We are going, beloved friends, if the Lord enable us, to
look at the addresses to the Seven Churches--not indeed in detail, but more
especially certain parts of of them--as representative of the state of
Christendom as a whole from the time almost when the Lord left the earth until
the time in which He comes again. Now, in the first place, it is only right
that I should show you briefly what is my warrant for taking these addresses as
applying in this way. I can only just indicate the reasons--the main one being
the suitability of the application itself.
You find, then, that the
Lord here is addressing, through His apostle, seven churches in Asia--a little
district in the western part of what we call Asia Minor. But these seven
churches are evidently taken up to represent the Church at large. In the first
place, they are remarkable as being seven in number. It is a number which, as
you know, runs through the book of Revelation. You have not only these seven
churches, but seven seals, seven trumpets, seven vials, seven spirits of God,
and other sevens, which everybody can see at once have a distinct significance
as such. It is not a casualty that there are just seven. Now here we find the
same number, which some of us will know to be one of the numbers which signify
perfection, generally in a good sense, and indeed the perfection of Divine
work. God completed everything in creation on the seventh day.
Again,
to these seven churches the whole book of this prophecy is committed, evidently
for us, and for all time, yet it is put into their hands; and thus they are
made representatives of the Church at large.
Furthermore, the Lord
presents Himself here in this chapter in the midst of the seven candlesticks.
These candlesticks stand for the seven churches, as is said. There was a
seven-branched candlestick in the tabernacle, or the temp1e; --here we have as
it were, the seven branches seperated from one another and standing alone. That
seven-branched candlestick was the light, of the sanctuary--the light of the
priests. It was significant of Christ by the Holy Ghost (through the Word, of
course, the light of His people. In this scene in Revelation, His people are
looked upon as the "light," not of the sanctuary, but "of the world," and the
candlesticks stand each upon its own base, significant of their position of
responsibility. But here again it is not merely among seven Asiatic churches
that He walks, nor only those who have this position: the seven churches are
but representatives of the whole.
Furthermore, the whold book is a
"prophecy"- a prophecy which reaches down to the very end of time, and even
into eternity itself a prophesy not of any local significance merely. Such an
introduction, as merely concerned itself with a few churches in the
apostles’ time, whose memory for most would otherwise be entirely passed
away, would, scarcely be in keeping with this character of the book itself. If
they are prophecy, then the whole book evidently is one; and if prophetic of
the condition of the Church at large, then how specially important for the
servants of the Lord to whom He would show, for their own guidance, things that
would shortly come to pass!
Then, furthermore, if you take the
chapters themselves which contain these addresses, you find that in every one
of them there is the most solemn appeal to "every one that hath an ear to hear
what the Spirit saith unto the churches." Scarcely any part of Scripture has
such constant, solemn injunction to attend to what is written. Surely, if we
are to take the divine warning and admonition as applicable to ourselves, we
must believe that these chapters have a very peculiar place in God’s word,
and a very peculiar application to us all. Written and handed down from one
generation to another, all that have an ear to hear are exhorted to attend.
But, after all, the most satisfactory evidence that these addresses do belong
to the Church at all times is this, that we can trace that application in the
actual facts of its history, and this it is which it will be my endeavour to
set before you in these lectures.
Now, first of all, let us understand
what is the character of the book we have before us. We have a distinct
title--a thing not usual in the Word; you seldom have a title to any of the
books of Scripture. The first two verses here are evidently that, and the title
is, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ." He calls it a "revelation." He says
distinctly it is an "unveiling," or disclosure, of certain things shortly to
come to pass. Instead of being something no one can understand, it is what God
calls a "revelation."
We need not say that if God gave it to show
these things to us, there will be no such obscurity about it as to defeat the
object for which it is given. I venture to say, we shall not find it obscure,
if we have honest hearts to receive it. You will find in the parable of the
sower that it is the honest heart only that "understands." And then, also, it
is a revelation to Christ’s servants. It is to all, no doubt, but in that
character. It is His servants that will have to do with the things. Their path
will be in the midst of the things about which He is going to speak, and His
servants will need to discern between the things which please or displease Him.
But if we are not servants--if we have not that character, no doubt we shall
find it hard; that is, if we seek speculative knowledge rather than practical.
