The Evils of Gossip & Backbiting

Posted on March 10, 2023 by The Editor

Leviticus 19:16; Proverbs 18:8; Psalm 15:1-3

Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people.

The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly.

LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart. He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): Gossip is a very ready means of separating friends from one another.

A. W. PINK (1886-1952): What a fearful amount of gossip or idle talk, the children of God are guilty of!

ADAM CLARKE (1760-1832): A very common vice, and as destructive as it is common.

ROBERT HAWKER (1753-1827): Who but of Jesus can it be said, that he never slandered his neighbour, nor did evil to him, nor took up a reproach against him?

ANDREW BONAR (1810-1892): Gossip, idle talking, and meddling with our neighbour, and more directly still, insinuating and hinting evil of him are sins forbidden here.

JOHN TRAPP (1601-1699): The smutting of another man’s good name in any kind behind his back is backbiting; it is an irreparable wrong; take heed of it.

GEORGE DOWNAME (1566-1634): For first, in Leviticus, where it is straightly forbidden, the “tale-bearer” is compared to a pedlar—so much does דכיל signify. For as the pedlar having bought his wares of someone goeth about from house to house that he may sell the same to others; so backbiters and tale-bearers, gathering together tales and rumours, as it were wares, go from one to another, with such wares as either themselves have invented, or have gathered by report, that they may utter in the absence of their neighbour to his infamy and disgrace.

ADAM CLARKE: The words backbite and backbiter come from the Anglo-Saxon bac—the back, and to bite. How it came to be used in the sense it has in our language, seems at first view unaccountable; but it was intended to convey the triple sense of knavishness, cowardice, and brutality. He is a knave, who would rob you of your good name; he is a coward, that would speak of you in your absence what he dared not to do in your presence; and only an ill-conditioned dog would fly at and bite your back when your face was turned. All these three ideas are included in the term; and they all meet in the detractor and calumniator. His tongue is the tongue of a knave, a coward, and a dog.

JOHN ROBINSON (1575-1625): Slanderers may be called devilish, seeing the devil hath his name of slandering.

JOHN TRAPP: Some say that the word signifies to speak truth, but with a mischievous mind, to hurt another.

CHRISTOPHER CARTWRIGHT (1602-1658): If that which he speaks be true, yet he is void of charity in seeking to defame another. For as Solomon observes, “Love covereth all sins,” Proverbs 10:12. Where there is love and charity, there will be a covering and concealing of men’s sins, as much as may be. Now, where charity is wanting, their salvation is not to be expected.

JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564): If a good name is a treasure, more precious than all the riches of the world, Proverbs 22:1, no greater injury can be inflicted upon men than to wound their reputation.

ADAM CLARKE: “He that utters slander is a fool,” too, Proverbs 10:18; for God will sooner or later bring forth that righteousness as the light which he endeavours to cloud, and will find an expedient to roll the reproach away.

JEREMY TAYLOR (1613-1667): This crime is a conjugation of evils, and is productive of infinite mischief; it undermines peace, and saps the foundation of friendship; it destroys families, and rends in pieces the very heart and vitals of charity; it makes an evil man party, and witness, and judge, and executioner of the innocent.

C. H. MACKINTOSH (1820-1896): It has been well remarked that a talebearer injures three persons: “he injures himself, he injures his hearer, and he injures the subject of his tale.”

JOHN TRAPP: The tale-bearer carrieth the devil in his tongue, and the tale-hearer carries the devil in his ear.

H. A. IRONSIDE (1876-1951): The receiver of stolen goods is as guilty as the thief. So is it with the one who encourages another to relate scandalous stories. Nothing is more conducive to strife and sorrow among the people of God than the repeating of matters that cannot profit and that bring pain to the one of whom they are related. But there is no surer way to encourage the backbiter than by listening to his tales. If met by an angry countenance and reproved in the fear of God, the malicious gossip might often be nipped in the bud.

A. W. PINK (1886-1952): Shun the company of talebearers and tattlers; idle gossip is injurious to the soul.

C. H. SPURGEON: There are some brethren with whom it is ill for us to associate, lest they do us hurt, and it is ill for them that we associate with them, lest we seem to assist them in their evil deeds. Especially is this so in the case of mischief makers, troublers, people that can always tell you the gossip of a congregation…Remember how John Bunyan pictures it in Pilgrim’s Progress? When Talkative came up to gossip with Christian and Hopeful, he chattered away upon all sorts of topics and they were wearied with him. To get rid of him, Christian said to Hopeful, “Now we will talk a little about experimental godliness.” And when they began to speak about what they had tasted and handled of Divine Truth, Mr. Chatterbox dropped behind. He did not like spiritual conversation—neither do any of the breed! The holy pilgrims were not so rude as to tell him to go—they only talked about heavenly things which he did not understand—and he went away of his own accord!

H. A. IRONSIDE: Jesus says, “Whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops,” Luke 12:3. If we would keep that in mind I think it would stop a great deal of gossip. If we realized that everything we whisper about another person, every unkind criticism and evil story which we spread abroad concerning others will at last be made known to them and to everyone else, would it not have a tendency to make us very much more careful as to the use of our tongues? It is all coming out some day for, “Every idle word that men shall speak they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment,” Matthew 12:36.

C. H. MACKINTOSH: This is a most seasonable admonition for the people of God, in every age. A talebearer is sure to do incalculable mischief…Let us carefully guard against this horrible evil. May we never suffer a tale to, pass our lips; and let us never stand to hearken to a talebearer.

GEORGE DOWNAME: The citizen of heaven doth, and ought to abhor backbiting.

C. H. SPURGEON: Beware of a woman who says she “hates gossip.’” She is pretty sure to be up to her neck in it.

 

Posted in Christian Life | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The Evils of Gossip & Backbiting

Thomas

Posted on March 3, 2023 by The Editor

John 11:11-16; John 14:2-5; John 20:19,24-29

Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him. Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellow disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.

[Jesus said] I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?

The first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you…But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

THOMAS COKE (1747-1814): Thomas, called Didymus, one of the twelve apostles who were first ordained, happened not to be present when Jesus showed himself to the rest.

ALEXANDER WHYTE (1836-1921): Where was Thomas that glorious Sabbath evening? He must have been told that the disciples were to be all together that night—astounded, overwhelmed, and enraptured with the events of the morning. What conceivable cause could have kept Thomas away?

ALEXANDER MacLAREN (1826-1910): The cause of it may be found, I think, if we take into account the two other facts John’s Gospel records concerning him. One is his exclamation, in which a constitutional tendency to accept the blackest possibilities as certainties, blends very strangely and beautifully with an intense, brave devotion to his Master. “Let us also go,” said Thomas, when Christ announced His intention of returning to the grave of Lazarus, “that we may die with Him.”

JOHN TRAPP (1601-1699): It seems to be the language of despair—a blunt speech, and overly bold.

MATTHEW POOLE (1624-1679): His words signified great rashness and unbelief…Thomas ought to have believed our Saviour, who had told them, that though Lazarus slept the sleep of death, yet He went to awake him.

THE EDITOR: Raising Lazarus from the dead was to the glory of God, and Jesus said it was “for their sakes…to the intent that ye may believe;”—to strengthen their faith in Him, probably to prepare them for His own resurrection.

ALEXANDER MacLAREN: In John 14:2-5, Thomas broke in with a brusque contradiction of Christ’s saying that they knew the way, and they knew His goal. “Lord! we know not whither Thou goest”—there spoke pained love fronting the black prospect of eternal separation—“and how can we know the way?”—there spoke almost impatient despair. A constitutional pessimist!

