Some Old Parables.
THE PEARL OF ALL PARABLES.
Part I. Luke 15.
In this series of re-studies of the parables of our Lord, first place must be given to what has been called "The Pearl of all Parables," found in Luke 15.
At first we hesitated to use this title, for, as all parables are equally inspired of God, each separate parable is a pearl. There is a danger in attempting to exalt one portion of Holy Scripture above another. Even the portions of Holy Writ that have not made any special appeal to us individually, are as precious as those that have spoken loudly. The whole of the Divine Library is one big priceless pearl. Yet it hath pleased the Lord to use Luke 15 in Gospel ministry more than other portions, save perhaps Joh_3:16. Where is the evangelist who has not found this earthly story with a heavenly meaning of tremendous service in winning the lost. The stammering beginner in Christian service finds it to be the simplest of all subjects to take; the well-seasoned Gospel warrior finds it to be the most profound of all narratives; for in it there is a simplicity of application that appeals to the babe in Christ; and yet, at the same time, there is a whole world of truth that provides thought for the philosopher.
A few general observations are necessary before placing our microscope upon it.
Please observe, in Luke 15, we have but one parable in three sections: "And He spake this parable unto them" (Luk_15:3). Pray note, our Lord called it a parable, not parables. This is important. Even if there were no doctrinal significance, it is wise to follow closely the exact words of Scripture. But there is an important truth at stake. It is one parable in three sections, each portraying the work of one of the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity. In the story of the Lost Sheep we have a picture of the work of God the Son; in the story of the Lost Coin we have a picture of the work of God the Holy Spirit; and in the story of the Lost Son we have a picture of the work of God the Father.
"Very well," you say, "but should not God the Father come first? Should we not re-arrange the sections, putting the lost son first, the lost sheep second, and the lost coin last?"
The way you have presented the question appeals to us, for God the Father should always come first, as is so in the great Apostles’ Creed. Yet we must not tamper with the order in which our Divine Lord Jesus related the incidents, even if we do not appreciate the significance. As a matter of fact, there is a deep and vital truth in the order. For in actual experience the sinner’s first concern should be the work of the Son, our Divine Saviour; then the Person and glorious offices and ministries of the Holy Spirit; and, finally, the revelation of the Father. Why, our Saviour Himself declared that He was, and is, the way to the Father, and that "no man cometh unto the Father but by Me."
This threefold parable has been much misunderstood. Our Lord’s object in relating it was not to show who is, or is not, a child of God, but how willing God is to receive all who come to Him; not to show the basis of true forgiveness, but the readiness of God to pardon and receive the most unworthy if truly penitent. To say that this parable declares that every human being is a child of God, and that He is ready to forgive without any atonement, is to put into the chapter what the Lord never intended, and to be guilty of the sin of both adding to, and subtracting from, the Word of the Lord. To read into this parable what our Lord never intended is simply shocking, and imperils the souls of men.
The immediate object of the parable was to justify Christ’s conduct in associating with outcasts. "Then drew near all the publicans and sinners for to hear Him" (Luk_15:1). These Jewish pariahs recognised in the new Teacher a new Friend; they detected in His discourses a new note of sympathy and interest. There was freshness and power in His utterances. Instinctively they were attracted. "And the Pharisees and Scribes murmured, saying: This Man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them" (Luk_15:2). Wondrous statement! He not only received them, but He ate with them. That is to say, He not only desires to save me from my sins, but to save me to His friendship. To receive me and speak the word of forgiveness is amazing grace; but that is but the beginning of the disposal of the riches of His grace; for He desires my friendship and fellowship. To eat bread with anyone means a very great deal in Eastern lands. It is a pledge of friendship; a covenant sign full of significance.
Now in these three sections our Lord pointed out to His objectors how they ought to have acted as the shepherd sought the strayed and lost one, as the woman sought and rejoiced in the recovery of the lost coin, as the father welcomed and received the prodigal; so ought they to have rejoiced over the return of the publicans and sinners. But instead, they had acted as the elder brother; our Lord Jesus was holding up a mirror so that they might behold themselves.
By the way, here is the rightful point to stress most in this threefold parable. The interest in the parable has mainly centred upon the lost sheep and the lost son, whereas it is clear our Lord meant us to place the emphasis upon the elder brother. But this point must be left for a future study.
A wee girl had parents who never frequented public worship, but insisted upon her attendance, and, moreover, bringing home the preacher’s text. One morning she rushed home exclaiming: "Oh, mama, my name is in the Bible!" "But that cannot be," expostulated her parents. "But it is! Why, the preacher announced it. ‘This Man receiveth sinners, and Edith with them.’" Only a faulty pronunciation? Ah, more. Can you put your name there? "This Man receiveth sinners, and — with them."
THE PEARL OF PARABLES.
Part II.
Only One Lost. Luke 15.
"What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness?" (Luk_15:4), so begins our Lord’s matchless story of the lost sheep, the first portion of the Pearl of all Parables.
But why make all that fuss about one, seeing he had ninety-nine left? If he only possessed two sheep, and had lost one, we could have excused his concern and trouble over the lost. But to lose one out of an hundred seems an insignificant loss. Yes, that is how we sometimes reason, but it is false.
The immediate occasion of this Parable was to vindicate our Lord’s conduct in associating with outcasts! The Scribes and Pharisees were the unfriendly critics, and the parable was spoken "unto them." He reminded them how the shepherds invariably acted, and that is precisely what I am doing, He said, in receiving, pardoning, and restoring the wanderers.
In likening wayward men and women to sheep, our Lord was using a suggestive and tender figure. For no sheep goes intentionally astray. It just wanders thoughtlessly on and on. In the story of the Prodigal Son, we have the aspect of willfulness. Whilst there are some who deliberately go astray, the major portion just ramble on. Absorption in the quest for food is one of the causes. With head down, and seldom a look up, the creature wanders on and on, far, far away from the safety of the fold. Absorbed in the quest after pleasure or gold, the majority of mankind just wander through life, hopelessly lost.
We must return to the question: "Why make all that fuss about one? There were ninety-nine left!" Behind such a question is a devastating thought. We hear of some parents who have lost a little child, one of a large family, and we remark: "Ah, well, they have quite a number of children left, and the loss cannot be as great as if they had only one." In other words, the greater the family, the less the value of the individual. Is that so? If it is, then the thought saddens and disturbs, for I shall begin to think that, because the human family is so great, one can easily be missed; that I am like a needle in a haystack.