To servants there is a distinct encouragement given with regard to
hearing and reading the words of this prophecy: "Blessed is he that readeth and
they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are
written therein." If we could not understand them perfectly, I may say, and
know without any doubt what these things apply to, how could we be expected to
"keep the things written therein"? Because, if the thing is, after all, merely
doubtful--what may or may not be so--it has no right in fact over you or me. We
ought not to walk in doubtful paths. "Whatever is not of faith is sins"; and
faith must have God’s word to support and justify it. And therefore I say
again, if there was not something that could be distinctly laid hold of, and
learned, and understood in its application to what is around us, the things in
the midst of which we are living, we could not possibly be expected to keep
"the things written therein."
Let us now look at the addresses
themselves. In the first place, to the "Church at Ephesus." We have the Lord
speaking in words simple enough, but which are as solemn as they are practical
for us all to-day. Amidst much commendation of them,--and the Lord commends all
He can,--He has this to say to them: "Thou hast left thy first love." "I know
thy works, and, thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them
which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are
not, and hast found them liars: and hast borne, and hast patience, and for My
name’s sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. Nevertheless, I have
against thee that thou hast left thy first love" (vers. 2-4).
That is
the commencement of decline everywherewith every one of us; and if this applies
to any one of us at this time, let us remember that we are "fallen," and can
never be right until restored to that first state.
I want you to
notice how much the Lord can commend even where He finds such serious fault. "I
know thy works," He says; but not merely works,--" thy labour." That is
energetic work. But again, labour in the midst of a scene like this is apt to
break down under the disappointment and discouragement incident to it. The
Ephesians had not broken down; they had "patience," quiet endurance. They went
on labouring in spite of discouragement. Then, again, patience is apt to
degenerate into toleration of the evil which we are so constantly meeting.
They, however, "could not bear them which were evil." It was commendation of
them that they showed no such liberality as people often now would have. Such
toleration is inconsistent with the love of truth and good.
Evil, too,
was showing itself in high places already. It is remarkable to see that at the
very commencement there were those already "saying they were apostles, and who
were not." Let us mark that: it will be important to remember it in another
connection by and by. We know what that pretension ripened into in later times,
and that it still exists. We must not be daunted by it any more than the
Ephesians were: "Thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not,
and hast found them liars."
Furthermore, they had borne and suffered,
and for Christ’s name had laboured. There was true love to
Christ: there was not the first freshness of it, but there was true love to
Christ underlying it all. There was much fruit; but the Lord had this to say:
"Nevertheless I have against thee that thou hast left thy first love." There is
no "somewhat": that would look as if it were a little thing that the Lord was
speaking of, whereas it was as great a thing as could well be. After that, it
is solemn to see that even Balaam-teachers were but comparatively a "few
things" more. But He never calls this "somewhat." The Lord is jealous of our
hearts--of our love, because He loves us; and it is not a little thing for Him
to see our love declining-to see the first freshness of it gone.
I want
to put it in a very practical way - I want to ask you who, by your coming here
tonight, take the position of Christians - of those who have known Christ, - I
want to ask you, as I would ask myself, whether you know what "first love" is,
and whether you have this "first love" now? There is this characteristic of it
- and I have no doubt your memories will justify me here - that first love is
an engrossing thing.
You know how any new thing is apt to take
possession of one. It has passed into a proverb. But in the case of first love
it is pre-eminently characteristic of it that it absorbs the subject of it. If
we remember what it was when first of all our eyes were opened to see what
Christ was, and to call Him ours, - our Saviour, - to receive what He had done
for us, I think we shall confess a common experience; that for a while at
least, short or long as it may be, His love possessed us; there was nothing
else to contest the place with Him. And if it is otherwise now - if we have got
down to a quieter and more moderate estimate of Him, and can find room and time
for many an object of which Christ is only one among others - we may think it
perhaps wisdom even, rightly surviving the heat of youth, when He is saying to
us, "Thou art fallen, thou hast left thy .first love." That is what you find,
for instance, in the apostle Paul, who, I believe, never relinquished his from
first to last. What you find in the Epistle to the Philippians is that his love
had that engrossing character. He gave himself up to the object of it; very
deliberately too, but entirely and undistractedly. He had "one thing" before
him; one idea possessed him. It made him, no doubt, what people would call
narrow and one-sided. Nevertheless these are the men - to put it in that way -
that make their mark inthe world. Few men but get distracted with a number of
objects; while, on the other hand, if you find a man bent upon one thing,
absorbed with the desire, you will find generally (of course, I cannot say
universally in a world like this) that that man in a great measure realizes his
desire. What he pursues he pursues earnestly, concentrating his faculties upon
his object, and he succeeds. If it is money, he will get money, and so on. For
success, in other things at least, I suppose every one will grant there is
nothing like entire occupation with one thing. Now it is distinctly this that
the Lord claims for Himself. We may easily imagine, as love grows cool, that we
are only acquiring wisdom; that we were extreme and enthusiastic; that the
natural heat of first days is passed and ought to pass away; that we are only
wiser, when in fact we are less spiritual and less devoted, - I surely believe,
less happy too. For, oh, there is nothing like the happiness of an absorbing
and responsive affection, which eternal and infinite love has awakened towards
itself. And I say again, the apostle Paul at least was not one of these prudent
ones; and he says distinctly that we are to follow him as he followed Christ!