J. C. RYLE (1816-1900): On each occasion he appears in the same state of mind—ready to look at the black side of everything, taking the worst view, and raising doubts and fears—in John 20, he cannot believe our Lord has risen.

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): Very likely, Thomas was broken-hearted when he found that his Master was dead; so, when his fellow disciples told him that Jesus was alive again, he could not believe it—the news was too good to be true. He had fallen into a fit of despondency, and got away, as broken-hearted, depressed people often do, trying to get quite alone.

ALEXANDER WHYTE: All that doubt, and fear, and despondency, and despair, met in Thomas’s melancholy heart till it all took absolute possession of him.

MARCUS DODS (1786–1838): If the bare possibility of his Lord’s death had plunged this loving yet gloomy heart into despondency, what dark despair must have preyed on it when that death was actually accomplished! How the figure of his dead Master had burnt itself into his soul, is seen from the manner that his mind dwells on the prints of the nails, the wound in His side. It is by these only, and not by well-known features or peculiarity of form, he will recognize and identify his Lord. His heart was with the lifeless body on the cross, and he could not bear to see the friends of Jesus or speak with those who had shared his hopes, but buries his disappointment and desolation in solitude and silence.

A. W. PINK (1886-1952): Death was the object which filled his vision. Thomas refused to accredit the testimony of ten competent witnesses who had seen Christ with their own eyes—he obstinately declares that he will not believe, unless he himself sees and touches the Lord’s body. He presumes to prescribe the conditions which must be met before he is ready to receive the glad tidings…A doubting Thomas does not honour God.

ALEXANDER MacLAREN: He was no doubter. Flat, frank, dogged disbelief, not hesitation or doubt, was his attitude. The form in which he puts his requirement shows how he was hugging his unbelief, and how he had no idea what he asked would ever be granted. ‘Unless I have so-and-so I will not,’ indicates an altogether different spiritual attitude from what ‘If I have so-and-so, I will,’ would have indicated. One is the language of willingness to be persuaded, the other is a determination to be obstinate.

STEPHEN CHARNOCK (1628-1680): Thomas’s unbelief was very black, for he refused to believe all the testimonies of the disciples concerning Christ’s resurrection; but when he was sensible of his crime, and so kindly dealt with by his Saviour, he puts forth a stronger act of faith than any of the rest: “My Lord, and my God.” His faith was not satisfied with a single my; he gives Him more honourable titles, and his heart grasps Him more closely and affectionately than any of the rest.

ALEXANDER MacLAREN: It is clear that Thomas did not reach forth his hand and touch. The rush of instantaneous conviction swept him far away from the state of mind which had asked for such evidence. Our Lord’s words must have pierced his heart.

THE EDITOR: Three times John’s Gospel records that Thomas is “called Didymus.” Why?

J. C. RYLE: Some have thought his Greek name “Didymus,” signifying “two” or “double,” was given him because of his character being double—part faith and part weakness. But this is very doubtful.

MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714): Thomas in Hebrew, and Didymus in Greek, both signify a twin; it is said of Rebekah, Genesis 25:24, that there were “twins in her womb;” the word is Thomim. Probably Thomas was a twin.

H. A. IRONSIDE (1876-1951): I wonder who the other twin was. Perhaps if you look into the mirror you will see him.

ALEXANDER WHYTE: Thomas, in all his melancholy and resentment, is ourselves. Unbelief, and obstinacy, and loss of opportunity, and then increased unbelief, is no strange thing to ourselves.

WILLIAM GURNALL (1617-1679): We are too prone to carry our faith, like Thomas, at our fingers’ ends; and to trust God no further than our hand of sense can reach.

C. H. SPURGEON: There is a class of disciples like Thomas who think much and are apt to doubt much. They do not love doubts—they hate them, yet their doubts often go very deep and undermine the most precious doctrines.

J. C. RYLE: Thomas was a good man with a very doubting and gloomy turn of mind—a man that really loved Jesus and was willing to die with Him, but a man who saw little but the dangers attending everything that a disciple had to do, and the difficulties belonging to everything a disciple had to believe. There are many like him. John Bunyan’s characters, “Fearing,” “Despondency,” and “Much afraid,” in Pilgrim’s Progress, are types of a large class of Christians…There is no more common fault among believers, perhaps, than despondency and unbelief.

THOMAS GOODWIN (1600-1679): I may say in this case, just as Christ said to Thomas, “Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”

J. C. RYLE: “Be not faithless, but believing.” This is a rebuke and an exhortation at the same time. I believe our Lord had in view the further object of correcting Thomas’s whole character, and directing his attention to his besetting sin—How faithless we often are, and how slow to believe!

 

Posted in Bible Characters | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Thomas

Sometimes Answers to Prayer are Not What We Expect

Posted on February 24, 2023 by The Editor

2 Corinthians 12:7-10; Romans 8:26-28

Lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmity, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

WILLIAM JAY (1769-1853): This furnishes us with an opportunity to remark two things. The first regards our infirmities in prayer. We often know not what we ask.

JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564): We must always remember how it is said that we do not know what to pray for, because with regard to ourselves it is something that exceeds all our understanding. The most able of us fail in that respect, despite the fact that there are a number who imagine that they know perfectly how and what to pray to God.

JOHN NEWTON (1725-1807): Our own limited views, short-sighted purposes and desires, may be, and will be, often over-ruled.

ANDREW FULLER (1754-1815): God will not grant us every desire, that is our mercy; for, some of them are sinful.  David desired to be revenged on Nabal and his innocent family. Jonah desired Nineveh’s ruin. Others would not be for our good. David desired the life of the child he had by Bathsheba; David also desired the life of Jonathan; neither of which would have been for his good. Nay, not every righteous desire…David desired to build a house for God, and it was a righteous desire, for God took it well at his hands; yet He did not grant it. Kings and prophets desired to see the Lord Messiah, and yet did not see Him. How then are we to understand it? Doubtless there is great mystery in these things.

CHARLES SIMEON (1759-1836): But the Holy Spirit will “make intercession for them.” Christ is properly our Advocate and Intercessor, 1 John 2:1; but the Spirit also may be said to “intercede for us.” The Spirit intercedes in us at the throne of grace, while Christ intercedes for us at the throne of glory. The Holy Spirit sometimes enables us to pour out our hearts with fluency. This he does by discovering to us our wants, quickening our affections, and testifying to us God’s willingness to answer prayer. He does not, however, always operate in this way. He will make intercession “with unutterable groans”—the joy of Christians is represented as being sometimes inexpressible, 1 Peter 1:8; but frequently a sense of sin overwhelms them. Then sighs and groans are the natural language of their hearts. Nor are such inarticulate prayers unacceptable to God. We have a remarkable instance of their success in the history of our Lord, see John 11:33,38,41.

MARY WINSLOW (1774-1854): He knows what we need, and what we ought to have, and will deny us no good thing.  But He must judge for us, who are but as babes, who cannot judge for ourselves.

WILLIAM JAY: The second point is God’s method in answering us. He grants us while He denies. If He refuses us, He gives us something better in exchange, something better in itself, and better also for us…With regard to the thorn in the flesh, Paul was more than satisfied with the manner in which his prayer for the removal of it was answered, when, though it continued, he had the assurance of all-sufficient grace under it, and that the Saviour’s strength should be made perfect in his weakness. “Most gladly therefore,” says he, “will I glory in my infirmity, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.” He withholds abundance, but He teaches and enables us to be content with such things as we have.

RICHARD CECIL (1748-1810): God is omniscient as well as omnipotent: and omniscience may see reason to withhold what omnipotence could bestow.

