Touch Me Not

Posted on April 5, 2024 by The Editor

Mark 16:9; John 20:11-17

Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, and seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

J. C. RYLE (1816-1900): This saying of our Lord is undeniably a very “deep thing,” and the real meaning of it is a point which has greatly perplexed commentators.

MATTHEW POOLE (1624-1679): There are two no mean difficulties: one about the sense of the prohibition, when our Saviour forbade this woman to touch Him—when after His resurrection, He suffered the women to hold Him by the feet, Matthew 28:29.

JOHN GILL (1697-1771): Not that His body was an aerial one, or a mere “phantom,” which could not be touched; the prohibition itself shows the contrary.

RICHARD SIBBES (1577-1635): Mary was too much addicted to Christ’s bodily presence.

JOHN TRAPP (1601-1699): She had caught him by the feet—as the Shunammite did Elisha—and there she would have held him longer, out of inconsiderate zeal. He takes her off this corporal conceit, that she may learn to live by faith, and not by sense; to be drawn after Him to heaven, whither He was now ascending, and to go tell His brethren what she had seen and heard.

ALEXANDER WHYTE (1836-1921): “Touch Me not.” Had He not said that, she would have been holding His feet there to this day.

THE EDITOR: But the text doesn’t say that Mary “had caught Him by the feet,” though that was probably her intent.

MATTHEW POOLE: The other difficulty is: What force of a reason there could be for her not touching Him because “He had not yet ascended?”

THE EDITOR: Jesus stated it as the specific reason He prevented her from touching Him.

ALEXANDER MacLAREN (1826-1910): His prohibition encloses a permission. ‘Touch Me not! for I am not yet ascended,’ implies ‘When I am, you may.’

THE EDITOR: Yes. So why was it permissible for the other women to touch Him only minutes later, but not now?

J. C. RYLE: The message which our Lord desires Mary to carry to His disciples is remarkable. He does not bid her say “I have risen,” but “I ascend.”

THE EDITOR: But why send a message to His disciples about an ascension into heaven forty days later? Jesus knew He would talk with them face to face later that same evening. Surely that present tense phrasing, “I ascend,” has an important immediate significance. A third difficult point here is also never considered—When Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, what was He wearing? Peter and John had seen the linen grave clothes which had wrapped Christ’s naked body for burial, lying in the tomb, John 20:4-7. Now Jesus wasn’t standing there naked when Mary mistook Him for the gardener! So what was He wearing?

ROBERT HAWKER (1753-1827): By comparing Scripture with Scripture, perhaps a light is thrown on the subject.

CHARLES SIMEON (1759-1836): The office of the High Priest was but half performed when he had slain the sacrifice: he must carry the blood within the veil, to sprinkle it upon the Mercy-seat; and he must burn incense also before the Mercy-seat, Leviticus 16:13,14. Now our blessed Lord was to execute every part of the priestly office; and therefore He must carry His own blood within the veil, and present also before the Mercy-seat the incense of His continual intercession. Agreeably to this we are told, “that by his own blood he is entered into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption for us,” Hebrews 9:12—So, our Lord was under a necessity of rising again, that He might enter into heaven with His own blood, that He might there present it before the mercy-seat.

HENRY AINSWORTH (1571–1622): The burning of incense preceded the sprinkling of the blood, Leviticus 16:13,14.

CHARLES SIMEON: It was not till after the high priest had covered the mercy-seat with the clouds of incense, that he had any authority to bless the people. Thus was our Lord, not only to offer Himself as a sacrifice for sin, and to enter into heaven with His own blood, but He was to make intercession for us at the right hand of God. This was stipulated between the Father and Him as one part of the condition, on which the conversion of sinners was to depend; “Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession,” Psalm 2:8.

THE EDITOR: Leviticus 16 shows the procedure required of the high priest to go in and out of the Holy of Holies, although Christ needed no atonement for Himself, as did the Old Testament high priest: “He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore he shall wash his flesh in water, and so put them on,” Leviticus 16:4. After burning incense and sprinkling the blood inside the Holy of Holies, then the high priest returned into the tabernacle.

MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714): The high priest must then put off his linen garments in the tabernacle, and leave them there—the Jews say never to be worn again by himself or any other, for they made new ones every year.

THE EDITOR: That signified Christ’s finished work, and His once for all atonement for our sins. Next, the priest changed his clothes again to “come forth” outside the tabernacle to perform the burnt offerings, Leviticus 16:23,24.

G. CAMPBELL MORGAN (1863-1945): It is significant that when the priest entered the Holiest of all he did not wear his gorgeous apparel, but was clothed in a garment of simple and pure white linen.

THE EDITOR: Yes. And it explains what Jesus was wearing when He appeared unto Mary Magdalene. He was wearing the pure white linen garment of His own perfect holy righteousness. Why? Because He must be perfectly “undefiled” to fulfill the Scriptures in entering the Holy of Holies, Hebrews 7:26,27. But Christ’s body had been truly dead, and though His body saw not corruption, any contact with a dead body causes a ceremonial defilement, Haggai 2:11-13. Also, according to that Levitical law, a washing with water to cleanse his body was required before the high priest put on the holy garments. Spiritually, that washing was fulfilled by Christ’s resurrection itself, as it is also in our own regeneration, 1 Corinthians 15:42-44; Titus 3:5.

