lead us to suppose! If any reader of
this page should harbour such a thought, let him mark the words which preface
the invitation of verse 13, "Every one that asketh receiveth; and he that
seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened " (v. 8).
"The Son of Man hath not where to lay His head" (Matthew viii. 20).
This is the first occurrence of this Messianic title in the New Testament, and
in Scripture a first occurrence is often significant. In the Old Testament -
as, for example, in Ezekiel - " Son of Man " is often used as an emphatic
Hebraism, for man: but John v. 27 is the only New Testament passage where it
occurs in this sense. Because He is man, all judgment is committed to the Lord
Jesus. The English reader misses the significance which the Greek article lends
to the words elsewhere; but it is recognised by scholars. And there can be no
doubt. as to the significance which the Lord Himself attached to this, His
favourite title. When, for example, He here exclaimed, "The foxes have holes
and the birds of the air have nests, hut the Son of Man hath not where to lay
His head," it is clear that the contrast His words were intended to enforce was
between the highest and the lowest. The humblest creature has a home, hut He,
the Son of Man, descended from heaven, was an outcast wanderer. And on the last
occasion on which He used the title, when on His defence before the Sanhedrin,
his purpose in declaring Himself to he the Soti of Man of Daniels vision
(ch. vii. 13) was to assert His personal and inherent right to heavenly
glory.
For it was not His human birth that constituted Him the Son of
Man. That birth was indeed the fulfilment of the promise which the name implied
but, as He declared explicitly, the Son of Man "descended out of heaven" (John
iii. 13) ; and He added, who is in heaven," which, as Alford notices, certainly
implies "whose place is in heaven." And again He said, "What and if ye shall
see the Son of Man ascend up where lie was before ? " (John vi. 72). When,
therefore, He proclaims that "the Son of Man came to seek and to save that
which was lost " - " came to give His life a ransom for many "- faith responds
in the language of that noble hymn, "When Thou tookest upon Thee to deliver
man, Thou didst not abhor the virgins womb." For the virgin-birth was but
a stage in the fulfilment of His mission. And tins throws light upon the words
of the creation story, " Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
(Genesis i. 26). For the " type" - using the word in the biologists sense
- is not the creature of Eden, but He after whose likeness the creature was
fashioned.
One point more. Though the title "The Son of Man" occurs so
frequently in relation to the earthly people of the covenant, the Lord is never
so designated with reference to the heavenly people of this Christian age.
Never once, therefore, is it found in the Epistles - - a fact that exposes, and
ought to bar. the error which is so generally accepted as truth, that "the
coming of the Son of Man" of Matthew xxiv., and elsewhere in the First Gospel,
is the same event as the Lords coming to bring this "Christian
dispensation" to an end, and to call His heavenly people home.
"Ye
shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come"
(Matthew x. 23).
This statenient must apparently he dismissed as a hopeless
enigma, or rejected as a sheer blunder. But to the Christian who has learned to
recognise the dispensational and prophetic character of the First Gospel, its
meaning is clear ; and a. peruusal of the preceding introductory chapter will
render further explanation unnecessary. "The hope of the Church - to use
Bengels phrase - is not "the coming of the Son of Man" to earth in
fulfilment of Messianic prophecy, but the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ to
call up to heaven His people of the heavenly election of tIme present
dispensation. And this dispensation, and the distinctive truths relating to it,
were "mysteries" till revealed until the earthly people were set aside. But
these, and other similar words, will be received and acted on by Hebrew
disciples in days to come, just as they would have been received and acted on
by time disciples of the Lords earthly ministry if the Christian
dispensation had not intervened.
"Verily I say unto you, Among them
that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist:
notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than
he" (Matthew xi. 11).
As the R.V. margin reminds us, the Greek is the
comparative, not the superlative. But "he that is lesser" is intolerable as an
English rendering. We might read it "the little one," a word that the Lord uses
of His disciples in chapter x. 42. Although the great Chrysostom adopted it,
the gloss that the Lord was thus referring to Himself is really unworthy of
consideration. "For such an interpretation is surely adverse to the spirit of
the whole discourse. We may certainly say that our Lord in such a passage as
this would not designate Himself as he that is least compared with
John, in any sense" (Alford). And it is certain that "the little one in the
Kingdom" is not personally greater than the greatest of the prophets. It is
clearly a question of dispensational position. The prophets were heralds of the
coming kingdom; whereas, now, even the humblest disciple was a citizen of the
kingdom. And the same applies in principle to the heavenly election of the Body
of Christ. The least of its members is greater than the greatest of a bygone
economy not personally - far from it - but dispensationally.
Some of us who
are inclined to think highly of ourselves, here and now, will appear very small
indeed personally in comparison with the faith heroes whose names are enshrined
in the head-roll of Hebrews xi.
"And from the days of John the
Baptist, until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent
take it by force" (Matthew xi. I 2).
This verse is a veritable crux;
and expositors generally convey the impression that they are not satisfied with
the explanations they give of it. The rendering of our English versions clearly
suggests the thought of a hostile, aggressive movement against the kingdom of
heaven. But this is quite foreign to the context. And surely the way in which
the main word, on which the exegesis of the verse depends, was used by the Lord
in a kindred passage ought to guide us here.
In Luke xvi. 16 we read,
"The law and the prophets were until John since that time the kingdom of God is
preached, a.nd every man presseth into it."Now, time word here rendered"
presseth into it is identical with that which is translated " suffereth
violence" in our present verse. And one of its Lexicon meanings is, "to carry a
point by obstinate perseverance." Can there be any doubt then that the Lord was
here referring, not to a hostile movement against the kingdom, but to the
forceful impetuosity of His nominal disciples? For example, the thousands of
men whom He fed to satiety with a basketful of bread and fish were so eager to
proclaim Him King that He had to hide Himself from them. And that this was His
meaning here is established by the fact that the word rendered "take it by
force," is that which occurs in John vi. 15, "When Jesus perceived that they
would come and take Him by force, to make Him a King, He departed again into a
mountain Himself alone."