THOMAS GOODWIN (1600-1679): Observe, if in the thing which thou hast prayed much about, though it be denied thee, yet if God doth not give thee all satisfaction that may be.

MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714): Though God accepts the prayer of faith, yet He does not always answer it in the letter; as He sometimes grants in wrath, so He sometimes denies in love. It is a great comfort to us, whatever thorns in the flesh we are pained with, that God’s grace is sufficient for us.

WILLIAM JAY: Prayer is sometimes answered by strange and even terrible things in righteousness.

MARY WINSLOW: How often does God answer prayer by terrible things in righteousness! When we are in a thick mist we can discern nothing, and are anxious to escape from its perils. But, as it rolls away, we begin to see a gleam of light, and hail it as the commencement of a fuller and brighter discovery. Now this often the case with the people of God’s everlasting love. We pray for what we believe would promote our happiness and the comfort of others, and for the glory of God. Perhaps we do not in so many words ask for this favour; but we earnestly desire it in our hearts, and often plan in our minds how it may be brought about. God sees the heart’s fond wish; presently He brings us, by His all-wise providence, to the very thing we desired; but oh! in such a different way from what we had planned in our own minds. And yet, how much more effectually has He done it than we had thought. Such is our God, and it is a mercy when we see His blessed hand in every dispensation towards His elect.

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): When we ask in faith, nothing doubting, if we receive not the precise thing asked for, we shall receive an equivalent, and more than an equivalent for it. As one remarks, “If the Lord does not pay in silver, He will in gold; and if He does not pay in gold, He will in diamonds.” If He does not give you precisely what you ask for, He will give you that which is tantamount to it, which you will greatly rejoice to receive in lieu of it.

WILLIAM JAY: Wisdom therefore is here necessary in discerning, and caution in judging.

JOHN CALVIN: We shall have profited greatly when we have learned to refrain hasty judgment.

J. R. MILLER (1840-1912): Many prayers that seem to be unanswered are really answered. The blessing comes, but in a form we do not recognize. Instead of the thing we sought, something better is given. The burden is not lifted away, but we are sustained beneath it. We are not spared the suffering, but in the suffering we are brought nearer to God, and receive more of His grace. The sorrow is not taken away, but is changed to joy. Our ignorant prayers are taken into the hands of the great Intercessor, and are answered in ways far wiser than our thoughts—instead of earthly trifles, heavenly riches; instead of things which our poor wisdom sought, things God’s infinite wisdom chose for us; instead of pleasure for a day, gain for eternity.

WILLIAM JAY: Let us leave ourselves to His wisdom and goodness; a wisdom that is infinite, and a goodness that spared not His own Son.

C. H. SPURGEON: God’s memorial is that He hears prayer, Psalm 65:2; and His glory is that He answers it in a manner fitted to inspire awe in the hearts of His people.

JOHN NEWTON: How happy are they who can resign all to Him, see His hand in every dispensation, and believe that He choses better for them than they possibly could for themselves.

 

Posted in Prayer | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Sometimes Answers to Prayer are Not What We Expect

Thought Crime

Posted on February 17, 2023 by The Editor

Psalm 119:113; Psalm 94:11,12; Psalm 119:67,71

I hate vain thoughts: but thy law do I love.

The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity. Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law.

Before I was afflicted I went astray: but now have I kept thy word…It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes.

STEPHEN CHARNOCK (1628-1680): Thoughts are the words of the mind.

CHARLES BRIDGES (1794-1869): How lightly do most men think of the responsibility of their thoughts! as if they were their own, and they might indulge them without restraint or evil.

ALEXANDER MacLAREN (1826-1910): It is profoundly true that “As a man thinketh, so is he,” Proverbs 23:7. Our characters are largely made by our estimates of what is good or bad, desirable or undesirable.

THOMAS SCOTT (1747-1821): There is no better test of our true character, than the habitual effect of “vain thoughts” upon our minds—whether we love and indulge them, or abhor and watch and pray against them.

MARTYN LLOYD-JONES (1899-1981): As long as we think of sin only in terms of things actually done, we fail to understand it…Thoughts, motives, and desires are equally important―Take that statement: “Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,” and so on, Matthew 15:19―Our Lord always includes evil thoughts with murders, and such things as strife, enmity, deceit, and many other things.

THOMAS GOODWIN (1600-1679): Our greatest sins are those of the mind.

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): Some of our thoughts are specially vain in the sense of vain glory, pride, conceit, and self trust; others in the sense of bringing disappointment, such as fond ambition, sinful dreaming, and confidence in man; others in the sense of emptiness and frivolity, such as the idle thoughts and vacant romancing in which so many indulge; and, yet once more, too many of our thoughts are vain in the sense of being sinful, evil, and foolish.

WILLIAM JAY: Vain thoughts are foolish thoughts, wandering thoughts, unbelieving thoughts, worldly thoughts, self-righteous thoughts, sinful thoughts. Vain thoughts here do not mean empty ones, but evil ones.

THOMAS MANTON (1620-1677): The sins that do most usually engross and take up our thoughts are: First, Uncleanness. There is a polluting ourselves by our thoughts, and this sin usually works that way.

Secondly, Revenge. Liquors are soured when long kept; so, when we dwell upon discontents, they turn to revenge. Purposes of revenge are most sweet and pleasant to carnal nature: “Frowardness is in his heart, he deviseth mischief continually,” Proverbs 6:14; that is to say, he is full of revengeful and spiteful thoughts.

Thirdly, Envy. It is a sin that feeds upon the mind. Those songs of the women, that Saul had slain his thousands, but David his ten thousands; they ran in Saul’s mind, therefore he hated David, I Samuel 18:9. Envy is an evil disease that dwelleth in the heart, and betrays itself mostly in thoughts.

Fourthly, Pride. Either pride in the desires or pride in the mind, either vain glory or self conceit; this is entertaining our hearts with whispers of vanity―proud men are full of imaginations.

Fifthly, Covetousness, which is nothing but vain musings and exercises of the heart: “A heart they have exercised with covetous practices,” 2 Peter 2:14. And it withdraws the heart in the very time of God’s worship: “Their heart goeth after their covetousness,” Ezekiel 33:31.

Sixthly, Distrust is another thing which usually takes up our thoughts―distracting motions against God’s providence.

JOHN ROBINSON (1575-1625): Every thought of evil is not an evil thought, but only such as to which we adjoin either consent of will, or, at least, a delight of affection.

WILLIAM JAY: David had vain thoughts: and who has not? Who on earth are free from vain thoughts? Who can say, “I have made my heart clean; I am free from sin?” Proverbs 20:9. Why, “there is not a just man upon earth that does good, and sinneth not,” Ecclesiastes 7:20; “in many things we offend all,” James 3:2…Secondly, there is something else: David not only had vain thoughts—but he hated them.

WILLIAM GURNALL (1617-1679): He likes their company no better than one would a pack of thieves that break into his house.

MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714): He did not countenance them, nor give them any entertainment, but did what he could to keep them out, or at least to keep them under.

WILLIAM JAY: This is the difference between the naturally and spiritually minded man. Evil thoughts are common to both; but let us mark the distinction. The natural man loves these thoughts; he therefore encourages them: the spiritually minded man hates them. But how can a man evince that, though he has vain thoughts, he hates them? Why, he will be sure to be humbled before God; and then he will be sure to pray against them; and if these prayers be sincere and importunate, then he will strive against them.

STEPHEN CHARNOCK: “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts,” Isaiah 55:7; Galatians 5:24. Mortification must extend to these: affections must be crucified, and all the little brats of thoughts which beget them, or are begotten by them.