A. W. PINK (1886-1952): This is a most striking detail not obvious at first sight, but which is clearly established by a comparison of Scripture with Scripture…How this illustrates the need of diligently comparing Scripture with Scripture if we would obtain the full teaching of the Word on any subject!

THE EDITOR: That same reference in Haggai also proves that contact with anything not perfectly pure is defiling. Therefore, if Mary had touched Him, being of sinful human flesh, she would have defiled Him and made Him unclean according to the law. I believe this explains the specific reason for Christ’s prohibition; and that His entry into the heavenly Holy of Holies was the immediate ascension which Jesus said had “not yet” happened—because in marvellously tender grace, He had tarried briefly to comfort a weeping Mary Magdalene. Thus these Old Testament Scriptures were fulfilled between His appearance to her, and His meeting with the other women shortly afterwards, who then were allowed to touch Him.

 

Posted in Death & Resurrection | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Touch Me Not

Shall I Not Drink It?

Posted on March 29, 2024 by The Editor

John 18:11

The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): And Jesus did drink it, though it involved more suffering than we can imagine! Yet there was no resistance to that suffering. He suffered, but He never rebelled against it.

J. C. RYLE (1816-1900): Let us carefully remember that our blessed Lord suffered and died of His own free will. He did not die because He could not help it; He did not suffer because He could not escape. All the soldiers of Pilate’s army could not have taken Him, if He had not been willing to be taken. They could not have hurt a hair of His head, if He had not given them permission. But here, as in all His earthly ministry, Jesus was a willing sufferer. He had set His heart on accomplishing our redemption. He loved us, and gave Himself for us, cheerfully, willingly, gladly, in order to make atonement for our sins. It was “the joy set before Him” which made Him endure the cross, and despise the shame, and yield Himself up without reluctance into the hands of His enemies.

ROBERT HAWKER (1753-1827): When the Son of God appeared, and came to accomplish the full purposes of the covenant, every act of Christ, before the time arrived for His death, most fully proved that His entire consent was in it. “My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me,” said Jesus, “and to finish his work,” John 4:34. “Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business,” Luke 2:49. Yea, the zeal of the Lord’s house is said to have eaten him up, John 2:17. So that everything indicated how exceedingly His heart was engaged in this work.

A. W. PINK (1886-1952): Though what He did was done out of love for us, yet chiefly it was in subjection to God’s will, and out of love to Him. “But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave Me commandment, even so I do!” John 14:31.

THOMAS GOODWIN (1600-1679): He never showed any sign of reluctance, till in the garden He saw what was in that cup His Father did present Him—even His wrath, and being made a curse, Luke 22:39-42. And to show what the nature of a man in itself might in such a case do—namely, show His abhorrency of so high an endurance, and merely to let us understand so much that we might see His love—for it was meet we should by something understand how much He was put to, He thereupon cries out, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass.” And the whole mind of this passage is but to show, His averseness, as to the thing in itself simply considered, because of the bitterness of it; and, that the whole ground of His submitting thereunto was His Father’s will; and how that, His will stood to it as high as ever—yet only upon that ground, “Not my will, but thy will be done.”

MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714): The manner of expression bespeaks a settled resolution, and that He would not entertain a thought to the contrary. He was willing to drink of this cup, though it was a bitter cup, an infusion of the wormwood and the gall, the cup of trembling, a bloody cup, the “dregs of the cup of the Lord’s wrath,” Isaiah 51:22. He drank it, that He might put into our hands the cup of salvation, the cup of consolation, the cup of blessing; and therefore He is willing to drink it—because His Father put it into His hand. If His Father will have it so, it is for the best, and be it so.

A. W. PINK: Thus the “joy” that was set before Jesus was the doing of God’s will, and His anticipation of the glorious reward which should be given Him in return—He “endured the cross,” Hebrews 12:2.

JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564): In the same manner, we too ought to be prepared for enduring the cross.

A. W. PINK: Therein we have the Commander’s example to His soldiers of heroic fortitude. Those words signify far more than that He experienced the shame and pain of crucifixion: they tell us that He stood steadfast under it all. He endured the cross not sullenly or even stoically, but in the highest and noblest sense of the term—with holy composure of soul. He never wavered or faltered, murmured or complained: “The cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?” And He has left us an example that we should “follow His steps,” 1 Peter 2:21; and therefore does He declare, “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross,” Matthew 16:24. Strength for this task is to be found by “looking unto Jesus” by keeping steadily before faith’s eye the crown, the joy awaiting us.