But that is a false philosophy. The size of God’s family does not effect the preciousness of the individual. That is so in daily life. However large the family, father and mother love and care for each one just as if they were their all. What a comforting thought this is. Though God has millions of human beings under His providential care, He cares for each individual as if that individual was the only one in the world. God’s love is not only general, but particular, not only does He love and care for a world, but it is possible for each one to be able to say: "Who loved me, and gave Himself for me." Ah, the shepherd missed the one, and went after it.
And this leads to another thought: What is the distinguishing peculiarity of our Christian faith? Not the Incarnation, for other religions have taught that their gods became manifest in the flesh, though there is actually a world of difference between what they term incarnation and that of our Gospel. Not sacrifice, for other religions have their sacrifices. Not worship or Sacred Literature, for worship is common to all religions, and other faiths have their sacred books.
Here is one of the great outstanding peculiarities of our Christian faith-it is the only religion among men that has ever represented God as seeking man. Other faiths represent man as seeking God, which is not true. It is tragic yet true, that "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God" (Rom_3:11). Man apart from grace, does not desire God, so that, when we find within us longings for God, it is a proof that the Spirit of God is at work. In the parable, it was not the sheep that sought the shepherd, but the shepherd who went after the sheep.
How utterly helpless is the wandering sheep. For the sheep differs from all animals in this respect, that when once it has wandered from the flock, it can never find its way back. And our Lord likens man to a sheep. What a suggestive simile. Man, apart from Divine aid, can never find his way back to God. Ah, but the Good Shepherd went after the solitary lost one "until He find it." Oh, what patience and perseverance! "And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders rejoicing"-what wondrous truth we have here. The shoulder is the strongest part of man, teaching that all the strength of Omnipotence is exerted on behalf of every found one, and that until "He cometh home," until He bears us safe over to the other shore, to the Land of never-ending spring and gladness.
THE PEARL OF PARABLES.
Part III.
Lost in the House.
The piece of silver was lost in the house. "Well," say you, "there is nothing remarkable about that, for it is no unusual happening for things to be lost in the home." Quite so; yet when you recognise what the House signifies, you will be startled: in the Church, in the Assembly, and yet lost! That is one startling part of the second portion of the Pearl of Parables (Luk_15:8-10).
This charming threefold parable was our Lord’s apology for loving and receiving the sinful and erring ones. The duty and joy of seeking and finding, He proves three times over to be universal. Now it was most unusual for our Lord to multiply references at one time. This He did, not only to convey the thought that such joy was universal, but for another purpose which we must specify.
One of the most striking features of our Lord’s teaching and work on earth was His vindication before men of the worth of man. In those days the value of a man as man had sunk very low. Human life was of so little value that it was thought fitting for men to die by the score in the Coliseum at Rome and elsewhere, simply to amuse a holiday crowd. Those were the days when slavery in its worst form flourished. How cheap was human life? This parable three times over declares the value of one soul, and wherever the Bible is loved and taught, and wherever the God of the Bible is trusted and loved, human life begins to rise in value.
Now it was not merely the Pagan and the Heathen who undervalued human life. The Scribes and Pharisees of Israel esteemed a Publican and others of the despised classes, as of less value than one sheep. Consequently the first portion of this parable would have no weight with them. Quite true, they would remark, that a shepherd would be justified in going after one wandering member of his flock, but that does not justify your association with publicans and sinners, for we esteem one sheep as worth far more than one publican or sinner. Very well, our Lord said in effect, but surely you will admit that a small silver coin worth 7’bdd. is fitting to represent the value of one publican? "What woman, having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it? And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost."
But what a fuss to make over a lost sixpence! Fancy, being so concerned over its loss that a spring cleaning was set in operation in order to its recovery, and when eventually found, calling her friends and neighbours to celebrate its recovery! Is there a woman to-day who would make such a turmoil over a lost coin?
Yes; if that lost piece of silver was to her as to the woman in the parable. In those days at marriage, instead of a gold ring as to-day, the bridegroom presented the bride with a necklace of ten silver coins. To lose even one of those pieces was considered as equal to, or suggestive of, unfaithfulness. Then no wonder the poor woman in the parable became troubled when she discovered her loss, and no wonder her neighbours shared her concern, and no wonder that great exertions were made to discover the lost piece. Now, the lost coin represents the lost sinner.
I. Lost through Severance. In some way or other, it became disconnected and lost. The union existing between God and man ceased when sin came into the world. Sin cut man from God.
II. Lost, though Still Bearing the King’s Image. The King’s image and superscription makes the coin of value. Man is precious because he bears the image of his Maker. He bears and possesses the spiritual attributes of thought and will and moral consciousness, by which he resembles God. The image is worn, marred, and almost obliterated by the Fall, yet still there. Though lost, man still bears the image of God.
III. Lost, though in the Home. The sheep was lost through straying away from the fold; the coin was lost in the fold. That is the one startling feature of this second portion of the Pearl of all Parables. It points out the dread possibility of being a member of a Christian Church, or attending the meeting place, and yet being lost. Lost, yet in the House!
IV. Lost, yet of Real Value to the Former Owner. The great mother-heart of God yearns and longs after His lost ones. And the Holy Spirit is busy seeking the lost, through the candle of God’s Word, and by the ministry of up-setting and disturbing Providences.
V. Lost, yet Can be Found in the House. All the holy ministries of the House of Prayer are bent to achieve this purpose.
THE PEARL OF PARABLES.
Part IV.
The Lost Son.
We must ever remember in the reading of the Sacred Book that it has an Eastern background. For example, if in our country a younger son came to his father with the request that he should now receive "the portion of goods that falleth to him" under the terms of his Will, strong words would be spoken and harsh measures taken. In our day division of the paternal estate only takes place on the death of the testator. But in the East, the younger son’s request would be considered as quite a proper thing. "A certain man had two sons: and the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living. And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country" (Luk_15:11-13). Nothing wrong in leaving home! Seldom does a youth leave home simply because he has tired of it; still more rarely because he wishes to lead a life of mere self-indulgence. More frequently it is an honourable purpose. Some leave home for school or college; others to learn a trade in another town, or for marriage. But this young man left home with a wrong motive; he wished to get away from all its wholesome restraints and holy examples. His leaving home was:
I. The Fruit of his Wish to be his Own Master. He wanted to be:
"Lord of himself-that heritage of woe."