For him to live was Christ, and Christ sufficed for him. These are
what you find together in the Philippians.
Take care you keep them
together. In the first chapter you have a man for whom to live was Christ; and
that man, you find in the last chapter, Christ perfectly sufficed. He had
learned, in whatever state he was, to be content; he knew both how to be abased
and how to abound; everywhere, and in all things, he was instructed both to be
full and to be hungry, both to abound and suffer need. He was not elated by
prosperity nor cast down by adversity: always, in whatever state, content. How?
He reveals the secret: "I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens
me." Now, do not imagine that every Christian can say that. Can any of us say
so? It is of no use, of course, to urge what Christ can do. Christ can do
everything; but the question is, do we practically so know Christ as to be able
to say, "I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me"? If not, what
is the reason? Failure as to the first prinple - "For me to live is Christ."
Fruit may look very beautiful on the outside, and yet, after all, not
be ripe for the Master’s taste; so here a great deal of fruit there was
which looked fair enough, but it had not hung in the sun enough. It was not
ripe for the Master’s use. Now, we are not in a right state to judge
anything - even to discern what evil is - except our hearts are really right
with Him. The Lord is giving us here what was the root of all the evil we find
afterward. For if our hearts lose their freshness of love to Christ, - that is
to say, if Christ has less of our hearts than once He had, - something else
will surely come in to fill thegap. If nature, as they say, abhors a vacuum,
our hearts surely do; and if Christ is not filling them, the world, in some
shape or other, will be brought in to fill the void. It surely will be so. But
then, there is no satisfaction there. What is thc world? If you take the
apostle’s own estimate (or rather God’s by him), it is this: "All
that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride
of life, is not of the Father, but of the world." Lust and pride; and that is
all! Does lust satisfy? Lust is just unsatisfied desire. Does the pride of
life? Alas! the pride of life is but twin brother of envy - another form of
lust. And then, "the world passeth away, and the lust thereof." Is not that
enough of itself to destroy satisfaction? Now if what I pursue is only lust,
the result is, the void becomes greater, and I become, alas, - if the Lord does
not come in and stop me, - only more reckless and infatuated in the pursuit.
One step of departure leads to another; and what about the word of God, and its
wholesale judgment of the world and all that belongs to it? Shall I take it
truthfully? Shall I wish to apply it in its full force to the very things I am
seeking after? The necessary result is that my judgment is warped as to what
the world is, and I find it hard to believe that evil is just as evil as
God’s word would have it. "Hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree
of the garden?" So the course hastens downward. Save God alone, nothing can
stop one in it.
Do not wonder, then, that you have here the root of
all the evil that has sprung up in the Church, and do not let us sit down and
judge this thing and that thing in what we find around us, while at the same
time we have the root of it all unjudged in our own souls. I do press it on
you, and on myself alike, that if Christ has not our hearts fully, - if our
business, our pleasure, our whole life in fact, is not really, truthfully,
honestly devoted to Him (I am not speaking now of realized absolute
consistency, we all have to own much inconsistency, but still) if to give Him
all is not the purpose of our hearts, there is really no proper fellowship with
Him, and of course no power to judge truly what evil is. To have part with Him,
He must cleanse, as He said: "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with Me."
But if we put our feet into His blessed hands, we must put them there without
reserve. If He washes, it must be according to His thought of what defilement
is; and if He does not cleanse, we can have no part with Him. He cannot bear
fellowship with evil; but as a consequence, our fellowship with Him is gone.