THOMAS MANTON: “A good man, out of the good treasure of his heart, bringeth forth good things: and an evil man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil things,” Matthew 12:35. The workings of our spirits are as our treasure and stock. The mind works upon what it finds in itself, as a mill grinds whatsoever is put into it, be it chaff or corn. Therefore, if we would prevent wicked thoughts, and musings of vanity all the day long, we must hide the Word in our heart—“Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee,” Psalm 119:11.

MATTHEW HENRY: “Thy law do I love.” The more we love the law of God the more we shall get mastery over our vain thoughts, the more hateful they will be to us, as being contrary to the whole law, and the more watchful we shall be against them.

KATHARINA VON BORA* (1499-1558): “It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes.” I had never known what such and such things meant, in such and such Psalms, such complaints and workings of spirit: I had never understood the practice of Christian duties, had not God brought me under some affliction.

THOMAS BROOKS (1608-1680): If, by outward afflictions, thy soul be brought more under the inward teachings of God, doubtless thy afflictions are in love.

RICHARD BAXTER (1615-1691): Suffering unbolts the door of the heart that the Word hath easier entrance.

JOHN MASON (1646-1694): By affliction God separates the sin which He hates from the soul which He loves.

MARTIN LUTHER (1483-1546): I have always found it one of my best schoolmasters.

DANIEL DYKE (1617-1688): “Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law.” The first schoolmaster is affliction. The second schoolmaster is God Himself. Afflictions of themselves, though severe schoolmasters, yet can do us no good, unless God come by His Spirit, and teach our hearts inwardly. And for the second point, the lessons taught, they are included generally in those words, “in thy law.”—“Before I was afflicted I went astray: but now have I kept thy word.” God doth not willingly afflict us, but being necessarily thereunto enforced, by that strength of corruption in us, which otherwise will not be subdued. Let us therefore pray, that as in the ministry of God’s Word, so also of His works and judgments, we may be all taught of God.

___________________

*Editor’s Note: Katharina Von Bora was Martin Luther’s wife.

 

Posted in Sanctification & Holiness | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Thought Crime

A Morning in the Temple, Part 3 of 3: Jesus Speaks to the Woman

Posted on February 10, 2023 by The Editor

John 8:9-11

And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

ADAM CLARKE (1760-1832): “Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.” But if they all went out, how could she be in the midst?

MATTHEW POOLE (1624-1679): No doubt but His apostles were there, for they constantly attended Him; and no doubt divers others were also there, see John 8:2; but the meaning is, that He was by this means quit of the scribes’ and Pharisees’ company, who were gone out of shame, being thus convicted by their own consciences.

MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714): The woman likely stood trembling at the bar, as one doubtful of the issue…She did not seek to make her escape, though she had opportunity for it; but her prosecutors had appealed unto Jesus, and on Him she would wait for her doom, for Christ was without sin, and might cast the first stone—the question is asked: “Where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?” She said, “No man, Lord.” She speaks respectfully to Christ, calls Him Lord, but is silent concerning her prosecutors, and says nothing in answer to that question, “Where are those thine accusers?”

J. C. RYLE (1816-1900): Observe that our Lord, with merciful consideration, did not ask the woman whether she was guilty or not. Thus she could with truth reply to His question, and yet not incriminate herself…To suppose, as some have thought, that the narrative before us palliates the sin of adultery, and exhibits our Lord as making light of the seventh commandment, is surely a great mistake.

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): She was taken in adultery. There was no doubt of it. She was “taken in the very act,” and there she stands—no, she kneels—all covered with blushes before the Man who is asked to judge her! And remember His words? He never said a word to excuse her guilt—the Saviour could not and would not condone her shame! Nor would He, on the other hand, crush the woman who had sinned.

A. W. PINK (1886-1952): The law required two witnesses before its sentence could be executed, Deuteronomy 19:15, yet, those witnesses must assist in the carrying out of the sentence, Deuteronomy 17:7. But here not a single witness was left to testify against this woman who had merely been indicted. Thus the law was powerless to touch her. What, then, remained? Why, the way was now clear for Christ to act in “grace and truth.”

MATTHEW HENRY: In this He attended to the great work which he came into the world about, and that was to bring sinners to repentance; not to destroy, but to save…For Christ to say, I do not condemn thee is, in effect, to say, I do forgive thee; and the Son of man had power on earth to forgive sins, and could upon good grounds give this absolution; for as He knew the hardness and impenitent hearts of the prosecutors, and therefore said that which would confound them, so He knew the tenderness and sincere repentance of the prisoner, and therefore said that which would comfort her, as He did to that woman who was a sinner, such a sinner as this, who was likewise looked upon with disdain by a Pharisee, Luke 7:48-50: “Thy sins are forgiven thee, go in peace.”

ROBERT HAWKER (1753-1827): What a lovely portrait is it of the Son of God in our nature! Look at Jesus in this sweet point of view, pardoning the sinner, while reproving the sin.

THOMAS COKE (1747-1814): It does not appear to me that this woman was a penitent, or that Christ forgave her sin; but only that He dismissed her, as not thinking it proper to take upon Himself the office of the civil magistrate in condemning her.

A. W. PINK: No doubt the question occurs to many of our readers, Was this woman saved at the time she left Christ? Personally, I believe that she was. I believe so because she did not leave Christ when she had opportunity to do so; because she addressed Him as “Lord”—contrast the “Master” of the Pharisees in John 8:4; and because Christ said to her, “Neither do I condemn thee.”

ADAM CLARKE: It is generally supposed that our Lord acquitted the woman: this is incorrect; He neither acquitted nor condemned her: He did not enter at all judicially into the business. His saying, “Neither do I condemn thee,” was not more than a simple declaration that He would not concern Himself with the matter—that being the office of the chief magistrate.

J. C. RYLE: Let us calmly weigh the matter, and examine the contents of the passage.

JOHN GILL (1697-1771): Christ came not into the world to act the part of a civil magistrate, and therefore refused to arbitrate a case, or be concerned in dividing an inheritance between two brethren, Luke 12:13. Nor did He come into the world to condemn it, but that the world, through Him, might be saved, John 3:17; nor would He pass any other sentence on this woman, than what He had done; nor would He inflict any punishment on her Himself; but suitably and agreeably to His office as a prophet, He declares against her sin, calls her to repentance, and bids her “go and sin no more.

CHARLES SIMEON (1759-1836): Greatly as our Lord delighted in mercy, He would not so exercise it as to give the least countenance to sin.

MATTHEW POOLE: He did not acquit her, for He was not to make void the law of God; nor did He condemn her: He was neither a witness in the case, nor yet a secular judge, to whom such judgments did belong; He was only to speak to her, as the Mediator and Saviour of man.

ADAM CLARKE: As a preacher of righteousness, He exhorted her to abandon her evil practices, lest the punishment which she was now likely to escape, should be inflicted on her for a repetition of her transgression…While there is life there is hope; God has no pleasure in the death of sinners; He is gracious and compassionate.

D. L. MOODY (1837-1899): There is hope for you, adulterer. There is hope for you, adulteress. God will not turn you away if you truly repent—you may be washed, you may be sanctified, you may be justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

THOMAS COKE: Jesus is now a merciful Saviour: He will shortly be an inexorable Judge. Wise and happy are they who improve the moment of opportunity, and seek to Him for mercy while mercy may be found.

CHARLES SIMEON: Be thankful that thou art not now sent into the presence of thy God with all thy sins upon thee: let the “space which is given thee for repentance,” be well employed: lose not an hour in seeking forgiveness with thy God. Go to thy chamber, and pour out thy soul before Him.