The attitude and conduct of the Jewish leaders
toward him were marked, not by violence, but by mingled hatred, cunning, and
timidity. Again and again they would have seized Him, but that they feared the
people. And if time Lord hid Himself from the provincial Jews, it was not
because they were hostile, but because, knowing what was in man. He would not
"commit Himself unto them," for they were merely miracle-made disciples (John
ii. 23 - 25). Or, to use the Apostles phrase in Galatians ii. 15, they
were merely "Jews by nature." Just as now, "all who profess and call themselves
Christians" are nominally the people of God, so was it then with Jews. And
every Jew was looking for the Messiah. But the "Jews by nature" wanted a
Messiah who would free them from the Roman yoke. And they rightly judged that a
man with seemingly unlimited miraculous powers could win their deliverance.
Their hopes were carnal, and they were ready to attain the realisation of them
by carnal means. Thus it was that "the kingdom of heaven was suffering
violence."
"So shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights
in the heart of the earth" (Matthew xii. 40).
Some people find here a
clear proof that Scripture has erred ; others that the Lord was crucified on
the Thursday. But in this both critics and "reconcilers " merely display their
ignorance. "Three days and three nights" was a familiar idiomatic phrase to
cover a period that included any part of three days. We need not go outside
Scripture to exemplify this. The Egyptian mentioned in 1 Samuel xxx, 11 - 13
had had neither food nor drink for "three days and t.hree nights," and yet it
was only three days since he had fallen sick. So, again, in 2 Chronicles x. 5,
12, we read that Rehoboam said to the Israelites, "Come again unto me after
three days . . . so they came to him on the third day." And in Esther iv. 16
and v. 1, we aee told that the queen ordered a fast for three days, and yet she
held a banquet on the third day.
But Matthew xxvii. 63. 64 would settle
the question. even if it stood alone. Four-and-twenty hours after the
Lords burial, the Jews came to Pilate and said, "We remember that that
deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
Command, therefore, that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day." And
if that Sunday had passed, leaving the seal upon the tomb unbroken, the guard
would have been withdrawn, and the Pharisees would have proclaimed their
triumph. In nine passages do the Gospels record His words that He would rise
"on the third day"; and in 1 Corinthians xv. 4 the Apostle Paul proclaimed the
fact as an integral part of the gospel.
Though this may puzzle a
theological college, no prison chaplain would need to explain it to his
congregation. For our law reckons time on this same system. Though our legal
day is a day and a night - twenty-four hours beginning at midnight - any part
of a day counts as a day. Therefore, under a sentence of three days
imprisonment a prisoner is usually discharged on the morning of the third day,
no matter how late on the first day he reaches the prison. Under such a
sentence a prisoner is seldom more than forty hours in gaol, and I have had
official cognizance of cases where the detention was, in fact, only for
thirty-three hours.
And this mode of reckoning and of speaking was as
familiar to the Jews as it is to our prison officials and the habitués
of our criminal courts. In his Horce Hebraicce, Dr. John Lightfoot
quotes time Jewish saying, "A day and a night make one Onah, and a part of an
Onah is as the whole." And he adds, "Therefore, Cimrist may truly be said to
have been in the grave three Onoth." To object that as Jonah was three days and
three nights in the whales belly, the Lord must have been in the grave
for that full period is a transparent blunder; for, of course, the period
intended in the Jonah narrative must be computed in accordance with "the
dialect of the nation" (Lightfoot).
"Lest they should be converted,
and I should heal them" (Matthew xiii. 15).
These words are
misunderstood by many a Christian; and to not a few they are a real trouble.
For they seem strangely out of keeping with the spirit of the Lords
ministry. But His words should always be studied in relation to their context
and to the circumstances in which they were spoken. The " text-card system " of
Bible study is a fruitful cause of misunderstanding and error.
During
the early period of the Lords ministry His words of grace and works of
power were abundant, and they were open and free to all - witness the narrative
of chapter iv. 23 - 25, a passage which attracts but little notice. It had been
a time of noontide sunshine in the spiritual sphere, such as even that favoured
land had never experienced before. But the religious leaders of the people
closed their eyes against the light; and, as chapter xii. 14 informs us, their
obduracy and hate culminated in their summoning a council to compass His
destruction. And the latter section of that chapter records the awful words in
which He pronounced their doom. Their day of visitation was over, and a
sentence of spiritual blindness and deafness was pronounced upon them. From
that time, therefore, His public teaching became veiled in parables (ch.
xiii.).
The change was so startling that the disciples came to Him with one
accord to seek an explanation; and the passage from which time above words are
taken gives His reply to their inquiries. Darkness was now to fall upon those
who had despised the light.
But, as when darkness covered the land of
Egypt, the Hebrews still had light, so was it here, for His parables were fully
explained to the disciples.
The principle involved in this passage,
therefore, is neither exceptional nor novel. Though the gospel amnesty which
grace proclaims makes no exceptions, for Divine grace has no limits, there are
limits to the time within which the amnesty avails. And if sinners despise
grace there is nothing for them but judgment, stern and inexorable. And the
word goes forth, even in this age of grace, albeit judgment waits, "Ephraim is
joined to idols ; let him alone." This is an awfully solemn truth which
explains the mystery of many a life.
"The kingdom of heaven is like
unto leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the
whole was leavened " (Matthew xiii. 33).
The accepted interpretation of
this parable takes the leaven to symbolise the good influence of Christianity
in the world. It is admitted, however, even by the exponents of that view, that
everywhere else in Scripture leaven is "symbolic of pollution and corruption."
The question arises then, What meaning was the parable intended to convey to
those who heard it ? And having regard to the religious beliefs and deep-seated
prejudices of the Jews, can there be any reasonable doubt as to the answer?
Suppose that when time Lord had finished His teaching, some Rabbi had explained
to the hearers that the leaven in the parable represented a Divine purifying
agency, the amazement his words would have excited would have been such as a
Christian congregation today would feel if their minister - a staunch
"teetotaller," withal - exemplified the spread of the gospel by the "permeating
influence" of a glass of brandy smuggled into the family coffee-pot.
"Smuggled," I say advisedly, for a specially significant word in the parable is
entirely ignored in the received exegesis. When making bread in the course of
her household duties, a woman would naturally put leaven into the meal. But
here the woman conceals the leaven in the meal, the inference being an obvious
one, that she does it surreptitiously, and with a sinister purpose. Now a
parable is defined by theologians as a fictitious story, invented to illustrate
a truth.