II. It was Prompted by an Erroneous Conception of Life. He imagined true life to consist in a round of pleasure-seeking, in throwing away of life.
III. It was Prompted by Youthful Rashness and Inexperience. Experience is a hard master, and his fees are heavy.
IV. It Led to the "Far Country" and to Beggary. "But," you say, "I am not guilty of prodigality or profligacy; I am not eaten up with vice. I am not bankrupt in money or character; I am not a ‘waster.’ This can have no application to me!" Not so fast, dear friend, have you ever pondered on Augustine’s definition of the Far Country? "The far country is forgetfulness of God." This is startling! We may be decent, yet there is a forgetfulness which is the certain proof of spiritual estrangement. Forgetfulness of God is a common malady and a proof we are far from God. "I remembered God and was troubled," was the confession of the Psalmist.
But "he came to himself." What a strange journey! It means, surely, that he had been away from himself; in other words, beside himself-mad. "At last he came to his senses" (20th Century New Testament). In his years of riot he was not himself. It was not the prodigal who was the real man: the real man was the penitent. His coming to himself was followed by coming to his father.
"But while he was holding afar off, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and running fell upon his neck, and tenderly kissed him" is Rotherham’s rendering of Luk_15:20. He started back home quickly, and allowed no grass to grow under his feet until he drew near the old home, when he hesitated, and came to a standstill-"holding afar off." Why? He had squandered his father’s gift, had disgraced himself, and was clothed in rags. Then there was the harsh elder brother. But let us ever remember that whilst we have sinned in departing from God, we sin more by remaining away from Him. The great sin is departure from the living, loving, merciful God, and this never ceases until we return.
What were the father’s gifts to the returned prodigal? Remember He is not satisfied by merely pardoning. God’s giving begins and always follows His forgiving. The first gift was the kiss of reconciliation; literally, "He kissed him again and again." Kissing in the East is a pledge of reconciliation and peace. The father gave the kiss before the prodigal uttered a word. Of course his very return was a confession. The father gave the kiss to the prodigal just as he was, in all his rags and filth. He did not postpone the kiss until he had made himself more presentable; no, just as he was he was welcomed. But that was not the end, but the beginning of the gift. The second gift was the best robe. That glorious New Testament expression: "Grace reigning through righteousness" is exemplified here. To forgive him in his rags was grace. But the father could not in righteousness have the prodigal at his table in his rags; he must be clad and decked in a manner suited to that blessed position.
The prodigal was quite prepared to be merely "a hired servant," so unworthy did he feel. But the two following gifts, the ring and the shoes, proved conclusively that he was to be treated as a son. No servant wore a ring, or entered the presence of master or mistress clad in shoes. The slave went unshod and without a ring. Captives had their shoes taken from them (Isa_20:2). When captives were restored to freedom their shoes were restored (2Ch_28:15).
There is further significance in these two last gifts. The ring surely speaks to us of assurance and delegated authority (Gen_41:42; 1Ki_21:8; Est_8:10, Dan_6:17; Jam_2:2), and the shoes of equipment for the walk of life. Truly the forgiven one must walk as becometh the children of God.
Observe, these gifts were all bestowed at the same time, and when a prodigal returns to God now, he receives as much the first day as ever afterwards. His "afterwards" will be spent in more and more discovering the wealth already bestowed, and living in accordance with that wealth.
THE PEARL OF PARABLES.
Part V.
The Elder Brother.
Who is the Elder Brother? This was a question raised at a Ministers’ Fraternal. Like many questions-not so easily settled. Mark you, the question is "Who is?" not "Who was?" There is no doubt whatever regarding what was in our Lord’s mind. Luk_15:2-3 is quite sufficient: "And the Pharisees and Scribes murmured. . . and He spake this parable unto them." Our Lord had the Pharisees and Scribes in mind when He related this pearl of all parables. No; the question is not "who was" intended, but "who is." We have come to the conclusion that in this story we believers have a warning signal. There is a dread possibility of believers becoming like the Elder Brother. He represents the carnal Christian.
With most, the interest in the parable is mainly centred in the Prodigal. When you think of Luke 15, what first comes to your mind? I think most would say, "The story of the Prodigal Son." We are sure that our Lord meant the emphasis to be placed upon the elder son. In the first two portions of the parable our Lord showed the Scribes and Pharisees how they ought to have acted; in the elder brother he holds the mirror up to them in order that they might see themselves, for as he acted so had they. To-day, the elder brother stands before us as a representative of carnal believers.
Who is the Elder Brother? The self-righteous sinner? No. He was a son: "Son, thou art ever with me." "I know him, I met him yesterday," declared an old minister at the Ministers’ Fraternal, and on his ministerial brethren earnestly urging him to disclose his identity, exclaimed, "I myself," and he then explained that on the previous day, hearing that a very ill-conditioned person had received a gracious visitation of God’s goodness, he had felt not a little envy and irritation. Dear fellow-believer, how do you feel when you hear of other brethren, not so well-educated as you, yet their ministry seems more acceptable and much more fruitful than yours? How do you feel, dear fellow-believer, when you learn of another sister’s husband making a bigger success in life than yours? What is your feeling, fellow-Christian, when you hear of some notorious Prodigal Son coming to God? Let us answer these questions as in the searching light of God’s presence.
The elder brother’s spirit is very manifest. "Who is the elder brother?" The carnally-minded believer, not living up to his privileges, and who has lost his first love and his passion for souls. Observe, the elder brother in the story was a member of the family and a servant of his father; and yet what saddens one is his utter joylessness, and he seems scandalised at the gladness shown by others over the returning prodigal. And note the price he had to pay. Such people are shunned. Observe how long the younger brother had returned before the elder brother came in from the field. How long does the killing, dressing, and cooking of a calf take? A few hours must have passed, and yet not a single servant thought it worth their while to go out and inform the elder brother of the return of the wandering one.
I. What are the Symptoms of the Disease and Malady of Carnality?
1. A Lost Sense of Indebtedness. "Neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment." Is it possible for a boy to grow up into manhood, without ever being guilty of a single act of disobedience to his father? Never. He forgot he was a pardoned rebel. He had lost all consciousness of transgression. He was sedate and prudent, very correct and proper, yet self-centred and self-satisfied. He had lost the enjoyment of the Divine forgiveness, and had become a stranger to its thrilling joy. What a sad condition he was in! This exactly is the condition of some believers now in our day.