C. H. SPURGEON: When John the Baptist said “Behold the Lamb of God,” the two disciples followed Jesus, John 1:36,37; and we read of some, “These are they which follow the Lamb wherever He goes,” Revelation 14:4. The Lamb is our Guide. The Lord is a Shepherd as well as a Lamb, and the flock following in His footsteps is safely led. My Soul, when you need to know which way to go, behold the Lamb of God! Ask, “What would Jesus do?” Then do what Jesus would have done in such a case and you can not do amiss—in every moral question we are bound to be on Christ’s side. In every religious question we are not on the side of predominant thought, nor on the side of fashionable views, nor on the side of lucre, but on the side of Christ! Make this your slogan: “What would Jesus do?” Go and do that. “How would Jesus think?” Go and think that.

C. H. MACKINTOSH (1820-1896): If we only honestly ask ourselves the question, “What would Jesus do?” it would close all discussion on this point as well as on a thousand other points besides.

C. H. SPURGEON: Child of God, are you vexed and embittered in soul? Then bravely accept the trial as coming from your Father and say, “The cup which my Father has given me, shall I not drink it?”

THOMAS MANTON (1620-1677): We should trust God’s potion. We are dearer to God than we can be to ourselves; He is more solicitous for our good, than we are for our own. God loves the lowest saint infinitely more than the highest angels love God.

A. W. PINK: There is no higher aspect of faith than that which brings the heart to patiently submit unto whatever God sends us, to meekly acquiesce unto His sovereign will, to say “the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” Oftentimes the faith which suffers is greater than the faith that can boast an open triumph. “Love beareth all things,” I Corinthians 13:7; and faith when it reaches the pinnacle of attainment declares, “though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him,” Job 13:15.

C. H. SPURGEON: Fear not, have confidence in God—all your sorrows shall yet end in joy and the thing which you deplore today, shall be the subject of tomorrow’s sweetest songs.

 

Posted in Trials, Temptations & Afflictions | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Shall I Not Drink It?

God Governing the Nations

Posted on March 22, 2024 by The Editor

Proverbs 14:34; Psalm 22:28—Job 12:23; Jeremiah 18:7,8

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

For the kingdom is the LORD’s: and he is the governor among the nations—He increaseth the nations, and destroyeth them: he enlargeth the nations, and straiteneth them again.

At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714): “Verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth,” Psalm 58:11. The Lord may be known by the judgments which He executes, and that they may be taken as earnests of a judgment to come. He is a God—not a weak man, not an angel, not a mere name, nor as the atheists suggest, a creature of men’s fear and fancy—not a deified hero, nor the sun and moon, as idolaters imagined—but God, a self-existent perfect Being; He it is that judges the earth.

JOHN HINCKLEY (1617-1695): This judging here does not refer to the judgment to come, at the last day, when there shall be a general convention of quick and dead before the Lord’s dreadful tribunal—that is not the scope of this place. ’Tis in the present tense, ο κρινων, “that now judgeth, or is now judging” the earth and the inhabitants thereof; and therefore it must be understood of a judgment on this side of the judgment of the great day; and so God judges the earth, or in the earth, three manner of ways. First, by a providential ordering and wise disposal of all the affairs of all creatures. Secondly, in relieving the oppressed and pleading the cause of the innocent. Thirdly, in overthrowing and plaguing the wicked doers.

JAMES HERVEY (1713-1758): How can the justice of God, with regard to a wicked nations, be shown, but by executing His vengeance upon them, in temporal calamities?

EDWARD PAYSON (1783-1827): This, I conceive, is too evident to require proof, for how could God be considered as the moral governor of the world, if nations and communities were exempt from His government?

JAMES HERVEY: Consider, Sirs, the very essence of political communities is temporal, purely temporal. It has no existence but in this world. Hereafter, sinners will be judged and punished, singly and in a personal capacity only. How then shall He that is Ruler among nations, maintain the dignity of His government over the kingdoms of the earth, but by inflicting national punishments for national provocations?

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): There cannot be an eternal damnation of nations as nations, the destruction of men at last will be of individuals, and at the bar of God each man must be tried for himself. The punishment, therefore, of nations, is national. The guilt they incur, must receive its awful recompense in this present time state.

A. W. PINK (1886-1952): “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” expresses a foundational principle and an unchanging fact. Right doing or walking according to the Divine Rule is the basic condition of national prosperity. A righteous administration of government and the public worship of God gives an ascendancy to a people over those where such things prevail not. Nothing so tends to uphold government, elevate the mind of the masses, promote industry, sobriety and equity between man and man, as does the genuine practice of piety, the preservation of the virtues and suppression of vice, as nothing more qualifies a nation for the favour of God. Righteousness is productive of health, of population, of peace and prosperity. But every kind of sin has the contrary tendency.

THOMAS SCOTT (1747-1821): The prevalence of vice and impiety is a nation’s reproach, conduces to disunion, weakness and disgrace, and exposes any people to the wrath and vengeance of God.

A. W. PINK: When sin has become a public “reproach,” then ruin is imminent.

JOHN KNOX (1514-1572):  The justice of God is such, that He will not pour forth His extreme vengeance upon the wicked, until such time as their iniquity is so manifest, that their very flatterers cannot excuse it.

