« PreviousContinue »
as much by being petted as by neglect. They often think of their pastor, to the practical forgetfulness of Christ Himself being the Shepherd and Bishop of their souls, and that His under-shepherds are responsible to Him for the care of His sheep. For the most part, pastoral care has too much in it of the human element; personal regard for the man himself is more prominent than esteem for his work's sake. Hence pastoral care has often much present reward—so as not to render needful the encouragement of the crown of glory. If pastoral care is bestowed on Christ's sheep, because they belong to Christ, it will feel and value such a blessed encouragement.
It is interesting to notice how inseparably these crowns are associated with the appearing of Jesus Himself. He is the Giver of the crown; and what would
crown be if it was not His gift, that we might wear it or cast it down in His own immediate presence? Does the apostle speak of a Crown of Righteousness? he says, “ which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give me at that day, and not to me only, but unto all them also that love His appearing.” It is said, "he shall receive the Crown of Life, which the Lord has promised to them that love Him." " When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall we also appear with Him in glory.” And, lastly, it is
, written, "When the Chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a Crown of Glory that fadeth not away. The thought of personal or official glory can never displace in the soul the more blessed thought of seeing Jesus as He is, being like Him, and enjoying His immediate presence for ever. Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus."
Exodus.—The word Exodus (todos* way out), would find its solution, as the LXX name of the book, in chapter xii. The Hebrew name ripw oby, these are the names, or more usually nion, names, is taken from the first verse of the book, and is perhaps merely a technical guide to it. * See its use in Luke ix. 31 — as interesting and peculiar - applied to the Lord's
To the Editor of the PRESENT TESTIMONY. DEAR SIR, I have been struck with the apparent connexion between the two following passages of Scripture, Isaiah lxiii. 9, and 2 Cor. vi. 12. I will first assume that there are reasons for a new rendering of the Hebrew, and give the rendering, and then state the grounds on which I would deviate from the authorised version.
Let us look at the verse in 2 Cor. vi._" Ye are not straitened in us, but
are straitened in your own bowels." I would propose considering this as a reference to Isaiah lxiii. 9, the first words of which I would read as follows: " In all their straitening he was not straitened.” I do not know what reasons our translators had for adopting the keri reading “to him" instead of “not."
" " They may have been good ones. But it is remarkable that the textual reading is falls in very closely with the sense of the verse quoted above from 2 Cor. The difficulty with many will probably consist in finding “he was straitened” as a meaning of 7*.
as a meaning of 7*. Retaining the kamets, there may be a difficulty; but I suppose, in investigations of this sort, we are free to consider what the meaning may be, unfettered by points. Now I find one meaning of 73 (and even 7 in a pause) to be arctus, angustus. We have only then to supply that most frequent of Hebrew omissions, the verb substantive, and we have the sense I am pleading for—"In all their straitening He (God) was not straitened.”, I may add, that if this supposition is correct, it furnishes an additional instance, and an interesting one, of what sometimes occurs with the New Testament writers — their taking up the words of the Old Testament descriptive of God, and applying them to themselves, i. e., to the Church-(compare Eph. vi. with Isaiah lix. 17; Rom. viii., last verses, with Isaiah 1. 8; 2 Cor. vii. with Isaiah xlix. 8; also Acts xii. 47, with Isaiah xlix. 6.
“ A LITTLE LEAVEN LEAVENETH THE
WHOLE LUMP.” I HAD heard this passage referred to in the latter place, where it occurs (Gal. v.); but I confess my
mind struck on a comparison of the two passages where it occurs in the Word. In the first (in 1 Cor. v. 6), it is in respect to evil walking; in the second (Gal. v. 9), it is evil doctrine. And what is said of one will clearly apply to the other.
Let us look, therefore, at the former passage (1 Cor. v.) Evil of a very flagrant character had manifested itself in one instance. Remark one ground on which he calls for judgment on it: “Do ye not know, that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?" It is the character of the
? leprosy to spread. This, therefore, concerns them all. “ Ye have not mourned,” etc.