2. A False Complacency. The elder brother seemingly lived a straight life, but was self-centred. There was a silly, smug satisfaction with himself, in which no one else shared. This is a feature only too common in our day.
3. The Foolish Forgetfulness of his Possessions. "Thou never gavest me a kid that I might make merry with my friends." Had he any friends? Such gloomy, morose individuals are shunned. "Thou never gavest me a kid." Why, he had two-thirds of his father’s kids, and two-thirds of all his father’s property. Pray remember that when the younger brother asked for his portion of goods we read, "And he divided unto them his living," that means that whilst the younger brother got one-third of his father’s possessions the elder received two-thirds. How easily carnal believers forget the infinite resources of God’s grace, and in consequence live poverty-stricken lives.
4. The Loss of Sympathy for the Fallen. Losing a sense of indebtedness he had no patience with the fallen, and therefore no sympathy. Observe how coarse he had become. In the Divine record of the younger brother’s waywardness we read, "And there wasted his substance with riotous living;" but the elder son must be coarse and cruel, and declared to his father, "This thy son-which hath devoured thy living with harlots." Oh, the coarse ness! Why are many believers out of sympathy with special evangelistic missions, and out of place in the warm atmosphere of a Revival? They are carnal.
5. The Lack and Loss of Filial Love. In this elder brother of the parable the dreadful feature of his character is the apparent lack of affection on his part towards his aged parent. He therefore failed to understand his father. He was a loveless creature. Self-excommunicated; self-punished.
6. A Stranger to the Joy of Loving Service. Have you ever noticed the word he used for service? Said he to his father, "Lo, these many years do I slave for thee," as it could be rendered. In Weymouth it reads, "I have been slaving for you." He served most diligently, but only as a slave. His obedience and service all along had been servile, prompted by fear and dread. It was neither filial love nor filial service; it was all irksome, tiresome duty. What a picture of heaps of carnal believers.
II. And What is the Cure? How did the father in the parable seek to overwhelm and win back his stern, hard, elder son?
1. He Reminds him of his Sonship. "Son." Oh, what a world of meaning the father put into that one word! May believers never lose the sense of wonderment in their sonship in Christ, and never forget that they are members of the family of Faith. Don’t forget the very high honour He has conferred upon you. Oh, carnal believers, grubbing in the dust of the world, hear the Heavenly Father’s reminder-"Son!"
2. He Reminds him of his Personal Love. "Son, thou." He loves all; He loves the world; but He particularly loves you. His love is individual in character.
3. He Reminds him of the Abiding Presence. "Son, thou are ever with me."
4. He Reminds him of the Blessed Enrichment. "And all that I have is thine."
5. He Reminds him of the Existing Relationship, for in answer to the elder brother’s, "This thy son," the father replies, "Thy brother."
III. And What shall be my Reply? Should it not be, "Father, Thou art ever with me and all that I have is Thine, for ever and for ever."
WHAT ABOUT THE FUTURE?
Questions concerning the future are of perennial interest. It is a favourite newspaper stunt in the quiet season, when on account of the lack of tragic happenings, circulation of newspapers seem to be declining. When a correspondence on such a question as at the head of this page is raised, at once letters pour in and the circulation increases. There is no question more popular and more appealing to even "the man in the street."
Some imagine that the Bible has little or nothing to say about the future. What a sad mistake. Why go to so-called Spiritualism for knowledge on these matters? Let us turn to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, found in Luk_16:19-31.
But is this a parable? Our Lord begins: "There was a certain rich man." Is He not giving history? It seems like it. But though the story may be true, yet it has a lesson for us to-day. Let us note that our Lord does not rebuke possession of wealth, but its heartless, selfish use. Dore, the great artist, most assuredly made a mistake when in seeking to depict this scene he placed a whip in the hands of the rich man. No, there is no hint of cruelty in the story on the part of the rich man towards Lazarus, but of callous indifference. He did not treat the poor man inhumanly, he simply ignored him. In fact the dogs were more sympathetic than he.
The story is soon told. "There was a certain rich man." There is no doubt whatever about his wealth, for he was able to clothe himself with the most costly of garments. "He fared sumptuously every day." "And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus." That name is significant. It is a contraction of "Eliezer," which signifies the help or assistance of God, and declares that this poor man had faith in God. He was not only poor but diseased. "And It came to pass that the beggar died." He died first. No wonder, when we remember his privations and disease. Then the rich man died. There is no account of any burial for the poor man, for probably he was just cast out on the city rubbish heap, but the rich man "was buried." No doubt a very elegant funeral. And that is the end of things? No, that was only the beginning.
It is very striking that although our Lord Jesus knew all about the unseen as no one else did, yet He was silent save for two or three references. In this parable He is most definite. Let us approach the parable with questions and seek for an answer from the narrative.
I. Is there Another Life? Do we survive after death? Man revolts at the idea of being dead and done with. He knows there is another life; the knowledge of that being part and parcel of his make-up. What does this story contribute towards this question? Both the dead bodies were left on this earth, but they themselves, the real individuals, were found in another life. They survived after death. They were living, throbbing personalities.
II. What Happens at Death? The godly are carried by the angels into the presence of Christ. The angels are most solicitous for our welfare during life, as Heb_1:14 declares, but they take special care of us at the hour of death, ushering us into the Divine Presence.
III. Are we Conscious in the Other Life? In this story they were very conscious. Neither of them were asleep; the rich man painfully conscious of his sufferings, and the poor blissfully conscious of his enjoyment. All the Scriptures have to say about sleep only has application to the body, and not to the soul. The Holy Book declares here consciousness to all, and that immediately following death.
IV. Is there any Difference in the Abodes of the Departed? Most certainly! This story teaches that there are two places; a place where the dead out of Christ go, and a place where the dead in Christ are found. Abraham’s bosom was a Jewish phrase for Paradise. Now we know that Paradise is in the third Heaven, and not as in this story, in the heart of the earth. Study Mat_12:40; 2Co_12:2-4. Without a doubt the transference of Paradise from the heart of the earth to the immediate presence of God took place at our Lord’s resurrection, as is shown in Eph_4:8-10.