A. W. PINK: The Lord is here depicted as the righteous Governor of the nations, dealing with them according to their deserts. In the exercise of His unchallengeable authority the Most High is pleased to act according to the principles of goodness and equity. There is no arbitrary caprice in the infliction of punishment: “the curse causeless shall not come,” Proverbs 26:2.

ADAM CLARKE (1760-1832): “He enlargeth the nations, and straiteneth them again.” He often permits a nation to acquire an accession of territory, and afterwards shuts them up within their ancient boundaries, and often contracts even those. All these things seem to occur as natural events, and the consequences of state intrigues, and such like causes; but when Divine inspiration comes to pronounce upon them, they are shown to be the consequence of God’s acting in His judgment and mercy; for it is by Him that kings reign, Proverbs 8:15; it is He who putteth down one and raiseth up another, Daniel 2:21.

THE EDITOR: “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” The Old Testament abounds with examples of this principle in God’s governing the nation of Israel.

CHARLES BRIDGES (1794-1869): As they were a righteous or sinful nation, they were marked by corresponding exaltation or reproach.

A. W. PINK: That these principles of the Divine administration apply to the Gentiles, equally with the Jews, is unmistakably clear from the case of Nineveh, a heathen city, concerning which the Lord said “their wickedness is come up before Me,” Jonah 1:2. Unto the vast metropolis the Prophet was sent, crying, “Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” Jonah 3:4. But note well the sequel.

THE EDITOR: When the people of Ninveh, including its king, repented and changed their ways, “God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not,” Jonah 3:10.

JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564): Scripture wishes to distinguish the true God from all fictions, and it takes these two principles: First, God governs all things by His own hand, and retains them under His sway; and Secondly, nothing is hid from Him.

MATTHEW HENRY: The cabinet counsels of princes are before God’s eye, 2 Kings 6:11.

CHARLES BRIDGES: This is political wisdom on scriptural principles. If “righteousness exalteth a nation,” the open acknowledgment of it is the sure path to national prosperity. If it be not beneath statesmen to take lessons from the Bible, let them deeply ponder this sound political maxim—the Scripture records clearly prove this to be the rule of national conduct—not the wisdom of policy, extent of empire, splendid conquests, flourishing trade, abundant resources—but “righteousness exalteth a nation.”

WILLIAM JAY (1769-1853): Nations who depend for their protection and prosperity upon navies, armies, commerce, and forget God; they are idolaters.

THE EDITOR: Let all national leaders, and their citizens, whether to the right or left of the political spectrum, learn this Biblical wisdom, and repent of their wickedness, while a season of God’s grace remains; otherwise, national judgments inevitably must follow.

C. H. SPURGEON: For nations there is a weighing time. National sins demand national punishments. The whole history of God’s dealings with mankind proves that though a nation may go on in wickedness; it may multiply its oppressions; it may abound in bloodshed, tyranny, and war; but an hour of retribution draweth nigh. When it shall have filled up its measure of iniquity, then shall the angel of vengeance execute its doom.

 

Posted in Attributes of God, Jesus Christ | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on God Governing the Nations

Berean Bible Study

Posted on March 15, 2024 by The Editor

Acts 17:10,11; Isaiah 8:20; 2 Corinthians 13:1

The brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

CHARLES SIMEON (1759-1836): The Thessalonians would not so much as consider what they heard from the Apostle. The Bereans, on the contrary, made a diligent use of the means afforded them for solving their doubts: they “searched the Scriptures,” which they considered as the only standard of truth, and to which Paul had appealed; they “searched them daily,” that they might form their judgment upon the surest grounds: they would neither receive nor reject any thing which they had not maturely weighed.

WILLIAM GURNALL (1617-1679): Now, to help thee in thy search for the sense and meaning of the Word—First,  Take heed thou comest not to the Scriptures with an unholy heart. Second: Make not thy own reason the rule by which thou dost measure Scripture truths. Third: Take heed thou comest not with a judgment pre-engaged to any party or opinion—a mind pre­possessed will be ready to impose its own sense upon the Word, and so loses the truth by an overweening conceit of his own opinion. Too many read the Scriptures not so much to be informed by them, as confirmed in what already they have taken up! They choose opinions, as Samson his wife, because they please them, and then come to gain the Scriptures’ consent.

CHARLES SIMEON: The Bereans “inquired whether these things were so.” They did not conclude every thing to be false which did not accord with their preconceived opinions. This was a noble spirit, because it showed that they were not in subjection to their prejudices.

WILLIAM GURNALL: Fourth: Go to God by prayer for a key to unlock the mysteries of His Word. It is not the plodding, but the praying soul, that will get this treasure of Scripture knowledge. John got the sealed book opened by weeping, Revelation 5:5. God often brings a truth to the Christian’s hand as a return of prayer, which he had long hunted for in vain with much labour and study; there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, Daniel 2:22. And where doth He reveal the secrets of His Word but at the throne of grace? “From the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words,” Daniel 10:12—for thy prayer. And what was this heav­enly messenger’s errand to Daniel but to open more fully the Scripture to him?