But why "fictitious"? It has been supposed that some of the
parables narrate real and not fictitious events. And if this very reasonable
supposition be well founded, a case may at that very time have engaged public
attention, where some evil woman had thus corrupted the "three measures of
meal" that had been set apart for an offering.
But, it is urged, the
alternative reading of the parable is vetoed on two grounds. First, by the very
fact that the kingdom of heaven is said to be like leaven, and therefore the
leaven must symbolise good and not evil. Here the theologians forget their
definition of a parable. For a parable must be read in its entirety as
presenting the truth which time Lord intends it to teach. Were this remembered,
Scripture would not be brought into contempt by such puerilities of exegesis as
that the Good Samaritans two pence represent the two Sacraments ! or
that, here, the three measures of meal symbolise either "body, soul, and
spirit," or else "the descendants of the three sons of Noah " ! Tradition tells
us that, from earliest times, this was the usual amount of meal prepared for a
baking (Genesis xviii. 6). And it may have been on this account that it was the
quantity prescribed for a meal-offering.
The second ground of veto is
that the alternative reading of the parable would make it conflict with the
teaching of Scripture respecting the course and issue of this Christian
dispensation. But so far from this being the case, it is in fact the accredited
exegesis of it which brings it into flagrant opposition to Scripture. Many a
standard treatise might be cited in support of this statement. But having
regard to the space limits of this note, a single testimony must suffice ; and
it shall be that of a distinguished theologian who is an uncompromising
champion of the "orthodox" exposition of the parable.
In his commentary
upon Matthew xii. 43, Dean Alford, after explaining "the direct application of
the passage to the Jewish people," writes as follows
"Strikingly parallel
with this runs the history of the Christian Church. Not long after the
apostolic times, the golden calves of idolatry were set up by the Church of
Rome. What the effect of the Captivity was to the Jews. that of time
Reformation has been to Christendom. The first evil spirit has been cast out.
But by the growth of hypocrisy, secularity, and Rationalism, the house has
become empty, swept, and garnished : swept and garnished by the decencies of
civilisation and discoveries of secular knowledge, but empty of living and
earnest faith. And he must read prophecy but ill who does not see under all
these seeming improvements the preparation for the final development of the man
of sin, the great repossession when idolatry and the seven worse spirits shall
bring the outward frame of so-called Christendom to a fearful end."
Is it
possible to reconcile Dean Alfords exposition of the leaven parable with
these pregnant and solemn words about the long-drawn-out apostasv and coming
doom of the professing Christian Church ?
"I will give unto thee
(Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew xvi. iv).
But
little need be added here to what has been said in the Introductory Chapter
about "the kingdom of heaven." The great Apostasy which claims to be the keeper
of Holy Writ is so ignorant of Holy Writ that it confounds the kingdom of
heaven with the Church of this dispensation. The kingdom of heaven is the
kingdom of Hebrew prophecy rebating to earth and the earthly people of the
covenant. And Peter was "the Apostle of the Circumcision." To him it was,
therefore, that the Pentecostal proclamation to Israel was entrusted (Acts ii.
22, iii. 12). And when "the word which God sent unto the children of Israel "
was to be carried to Gentile proselytes, he was the appointed messenger (Acts
x. 36). For among the Twelve Peter held t.he foremost place, and it was because
there were twelve tribes of Israel that the Apostles of the Ministry were
twelve in number (Matthew xix. 28).
Throughout what theologians call
the Hebraic portion of the Acts, the Apostle Peter is the foremost figure, and
his ministry is pre-eminent. But Israel remained impenitent; and in the
thirteenth chapter the Apostles Paul and Barnabas were divinely " separated" to
preach to the Gentiles, and the name of the Apostle of the Circumcision
disappears from the narrative. In the first twelve chapters of Acts it occurs
no less than fifty-six times, but, save in chapter xv. 7, it is never found
once in the last sixteen chapters of the book.
"There be some
standing here which shall not see death till they see the Son of Man coming in
His kingdom" (Matthew xvi. 28).
The following is the most approved
exposition of this passage, and lest any one should suspect me of mis-stating a
view which I reject, I give it in Dean Alfords words
"This
declaration refers in its full meaning . . . to the destruction of Jerusalem,
and the full manifestation of the kingdom of Christ by the annihilation of the
Jewish polity." Was there ever a more amazing example of "nightmare exegesis" ?
Did the disciples know that this was what they were asking for when they
uttered the words the Lord had taught them, "Thy kingdom come"? They prayed
that prayer with knowledge of the truth so plainly revealed in Scripture, that
"the kingdom " would bring the restoration of the Jewish polity and relief from
the Roman yoke. If, therefore, there be no other explanation of the passage
open to us, let us humbly confess our ignorance, and leave it unexplained.
But before we yield to a "counsel of despair," let us clear our minds of all
preconceptions, and study afresh the whole passage from chapter xvi. 28 to
chapter xvii. 8. And reading it unbroken by the chapter division, let us
consider whether it does not afford us the solution we seek.
Most great
commentators agree that the Lord was pointing to some definite event which
would occur during the lifetime of some of His disciples. But they urge, not
without some show of reason, that the words "shall not taste of death" imply a
somewhat remote event. Suppose, then, we omit these words, and read the passage
thus, "Verily I say unto you, there are some standing here who shall see the
Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Should we need the words of 2 Peter i. 16 -
18 to convince us that it was fulfilled at the Transfiguration?
There
was one other event, and only one, in the life of the disciples which might
claim consideration if a drastic "spiritualising " of the Lords language
could be allowed, namely, the Day of Pentecost. But that would leave equally
unexplained the words above omitted. The question remains, therefore, how can
they be accounted for? I would answer boldly that if we must make choice
between leaving this difficulty unsolved and adopting an unscriptural
"nightmare" exegesis of the passage, we shall do well to adopt the former
alternative. I venture to suggest, however, that we might possibly find a very
simple solution of it if we knew what was working in the minds of the disciples
at the time.