V. Will we Know One Another in the Other Life? A clergyman’s wife asked her husband this question, to which he at once replied: "Why, dear, we know one another down here, and do you for one moment imagine that we shall be bigger fools up there than we are here?" The rich man knew Lazarus. The three disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration recognised Moses and Elijah as the companions of our Lord in that wondrous scene, though Moses had been dead hundreds of years, and hundreds of years had passed since Elijah’s translation. Most certainly we shall know one another in the other life. Though the rich man had left his body down on this earth he had eyes with which to see, and a mouth with which to speak.
VI. Any Hope of a Second Chance? There are many who teach that a second chance of salvation will be given after death. What do we learn from this story? That the rich man in Hell did not desire salvation for himself, nor ask for a single spiritual mercy, yet he did desire spiritual mercies for his relatives. There seemed to be no desire whatever in him for any spiritual grace: "As the tree falls, so shall it lie."
VII. Can the Dead Communicate with Us? How can they? Pray read that graphic sentence: "And beside all this between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot: neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence." That states no hope of a second chance and no thought of the dead communicating with us. What takes place in Spiritist Seances is not the communication of departed ones with their friends, still in the flesh, but demons who impersonate the departed and deceive mankind.
VIII. Would an angel or a resurrected person sent back to this earth lead to the conversion of others? The idea that the answer should be in the affirmative is very common, but our Lord put into the mouth of Abraham a very definite word on this matter: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead." How the Word of God is honoured here! Oh, the importance of hearkening to the Word of God. How the Bible is exalted in this parable.
IX. In conclusion, will you please notice that the rich man:
1. Awakened to eternal verities, but too late!
2. He saw his own danger, but too late!
3. He prayed, but too late!
4. He became concerned about the salvation of his relatives, but too late!
PRUDENCE.
Luk_16:1-9.
The problem parable is that found in Luk_16:1-9. It is the most difficult of all the Lord’s parables. Few can agree regarding its interpretation. It seems to commend a piece of deliberate roguery as a pattern for Christian people to copy. Hundreds of explanations have been offered, few of which give complete satisfaction. Many have given up in despair all hope of solving the problem, declaring a solution to be impossible. Is there a single thoughtful Christian man or woman who has not sought to puzzle out some sort of solution to this problem? What is the parable? An unnamed rich man had a steward. Eastern stewards have almost unlimited power, because full authority is delegated to them. This master received such convincing proof of his steward’s faithlessness that he determined on his dismissal, without the formality of a trial, and intimated this to him. By silence the steward admitted his guilt. This dismissal greatly agitated the steward, and he debated with himself as to "What shall I do?" Apparently his defalcations had not benefited him one bit; by it he had not a nest egg, nor had he feathered his own nest, having probably dissipated it in riotous living. "I cannot dig," he sadly reflected, either having developed his brain at the expense of his muscles, or his intemperance had weakened his body. "To beg, I am ashamed"-but not ashamed to defraud. False shame leads him to prefer fraud to poverty. Now at last his mind was made up. Calling his master’s debtors together, in order to curry their favour, bade them reduce their debts by half in one case, one-fifth in another, and so on. "And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light."
Now it is in this commendation that the problem is created. Surely our blessed Lord does not desire us to act unjustly and dishonestly to those without and within? Never!
Who commended the unjust steward? That is no unimportant question. It was the steward’s master, not the Lord Jesus. You will observe the word lord in Luk_16:8 is spelt with a small l. When the rich man heard of his servant’s cuteness and cleverness it amused him greatly, and he admired the prudence and cleverness of the rogue. We admit that our Lord related the parable in such a way as to show there is something in the story He commends for our imitation. Yet we must press the point that the one who commends is the earthly master, not the heavenly.
I. Was he deducting over-charges when the steward bade his master’s debtors to reduce the accounts owing? That is how many Eastern people view it. It is wise to remember that it is an Eastern story. In that fact may lie an easy solution. The fifty measures of oil, and the eighty measures of wheat to which the steward reduced the amounts formed the actual debts, the rest being simply over-charges with which the steward himself had cruelly and fraudulently burdened them. In that case the expedient to which he resorted in the emergency was not an act of trickery and dishonesty, but the first signs of real repentance, and an act of justice.
If this is the correct view, it is no wonder that he was commended by his master, for by robbing by over-charges his master’s debtors, he had impoverished them, and so had indirectly injured his master by rendering them less able to pay their debts.
II. Was he deducting his commission in order to get back their favour? We know that in the East large commissions for sales is the order of the day. Stewards, cooks, or servants in responsible positions are thus bribed by tradesmen to take to them the orders of their master or mistress. This is an explanation worth pondering over.
III. Have we not here a Parable of Prudence? After all we have said, let us look again at the story for another explanation. What is praised is not the dishonesty, but the realisation of the facts of the case, and the immediate action taken. The world can teach believers many lessons. Our Lord Jesus points to the wisdom of this knave as an example we should copy, only we should apply it to a higher purpose. Observe in this steward certain characteristics worth emulating. He certainly was a-
1. Man of Resource. If not a man of muscle, he was a man of brains, and he used them. He was in a dilemma, but he quickly reasoned the thing out. There is a place for resourcefulness in the service of the Lord. Observe, he was-
2. A Man of Promptitude. He not only made up his mind quickly, but he acted promptly. There are many who purpose altering their methods, or of adopting some new stratagem in the Lord’s service, but they procrastinate until the golden opportunity has gone for ever. Now he was-
3. A Man of Audacity. There was something like genius in the cool daring of this steward. Instantly he called his master’s debtors before him, and in each others presence openly reduced their debts. It was not done in a private room, each apart from the other, but openly. Is there not room for a little more cheek and audacity in the Lord’s service? We are so shy and proper and reticent. Oh, for more holy boldness in His blessed service!
There remains the application found in Luk_16:9-13. Luk_16:9 has puzzled many. The Weymouth version has been a help to many. "But I charge you, so to use the wealth which is ever tempting to dishonesty as to win friends who, when it fails, shall welcome you to the tents that never perish." That is, those who have wealth are urged to use it aright so as not to rouse the envy, or embitter the less favoured, and if that wealth should take to itself wings, and fly away, as has happened so often the last few years, they will not be left friendless. How often those who have made a parade of their wealth when the evil day comes, find themselves without a friend.