The least reserve - the least deliberate keeping back from Christ what is
rightfully His - these hearts that He toiled so for and has taken so much pains
to win - the least conscious keeping back from Him is, so to speak, fatal. The
freshness of our souls is gone. I am sure, as we go on with Him, He will show
us more and more what this and that is, and that the judging all these things
is more or less a practical work. Our eyes clear more and more as we are with
Him, and we learn more and more to call things by their names, and see them as
they really are. While all that is true, and while there is thus a growth in
practical sanctification, yet the surrender that He calls for from us, from the
beginning and throughout, is an entire and unreserved surrender. There is no
use in our going on with these addresses except we can honestly say, "Well, at
any rate, my heart’s desire is to give Christ all." It is no use trying to
go further else. You cannot learn God’s truth as a school-boy learns his
lesson. It is not merely for the head; it is for the heart. The eyes to see it
are of the heart, and not the head; and I put it to your heart as to where you
are. It is solemn to think of its being Ephesus that is thus addressed. Had it
been Corinth or Galatia, we should have said, the evil began with them from the
beginning almost. But this is Ephesus, the very first, as one might say, of
apostolic churches, and the one to whom especially had been committed the
deposit of Church-truth. Failure here leaves us to ask, And where not, if at
Ephesus? And in truth, if we only look at the epistles to the various churches,
we shall have no difficulty in seeing that long before apostolic days were
over, the fresh, bright days of the primitive Church were gone. The warnings
and reproofs of the early epistles change to solemn and emphatic statements in
the latter. At Rome all sought their own, not the things of Jesus Christ. "All
they that are in Asia have departed from me," says the apostle to Timothy. The
mystery of iniquity was already working. In John’s days already there were
many antichrists who had gone out from them; and, inside still, such as
Diotrephes resisting openly the yet living apostle, and casting true brethren
out of the Church.
The prophetic warnings carry this on to the very
"last days" of Christendom. Evil men and seducers should wax worse and worse.
False teachers should bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord that
bought them, and many follow their pernicious ways, by reason of whom the way
of truth would be evil spoken of. The "last days" would be specially "perilous
times " - men having the form of godliness and denying the power thereof. And
the man of sin, the heading up of evil already at work, would crown the final
apostasy, and receive judgment from the Lord’s own hand at His appearing.
We are prepared, then, to find the aspect of things getting darker as
we proceed with these addresses. Even in spite of corrective measures, which
the Lord’s faithful love could not but provide, if even yet they might
beroused up to a sense of their condition, and return, truly and effectually,
to Himself.
This discipline it is we find accordingly taking effect in
the next epistle to the church in Smyrna, - the persecution which everybody
knows broke out in the days of the heathen emperors. The "tribulation ten days"
has been referred to thus by those who had no thought of any application of
these addresses to the state of the Church at large. The justification of it by
the history is undoubted in this case. But here you find that the Lord comes
in, in the most gracious and tender way, though not to take them out of it,
because He had His own purpose in their going through it. He wanted them to
learn from the world how thoroughly in opposition to God it was. He would force
them, as it were, by the great outward presure, back to Himself, that there
they might learn, as there only they could, the true character of that which
was creeping in; and therefore He lets them go through it, bidding them only be
"faithful unto death." He had been so; had "resisted unto blood, striving
against sin." He had gone through it, and taken away its sting. He gives them
the assurance of His sympathy. By and by He would give them the crown of life.
Individually, multitudes were thus faithful. Nevertheless we must not imagine
that in general the state of things improved. On the contrary, I want you to
notice that there is a class of people spoken of here who are very distinctly
brought into notice, and whom the Lord as thoroughly reprobates. If we have
skill in reading the symbolic language which is everywhere here employed, we
shall have no difficulty in regard to who they are, or to their place at this
time in ecclesiastical history. The class of people which He refers to are
depicted in these vivid words: "I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty,
(but thou art rich,) and the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are
not, but are the SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN."
He does not speak of these,
then, as the people He is addressing; but do not let us imagine that on that
account they were outside, and not in fact an existing party in the Church. It
is in accord with the character of these epistles that the Lord does not
address these. It is just the same with the Nicolaitans, the followers of
Balaam, and the woman Jezebel, who must be all admitted to have been inside the
professing Church. But He could not reckon those who were tools of Satan as
among those who had an ear to hear. That they called themselves Jews too does
not imply that they did not profess to be Christians also, for in fact they
might be confounding Judaism and Christianity together; and this we know took
place almost from the beginning, and the apostle Paul had everywhere to resist
it. But these are not Jews, although they say they are. Had they been such,
they would scarcely have needed to profess it so. Now Satan is the great
adversary of Christ, the one continually seeking to destroy His work, as
Christ, on the other hand, comes to destroy the works of the devil. This was
the synagogue of Satan, a Jewish party, the tool of Satan in his effort to
destroy Christ’s work. They were not Jews really at all, but people taking
Jewish ground, the ground of the synagogue, and blaspheming (or slandering) the
true followers of Christ. It is slander, not persecution, such as from the
world outside, that they are charged with; and the name by which the Lord calls
them may instruct us sufficiently as to their real character. The "synagogue"
is the Jewish word for their gathering, as the Christian word everywhere used
is "assembly." The word "church," we need scarcely say, is a word that really
has no existence anywhere in the word of God: it is the product of later times.