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): If you study the original, consult the commentaries, and meditate deeply, yet if you neglect to cry mightily unto the Spirit of God, your study will not profit you―but if you wait upon the Holy Ghost in simple dependence upon His teaching, you will lay hold of very much of the divine meaning.

WILLIAM GURNALL: Fifth: Compare Scripture with Scripture.

MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714): The readiness of mind of the Bereans to receive the Word was not such as they took things upon trust, and swallowed them upon an implicit faith: no; but since Paul reasoned out of the Scriptures, and referred them to the Old Testament for the proof of what he said, they turned to those places, read the context, considered the scope and drift of them, compared them with other places of Scripture, and examined whether Paul’s inferences from them were natural and genuine, and his arguments upon them cogent, and determined accordingly.

ADAM CLARKE (1760-1832): They searched the Scriptures of the Old Testament to see whether the promises and types corresponded with the alleged fulfillment in the person, works, and sufferings of Jesus Christ.

A. W. PINK (1886-1952): Only by prayerfully and diligently comparing Scripture with Scripture are its exquisite perfections revealed, and only thus are we able to obtain a complete view of many a scene―only by comparing Scripture with Scripture can we rightly interpret any figure or symbol…No verse of Scripture yields its meaning to lazy people.

WILLIAM GURNALL: Now, in comparing Scripture with Scripture, be careful that thou interpret obscure places by the more plain and clear, and not the clear by the dark. “Some things hard to be understood, which they that are unstable wrest,” 2 Peter 3:16. No wonder they should stumble in those dark and difficult places, when they turn their back on that light which plainer Scriptures afford to lead them safely through.

MARTYN LLOYD-JONES (1899-1981): We must remember that if our interpretation ever makes the teaching appear to be ridiculous or lead us to a ridiculous position, it is patently a wrong interpretation. And there are people who are guilty of this.

WILLIAM GURNALL: “He that is born of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not,” 1 John 5:18. This is a dark place which some run away with, and from it con­clude there is a perfect state free from all sin attain­able in this life; whereas a multitude of plain Scriptures testify against such a conclusion, as 1 Kings 8:38; Ecclesiastes 7:20; Job 9:20; 1 John 1:8-10, with many more. So it must be in a limited and qualified sense that “he that is born of God sinneth not.”

MATTHEW HENRY: Paul saw himself to be in a state of imperfection and trial: “Not as though I had already attained, or were already perfect,” Philippians 3:12…If Paul had not attained to perfection, who had reached to so high a pitch of holiness, much less have we.

A. W. PINK: Our purpose in calling attention to this, is to remind the reader of the great importance of comparing Scripture with Scripture, and to show how Scripture is self-interpreting.

MARTYN LLOYD-JONES: We must remember that if our interpretation contradicts the plain and obvious teaching of Scripture at another point, again it is obvious that our interpretation has gone astray—there is no contradiction in Biblical teaching.

WILLIAM GURNALL: Sixth: Consult with thy faithful guides which God hath set over thee in His church. Though people are not to pin their faith on the min­ister’s sleeve, yet they are to “seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts,” Malachi 2:7.

JOHN ROBINSON (1575-1625): Make use of the commentaries and expositions of such special instruments, as God in mercy hath raised up for the opening of the Scriptures, and edifying the Church.

C. H. SPURGEON: Richard Cecil says his plan was, when he laid a hold of a Scripture, to pray over it, and get his own thoughts on it, and then, after he had so done, to take up the ablest divines who wrote upon the subject, and see what their thoughts were.

HULDRYCH ZWINGLI (1484-1531): I study them with the same feelings with which one asks a friend, “What do you understand by this?”

MARTYN LLOYD-JONES: We must not swallow automatically everything we read in books, even from the greatest men. We must examine everything.

C. H. SPURGEON: If you do not think, and think much, you will become slaves and mere copyists. The exercise of your own mind is most healthful to you, and by perseverance, with divine help, you may expect to get at the meaning of every understandable passage. So, to rely upon your own abilities as to be unwilling to learn from others is clearly folly; so to study others, as not to judge for yourself, is imbecility.

 

Posted in Bible Study | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Berean Bible Study

Failing of the Grace of God; What Does That Mean?

Posted on March 8, 2024 by The Editor

Hebrews 12:14,15

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God.

CHARLES SIMEON (1759-1836): The riches of the Gospel are freely imparted to all who seek them by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet they quite mistake the nature of the Gospel, who imagine it to be inconsistent with solemn warnings. It offers every thing freely; but it does not dispense with the exertion of human efforts: it promises every thing fully; but not in such a way as to supersede the need of care and watchfulness on our part. It abounds with warnings and exhortations, to which we must take the utmost heed.

JOHN OWEN (1616-1683): This grace, under all their profession of the gospel, men may “fail of.”