Bengel has drawn attention to the fact that Luke 16 follows Luke 15. That obvious fact has not been noted as it should. Luke 15 tells of the returned, welcomed, and feasted prodigal. But life cannot be spent in music and feasting. We (the pardoned and justified) are stewards to whom our Master has entrusted the talents of time, money, gifts, and a glorious Gospel message. Are we being faithful to the trust He has committed to us? We shall have to give an account sooner or later of our stewardship. God grant that we may merit His "Well done, good and faithful servant."
A SELF-CONFESSED MATERIALIST.
Luk_12:13-21.
One of the greatest thinkers, of a past generation has remarked that "A single thought of thankfulness to Heaven is the most perfect prayer." Whilst there are few of us who would go quite so far as that, yet there is a great deal in the statement. Ingratitude is most assuredly a crime. Old Testament legislation is proof of the high value the Lord placed on thanksgiving. In the parable of the Rich Farmer found in Luk_12:13-21, we have an illustration of this. In your study of this narrative what do you most miss? A single expression of indebtedness to the Most High!
"I think," said an old gentleman toward the close of his busy and successful career, "there are three questions that will be put to us in the Day of Judgment: ‘Did you make all you could? How did you make it? What use did you make of it?’" The rich man in the parable could easily answer the first two. He was a success, a very great success, and had most certainly made all he could. And he assuredly had made his money honestly. There is not a single hint to the contrary. He was not a bad, vicious man; there was no glaring vice or evil in him. But the third question unmasked him. Here he had failed. For he had lived utterly for himself, and the riches God had given him he proposed to continue to lavish upon his own miserable self.
By the way, have you ever observed here an unmannerly interruption? Take up the Scripture. Our Lord had been discoursing on deep and solemn truths. A re-reading of Luke 12 will be sufficient to show its profundity. And all the while, this man was so absorbed in his own little petty concerns that he never heard a word, and at a pause in the conversation blurted out his concern. Of course he did right in referring this injustice-imaginary or real- to the Lord, but he was wrong in allowing the thought of the injustice to deafen him to religious instruction.
It is almost unbelievable, and yet it is a fact, that a man sat for years under the silver-toned preacher, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, listening to those mighty Gospel discourses, and yet on his death-bed discovered that he had never accepted the message for himself. It is very urgent that all our hearing should be mixed with faith as is urged in Hebrews.
Going back to the self-confessed materialistic farmer, what was wrong with him? And why do we all unite in condemning him in spite of his honesty, industry, and prosperity?
I. He was taken up with the gifts but forgot the Giver. Look carefully at the Scripture record again, and you will be struck by the absence of any reference to God. There was a selfish and arrogant sense of possession by right, and not by grace. This is particularly inexcusable in farming, for no occupation is so dependent upon the faithfulness of the Creator, yet he made not a single expression of gratitude to God, and there is no hint at all of any consultation with the Most High as to what he should do. But what about the writer and the reader? What an amazing number of gifts we have received from God-health; loving partners in life; children; homes; friends; success; are we absorbed with these to the exclusion of our great Heavenly Benefactor? Alas! alas! in so many cases it is so.
II. He failed to distinguish between the soul and the body. As proof, observe that he put the wrong address on the envelope, for he said: "Soul-thou hast much goods laid up for many years"-soul; goods-you cannot benefit nor satisfy the soul with material things. "Soul," why, he meant his body. The soul is myself, and my body is only the material part of my nature. What a blunder! And yet it is a common one. Alas, that it should be so.
III. In thinking and planning for this life he forgot the next. "Laid up for many years," and the verdict fell, "this night." In thinking of time, he forgot Eternity. In thinking of the future he failed to remember his mortality.
IV. In thinking of himself he forgot his neighbour. Observe the personal pronoun: "My! My!! My!!!" but never once "my neighbour." If his barns were bursting, there were many other barns empty. Yes, there were other barns waiting, without pulling down his own-the bosoms of the needy, the houses of the widows, the mouths of orphans and of infants. There were empty purses of less fortunate fellow-mortals.
It is very striking to see that he was condemned not for what he had done, but for what he thought of doing. Observe, "He thought within himself." Thus "we are here admitted into the inner council chamber of a worldling." What should he have said? If he had been a wise man he would have exclaimed: "Soul, thou hast been long neglected! The time has come when thou and I must attend to the needs that make for thy peace." But he did not. Instead, as one has remarked, he went to learn in Eternity what he had not learned in time, that he was a self-made pauper. But, thank God, we are still spared. We may learn in time so as to benefit throughout Eternity.
RENT DEFAULTERS.
Luk_20:9-18.
Before the Great War we frequently heard of "moonlight flitters"-families so deeply in debt, and so hopeless so far as payment of debts was concerned, that some night they removed their goods, quietly and secretively, to another town or entirely strange neighbourhood, beginning life afresh. So scarce have houses been since the war, that insolvent householders have had to resort to other stratagems. In Luk_20:9-18, we have rent defaulters, who resorted to murder as a way out of debt.
The householder in the parable was more than owner of this vineyard, for he had planted it, and thus stood in a close and personal association to it. In the East there is no property so valuable, nor which yields returns so large, as vineyards. This man planted the vineyard, protected it by a wall, ornamented it by a tower, then let it out to husbandmen on the understanding that part of its proceeds would be handed over as rent.
For three years the fruit was, according to ancient custom, ungathered; in the fourth year it was all holy unto the Lord; in the fifth year the tenants and owners could eat and begin to benefit by its growth (Lev_19:23-25).
During that long period the husbandmen contrived to forget that they were tenants and not owners. And when the owner sent his servants for his just due, ill-treated them, driving them empty away. The patience of the owner is wonderful-a representation of the wonderful and infinite patience and longsuffering of God. At last we have his dilemma, enshrined in those four simple words, "What shall I do?" But even his beloved son was rejected, and his murder decided upon.
The history of Israel is summed up in this dark picture. The One who planted the vineyard was God; the vineyard, the land of Israel; the husbandmen, Israel, particularly the leaders of the nations; the servants, the prophets; the son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
But there is an application of this parable to you and me. What we have belongs to God-our very life, possessions, time, friends, all. There is no time when God does not demand of us His rightful dues. He sends us His servants-more, His Son, the Lord Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Have we sent them empty away? Be warned, there is a limit to His patience, when judgment will fall.
THE PARABLE OF UNLIKENESS.
Luk_18:1-8.
How will the parable known as that of the unmerciful judge in Luk_18:1-8, look re-christened? Suppose we call it the parable of unlikeness! At any rate that brings out the principal lesson it conveys.