D. L. MOODY: Are you guilty, even in thought? Bear in mind what Christ said: “That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart,” Matthew 5:28—Confess your sin to Him. Ask Him to give you victory over your passions.

EDWARD PAYSON (1783-1827):  His goodness in sparing thy life, is designed to lead thee to repentance.

 

Posted in Attributes of God, Jesus Christ | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Morning in the Temple, Part 3 of 3: Jesus Speaks to the Woman

A Morning in the Temple, Part 2 of 3: Christ Answers the Pharisees

Posted on February 3, 2023 by The Editor

Proverbs 26:5; John 8:6-9

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

A. W. PINK (1886-1952): “Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.” This was the first thing that He here did.

JOHN GILL (1697-1771): Most likely, Christ on purpose put Himself into this posture, as if He was busy about something else, and did not attend to what they said; and hereby cast some contempt upon them, as if they and their question were unworthy of His notice.

MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714):  This is the only mention made in the gospels of Christ’s writing.

MATTHEW POOLE (1624-1679): What He wrote, or how He could write upon the floor of the temple, which was of stone, are idle questions; the first not possible to be resolved, the second impertinent; for it is not said, that he made any impression upon the ground, though it be said, He wrote upon it. It appears plainly to have been but a divertive action, by which our Saviour signified that He gave no ear to them.

CHARLES SIMEON (1759-1836): Nor are we told precisely what He meant by that significant action.

A. W. PINK: That there was a symbolical significance to His action goes without saying, and what this is we are not left to guess. Scripture is its own interpreter. This was not the first time that the Lord had written “with His finger.” In Exodus 31:18, we read, “And He gave unto Moses, when He had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.”—Thus did He show these Pharisees that He had come here, not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. His writing on the ground, then, was symbolically a ratification of God’s righteous law. But so blind were His would-be accusers they discerned not the significance of His act.

MATTHEW HENRY: Some think they have a liberty of conjecture as to what He wrote here. Some Greek copies here read, He “wrote on the ground, the sins of every one of them;” and this He could do, for He “sets our iniquities before him,” Psalm 90:8.

JOHN TRAPP (1601-1699): Perhaps He thus wrote on the ground to show that sin, which is written before God, Isaiah 65:6, and graven as it were “with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond, ” Jeremiah 17:1.

H. A. IRONSIDE (1876-1951): Now because they knew their Bibles, they must have known of the passage in Jeremiah 17:13, which says, “O LORD, the Hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters.” It might be translated, “written on the ground.” See them gathered about Him, and He stoops down and writes on the ground. They turn one to the other, saying, “What is He doing, writing on the ground? Writing on the ground! Isn’t there something like that in our Bibles?” Yes, there is.

MATTHEW HENRY: Jerome and Ambrose suppose He wrote, “Let the names of these wicked men be written in the dust,” Jeremiah 17:13.

ROBERT HAWKER (1753-1827): But this is mere conjecture.

JOHN TRAPP: Nothing certain can be determined.

A. W. PINK: It is evident that our Lord’s enemies mistook His silence for embarrassment. They no more grasped the force of His action of writing on the ground, than did Belshazzar understand the writing of that same Hand on the walls of his palace, Daniel 5:5-9, 25-31. Emboldened by His silence, and satisfied that they had Him cornered, they continued to press their question upon Him.

CHARLES BRIDGES (1794-1869): Silence may sometimes be mistaken for defeat. Unanswered words may be deemed unanswerable, and the fool becomes arrogant, more and more “wise in his own conceit.”

J. C. RYLE (1816-1900): “When they continued asking,” our Lord silenced them with a withering and heart-searching reply—“He that is without sin among you,” He said, “let him first cast a stone at her.” He did not say that the woman had not sinned, or that her sin was a trifling and venial one. But He reminded her accusers that they were not the persons to bring a charge against her. Their own motives and lives were far from pure…What they really desired was not to vindicate the purity of God’s law, and punish a sinner, but to wreak their malice on Him.

THOMAS COKE (1747-1814): It is also evident that the accusers showed great partiality, from their apprehending the woman only, and not the man also, when the law condemned both; they must have favoured his escape, because they were both “taken in the fact.” It is plain, however, that our Lord’s certain knowledge of what the effect would be, at once vindicated the wisdom of His putting the matter upon this issue.

MATTHEW HENRY: “In the net which they spread is their own foot taken,” Psalm 9:15. They came with design to accuse Him, but they were forced to accuse themselves. Christ owns it was fit the prisoner should be prosecuted, but appeals to their consciences whether they were fit to be the prosecutors.

CHARLES SIMEON: To give time for His word to operate on their consciences, He stooped down and wrote again: and behold, these accusers, self-condemned in their own minds, and fearful lest their own secret abominations should be exposed to public view, withdrew as privately as they could. The elder part among them, as being most fearful of exposure, retiring first, and gradually the younger following their example; so that in a little time not a single accuser was left.

MATTHEW HENRY: They went away by stealth, as “people being ashamed steal away when they flee in battle,” 2 Samuel 19:3. It is folly for those that are under convictions to get away from Jesus Christ, as these here did, for He is the only one that can heal the wounds of conscience, and speak peace to us. Those that are convicted by their consciences will be condemned by their Judge, if they be not justified by their Redeemer; and will they then go from Him? To whom will they go?

J. C. RYLE: We learn, for one thing, the power of conscience…Wicked and hardened as they were, they felt something within which made them cowards.

MATTHEW HENRY: Christ by this teaches us to be slow to speak when difficult cases are proposed to us, not quickly to shoot our bolt; and when provocations are given us, or we are bantered, to pause and consider before we reply; think twice before we speak once: “The heart of the wise studies to answer.”

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): After He fired that one red-hot shot, He waited until it had produced its due effect.

CHARLES SIMEON: And thus was the snare broken.

CHARLES BRIDGES: Oh! for wisdom to govern the tongue; to discover “the time to keep silence, and the time to speak,” Ecclesiastes 3:7; most of all to suggest the “word fitly spoken” for effective reproof! Proverbs 15:23, 25:1. How instructive is the pattern of our great Master! “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” Proverbs 26:5. His silences, and His answers were equally worthy of Himself.

 

Posted in Attributes of God, Jesus Christ | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on A Morning in the Temple, Part 2 of 3: Christ Answers the Pharisees

A Morning in the Temple, Part 1 of 3: The Scenario of a Subtle Snare

Posted on January 27, 2023 by The Editor

Proverbs 26:4; John 8:1-6

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

CHARLES SIMEON (1759-1836): It is surprising to see what a variety of ways the wickedness of the human heart will betray itself: sometimes in the commission of gross iniquity, and sometimes in apparent indignation against it: sometimes in open hostility against Christ, and sometimes in hypocritical professions of regard for Him. Who that had seen the zeal of the Scribes and Pharisees against an adulterous woman, would not have thought them the purest of the human race? Who that had heard their citations of Moses’ law, and their respectful application to Christ as an authorized expositor of that law, would not have supposed that they truly feared God, and desired to perform His holy will? Who would have imagined that the whole was only a murderous plot against the life of Christ?

A. W. PINK (1886-1952): The awful malignity of the Lord’s enemies is evident. They brought this adulterous woman to Christ not because they were shocked at her conduct, still less because they were grieved that God’s holy law had been broken. to exploit this woman’s sin and further their own evil designs. With coldblooded indelicacy they acted, employing the guilt of their captive to accomplish their evil intentions against Christ.

ROBERT HAWKER (1753-1827): It is worthy of remark, that these sworn foes of Christ did not bring the Adulterer as well as the Adulteress. Had their designs in coming to Jesus been purely from a regard to the sanctity of God’s law, they would have been as anxious to punish the man, as the woman; for so the law enjoined, see Leviticus 22:10.