Certain statements in the Gospels indicate that they were
"dull of hearing" about much of the Lords teaching. And if they treated
the truth of the kingdom in its spiritual aspect in the manner that most of us
now treat the truth of His Coming, relegating it to the sphere of mere doctrine
and sentinment, may not the above omitted words have been a graciously veiled
rebuke? It would be easy to offer many a plausible suggestion respecting the
Lords purpose in speaking thus. But while we may freely attempt to
analyse the thoughts of the disciples in such a case, any speculating about
what was passing in the mind of our Divine Lord would be to trench on sacred
ground.
I must not omit to notice yet another exposition of our verse ;
but I notice it only for reprobation, albeit it is sanctioned by some eminent
authorities. It is that time Lord was here referring to "His ultimate glorious
coming." This view solves the question above discussed by rejecting the
"difficult words" of time verse as being absolutely untrue. Such passages as
Mark xiii. 32 and Acts i. 7 explain why the Lord refused to specify " times and
seasons " ; and seeing that in the case before us He definitely fixed a time
limit, the fulfilment of His words could have no reference to "times and
season," or, in other words, to events foretold in prophecy. The proposed
exegesis, moreover, betrays strange neglect of Scripture. For it is certain
that the " ultimate glorious coming" will be long ages after "the Coming of the
Son of Man in His kingdom" - a thousand years at least. And some would tell us
that here "a thousand years" is an abstract term to mean an indefinitely vast
era of time.
"Go and sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor"
(Matthew xix. 21) (Mark X. 21; Luke xviii. 22).
If we are Christs
disciples, why do we not act on this? the infidel mockingly demands. And our
answer is plain: because it is not addressed to us. The Lord knows each heart
and each life, and He deals with each in infinite wisdom. Another man. we read,
besought the Lord for permission to follow Him, but "Return to thine own house"
was the Lords answer to his appeal (Luke viii. 38, 39). And Lazarus of
Bethany, whom the Lord loved, had possessions but instead of telling him to
part with them, the Lord became his guest. And in the case of the Apostle
Peter, so far from desiring him to sell his house in Capernaum, the Lord made
His home there.
"God has no pleasure in fools." And to take every word
of Scripture to ones self, irrespective of the circumstances in which it
was spoken, is to be a very mischievous kind of fool ; for such folly brings
discredit upon Holy Writ. Our answer to the infidel, then, is that Scripture
teaches us that a Christiaim who, having others dependent on him, sells all
that he has and gives it to the poor, has denied the faith. and is worse than
an infidel. (1 Timothy v. 8). But is not. "community of goods" enjoined by Acts
iv. 34 - 37? Assuredly not. The Apostles words to Ananias (ch. v. 4) make
it clear that the disciples were under no obligation to part with their
possessions. Their doing so was a " freewill offering." And the passage is
misread because the distinctive character of that brief Pentecostal
dispensation is ignored. It was a waiting time.
During the last Carlist
rising in Spain a wealthy Marquis was said to have mortgaged his estate, and to
have thrown the proceeds into the war-chest of the insurrection. It was a
reasonable act. on the part of any one who believed in the success of the
Pretenders cause. And the Hebrew disciples of Pentecostal days were
living in the hopes inspired 1w the prophecy and promise recorded in Acts iii.
19 - 11.
"For many be called, but few chosen " (Matthew xx.
Intelligent students of Scripture take note of the first occurrence of
important words. And in this verse we have the first occurrence of the word
"elect." The striking fact that the Lord here uses it with reference, not to
salvation, but to service, may cause surprise to many, hut not to those who
have studied the use of the word in the Greek Version of the Hebrew Scriptures,
which, as we know, exercised a very marked influence upon the language of the
New Testament. For in most, if not all, of its occurrences in the Septuagint it
is used to express excellence and appreciation.
The first is in Genesis
xxiii. 6. In response to Abrahams appeal for a burial-place for Sarah.
the children of Heth replied, "In the best of our sepnlchircs bury thy dead."
It is used again six times in Genesis four times of choice cattle, and twice of
choice ears of corn (ch. xli.). Its first occurrence in a higher sense is its
application to Joshua in Numbers xi. 28 (where the LXX reading is "the chosen
one"). And in Isaiah xxviii. 16 it is stamped with its highest value by its
application to the Lord Himself (ci. 1 Peter ii. 6).
"Words are the
counters of wise men, the money of fools"; and a word may, in one
connection, stand for gold, and, in another, for some coin of inferior metal.
But expositors are apt to forget this, and to treat the counters as though they
were coins. This has had deplorable results in relation to the parable which
ends with our present verse. Not only does it rob us of important teaching and
solemn warning respecting the Lords service, but it operates as a
flagrant denial of the truth of the gospel. The parable does not describe the
case of the man who sends out his servants to bring in the destitute to the
banquet which his invited guests have despised (Luke xiv. 16 - 22) ; but of the
householder who goes out to hire labourers to work in his vineyard .And every
man he hires receives the wages promised him; hut it is only some of them who
earn special appreciation and approval. Mark the order and significance of the
words many are klêtoi. but few are eklekloi. According to our ordinary
usc of the word, few were chosen, for that is implied in the hiring. But here
the choosing is at the end of the days labour. Are we. then, to conclude
that the Divine decree which fixes our eternal destiny awaits. and is dependent
upon, the value of our service ?
Embedded in this parable there are
some most important truths that we are prone to foret. The fact that it is the
householder himself who hires the labourers points to a truth which is enforced
in man a Scripture - the truth, namely, that although God entrusts to His
servants the duty of seeking the lost, and bidding them to the banquet of
salvation, the call to service is His own prerogative.
And no less
clear is the teaching of the parable for those who are called to labour in the
Lords vineyard. As we know from other Scriptures, it is "the service of
sons," and not, as some would tell us, of sinners on probation, whose eternal
destiny will depend on the character and value of their service. And we must
not confound "the judgment-seat of Christ" with "the great white throne." Not
that the issue of either judgment will be the eternal destiny of men - that
will be manifested by the resurrection ; and yet both have to do with our
earthly life, "the things done in the body " (2 Corinthians v. 10) or " the
things written in the books" (Revelation xx. 12).
But, I repeat, it is
to labourers in the vineyard that this parable specially refers. And the
question at issue will be whether the labourer shall be eklektos, or, as the
alternative, adokimos (to use the Apostles word in 1 Corinthians ix. 27).