We are informed as to why our Lord related it. There are lots of things we ought to do, and here is one: "Men ought always to pray and not to faint."
The judge in this parable was a reckless and desperate character. For he had no respect for God or the opinions of his fellows. This combination is rare. Even the worst have usually some regard for the opinions of their fellow-mortals. Not so this official. A widow is in the case. The exceeding desolation of widowhood in the East has often been noticed. Yet the Bible has a tender regard for them. God has been pleased to reveal Himself as "Father to the fatherless, and Judge of the widows," and Jer_49:11 has been a comfort to many a dying husband and father. Being weak, she could not compel the judge to do her justice; and being poor, with no bribe to offer which should induce him to brave, for her sake, the resentment of formidable adversaries-what a helpless condition was she in to be sure. The self-pleasing indolence of the judge, and the helpless yet desperate condition of the suppliant-what a contrast!
Is that Judge a picture of our God? Is that why our Lord related it? Never. There is only one answer to that question, an emphatic "No!" Blessings are not to be dragged out of Him. He is not unwilling to come to our aid. We have not to "Wear me out" (as R.V.) before gaining our requests.
The strength of the parable lies in the unlikeness of this judge to the Judge of all the earth. There may be, and indeed are, times in the experience of the very best of us, when God seems to be deaf to the earnest pleadings of His people. Certainly the Lord’s people usually expect a speedier deliverance than the Master vouchsafes to give. Yet we can trust.
The great point in the parable is this: If a bad man will yield to the mere force of the importunity which he hates, how much more certainly will a righteous God be prevailed on by the faithful and believing prayers which He loves.
Yes, verily, this is the Parable of Unlikeness!
TRUE NEIGHBOURLINESS.
Luk_10:25-37.
"I would dedicate the nation to the policy of the Good Samaritan," was a statement of President Roosevelt, of the U.S.A., in his inaugural address, so much had the parable of the Good Samaritan (in Luk_10:25-37) impressed him. Regarding a good man of God, his biographer remarked concerning his philanthropies, "He never stopped to ask, Who is my neighbour." Precisely; real love to God and man never does. Unmeasured service to all, the outcome of true love, is the order of the day to a real man or woman of God in following the example of the Good Samaritan, our Lord Jesus Christ.
And by the way, note how wonderfully, by this glowing parable, our Lord has rescued from reproach the word, Samaritan. It was the name given in derision to the mixed folk who colonised Samaria after the deportation of the nine and a half tribes to Babylon, and was never repeated by a Jew but in scorn and hatred. To be called a Samaritan was considered a great insult. But our Saviour, by this charming parable, has rescued that word from the pillory.
Another good service has our Lord accomplished by this famous story. The good people of that day had divorced worship from practical service. By this parable our blessed Master united again in holy wedlock, these two branches of Christian conduct, so that we now never conceive them as apart, but the one united with the other.
Who is my neighbour? The rabbis of that day taught that Jews were to "love thy neighbour-in the Law," three words that meant all the difference in the world. By this matchless parable the Lord Jesus taught that every needy one whom we can help, is my neighbour; that neighbourly responsibility has nothing to do with race, church, creed, and social status; that neighbourhood is not a matter of geography, for we can live in close proximity to other folk without being neighbourly. Truly, sorrow, need, sympathy, and help, are of no nationality. This parable forbids all limitations to mercy.
I. The Case.
1. "He went down." This is geographically correct, for Jericho is six hundred feet below the Mediterranean.
2. He was stripped before being wounded. This would never happen in our country. The one attacked would be felled, then robbed. But there is no mistake here. The bandits did not want the garments damaged, as they formed an important part of the spoil. How true to Eastern life. This road was so dangerous that it came to be called "The Red Road"
3. The Silent eloquence of the battered and bleeding body.
4. The Priest would be on his way back from exercising his priestly office in the Temple at Jerusalem. Twelve thousand priests resided at Jericho. Why did he pass by? Was he so eager to reach his home after his absence? Was he unwilling to be ceremonially defiled, as he may have been? Or was he looking after the safety of No. 1, deciding that the robbers, who had maltreated so seriously this poor fellow, would be lurking behind some of the local rocks, ready to pounce upon any one dismounting to render first aid?
5. The Levite. This is the only mention of the Levites in the Gospels. He did go up to the poor fellow, looked, and then passed by, thus he was guilty of aggravated cruelty.
6. "By Chance." The only time in the Gospels that our Lord used the word, indeed the only occurrence in the New Testament of the word. Our Lord seems to use it with a touch of irony. Really, it was a loving ordering of God. There is no chance in the Christian vocabulary.
7. The Samaritan. The genius of true love is shown in his acts. He ignored the possible lurking robbers; he was swift, cool, deft in his actions; he was ready to spend and be spent; he cheerfully sacrificed the use of his beast; the care for the patient at the end of the journey is touching, and we all admire his prudence in not leaving a great sum of money in the host’s hand, and his wise hint that he would await his account on his way back. What a combination of compassion blended with shrewdness.
II. The Application. Ah, there is no problem in the story. Even a child can understand it. The poor man is-well, you and me; and the Good Samaritan is none other than the Lord Jesus. Man has gone down, left the City of Peace for the City of the Curse, turned his back on the Temple and on God, and stripped of holiness and goodness, left lifeless. The Law, symbolised by the priest, cannot help; and ceremony, in the person of the Levite, is of no avail. But our Good Samaritan has come to the rescue. "What daring intelligence would ever have suggested that the Lord Jesus Christ should, find ‘His neighbour’ in a fallen world? Who would ever have thought that God would have chosen us to be His ‘neighbour?’ That He should come where we are, that He should bend over us with a heart glowing with love, and pour into our wounds the sweet solace of His own anointing oil, or breathe into our lifeless being the supernatural energy of His own eternal life. Not less than this, Divine love has actually effected."
THE CROSS AND THE INDIVIDUAL.
What fierce attacks have been made for centuries upon that great fundamental fact of our Christian faith, the substitutionary aspect of the death of Christ. The enemies of our faith know full well, that with the fall, or even the obscuring of that aspect of His atoning death, our Christianity will collapse. But, thank God, the Cross it standeth fast, Alleluia! Yet we cannot hide the fact that the silence of our college professors, and our present-day preachers, is giving us very great concern. When, think you, did you last hear a discourse in your Assembly Chapel, or Church, on the atoning death of our Saviour? But further, you who minister the Word, what is the date of your last discourse on the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ? The replies in many cases will be disconcerting. Verily, the fall of the Cross will mean the fall of England, or of any other professedly Christian country.