Next see the decided clearness and holiness that he calls for: “Purge out, therefore, the old leaven, that ye may be a NEW lump, even as ye are unleavened.” Now, mark the most important ground on which this is put. "For even Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast,” etc. So that the allowance, the tolerance of leaven is a dishonour done to that Paschal Lamb. Is it not fitting, that the unleavened bread should be eaten with the Lamb? Shall we allow the little leaven to begin to rise, and work, till the whole be leavened?
Nor is the fact that such and such a one is a Christian, any reason for allowing leaven in him? It is not the persons that are to be looked at, but the fellowship of the Paschal Lamb: that determines all. Is it worthy of that? Compare 1 Cor. x. 18 (Greek), "Are not they that eat the sacrifices in communion with the altar" (KOLVovou)? It is just because he is outwardly in fellowship there, that we are called upon to judge him.
Now, apply this as the Spirit applies it in Galatians, to false doctrine, legal teachers there (verse 9): “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” Will not what was said apply equally to false doctrine? Is evil doctrine less formidable than evil walk? No. Evil walk may be a selitary, detached thing, without any other definite root than the essential evil of the flesh in the individual. Evil doctrine is a root, a principle from which a whole course of action will necessarily follow. It is from principles that actions flow. It is, therefore (whilst I would observe, let the importance of judging the other never be depreciated), no less carefully to be removed.
And surely this is ground that appeals to the heart of every saint; the very presence of the Paschal Lamb, the Lord that bought us, demands it.
There may be question further, How far this searching, purging process is to go? I would remark, it must be no outside thing-no clearing of external symptoms only; it must meet the presence of the blessed Lamb. There is a passage to me very instructive in Levit. xv. 2 on this point: “Speak unto the children of Israel, when any man hath a running issue out of his flesh, because of his issue he is unclean. And this shall be his uncleanness in his issue: whether his flesh run with his issue, or whether his flesh be stopped from his issue, it is his uncleanness.” As I said, it is not the question before God, Have the mere external symptoms been removed? but, Is the fountain of the evil removed? In short, is it healed ?
But it may be said, Yes, but the apostle did not excommunicate the Corinthians because of that evil. I say, No; if the Corinthians were awakened by his summons to clear themselves from the evil, surely that was the thing he desired (2 Cor. xiii. 7); his authority was given for edification, not for destruction. It is the Lord's way,—"If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged of the Lord;" consequently, it should be His servant's way, for “ we are fellow-workers with Him (1 . . , (1 Cor. iii. 9, Θεου συνεργοι).
“I gave her space to repent” (Rev. ii. 21). We do find (whether resulting
from that First Epistle, as is most probable, I have not time strictly to examine now), that the Corinthians were brought to a blessed state of repentance, and dealing with evil (2 Cor. ii. 6). They received Titus with fear, trembling, and obedience (vii
. 7, 8). In all things they approved themselves clear in this matter. 6. For to this end,” says he, " did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things” (ii. 9). He was in readiness to revenge all disobedience, when their obedience was fulfilled (x. 6). So in Galatians v. 10, “He had confidence in them in the Lord, that they would be none otherwise minded.” But if they had refused at Corinth the apostle's attempt to rouse them to the putting away of evil from them; if, like the Benjamites, they had “refused to deliver up those who had done the evil" (Judges xx. 13), would the apostle then have recognised them as a Church of God, as in the fellowship of the truth? Assuredly not. How is the Church God's habitation but by the Spirit? And if they refused the Spirit in the ministration of Paul (1 Thess. iv. 8), refused his operation in the putting away of evil, were they then the habitation of God? and, if not His dwelling-place, can it be our dwelling-place (Numb. Xxxv. 34)?
Again I ask, Is Christ's fellowship to bind us to fellowship with Satan? " What fellowship hath Christ with Belial?”
When I began this, I did not think to bring in what I have done. Some may shrink from it as being personal and controversial; but I would say, with regard to controversy, if it be a true thing, it is God's controversy, and surely, therefore, cannot be slighted by us. Nor can it be unsuitable to touch upon, if in wisdom, as though ephemeral, etc.; should we not rather think it is the most important lessons He is teaching us? thus, it may be the very things we most need.
"He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every mnan according as his work shall be."--Rev. xxii. 11, 12.