But any exposition which treats either the Lords parable or the
Apostles warning words as though they referred to the eternal salvation,
or the eternal doom, of men, not only perverts these Scriptures, but betrays
ignorance or neglect of the great truth of salvation by grace through
faith.
"This generation shall not pass, till all these things be
fullfilled" (Matthew xxiv. 34).
This is a favourite verse with the
Rationalists for in their ignorance they cite it as discrediting Holy
Scripture. Is it not clear, they ask, that the Lords words have failed?
Here is Dean Alfords interpretation of it: "It may he well to show that
genea has in Hellenistic Greek the meaning of a race or family of people. See
Jeremiah viii. 3, 70. Compare Matthew xxiii. 36 with verse 35 This generation
did not slay Zacharious - so that the whole people are addressed. See also
chapter ii. 45, in which the meaning absolutely requires this sense." He
further cites chapter xvii. 17 ; Luke xvi. 8 and xvii. 25; Acts xi. 40;
Phiilippians ii. 15. And he adds, "In all these places genca is genos, or
nearly so."
Some scholars explain the passage by reference to the fact that
the word rendered "this" may with equal correctness be translated "that." Thus
the statement would mean that the same generation which sees the setting up of
the abomination of desolations (v. 15) will see all these things come to
pass.
Our only difficulty, therefore, in interpreting it is that it
involves our adjudicating between alternative solutions which are equally
satisfactory and equally scholarly.
"Then shall the kingdom of
heaven be likened unto ten virgins"(Matthew xxv. i).
"How (it is asked)
is the kingdom of heaven like ten virgins? " The question exemplifies a
popular, but very erroneous, mode of reading the parables. As the Dictionary
tells us, a parable is "a story of something which might have happened, told to
illustrate some doctrine, or to make sonic duty clear." To understand the
parable ariglit, therefore, we must study it as a whole, and with reference to
the particular doctrine or duty it is designed to teach. And in this case the
thirteenth verse leaves no doubt as to its purport - " Watch therefore, for ye
know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of Man comcth."
But
this parable is too often read without noticing the emphatic word with which it
begins : " Then - at the period spoken of at the end of the last chapter,
namely, the coming of the Lord to His personal reign - not at His final coming
to judgment" (Alford). To be still more accurate and explicit, it is the
Lords coming as " Son of Man " - an event which is later in time, and
wholly distinct from, the Coming which is the special hope of the Christian in
this Christian age. "The hope of the Church," to use Bengels phrase, is a
"mystery" truth which was not revealed until Israel was set aside.
"Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew
xxviii, 19, R.V.).
The closing passages of tue Four Gospels have always
been a difficulty with theologians, and often a cause of perplexity to
Christians generally. And it is round the last five verses of Matthew that the
difficulties chiefly cluster. Indeed to any one who is dependent on our
Authorised Version they seem overwhelming. For the chapter seems to
record the fact that after the resurrection the eleven disciples forthwith left
Jerusalem for the appointed trysting-place in Galilee, and there received the
parting commands of their risen Lord. But this, of course, is entirely
inconsistent with the narratives of Luke and John. Dean Alford here speaks of "
the imperfect and fragmentary nature of the materials out of which our
narrative is built." But the idea is absurd that any one of the Apostles could,
to his dying day. forget the Lords appearing to them on the evening of
the resurrection, and again after eight days. But if on five different
occasions our Lord appeared to a company of His disciples, how is it that this
Evangelist records but one ? Why does Mattllew ignore the Lords
appearings to His gathered disciples in Jerusalem ? This is but part of a wider
question : Why does the First Gospel ignore Jerusalem altogether, so far as
it is possible to ignore it, in the record of our Lords ministry
?
The purpose of the First Gospel iii the Divine scheme of revelation
is to present Christ as Israels Messiah. And Galilee was prophetically
and dispensationally associatcd with the godly remnant which, if the apostasv
of the nation. was divinely regarded as the true Israel. Therefore is it that
the Lords ministry in Galilee has such prominence in this Gospel .
According to Matthew the last words spoken to the Eleven before the agony in
Gethsemane were, that after He was risen again He would go before them into
Galilee (ch. xxvi. 32). And the first message sent to His brethren after the
resurrection, first by the mouth of the angel who appeared to the women at the
sepulchre. and afterwards by His own lips, was that He would meet them in
Galilee (ch. xxviii. 7, 10).
What, then, is needed to complete the book
? If unchecked by the Spirit of God, the Apostle would doubtless have given a
record of the events of those forty days. It is idle to talk of " fragmentary
materials." Any one of the disciples could have compiled such a narrative; but
it would have been wholly foreign to the scope and purpose of the First Gospel.
As it is the Galilee ministry which is the burden of it, all that remains is to
record how, in the scene of that ministry, the Lord gathered His disciples
round him, and gave them those pregnant and intensely prophetic words with
which that Gospel closes.
But who were the disciples thus addressed? It
is rightly assumed that this was the occasion when our Lord appeared to above
five hundrcd brethren at once. If it was not here, then this, the most
important event, of the forty days, is unnoticed in the Gospels, which is an
incredible supposition. The message from the sepulchre will throw light on
this. As the Lord intended to meet the Eleven that very evening, why should He
send them a command to go into Galilee? And, as He was about to reveal Himself
to Peter, why should the women be made the bearers of such a message? Is it not
obvious that the message was intended for the whole company of the
disciples?
Let us now consider verses 16 and 17. "Then the eleven
disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed
them; and when they saw Him they worshipped Him: but some doubted." Read by
itself, the narrative seems clear and simple but read in the light of what
other Gospels tell us, it seems misleading and false. But the error is
suggested by the English rendering of the text. The first word of the sixteenth
verse appears to he emphatic, whereas it is not in the original at all. The
word rendered "then" in the A.V. and "but" in the R.V. is what the grammarians
call "the de resumptive," which is often untranslatable, and sometimes
untranslated. In the first verse of this chapter, for instance, it is ignored
for the mere fact that the verse is made the beginning of a new chapter conveys
to the English reader much the same sense that the use of the particle in
question does in Greek. And so here. The sixteenth verse begins a new
paragraph, and it might fitly begin a new chapter. It is not a continuation of
a consecutive narrative, but the record of a special event.