CHARLES SIMEON: By “the grace of God,” I understand “the Gospel of the grace of God,” or that “grace of God which bringeth salvation.” And by “failing of the grace of God,” I understand, a falling short of it: the first part of our text being exactly parallel with that expression in the fourth chapter of this epistle, “Let us fear lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it,” Hebrews 4:1.

JOHN OWEN: The word ὑστερέω signifies sometimes “to want, or be deficient in any kind,” Matthew 19:20; Luke 5:14; Luke 22:45; sometimes “to come behind,” 1 Corinthians 1:7; 2 Corinthians 11:5; sometimes “to be destitute,” Hebrews 11:37; sometimes “to fail or come short of,” as Romans 3:23; Hebrews 4:1. It nowhere signifies to “fall from,”—so inquiries of men about falling from grace, as to these words, are impertinent; wherefore, to “fail of grace,” is to come short of it, not to obtain it, though we seem to be in the way thereunto.

CHARLES SIMEON: Now, we may come short of the Gospel by not submitting to its humiliating doctrines—the Gospel views all men as in a lost and perishing condition. Its provisions are made for all mankind without exception. It knows nothing of persons so good as not to need salvation, or of persons so bad as to be beyond the reach of the salvation it provides. It requires all to view themselves as “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked; and counsels them to come to the Lord Jesus Christ for eye-salve that they may see; for gold that they may be enriched; and for garments that they may be clothed,” Revelation 3:17, 8. It suffers none to bring any price in their hands, but requires them to receive every thing “without money and without price,” Isaiah 55:1.

But all this is very humiliating. Proud man does not like to be brought so low, as to depend wholly on another, and not at all on himself. We wish to have something of our own whereof we may boast. And to be reduced to a level with the vilest of the human race, so as to acknowledge ourselves as much indebted to Divine grace as they, is a humiliation to which we cannot endure to submit—when it is said, “Wash and be clean,” instead of accepting the tidings with gratitude, we spurn them like Naaman, and go away in a rage, 2 Kings 5:10,13. To all this however, we must “submit,”  Romans 10:3; for there is no other way of salvation, Acts 4:12; 1 Corinthians 3:11; and, if we will not come to Christ upon His terms, we must remain for ever destitute of the blessings He has purchased for us.

A. W. PINK: God has warned us plainly in His Word that “there is a generation that are pure in their own eyes and yet is not washed from their filthiness,” Proverbs 30:12. The call to careful self-examination receives its urgency from the very great danger there is of self-deception. Sin darkens the understanding, so that man is unable to perceive his real state before God. Satan “hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,” 2 Corinthians 4:4. The deep-rooted pride of our hearts makes us think the best of ourselves, so that if a question is raised in our hearts, we are ever prone to give ourselves the benefit of the doubt. A spirit of sloth possesses us by nature, so that we are unwilling to go to the trouble which real self-examination calls for. Hence the vast majority remain with a head knowledge of the truth, with outward attention to forms and ceremonies, or resting on a mere consent to the letter of some verse like John 3:16, and refusing to “make their calling and election sure,” 2 Peter 1:10.

JOHN OWEN: The duty prescribed is to “look diligently.”

CHARLES SIMEON: “Without holiness—radical universal holiness—no man shall see the Lord:” and we are cautioned to “look diligently,” lest, by coming short of the requirements of the Gospel, we fail to attain a possession of its blessings. We may come short of the Gospel by not obeying its self-denying doctrines. Though the Gospel gives salvation freely, it does not leave us at liberty to neglect good works; on the contrary, “it teaches us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world,” Titus 2:11,12. Indeed, the sanctification it requires of us is as offensive to our carnal and worldly hearts, as the humiliation it imposes on our pride. The object of the Gospel is not merely to save men from death and hell, but to bring them back to a state of holy allegiance to their God, such as Adam experienced in Paradise. It requires us to give up ourselves as living sacrifices unto God, to be as entirely dedicated to His service as the burnt-offerings which were wholly consumed on the altar, Romans 12:1. It enjoins us “neither to live unto ourselves, nor die unto ourselves;” but both in life and death to be altogether at the Lord’s disposal, for the accomplishment of His will, and for the promotion of His glory, Romans 14:7,8.

A. W. PINK: If I am not diligently and earnestly cultivating practical holiness, both of heart and life, then I shall never enter Heaven.

CHARLES SIMEON: Now, to this measure of holiness we have by nature a deep rooted aversion. We have many earthly sensual appetites which plead for indulgence: and when we are required to “cut off the right hand, and pluck out the right eye,” and to “be holy as God Himself is holy,” we reply, “This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” To “mortify our members upon earth,” and to “crucify the flesh with its affections and lusts,” is a work which, as the terms it is expressed intimate, is painful to flesh and blood: and to be told that without this we never can be Christ’s disciples, is most grating to our ears. But nothing less than this will suffice for the approving of ourselves upright in the sight of God. I beseech you then, brethren, to “look diligently” to this matter, and not to come short of what the Gospel requires of you; for if you comply not both with its doctrines and its precepts, you can never partake of its privileges and its blessings.