CHARLES SIMEON: These accusers had no indignation against the sin of adultery, nor any love to the law of Moses, nor any zeal for the honour of God: they were actuated solely by an inveterate hatred of Christ, and a determination to find, if possible, some occasion against Him, that they might accuse Him. Their professed object was, to punish the woman; but their real object was, to lay a snare for His life.

A. W. PINK: They were anxious to discredit our Lord before the people. They did not wait until they could interrogate Him in private, but, interrupting as He was teaching the people, they rudely challenged Him to solve what must have seemed to them an unsolvable enigma. The problem by which they sought to defy Infinite Wisdom was this: A woman had been taken in the act of adultery, and the law required that she should be stoned.

MATTHEW POOLE (1624-1679): Moses in the law, Leviticus 20:10, commanded that such malefactors should “be put to death;” but we read of no law commanding this kind of death. Their rule was, that when the law had set no kind of death for an offence, there the mildest kind of death was to be their punishment, which they counted strangling to be. But they ordinarily entitled Moses to their traditional additions to the law; and death being commanded by the law as the punishment, they took themselves to be at liberty to determine the kind of death, as prudence and reason of state ruled them; so probably, seeing that that sin grew very frequent amongst them, appointed stoning to be the kind of death such malefactors should be put to. The manner of which was this: The guilty person was carried up to some high place, and thrown down from there headlong by such as witnessed against him; then they threw stones at him till they had killed him, if not killed by the fall; or covered his body, if he were dead. This they tell our Saviour that Moses commanded, because he had commanded that such a person should die, and their Sanhedrim had determined this particular death to such malefactors. But they would know what our Saviour said to this.

A. W. PINK: “What sayest thou?” they asked. An insidious question, indeed.

MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714): If they had asked this question in sincerity, with a humble desire to know his mind, it had been very commendable. Those that are entrusted with the administration of justice should look up to Christ for direction.

A. W. PINK: “What sayest thou?” they asked. An insidious question, indeed.

MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714): If they had asked this question in sincerity, with a humble desire to know his mind, it had been very commendable. Those that are entrusted with the administration of justice should look up to Christ for direction.

ROBERT HAWKER: But the object they had was to entangle the Lord Jesus in a snare.

A. W. PINK: Had He said, “Let her go,” they could then accuse Him as being an enemy against the law of God, and His own word “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill,” Matthew 5:17. But if He answered, “Stone her,” they would have ridiculed the fact that He was the “friend of publicans and sinners.” On one hand, if He ignored the charge they brought against this guilty woman, they could accuse Him of compromising with sin; on the other hand, if He passed sentence on her, what became of His own word, “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved,” John 3:17.

JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564): Their intention was, to constrain Christ to depart from his office of preaching grace, that he might appear to be fickle and unsteady.

A. W. PINK: Here, then, was the dilemma: if Christ palliated the wickedness of this woman, where was His respect for the holiness of God and the righteousness of His law; but if He condemned her, what became of His claim that He had come here to “seek and to save that which was lost?”

ALEXANDER MacLAREN (1826-1910): But there is something more than that here.

THOMAS COKE (1747-1814): Observe further, that the Jewish Sanhedrim sat by licence from the Roman governor; and though they had a right to try capital causes, it was necessary that the sentence which they passed should be recognized and allowed by the Roman governor, before it could be carried into execution.

MATTHEW POOLE: If He had directed to send her to be punished by the Roman governors, who administered justice in capital causes, the people would be fired with indignation; for they looked upon them as invaders of the rights of government that belonged to the Israelites. If He had advised them to put her to death by their own power, they would have accused Him of sedition, as an enemy of the Roman authority. If He had dismissed her as not worthy of death, they would have accused him to the Sanhedrim, as an infringer of the law of Moses, and a favourer of dissoluteness.

A. W. PINK: No doubt they were satisfied that they had Him completely cornered.

MATTHEW POOLE: This malicious design, so craftily concerted, our Saviour easily discovered and defeated—He seemed not at all to attend to what they said, but, stooping down, wrote on the ground.

J. C. RYLE (1816-1900): Our Lord knew the hearts of the malicious questioners before Him, and dealt with them with perfect wisdom—He refused to be “a judge” and lawgiver among them, and specially in a case which their own law had already decided. He gave them, at first, no answer at all.

JOHN GILL (1697-1771): “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.” Sometimes a fool, or a wicked man, is not to be answered at all—as Christ to the Scribes and Pharisees.

 

Posted in Attributes of God, Jesus Christ | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Morning in the Temple, Part 1 of 3: The Scenario of a Subtle Snare

Unteachableness—a Deadly Fruit of Formality

Posted on January 20, 2023 by The Editor

Job 12:2

No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you.

JOHN GILL (1697-1771): These words of Job are to be taken ironically, exposing their vanity and self-conceit: “ye are the people;” the only, and all the people in the world of importance and consequence for good sense and wisdom; the only wise and knowing folk, the men of reason and understanding; all the rest are but fools and asses or, ye are the only people of God, His covenant people, His servants; that are made acquainted with the secrets of wisdom, as none else are.

ALEXANDER MacLAREN (1826-1910): It is astonishing what unteachable, untamable creatures men are.

MARTYN LLOYD-JONES (1899-1981): Man’s ultimate problem is his pride.

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): Do you know a class of people that pull the most tremendously long faces, that always look so serious, that talk the English language with a kind of unctuous twang, that give a savory pronunciation to every word they utter? Beware of them!

MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714): In a vain religion there is much of show, and affecting to seem religious in the eyes of others. In a vain religion there is much censuring, reviling, and detracting of others…It is common for those who are most sinful themselves, and least sensible of it, to be most forward and free in judging and censuring others: the Pharisees, who were most haughty in justifying themselves, were most scornful in condemning others.

MARTYN LLOYD-JONES: What is this spirit that condemns? It is a self-righteous spirit. Self is always at the back of it, and it is always a manifestation of self-righteousness, a feeling of superiority, and a feeling that we are all right while others are not. That then leads to censoriousness, and a spirit that is always ready to express itself in a derogatory manner. And then, accompanying that, there is the tendency to despise others, to regard them with contempt. I am not only describing the Pharisees, I am describing all who have the spirit of the Pharisee.

C. H. SPURGEON: You know some men, perhaps, who are very stringent believers of a certain form of doctrine and very great admirers of a certain shape of Church rule and government. You will observe them utterly despising, and abhorring, and hating all who differ from their predilections. Albeit the difference is but as a jot or a tittle, they will stand up and fight for every rubric, defend every old rusty nail in the Church door and think every syllable of their peculiar creed should be accepted without challenge. “As it was in the beginning, so must it be now, and so must it ever be even unto the end.”

JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564); Moroseness is the character of the old, but they become especially unteachable, because they measure wisdom by the number of years.

AUGUSTUS TOPLADY (1713-1778): King Henry made the length of his own arm a standard measure throughout England―since called a yard.  Do not bigots act much the same part in matters of religion?

C. H. SPURGEON: Now it is an observation which your experience will probably warrant, as certainly mine does, that mostly these people stand up so fiercely for the form, because, lacking the power, that is all they have to boast of. They have no faith, though they have a creed. They have no life within and they supply its place with outward ceremony. What wonder therefore that they fiercely defend that?

MARTYN LLOYD-JONES: The Pharisees were expert at that. They went to the temple regularly; they were always punctilious in these matters of the details and minutiae of the law. But the whole time they were judging and condemning their fellows with contempt.