This is well known, and there is nothing peculiar in saying so. Everyone who is
acquainted with the original will allow it. At the same time it is of the
greatest importance to keep this clearly in mind. If I speak of the "assembly,"
of course it could not possibly be confounded with walls, with bricks and
mortar; yet that is one notorious abuse of the word "church."
Then,
again, if I speak of the Christian assembly as it is in Scripture, i. e., the
"assembly which is Christ’s body," I cannot think of anything else than
the gathering of all His members. Church membership is nothing else or other
than membership of the body of Christ, and there cannot be many bodies of
Christ, but only one, and that containing all true Christians. How, then, can
we speak of the Church teaching, or anything of that sort? What is this Church
that teaches? The Church is the whole company of teachers and taught alike.
What they call church-teaching is only the teaching of certain teachers in past
generations, accepted more or less widely in after times. But that is not the
Church at all. The restoration (were it possible) of the true word "assembly"
would destroy many of these fancies at the very outset.
Now, let us
mark, there is a difference between the Jewish and the Christian words. The
word for the New Testament assembly, "ecclesia," is derived from two words
meaning "called out." It is not merely a gathering; it is a gathering of people
who are distinctly "called out" from others. On the other hand, "synagogue" is
a mere "gathering together." It is no gathering out; and this very precisely
distinguishes the Jewish from the Christian gathering.
Now in order to
see what that means, let us look briefly at what Judaism was. It was a
probationary system, in which God was trying man, to see if He could get
anything out of him that He could accept - trying man, to see if, by any
assistance He could give him, he could by any possibility make out a
righteousness for himself, and stand before Him on the basis of his own doings.
In Judaism God gave man the law as the measure of obedience which He required,
in order that he might see His face and live. But he never did see God’s
face, and never could see it, on those terms. The moment you see what the law
is, you cannot have any doubt that it must effectually exclude man from
God’s presence forever. Everybody at once will say: "If I have got to love
God with all my heart and mind and strength, and my neighbour as myself, I have
not done it, do not do it, and can not do it." Now, if these are the terms upon
which man is to stand before God by his own work, then it is absolutely
impossible for a man to come into His presence in that way. He is certainly
excluded; and that is exactly what the law was given for. Says the apostle:
"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are
under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become
guilty before God" (Rom. ii. re). That was not merely the actual effect of it,
but it was the designed effect of it. Its sentence says, "There is none
righteous; no, not one."
That sentence was the end of the trial - the
end of man’s probation. It is the end of the trial when sentence is given.
The apostle points out to the Jews that sentence had now been given - given by
their own law. The trial of man as to this was ended. It is no use for a moment
speaking as if the trial were going on, after sentence has been given. "There
is none righteous" - Abraham or Moses, for that matter. The trial is over, the
sentence is given, and that is the issue of the law - its foreseen and designed
issue - every mouth stopped, and man guilty. I know it is very hard for us to
receive this, the law being God’s holy, good and righteous law. But the
truth is, that the very issue of it as a trial lay in this, that God was taking
man up on his own ground. If you take all the forms of religion everywhere, you
will find, some way or other, they are law-keeping - doing something in order
to live. It is the universal principle of what is called "natural religion " -
it is the principle of works for acceptance with God; and no wit or wisdom of
man has been able to devise another way. That is exactly what Scripture says as
to the law. It was the "principles" or "elements of the world." It is what the
world everywhere recognizes and acts upon, and rightly as between man and man.
Laws are necessary to keep the world in any tolerable condition. We could not
live but for them. Now what man finds so necessary in this way he naturally
takes up as the principle between God and himself, and even there he is in
measure right. The trouble is, he does not know, and would not like to believe,
that on that ground he is simply lost, and nothing else; and thus he would
bring the measure of what is required down to what be believes to be the
measure of his ability, and thus evade the righteous and inevitable sentence.