The same is true of each individual. We, too, shall either stand or fall according to our relation to the Cross. Yea, we are already either still unsaved fallen creatures, if we have not yet realised and received Christ and His atoning death.
This is clearly seen in the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, found in Luk_18:9-14; the difference in these two men is in their relations to the Cross, or rather to the truth that the Cross stands for. In the first, whilst there is much to admire, we note the utter absence of all consciousness of sin, and of feeling the need of the Atonement, and he was and remained an unsaved person. In the other, there was a plea for mercy through the atonement-God’s way of salvation. This is clearly seen by consulting the Revised Version where, instead of merely, "God be merciful to me a sinner," we find, "God be propitiated to me, the sinner," or as a reliable Greek authority has pointed out, it could be very literally rendered, "God show mercy through sacrifice to me, the sinner." This we shall develop.
Please observe that this is not a parable about prayer, but about justification. The parable of prayer is in the first few verses of this chapter. To whom was this parable addressed?
(1) Those who" trust in themselves"-not the Lord.
(2) To those who despise others, not because of a hatred of sin, but because of an imagined moral superiority over others. The late Mark Guy Pearse told of visiting a home, where the father and husband, a man of culture and education, sat drunk and acting like a fool. As he was leaving the house, the wife with tears exclaimed, "Oh, pray to God for me, that I may be kept from despising him!" It was not this kind of despising, our Lord had in mind; it was what spiritual pride prompts one to think, and act, and say.
Prayer reveals character. True character always comes out in this way. Let us see how the characters of these two men were revealed by their prayers.
I. The Pharisee.
1. He was a good man. He could say that he was "not as other men." Somehow the very name of Pharisee is suggestive to us of hypocrisy, but that is a mistake. A hypocrite is an actor-one who pretends to be something he isn’t, and knows it. A good many profess to be what they are not, and they are quite unaware of the fact that they are not what they profess to be. Such are self-deceived, but certainly are not hypocrites. So with the Pharisee. This Pharisee really thought he was a good man, and he was, according to mere earthly standards.
2. He Was an honest man. He was "not an extortioner." That he could truthfully say. Now the Publicans (the name in the Bible for the tax-collectors) were notorious for this. The late Professor Henry Drum-mond considered that "dishonesty is as great a sin as drunkenness," but this Pharisee was an honest man.
3. He was a just man. He could say he was "not unjust," that is to say, he was fair in his dealings with his fellows. The Golden Rule he admired and practised. He did unto others as he wished to be done to.
4. He was a virtuous man. He could say that he was not "an adulterer," for he had full control over his passions, and not only respected but obeyed the law.
5. He was a temperate man, because he could say that he "fasted twice in the week." Moses only appointed one fast in the year, in connection with the great day of Atonement, but this man improved upon the Mosaic instructions, and had such wonderful control over his own healthy legitimate appetites that he was able to fast twice in every week!
6. He was a benevolent man. "I give tithes of all that I possess." Now Moses only enjoined the tithing of the fruits of the earth and the increase of the cattle, and therefore the Israelites was not commanded to tithe all; but you will observe that the Pharisee could say truthfully that he gave tithes of all that he possessed.
7. He was a grateful man. "I thank Thee," and he had much to be thankful for. By careful training, and by the wholesome restraint of the law and society, he had been saved from much outward sin. There are thousands of young people associated with our assemblies, mission halls, churches, and chapels, who have similarly been preserved from outward sinful excesses, who have never done as much as the Pharisee, for they have never yet thanked God for this wholesome and blessed restraint.
Having said all this, the reader might express astonishment and say, "Surely the Pharisee was a model citizen, and what more could be expected of him?" Ah, there was an utter absence of any consciousness of sin or of personal unworthiness. His prayer was weighted with pride, and did not rise any higher than himself. You will observe that whilst he was grateful, he presented no request for grace, and he received none. This unfortunate state of mind and soul was undoubtedly brought about by a wrong idea of sin, and a wrong idea of religion. He evidently knew sin simply as transgression, whereas that is only one aspect of it, for it is written, not only that "sin is the transgression of the Law," but also that "All unrighteousness is sin." Then his idea of religion was a mere round of duties to be observed and practised. Take care there is no latent Pharisee in any of us.
II. The Publican. Seven is the perfect number, and it is to be observed that in our Authorised Version his prayer consists of only seven words; yet the Authorised Version rather clouds and hides several important truths. The late Bishop Daniel Wilson of Calcutta directed in his will that on a tablet to his memory in the Cathedral, should be engraved these words in Greek as so much more emphatic than the English. The Revised Version marginal rendering is to be commended, "God be propitiated to me, the sinner." What do we learn from this prayer?
1. He accounted himself unworthy of approach to God. "He stood afar off"-in the Court of the Gentiles. Though a Jew, he dare not venture any further than the Court of the Gentiles. He was "conscious that his sins had distanced him from God. But, blessed be the Lord, though the Publican stood afar from God in conscious unworthiness, God did not stand afar from him. He is nigh unto all that are of a broken and contrite spirit
2. He confessed himself to be the worst of sinners. Not "a sinner" as in the Authorised Version, but "the sinner," as in the Revised Version. He recognised the heinousness of sin, and his cry was that of a soul terrified by the horror of sin, and a sense of punishment.
3. He acknowledged the only channel of mercy to be the atonement of God. Without doubt he had brought his sin offering, and after it had been killed, was being offered up on the altar, and he prayed in effect that God would show mercy through that substitute already being offered, to him a sacrifice that prefigured the great one our Lord was to offer.
Might we suggest to all respectable sinners that both these prayers be united. Gratefully thanking Him for all the restraints with which He has surrounded you, and for so mercifully preserving you from sowing the wild oats, then cry for His pardoning and justifying mercy through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. "God be propitiated, through sacrifice, to me, the sinner."
RECEIVING!
One has splendidly pointed out that:
1. To Look is receiving with the eyes.
2. To Hear is receiving with the ears.
3. To Take is receiving with the hands.
4. To Taste is receiving with the mouth.
5. To Come is receiving with the feet.
6. To Trust is receiving with the heart.
7. To Choose is receiving with the will.
Autor: James Smith