"The eleven
disciples went into Galilee, into the mountain where Jesus had appointed them."
But why the eleven disciples, if above five hundred brethren repaired to the
trysting-place ? The reason is not doubtful. The Apostles words in 1
Corinthians xv. 6 indicate plainly that the appearing to the five hundred
brethren was a matter of general knowledge in the Church. No less so was the
fact that " the eleven " remained in Jerusalem after the main company of the
disciples had repaired to Galilee. That they were expressly enjoined to remain
in Jerusalem until the fulfilment of "the promise of the Father," and that they
still remained in Jerusalem when the Church was scattered by the Stephen
persecution - these also, doubtless, were well-known facts, the public property
of all the believers. What wonder, then, if the Apostle should record with
emphasis that the eleven disciples went into Galilee." That the rest were there
was a fact well known to all ; but that the Eleven were present needed to be
placed on record.
To the English reader this mention of the Eleven
seems to lend prominence to the "theys" in the sentence following: "And when
they saw Him, they worshipped." But the pronouns are not in the Greek. To say,
"And when He was seen He was worshipped" would express the meaning of the
original better than a stricter translation. It must be conceded, however, that
even when thus rendered the words must be taken as referring to the Eleven,
unless we assume that there is an ellipsis in the sentence of which they form a
part. But such an ellipsis is precisely what we should expect if the fact that
five hundred brethren were present was matter of common knowledge, and the
writer had the fact vividly before his mind when he wrote.
This
suggestion is in a striking way confirmed by the statement that some doubted.
That after the Lords rebuking Thomas for doubting before even he had seen
Him, any of the Eleven still doubted even while they looked upon Him - this
cannot he tolerated for a moment. It is certain, therefore, that others were
present. But what others? Are we to suppose, I again ask, that such an event as
our Lords appearing to above five hundred brethren at once is unnoticed
in the Gospels? Are we to suppose that the appearing recorded in Matthcw was
unnoticed by Paul in summing up the evidences for the resurrection ? When it
was a question of marshalling the proofs of the resurrection, the fact that
above five hundred hretllren were present became of principal importance. But
here it was wholly immaterial. That to His gathered disciples, the Eleven being
of the number, He gave the great Commission - this was all that was essential.
To accept the blunder theory, or the fragmentary and imperfect materials
theory. is to stultify ourselves. In whatever way we approach the matter, we
are drawn toward the same conclusion, namely, that the First Gospel, ignoring
all that is beyond the Divine purpose for which it is written, closes the
narrative of the Galilee ministry by recording the Lords appearing to His
assembled disciples in the scene of that ministry. and His Commission to them
to evangelise the world.
Another difficulty claims brief notice in
conclusion, namely, the fact that this Commission was never acted on. Its terms
are definite. But no less definite arc the facts. "Make disciples of all the
nations, baptizing them." And yet, even when the Church was scattered by the
Stephen persecution, the Apostles remained in Jerusalem ; and the scattered
disciples preached "to none But unto the Jews only" (Acts viii. 1, xi. 19). Not
even did the Apostle to the Gentiles act on it ; as witness his emphatic
statement, "He sent me not to baptize" (1 Corinthians i. 17).
A special
vision was needed to lead Peter to visit the house of Cornelius. And at the
Jerusalem Council of Acts xv. no one of the inspired Apostles was led to refer
to this Commission. Indeed the Book of Acts contains no reference to it
whatever. The difficulty is insoluble if we ignore the scope and character of
the First Gospel. But in common with so much of the teaching of that Gospel,
"the great Commission" pertains dispensationally to the future age of the
kingdom of heaven, when the Lord shall be King over all the earth; and all
people, nations, and languages shall serve Him. And when that day comes, the
question will not be of individual faith in an absent and rejected Saviour and
Lord, but rather of national submission to Divine sovereignty openly declared
and enforced on earth. And baptism will become the outward and visible sign of
that submission. And now we can understand why it is to the Gentiles that the
messengers are sent, blessing to Israel being assumed. For the redeemed of this
dispensation will have passed to heaven, and the true remnant of Israel,
typified by the little company that gathered round the Lord upon the mountain,
will be the missionaries to the world. Iii contemplation of it the Apostle
exclaimed, " If the casting away of them he the reconciling of the world, what
shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?" (Romans xi.
15).
"And they brought young children to Him, that He should touch
them: and the disciples rebuked those that brought them "(Mark x. 13)
(Matthew xix. 13 ; Luke xviii. 15).
This is one of the most popular
passages in the Gospels; for sacred art has portrayed the scene as described in
sacred literature - the mothers crowding round the Lord, with their little ones
at their skirts, and the disciples trying to keep them back. But the picture is
false to fact. No devout Jew would have barred a childs approach to a
Rabbi; and that the disciples should have acted in this way is quite
incredible, so recent was that wonderful incident at Capernaum - presumably in
the Apostle Peters home - when the Lord called a little child to Him, and
taking him up in His arms, gave utterance to these never-to-be-forgotten words,
"It is not the will of your Father who is in heaven, that one of these little
ones should perish" (Matthew xviii. 2, 14; cf. Mark ix. 33, 36).
The
evangelist Lukes narrative explains the disciples action; for it
tells us that the women were bringing even their babies to Him, and this seemed
an unwarrantable intrusion. The word brephos means primarily an unborn
child, and then, as here, a child newly born. It has no other meaning in Greek.
It was their newborn infants that these godly mothers brought to the Lord
Jesus. And their faith and devotion won for them far more than they ventured to
ask of Him. Their appeal was that He would touch them; and not only did He put
His hands upon them, but "He took them up in His arms and blessed them." What a
Scripture to stir the heart of a Christian mother as she holds her newborn
infant in her arms! And the Capernauni words are well-fitted to strengthen and
guide her faith as her little ones gather round her in the nursery.
No
truth of Scripture has suffered more from the teaching of the Latin Fathers
than this about "the little ones." But though heaven and earth shall pass away,
the words the Lord Jesus spake on earth shall never pass away. Let us then
accept these words unperverted and unobscured by Augustinian doctrine: "It is
not the will of your Father who is in heaven, that one of these little ones
should perish." And under the microscope they stand out all the clearer; for
"the form of the proposition has all the force that belongs to the rhetorical
negative . . . namely, that the will of the Father is the very opposite of that
"He said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth" (Luke viii. 49 - 56)
(Matthew ix. 23 - 25 ; Mark V. 38).