JOHN OWEN: The terms expressed in the Gospel are sure and none shall ever fail who embrace it on these terms.

 

Posted in Meditation, Solitude & Self-examination | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Failing of the Grace of God; What Does That Mean?

The Spiritual Danger of Pride in Gifts & Grace

Posted on March 1, 2024 by The Editor

1 Peter 5:5,6; Proverbs 29:23; Jeremiah 13:15

Be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time.

A man’s pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit.

Hear ye, and give ear; be not proud: for the LORD hath spoken.

JOHN TRAPP (1601-1699): Pride is a weed that will grow out of any ground—like mistletoe that will grow upon any tree—but, for most part, it grows from the best. Like air in all bodies, it will have a being in every soul, and creeps into every action, either in the beginning, proceeding, or conclusion.

WILLIAM GURNALL (1617-1679): It is hard starving this sin; there is nothing almost it cannot live on—the Christian is prone chiefly to be puffed up with perfections suitable to his life. First, Pride of gifts. By gifts, I mean those supernatural abil­ities, which the Spirit of God doth enrich and endow the minds of men for edification of the body of Christ…Satan labours to do what he can, to taint these gifts, and fly-blow them with pride in the Christian, so he may spoil the Christian’s trade, which is mutually maintained by the gifts and graces of one another. Pride of gifts hinders the Chris­tian’s trade—at least its thriving.

MARTYN LLOYD-JONES (1899-1981):  The greatest of all the temptations that assail a preacher is pride.

WILLIAM GURNALL: Pride of gifts is the cause why we do so little good with them to others. So far as pride prevails, the man prays and preaches, rather to be thought good by others, than to do good to others; rather to enthrone himself, than Christ, in the opinions and hearts of his hearers. Pride carries the man aloft, to be admired for the height of his parts and notions, and will not suffer him to stoop so low as to speak of plain truths, or if he does, not plainly; he must have some fine lace, though on plain stuff. Such a one may tickle the ear, but is very unlikely to do real good to the soul. Second, pride of gifts is why we receive so little good from the gifts of others. Pride fills the soul; and a full soul will take nothing from God, much less from man, to do it good. And this is not the way to thrive. Pride destroys love, and love wanting, edification is lost.

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): “Let him that thinks he stands,” with the proudest talents, “take heed lest he fall,” 1 Corinthians 10:12. Others have a pride of Grace. It is a curious fact. There is such a thing as being proud of Grace.

WILLIAM GURNALL: A Christian may be proud of grace, by trusting in the strength of his grace. To trust in the strength of grace is to be proud of grace…It is God’s method to give His children into Satan’s hands, when they grow proud and self-confident. Hezekiah was left to a temptation, “to try him,” 2 Chronicle 32:31. Why? God had tried him a little before in an affliction; what needs this? O, Heze­kiah’s heart was lifted up after his affliction. It was time for God to let the tempter foil him. Probably Hezekiah had high thoughts of his grace—O, he would never do as he had done before!—and God will let him see what a weak crea­ture he is. Peter makes a whip for his own back in that bravado, “Though all should forsake thee, yet will not I.” Christ now in mere mercy, must set Satan on him to lay him on his back, that seeing the weak­ness of his faith, he might be dismounted from the height of his pride.

ANDREW GRAY (1633-1656): Peter’s example may scare you. His confidence was high. Yet he was soon dismounted when he denied Christ with cursing.

WILLIAM GURNALL: All that I shall say from this is, to entreat thee, Christian, to have a care of this kind of pride. You know what Joab said to David, when he perceived his heart lifted up with the strength of his kingdom, and therefore would have the people numbered. “Now the Lord thy God add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold, but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing?” 2 Samuel 24:3. The Lord add to the strength of thy grace an hundredfold, but why delightest thou in this? why shouldst thou be lifted up? is it not grace?

ANDREW GRAY: Remember, pride is both a sin and a solemn sign of a diseased soul.

JOHN TRAPP: It is God’s care to cure His people of this dangerous disease, as He did Paul, who, if he had not been buffeted, “had been exalted,” and carried higher in conceit than he ever was in his ecstasy, 2 Corinthians 12:7.

WILLIAM GURNALL: The second way a Christian may be proud of grace, is by trusting on the worth of his grace—resting on it for his acceptance with God. Scripture calls inherent grace “our own righteousness”—though God indeed be the efficient cause of it—and opposeth it to the righteousness of Christ, which alone is called “the righteousness of God,” Romans 10:1-4. Now, to rest on any grace inherent, is to exalt our own righteousness above the righteousness of God; and what pride will this amount to? If this were so, then a saint when he comes to heaven might say, “This is heaven which I have built—my grace hath purchased;” and thus the God of heaven should become tenant to His creature in heaven. No, God hath cast the order of our salvation into another method—of grace, but not of grace in us, but grace to us. This is Christ’s work, not grace’s.