C. H. SPURGEON: One of the most frequent symptoms is formality in his religious worship…They will have it that there must always be observed, not simply reverent behavior in the House of God, but something more than mere reverence, there must be an abject slavish, tyrannical fear upon the hearts of all who are gathered. They will have it that every jot and tittle of our worship must always be conducted with a certain traditional decorum. Now these people, as frequently as not, know nothing whatever of the power of godliness and only contend for these little shells because they have not the kernel. They fight for the surface albeit they have never discovered “the deep that couches beneath.” They know not the precious ores that lie in the rich mines of the Gospel, and therefore the surface, covered though it is with weeds and thistles, is quite enough for them.

MARTYN LLOYD-JONES: Formal Christianity is often the greatest enemy of the pure faith.

J. C. RYLE (1816-1900): If you love your own soul, beware of formality. Nothing is so dangerous to a man’s own soul. Familiarity with the form of religion, has a fearfully deadening effect on the conscience. It brings by degrees a thick crust of insensibility over the whole inner man. None seem to become so desperately hard as those who are continually repeating holy words and handling holy things, while their hearts, while their hearts are running after sin and the world…They are gradually hardening their hearts, and searing the skin of their consciences.

JOHN CALVIN: They become especially unteachable.

A. W. PINK (1886-1952): Each of us must be much on his guard lest he mistake pride and self-will for conscientious scruples. There is a vast difference between firmness and an unteachable spirit, as there is between meekness and fickleness.

MATTHEW HENRY: When we hear people ready to speak of the faults of others, or to censure them as holding scandalous errors, or to lessen the wisdom and piety of those about them, that they themselves may seem the wiser and better, this is a sign that they have but a vain religion. The man who has a detracting tongue cannot have a truly humble gracious heart. He who delights to injure his neighbour in vain pretends to love God; therefore a reviling tongue will prove a man a hypocrite. Censuring is a pleasing sin, extremely complaint with nature, and therefore evinces a man’s being in a natural state.

GEORGE SWINNOCK (1627-1673): He is not half a saint who is but a negative saint―The tree that is barren and without good fruit is for the fire, as well as the tree that brings forth evil fruit.

THOMAS GOODWIN (1600-1679): “The fruit of the Spirit―mark that allusion―is love, peace, joy, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance,” Galatians 5:22.

C. H. SPURGEON: The man who knows how precious the life of godliness is, the man who understands its vitality, its deep-seated, deeply-rooted heart power—he also loves the form, but not as he loves the Spirit…He is apt, perhaps, to think less of forms than he should do, for he will mingle first with one body of sincere Christians, and then with another, and he will say, “If I can enjoy my Master’s presence it is but little matter to me where I am found. If I can but find the name of Christ extolled and His simple Gospel preached, this is all I desire.”

J. C. RYLE: If you love life, beware of formality.

 

Posted in Sin & Unbelief | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Unteachableness—a Deadly Fruit of Formality

David’s Hope in the Goodness of the Lord

Posted on January 13, 2023 by The Editor

Psalm 27:13—Psalm 71:5,14—Psalm 25:7; 2 Samuel 7:28—Psalm 23:6

I had fainted, unless I had believed to see the goodness of the LORD in the land of the living.—For thou art my hope, O Lord GOD: thou art my trust from my youth…But I will hope continually, and will yet praise thee more and more.—Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions: according to thy mercy remember thou me for thy goodness’ sake, O LORD.

And now, O Lord GOD, thou art that God, and thy words be true, and thou hast promised this goodness unto thy servant.—Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): I want to urge you to observe the goodness of God carefully for your soul’s good. There is a great difference between eyes and no eyes—yet many have eyes and see not. God’s goodness flows before them and they say, “Where is it?”

A. W. PINK (1886-1952): All that emanates from God—His decrees, His creation, His laws, His providences—cannot be otherwise than good.

CHARLES SIMEON (1759-1836): What improvement shall we make of this subject?

DAVID CLARKSON (1622-1686): Study much the all-sufficiency, the power, the goodness, the unchangeableness of God—His all-sufficiency and power make Him able, and His goodness makes Him willing to do for His people under the cross what His all-sufficiency and almighty power can afford. His goodness sets His mighty power a-work for His suffering saints. His goodness sets His all-sufficiency, His fullness, in action for them, so that it runs freely upon them; and never more freely than when they are under the cross. “I had fainted unless I had believed to see the goodness of the Lord, in the land of the living,” Psalm 27:13. What is it that makes you ready to faint under the cross, or thoughts and foresight of it? Look to the goodness of God—there is support.

CHARLES SIMEON: Study the character of God as drawn in the Holy Scriptures. Some think of Him as a God of all mercy; and others, as clothed only in the terrors of inexorable justice. But the true character of God is, that He is “a just God and a Saviour,” Isaiah 45:21. In the Lord Jesus Christ this union of justice and mercy is fully displayed. Once view Him as dying, rising, reigning for sinful man, and then all the description given of God in our text will be seen in its true light, and all the brightness of the Godhead irradiate your souls.

C. H. SPURGEON: David was a man of many troubles. Especially in the latter part of his life, he was incessantly in the furnace and he says that he would have “fainted” under those many troubles if he had not “believed to see,” in the particular matter of his trials, “the goodness of the Lord” in that land which is the special sphere of trouble. David believed to see the goodness of the Lord, not only in the Glory Land yonder, but also in this land here below. He believed to see the goodness of the Lord, not merely when he emerged from the furnace, but also while he was in it! As a pilgrim and a stranger, he believed to see the goodness of the Lord during the days of his pilgrimage. He did not always see it, but he believed to see it—he believed in it and anticipated it and, by believing in it—he did actually come to see it with the eyes of his mind and to rejoice in it!

TIMOTHY CRUSO (1657-1697): When we thus see the goodness of the Lord, it encourages our subjection to His government.

ALEXANDER MacLAREN (1826-1910): Do not let tears so fill your eyes that you cannot see the goodness of the Lord. Do not let thunderclouds, however heavy their lurid darkness, shut out from you the blue that is in your sky.

CHARLES SIMEON: Let David’s confidence be ours also.

THOMAS GOODWIN (1600-1679): “According to thy mercy remember thou me for thy goodness’ sake, O Lord.” These two import not barely His affording outward favours, which we call kindness, or God’s being good to us in benefits communicated; but they connotate a root that is in God’s nature, from whence these outward kindnesses proceed. The Lord is first good in Himself, and thence and therefore doth good; and in like manner He is of a kind heart and nature in Himself first, and thence and therefore is kind to others, even to the evil and unthankful, as Luke 6:35; the abundancy of His goodness and kindness in effects is from the amplitude and largeness of the goodness and kindness in His own heart and nature.

MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714):  God does good, because He is good; what He bestowed upon us must be traced up to the original; it is according to His mercies—not according to our merits—and according to the multitude of His loving-kindnesses.

A. W. PINK: The goodness of God is the life of the believer’s trust. It is this excellency in God which most appeals to our hearts. Because His goodness endureth forever, we ought never to be discouraged: “The Lord is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble, and He knoweth them that trust in Him,” Nahum 1:7.

JOHN TRAPP (1601-1699): “He knoweth them that trust in Him”—that hover and cover under His wings, as the chicks do under the hen’s wings: for that is the force of the Hebrew word here used. Such as these God knoweth for His, 2 Timothy 2:19; He knoweth their soul in adversity, Psalm 31:7; He knoweth how to deliver them, as He did righteous Lot, 2 Peter 2:9; then, when they know not what to do, as Jehoshaphat, 2 Chronicles 20:12, yet if their eyes be toward Him, their faith in Him, He will extricate and deliver them. So well pleased is He with those that trust in Him—for that is what is meant here by His knowing of them—that He taketh such complacence and delight in them, Psalm 147:11; Psalm 33:18, and such continual care of them that they shall be sure to have whatsoever heart can wish or need require; even miraculous lovingkindness from God in a strong city, Psalm 17:7; Psalm 33:21, so great as cannot be uttered, Psalm 31:19. This is for the comfort of God’s Israel.