The law, then, chimes in with the natural thoughts of mans heart
everywhere. But be finds it hard to realize that God gave that law simply for
the purpose of condemning; for he does not know the heart of God or the
resources of His love; and if the law condemn, he sees nothing beyond. All his
effort is therefore to escape judgment; but this he cannot, for God is holy and
cannot pare down His law; and, on the other hand, no paring down will suffice
to give man assurance before God. If sin be a matter of judgment with God, how
can man appear before Him with it? The truth is, he is lost; but he will not
face the truth. There was one thing, therefore, characteristic of Judaism, as
there is one thing characteristic of Christianity. In Judaism it was
characteristic that God was hidden; while the one thing characteristic of
Christianity is, that God is revealed. "The Lord has said that He would dwell
in thick darkness," says Solomon. "God is in the light," says the apostle. "No
man hath seen God at any time: the Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of
the Father, He hath declared Him." "He that hath seen Me," says the Son
Himself, "hath seen the Father." Judaism and Christianity are thus in essential
contrast. The unrent veil, the way into the holiest not made manifest, God
essentially unknown - that is Judaism; and the very names by which God is
called show this: He is the Almighty, the Eternal, (perhaps the nearest
interpretation of Jehovah,) the Highest. None of these names tell me His heart.
The Almighty! How will He use His power? Eternity, Sovereignty-all these are
not Himself. But the Son, His well-beloved, comes into the scene-becomes a Man
- to be near to man - and He reveals the Father. There I know Himself.
At the second giving of the law, when, together with law, God spoke of mercy, a
gleam of the glory lighted up Moses’ face; still it was Jehovah only who
appeared. And while it is true He declares Himself as "the Lord, the Lord God,
merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth,
keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin," He
has to add, (because it was still law, which the tables of stone, word for
word, again contained,) "and that will by no means clear the guilty." But then,
what hope for man, who surely is that? Although God could thus say, as to the
wicked man, as He does in Ezekiel, "When the wicked man turneth away from his
wickedness, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul
alive," still the unrelaxed measure there is still law. Mercy might deal with
his past sins and give him a new beginning, but the new leaf he turned over,
could he keep it unblotted? Could he ever bring to God the unblotted leaf which
He required? Alas, never; he never could save his soul. And the law in its
mildest form only made man’s deep depravity the more apparent. It was what
the apostle calls it, "the ministration of death," and the "ministration of
condemnation." And therefore Moses, at the mount, still only saw God’s
back parts, and not His face. Therefore, also, the unrent veil through all the
days of Judaism still showed that "the way into the holiest was not yet made
manifest." What was made manifest was but the uselessness of all man’s
efforts to see God and live.
Now as to the essential characteristic of
Christianity. First. It was not the modification of law: it did not come to
make that still milder. On the contrary, the Christian revelation maintains the
law in its utmost rigor. It is a Christian apostle who insists that "if a man
keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (James
ii. io). And it is another apostle who tells us that "as many as are of the
works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one
that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to
do them"(Gal. iii. io).
Christianity maintains, then, not abrogates,
the righteous condemnation of all upon that ground - upon the ground of works
of any kind, that is; for every point of man’s duty is covered by the law.
Sentence has been given; the trial of man is ended. He is "ungodly;" and more,
he is "without strength" too. Nothing in the way of goodness or righteousness
can be expected from him. What, then, remains? Why, God can show out Himself.
He could not do it as long as the trial was going on. Man would naturally have
said, I have performed my part of the agreement; I have kept the covenant.
Therefore God had to keep His face veiled to man continually. But as soon as
there was no doubt at all that man never could make his way in, never could
stand before God at all, then, - at the time when man’s sin had reached
its height, when the Son of God hung dead upon the cross man had given Him,
when the carnal mind had shown out thus its enmity against God in the
completest way, - God’s own hand rent the veil from top to bottom; and by
that precious bloodshedding there was a way made to go in to God, and for God,
on the other hand, to come out to meet man. Yes, a Man indeed found His way
into the presence of God, and sat down there by virtue of His work; but it was
the Man, God’s fellow (Zech. xiii. 7). And the way by which He entered was
henceforth a way of access, consecrated and made safe for sinners by the virtue
of His precious blood.
That is what characterizes Christianity. God
has come in with His grace in a way independent of man’s works altogether.