The commonly received exegesis of
this passage about Jairus daughter presents a strange problem. The Lord
declared with emphatic definiteness that Jairus child was not dead ; but
the crowd of mourners "laughed Him to scorn," for they knew better! And
Christian expositors reject the Lords explicit testimony and accept that
of the mocking Jews Jairus had fallen at the Lords feet, beseeching Him
to come to his house; but, their progress being much delayed (vv. 42 - 48),
they were met by tidings that the child was dead. Thereupon the Lord intervened
with the assurance, "She will recover." Thus it is the R.V. renders the word in
John xi. 12, when the disciples said of Lazarus, "If he is fallen asleep, he
will recover." It is the word the Lord had used in verse 48 to "the woman with
the issue of blood." and the same word that is translated "healed " in verse
36. In its 106 occurrences in the New Testament the word is very often used of
saving from death, but never once in the sense of raising the dead.
Has
fallen asleep " is a familiar euphensism for "has died " ; but to use that
phrase to deny the reality of death would be to utter a flagrant untruth; and
yet this is what is here attributed to the Lord Jesus! A reference to John xi.
11 - 14 will exemplify this. "Lazarus has fallen asleep," the Lord said to the
disciples; but when they mistook His meaning, "He said unto them plainly,
Lazarus has died." But in marked contrast with this, the Lord had said that
Jairus daughter "would recover" (v. 50). And when He entered the house,
and before He saw the child, He announced in the confidence of Divine
knowledge, "She has not died, but she is sleeping."
And then, standing by
her bedside, He took her by the hand, saying, "Maid, arise" (or "wake up").
And, the narrative adds, "her spirit came again " - the identical words used in
the Greek Bible to describe Samsons recovery as recorded in Judges xv.
19.
But, it will be said, the universally accepted reading of this
passage must surely have some different and surer basis. Not so; it rests
entirely upon two grounds. First, the presumption that the facts of the case
must have been better known to the Jew mourners than to the Lord of glory! And
secondly, that as the Lord meant that Lazarus was dead when He said that he was
sleeping, His word about Jairus child must be understood in the same
sense. This is worthy of the Sunday school! For the word He used in John xi. 11
is altogether different from the word He here employed. In all but four of its
eighteen occurrences His Lazarus word (koimao) signifies death; whereas
the word He here used (hatheud) never bears that meaning in any of its
twenty-one occurrences in the New Testament.
And yet if the Lord had
really said. " She is not dead, but sleepeth," some might still plead for
putting a mystical meaning on the phrase. But the words He actually used, "She
did not die" (ou gar apethanen), were a definite and unequivocal
statement of a fact. And His hearers were clearly intended to understand them
thus. There was no element of dramatic effect in any of the Lords
miracles. And knowing that the child, though past recovery, was still alive, He
who was "the truth" would not have it supposed that He was raising her from the
dead. But by a word He restored her to full health and vigour (v. 55). The
reality of the miracle is not in question, nor yet its testimony to His Divine
power. But among honourable men the test of truth is the meaning which words
are intended to convey to others; are we then to attribute a lower standard of
truthfulness to the language of our Divine Lord? For this is involved in so
reading His words, "She did not die," that an elaborate and subtle argument is
needed to vindicate their truth. This is the question here at
issue.
"Strive to enter in at the strait gate " (Luke xlii. 24).
This text is very generally misunderstood; partly through misreadillg its
principal word, and partly through ignorance of Oriental customs. The imagery
is not the same as that of Matthew vii. 13. In one of the two leaves of an
Eastern city gate there was a small narrow door which was open to
foot-passengers for a while after the main gate was closed at sundown.
And the gloss of our commentaries is that to an audience of Orientals, they
would have turned away with feelings either of amusement or of pity for his
ignorance. For a belated traveller who tried to enter in that fashion would
have been taken for an enemy or a lunatic, and either cut down or thrown out!
And such an exposition of the words is egregiously opposed to the doctrine and
the spirit of the Gospel. This, no doubt, is the primary meaning of the word
agonizomai, and it is so used in some other passages. But it is not its
only meaning. In Cohossians iv. 12, for example, the Apostle uses it to
describe the fervent earnestness of Epaphras prayers for his Colossian
brethren. And so here. It is one of the Lords many warnings against
trifling with God or with eternal interests. No Oriental would have missed its
meaning. The wayfarer knows that, though the sun has set, the "narrow gate" is
still open; so there is no need to hurry. Then why not linger here, or turn
aside there? But although God looks for no merit of any kind in us, He must not
be treated as we would not dare to treat a fellow-man. "Behold, now is the day
of salvation" is His word: not now, but tomorrow " is the response of the human
heart.
As we study the sequel, we must distinguish between the
dispensational bearing of the Lords words and their general application.
No Oriental would miss His meaning when the allegory of "the narrow gate "
merges in that of the feast to which invitations have been issued with Eastern
prodigality. And the guests have no need to knock, for the door stands open.
But once the master of the house "is risen up and has shut to the door,"
neither knocking nor pleading will avail. And for Israel that crisis was at
hand - their day of visitation was far spent. And now, in the sequel, the
Lord gives an explicit answer to the question which called forth these solemn
words of warning. The saved will not be few. Outcast sinners will come from
every point of the compass, and sit down in the kingdom with Abraham, and
Isaac, and Jacob, while the favoured people who boast of their descent from
these patriarchs will be themselves "thrust out."
Such, then, is the
primary interpretation of the passage. But it has a very special application to
ourselves in this Christian age. And here the error of the received exegesis is
still more apparent. The little entrance door in an Eastern city gate was not
only narrow, it was so low that a man had to stoop when passing in. But there
was no difficulty of any kind in entering, if only he bowed his head, and had
no pack to carry. What imagery could possibly describe more aptly how a sinner
must come to Christ ! And our present verse is not so much a command as a
gracious appeal and invitation, given in the spirit of the Saviours words
in the last two verses of the chapter.