CHARLES SIMEON: How much more then ought we to do so, when all His glory is made to shine before us in the face of Jesus Christ! How should we love Him, serve Him, trust in Him, and delight ourselves in Him!

C. H. SPURGEON: Therefore praise Him. So good a God should not be without your gratitude. He that believes on Christ Jesus shall be satisfied with the goodness of the Lord!

WILLIAM GURNALL (1617-1679): There are two graces, which Christ useth above any other, to fill the soul with joy—faith and hope, because both of these two graces draw all their wine of joy draw at one tap—Christ and His promise: Faith tells the soul what Christ hath done for it, and so comforts it; hope revives the soul with the news of what Christ will do.

CHARLES SIMEON: O, beloved, let your hearts ascend to Him, and your souls be devoted to Him, as the occasion demands. Is He “good?” Praise him for His goodness. Is He “a strong-hold?” Flee to Him, and dwell continually in Him. Does He “know those who trust in Him?” Let Him have joy over you as monuments of His grace, and delight in you as heirs of His glory, Zephaniah 3:17. In a word, live but for Him; and as He has “bought you with a price, see that ye glorify Him with your bodies and your spirits, which are His,” 1 Corinthians 6:20.

 

Posted in Faith | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on David’s Hope in the Goodness of the Lord

Iniquity in the Heart

Posted on January 6, 2023 by The Editor

Proverbs 15:8—Psalm 66:18-20

The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.—If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me. But verily God hath heard me; he hath attended to the voice of my prayer. Blessed be God, which hath not turned away my prayer, nor his mercy from me.

THOMAS GOODWIN (1600-1679): By observing God’s answers to your prayers, you will gain much insight into your own hearts, and ways, and prayers, and may thereby learn how to judge of them. David’s assurance that he did not regard iniquity in his heart was strengthened by God’s having heard his prayers; for thus he reasons, “If I regard iniquity in my heart, God will not hear me; but verily God hath heard me.”

ROBERT GORDON (1786-1853): The very supposition that “if he regarded iniquity in his heart, the Lord would not hear him,” implies the possibility that such may be the state even of believers; and there is abundant reason to fear that it is in this way their prayers are so often hindered, and so frequently remain unanswered.

ROBERT SOUTH (1633-1716): Whence is it that a man’s regarding or loving sin in his heart hinders his prayers from acceptance with God?

JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564): To “regard iniquity in the heart,” does not mean to be conscious of sin—for all the Lord’s people must see their sins and be grieved for them, and this is rather praiseworthy than condemnable—but to be bent upon the practice of iniquity.

THOMAS SCOTT (1747-1821): The original is, “If I looked at iniquity with my heart;”—that is, if I thought of it with affection and desire. He that “regards iniquity,” entertains the thoughts of it as a man does a welcome visitor. He provides for their entertainment, is reluctant to part with them; and, as far as he can safely, he seeks and seizes the occasion of practicing the sin, which he thinks of with satisfaction. This evidences a love and dominion of sin, and is inconsistent with true repentance; and, if connected with a profession of religion, it is a clear evidence of hypocrisy.

JOHN WITHERSPOON (1722-1749): They regard iniquity in their heart, who practice it secretly, who are under restraint from the world, but are not possessed of an habitual fear of the omniscient God, the searcher of all hearts, and from whose eyes there is no covering of thick darkness where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves. They regard iniquity in the heart, who entertain and indulge the desire of sin, although in the course of providence they may be restrained from the actual commission of it. I am persuaded the instances are not rare, of men feeding upon sinful desires, even when through want of opportunity, through the fear of man, or through some partial restraint of conscience, they dare not carry them into execution. They regard iniquity in their heart who reflect upon past sins with delight, or without sincere humiliation of mind…they can remember their sins without sorrow, they can speak of them without shame, and sometimes even with a mixture of boasting and vain glory. Did you never hear them recall their past follies, and speak of them with such relish, that it seems to be more to renew the pleasure than to regret the sin? Even supposing such persons to have forsaken the practice of some sins, if they can thus look back upon them with inward complacency, their seeming reformation must be owing to a very different cause from renovation of heart.

JOHN BUNYAN (1628-1688): This is the wickedness of man’s heart, that it will even love, and hold fast, that which with the mouth it prays against: and of this sort are they that honour God with their mouth, but their heart is far from Him, Isaiah 29:23; Ezekiel 33:31.

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): “Iniquity in my heart.” If, having seen it to be there, I continue to gaze upon it without aversion; if I cherish it, have a side glance of love towards it, excuse it, and palliate it; “The Lord will not hear me.” How can He? Can I desire Him to connive at my sin, and accept me while I willfully cling to any evil way? For God to accept our devotions, while we are delighting in sin, would be to make Himself the God of hypocrites, which is a fitter name for Satan than for the Holy One of Israel.

JOHN CALVIN: The Psalmist mentions integrity of heart as indispensable…When the heart does not correspond to the outward conduct, and harbours any secret evil intent, the fair exterior appearance may deceive men; but it is an abomination in the sight of God.

ROBERT SOUTH: In this case, he cannot pray by the Spirit. All prayers that are acceptable with God are the breathings of his own Spirit within us, Romans 8:26. As without the intercession of Christ we cannot have our prayers accepted, so without the intercession of the Spirit we cannot pray. The second reason is, because as long as a man regards iniquity in his heart he cannot pray in faith; that is, he cannot build a rational confidence upon any promise that God will accept him. Now, faith always respects the promise, and promise of acceptance is made only to the upright: so long, therefore, as men cherish a love of sin in their heart, they either understand not the promises, and so they pray without understanding, or they understand them, and yet misapply them to themselves, and so they pray in presumption: in either case, they have little cause to hope for acceptance.

ROBERT GORDON: Another case is, I fear, but too common, and in which the believer may be still more directly chargeable with regarding iniquity in his heart. It is possible that there may be in his heart or life something which he is conscious is not altogether as it should be—some earthly attachment which he cannot easily justify—or some point of conformity to the maxims and practices of the world, which he finds it difficult to reconcile with Christian principle; yet all the struggle which these have from time to time cost him, may only have been an effort of ingenuity on his part to retain them without doing direct violence to conscience—a laborious getting up of arguments whereby to show how they may be defended, or in what way they may lawfully be gone into; while the true and simple reason—namely, the love of the world, is all the while kept out of view.

JOHN WITHERSPOON: In the last place, I suspect that they regard sin in the heart, who are backward to bring themselves to the trial, and who are not truly willing that God Himself would search and try them. If any, therefore, are unwilling to be tried, if they are backward to self-examination, it is an evidence of a strong and powerful attachment to sin. It can proceed from nothing but from a secret dread of some disagreeable discovery, or the detection of some lust which they cannot consent to forsake.

JOHN BUNYAN: While prayer is making, God is searching the heart to see from what root and spirit it arises.

MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714):  God looks on the heart and sees the thoughts and intents of that.

MARTYN LLOYD-JONES (1899-1981): Are you troubled because your prayers are not answered?

THOMAS GOODWIN: If God doth not grant your petitions, it will put you to study a reason for it, of His dealing; and so you will come to search into your prayers and the carriage of your hearts.

 

Posted in Meditation, Solitude & Self-examination | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Iniquity in the Heart