There is no more any mixture allowed or possible. As the apostle says, "If it
be of grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace"
(Rom. xi. 6). There is nothing more emphatic than that: you cannot mix these
two principles. The gospel of Christianity is grace. God is not requiring from
man except that he receive what He offers. He is not asking for righteousness;
He is "ministering" it. The sinners exposed and condemned by the law are by the
gospel welcomed and set at rest. He who by law could not clear the guilty, by
the work of His Son justifies the ungodly. It is God that justifieth. Because
"Christ died for the ungodly," He "justifies the ungodly." We are able, then,
by the blood of Christ, to go right into God’s presence and see Him face
to face. And God who was behind the veil and "in thick darkness," is, as the
apostle John says, "in the light." And that glory out of which we were once
shut, becomes our permanent and peaceful home. But now mark, if that be the
case, Christianity at once brings people into a distinct place of acceptance
with God and relationship to Him, which Judaism never possibly could give. It
brings out, as distinguished from the world, a people reconciled and at peace
with God. "To as many as received Him, to them gave He right to become sons of
God" (John i. 12, margin).
In Christianity you have thus the "calling
out" of those who are able to take their place as children of God. In Judaism
there was the mixing up, as people might say now, of the Church and world
together. There was no separation, and none possible. In Judaism men were yet
being tried, and nobody could take his place as a child of God in the true
sense, as born of Him. Nobody could call God in that sense his Father. The
apostle tells us in the fourth of Galatians that the true children, though
heirs, were in their time of nonage, "under tutors and governors until the time
appointed by the Father," and "differing nothing from servants, though lords of
all." At school, with the schoolmaster, children say "sir," or "master," and
not "father." So also in that condition they would say: "enter not into
judgment with Thy servant, 0 Lord, for in Thy sight shall no man living be
justified" (Ps. cxliii. 2).
True, God was a Father to Israel; but
Israel was a nation in the flesh - a mingled company of sinners and saints
together. There was, there could be, no marking out the one from the other.
There was no assembly of saints distinct from sinners. The only calling out was
of Israel from the Gentiles, the type only, and in some sense the very
contrast, of the calling out of Christians from the world. Thus in Judaism
there was complete mingling. In Christianity there is now the separation of
God’s children, who are exhorted distinctly to come out and be separate
from unbelievers, in order really to enjoy their place as that (2 Cor. V1.
14-18). Judaism was not in this sense a "calling out," but a mere "synagogue -
a "gathering together." There, in the eleventh chapter of the Gospel of John,
where Caiaphas unconsciously prophesies that Christ should "die for that
nation" (Israel), the apostle adds, "and not for that nation only, but also
that He might gather together in one the children of God that were scattered
abroad." That was one purpose of the death of Christ, that He might be able now
to gather together in one the children of God scattered, in fact, by Judaism
itself. The Church of God is the assembly of those who, no longer on trial,
have the place already of God’s children, and, as baptized of the Spirit,
Christ’s members; whose acceptance is ascertained and settled forever - of
grace and not of works, nor mingled with them. The bringing in of Judaism again
into the Church was the bringing in of distance between man and God. It was
putting back the veil which God had rent on the cross - putting God in the
darkness again, and man still under trial, to find his way to meet God and
stand before Him if he could. It was putting’ distance between God and
man, of necessity, and covering the blessed face of God which He had revealed
in Christ. Call it High Church or what you please, that is what it still is. Of
necessity, therefore, it is the remingling of the Church and world together.
Because, if they are on trial, nobody knows which is which, you cannot separate
saint from sinner, all are together on trial; you cannot, then, separate the
children of God from the children of the world.
Now, if you look
around, that is what you will find exactly almost everywhere. The results of
that awful change from assembly to synagogue are everywhere visible. In the
epistle to the Galatians we see what was coming into the Church in the
apostle’s time; and you know how earnest he is about it: "I would they
were even cut off," he says, and warns them, if any one came and brought a
different gospel, (not another, for there were not two,) he was to be
"anathema," - accursed.