No chapter in the Gospels is
more misread than the sixteenth of Luke. The commonly accepted version of it
may be summarised as follows : "A certain rich man had an agent who was accused
of robbing him; so he gave him notice of dismissal. The steward then set
himself to rob him more flagrantly than ever and his master commended him for
his cleverness."
Did a rustic preacher ever propound anything sillier or
more harmful to a company of yokels ! And suppose, to make Inatters worse, he
followed it up by a sermon with the moral, " Woe to the rich : blessed are the
poor ! " Yet this deplorable folly and error is attributed to our Divine
Lord
In this group of parables we have a series of exquisite pictures,
drawn by the hand of the Master, to illustrate the great life-choice. In the
prodigal son we have the case of one who "wasted" his own "portion of goods" in
selfish and sinful pleasure, but afterwards repented, and was restored. In the
steward we have the case of one who wasted his employers "goods" by
unthrift and neglect ; but who repented, and was forgiven. And in the
rich man in the last parable of the series we have one who persistently lived
for this world, and died impenitent. The steward was "unrighteous" in the sense
that he was a careless, easy-going man, who " let things slide," leaving debts
uncollected, and allowing accounts to run on. Thus it was that he was wasting"
his masters property. It was a case, not of occasional acts of
dishonesty, but of habitual carelessness. His dishonesty was of a passive kind.
And what earned for him his masters praise was his action when brought to
book, and dishonesty of any kind was no longer possible.
Instead of
alienating the debtors by enforcing immediate payment in full, he set himself
to win their friendship by giving them a most liberal discount, and at his own
expense, of course ; for now he was working under strict observation. And lIe
did this in order that, when he lost his office, they might receive him into
their houses.
This is the whole point of the parable. Its lesson is not
that roguery succeeds, or is commendable in any way, but as the Lord Himself
explams it by the words. "Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of
unrighteousness. that when it shall fail ye may be received into the eternal
tabernacles." The moral of the parable is the wisdom of using the present in
view of the future; of living in a world that is "passing away," under the
influence of that other world which is abiding and eternal. It is the
application in the highest sphere of a principle which is recognised by "the
children of this world." For the successful man is one who has learned to make
"today" subordinate to tomorrow," and to forego a present advantage in order to
secure a prospective gain.
To enforce this still more plainly, the Lord
went on to say, "If ye have not been faithful in that which is anothers,
who will give you that which is your own" As the parable is usually read, these
words seem inexplicable. But their meaning is clear : spiritual gifts are our
own, but the mammon is entrusted to us as stewards, How false, then, is the
prevailing belief that, in the Christian life, the "religious" and the
"secular" are in separate compartments. The Christian is as really Gods
servant in the one sphere as in the other.
And then verse 13 gives the
final lesson. The Christian is to use the world : but if he uses it excessively
it becomes his master .And though mammon he a good servant, it is an evil
master. Moreover. "No servant can serve two masters. . . . Ye cannot serve God
and mammon" We must choose between them. And the concluding parable about Dives
and Lazarus is given to guide our choice. "
"Behold the Lamb of God.
which taketh away the sin of the world " (John i. 29). This rendering of
the text in both our versions savours of exegesis. The Baptists words are
definitely clear, "Behold the Lamb of God, who is bearing the sin of the
world." And they are usually supposed to be a revelation to the Jews that
Christ was to die; the only question in doubt being whether the type to which
they refer be the Paschal lamb or the sin-offering.
But this involves a
glaring anachronism. For it was not until the Sanhedrin decreed His destruction
(Matthew xii. 32) that the Lord revealed even to the Twelve that He was to be
put to death. And so utterly opposed was it to all Jewish beliefs and hopes
that they gave no heed to it. Upon other grounds also such an exegesis is
unintelligent. For the Passover did not typify "bearing sin," and a lamb was
never the sin-offering victim. Nor was it " the sin of the world" that the
scapegoat bore away, but the sins of the children of Israel (Leviticus xvi.
21).
"Who is bearing the sin of the world." This was not a prophecy of
Calvary, but a revelation of what the Lord was during His life. Therefore the
word here used is not a sacrificial term, as in 1 Peter ii. 24 and other
kindred passages, but an ordinary word in common use for taking up and carrying
burdens. Its five occurrences in John v. 8 - 12 are fairly representative of
its use in the ninety-six other passages where it is found. Accordingly we read
in 1 John iii. 5 - the only other passage where the word is used in this
connection - "He was manifested to take away (or to bear) sins" (R.V.), the
Apostles purpose being, as the context plainly indicates, not to assert
the doctrine of expiation, but to impress on the saints that sin is utterly
opposed to Christ, and hinders fellowship with Him. Mark the word "manifested"
; it was not the mystery of Calvary, but the openly declared purpose of His
life. For in this sense He was a sin-bearer during all His earthly sojourn ;
as witness, for example, His groans and tears at the grave of Lazarus. He took
up and bore the burden of human sin; not as to its guilt - that was not till
Gethsemane and Calvary - but as to the sufferings and sorrows it brought upon
humanity.
"He was oppressed, yet lie humbled Himself and opened not His
mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before her
shearers is dumb, yea He opened not His mouth" (Isaiah liii. 7, R.V.). There is
a general consensus of opinion that to this passage it is that the
Baptists words refer. And it is noteworthy that it contains no
sacrificial language ; for, in the Hebrew, " slaughter" is a common word that
points to the shambles. It foretold the Messiahs earthly life of
humiliation and suffering. And this it was that the Jews could not understand,
and would not accept. Hence the force and meaning of the Baptists
inspired words uttered at the very threshold of the ministry.
Let no
one suppose then that the foregoing exposition of them disparages the truth of
the expiation accomplished upon Calvary. That great truth rests upon a
foundation too firm and sure to need support from a misreading of the
Baptists testimony. Indeed, it is the accepted exegesis of the passage
that imperils that truth. For it affords a colourable justification for the
profane heresy that during the Lords earthly ministry He rested under the
cloud of separation from His Father (see note on 1 Peter ii. 24). To form too
high an estimate of the death of Christ would be impossible, but it is a
deplorable fact that the prolonged martyrdom of His earthly life has far too
little place in our thoughts.
Chapter Three
Literature | Photos | Links | Home