That Judaism has got lodgment in the Church of
God means nothing less than the destruction of it in its true character. The
first point of departure (after what we were looking at in Ephesus) is the
loss, in the true sense, of the very Church itself; and this was before
uninspired church history began. Startling to say, we never have the true
Church historically existent as that any more. If an ecclesiastical historian
can say "the annals of the Church are the annals of hell," we may surely own
that what he is speaking of is not the Church (except in responsibility), but
the synagogue of Satan! Is the term too strong? Alas - while Christians are no
doubt scattered through it - is the church of Rome, or of Constantine, or even
further back, anything better as a whole than the miserable travesty of the
true Church, Christ’s body? Under whom but under Satan have men wrought to
make it so? And every fresh departure from the truth is some fresh growth, in
fact, of Judaism. No wonder, since it is man’s religion naturally, and he
has never been able to produce another. Baptized it may be, and transformed
outwardly, no doubt. Men may be called Christians, although they hardly dare
call themselves so; "members of Christ," made so by a sacrament; bishops may
give the Holy Ghost as freely as apostles ever did, if words may be taken for
divine realities! Alas, under it all, and at no great depth, the beautiful form
is hollow as a mask, - a whitened sepuchre of impurity itself. Only, - so many
are defiled - it has become the fashion, and is not to be talked of; he that
departs from iniquity makes himself a prey. Look around, beloved friends, and
at least it will not be hard to recognize the forms of Judaism, nor to hear the
language of the synagogue, again set up. Doubtless they call themselves
Christians, who, if you ask them are they Christ’s, will think you have no
business to inquire; and if you set up to be His, will wonder at your
presumption. If you have no doubt, they will doubt for you. With them, men are
still under trial, and they do not know how it will turn out. As in Judaism,
you find everything to act upon man through his eye, his ear, his emotional
nature: architecture and imposing spectacles; music and oratorical appeals;
everything to wake up the religious sentiment in a being who is not wholly
"lost." As I have said, although called Christians, you are not to judge if
they be really such. They are church members; but the true Church is invisible,
and they know not where it is. They have practical working churches which do
well enough. Have they eternal life? - they would be afraid to say.
Forgiveness of sins? - they do not know. Are they children of God? - who
knows? It is charity to suppose they are, and they will accredit you if you
will accredit them. Is not that what you find on every side almost? A mixture
of the Church and the world follows, of course. Separation is reprobated. It is
Pharisaism - pretending to be better than your neighbour.
All that is
just really what we have here. It is the world gathered together, as the
substitute for God’s gathering of His own. God is gathering people out of
the world; a people who are "not of the world, even as Christ is not of the
world." As to the Church, it is practically gone. The world of necessity comes
in like a flood, and the children of God are swamped. They call it the
"religious world," and so it is, although believers there are in it, many -
overridden, bemired, and in bondage; a bondage which they feel, while they
cannot break through it. If there be any fundamental difference between the
Church and the world, what must ensue from that mixture? The Church becomes the
world; and the world the Church. "All that is of the worlds’ is
necessarily found in it. To this day "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the
eyes, and the pride of life," are all there, and flourishing; and who rules
over the world ? Who is its god and prince?
I close here to-night with
just an application. You will, I hope, not misunderstand me, or think that I am
confounding all Christendom together under the awful title we have been
examining. God’s own Church still exists, thank God. Its members are to be
found on all sides, though, alas, scattered, and largely refusing true union
with one another for the sake of alliances which, if they had eyes to see, they
would recognize as of the world. I do not forget that we of this day are heirs
to evils which come to us sanctioned by great names, and by dear ones. I must
not shrink on that account from calling them by their true titles: I am bound
the more to do it. It is those who lent themselves in very early times to
change the true Church of God into a Jewish gathering upon legal principles,
confounding His people and the world together, whom He denounces as
Satan’s synagogue. But alas, the attempt was largely successful. Men
slept. The sad results are with us today. The practice and the principles
remain - widely diffused, long and almost universally accepted. The true Church
has disappeared - is invisible. Of God’s light for the world a few
scattered lights appear, dim enough amid the darkness.
How far to
yourselves or in general the principles I have described apply, you must
discern for yourselves.
Only let us be honest and be earnest. Let us not
scruple to call evil that, because good men have practiced it. And what we see
as evil, let us refuse with our whole hearts. Let us refuse to call law gospel
- to sanction it or listen to it. Let us remember the apostle’s fearless
and scathing words; - had I used such to-night, what would people say? Let us
refuse, too, complicity with what has changed the face of the professing
Church, until the features of Christ’s spouse are no more visible. Let us
refuse the yoke with unbelievers, even though they be baptized and orthodox
unbelievers. It is the Lord says, not I, that we must do so that He may be,
practically, to us the Father that He is. With these words let us close: "Be ye
not unequally yoked with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness
with unrighteousness and what communion hath light with darkness? And what
concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an
infidel ?" (an unbeliever). "And what agreement hath the temple of God with
idols, for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell
in them and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, and touch not the
unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye
shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty" (2 Cor. vi. 14-18).