ANDREW GRAY: O beware of pride in grace—trusting in its strength or relying on its worth. Should a mud wall be proud because the sun shines on it? If you are proud in this way you will be delivered into the devil’s hands by some terrible fall. Your confidence will then be cut off.

JOHN TRAPP: “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall,” Proverbs 16:18. A bulging wall is near a downfall. Swelling is a dangerous symptom in the body; so is pride in the soul.

C. H. SPURGEON: A man says, “I have great faith, I shall not fall. Poor Little-Faith may, but I never shall.” “I have fervent love,” says another, “I can stand, there is no danger of my going astray. As for my Brother over there, he is so cold and slow, he will fall, I dare say.” Says another man, “I have a most burning hope of Heaven and that hope will triumph. It will purge my soul from sin, as Christ the Lord is pure. I am safe.” He who boasts of Grace, has little Grace to boast of! But there are some who do, who think their graces shall keep them, knowing not that the stream must flow constantly from the fountainhead, otherwise the bed of the brook shall soon be dry. If a continuous stream of oil comes not to the lamp, though it burn brightly today, it shall smoke tomorrow.

ANDREW GRAY: Your grace will wither and dwindle if you pride yourself in it.

MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714): Pride makes a god of self…Ministers should not be proud of their gifts or graces; the better qualified they are for their work, and the more success they have in it, the more thankful should they be to God for His distinguishing goodness.

 

Posted in Preaching & Ministry | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The Spiritual Danger of Pride in Gifts & Grace

A Certain Young Man – Part 5 – Mark & Paul

Posted on February 23, 2024 by The Editor

Acts 15:36-40

And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; and Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.

WILLIAM KELLY (1821-1906): We lose sight of Mark for six or seven years, which for all we know, may have been so much lost time; after that he becomes the passive cause of an exceedingly unfortunate dispute.

H. A. IRONSIDE (1876-1951): Paul had lost confidence in Mark because of his leaving the work and returning to Jerusalem upon the completion of the evangelistic tour in Cyprus. Barnabas, kindly in spirit and evidently moved by natural affection, wanted to give the unfaithful helper a second chance, but Paul was obdurate. He felt he could not afford to jeopardize the success of their work by again taking with them one who had proved himself a weakling.

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): Paul did not believe in these impulsive people who could not hold on under difficulties. But Barnabas, knowing Mark better—and feeling a kinsman’s lenity to his faults, insisted that they should take Mark.

THOMAS GOODWIN (1600-1679): Barnabas was in the wrong, for he went upon a carnal ground, because Mark was his sister’s son.

J. S. HOWSON (1816-1885): Barnabas would not be without strong arguments to defend the justice of his claims. Mark had come to a willing obedience, had left his home in Jerusalem, and he was ready now to face all the difficulties and dangers. To repel him in the moment of his repentance was surely “to break a bruised reed,” and to “quench the smoking flax.”

THE EDITOR: Paul’s rejection might have crippled him spiritually for years. During those so-called “lost” years, I think Mark grew spiritually more mature under the influence of Peter and Barnabas. Barnabas likely didn’t know about Mark’s secret flight from Gethsemane, but Mark did; combined with his failure on that mission trip, his conscience had probably humbled him considerably. And how it must have dismayed Mark to be the subject of this dispute!

C. H. SPURGEON: Barnabas was right in his mild judgment of Mark, for he was a sound believer at bottom and, notwithstanding this fault, he was a real, true-hearted disciple. Barnabas was right, but I think that Paul was not wrong.

THE EDITOR: Paul was zealously thinking of the spiritual good of the Gentile churches they had planted on their first missionary journey. What if Mark faltered again? What a terrible testimony and bad example that would be for those young churches.

H. A. IRONSIDE: I take it Paul considered the work of the Lord so serious he could not think of linking up again with a man who had shown so little sense of the importance of service for the Lord.

MARTIN LUTHER (1483-1546): The cause of their disagreement could hardly have been small since it separated these two, who had been joined together for years in a holy partnership.

THE EDITOR: “Barnabas was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and faith,” Acts 11:24. Given the Spirit’s testimony to his character, Barnabas, the “son of consolation,” was concerned with Mark’s spiritual good; he would do the same for any believer in a similar situation. It is presumptive to say that Barnabas was guilty of nepotism, as so many assume. And if Paul implied something to that effect, Barnabas likely bristled at it, feeling unjustly accused. Maybe it also aggravated a suppressed resentment: Barnabas was also an apostle, and older than Paul, Acts 14:12-14: in Lystra, they called Barnabas, “Jupiter,” and Paul, “Mercury;” in the Greek pantheon, Jupiter was the chief god, and Mercury was his son. And the Holy Spirit had said, “Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them,” Acts 13:2.

C. H. MACKINTOSH (1820-1896): Afterward the order changes, and we read of “Paul and Barnabas.”

J. S. HOWSON: The indirect censure Barnabas had received earlier from Paul in Antioch, Galatians 2:11, may have been perpetually irritated by the consciousness that his position was becoming daily more and more subordinate to Paul. Once Barnabas was spoken of as chief of those “prophets at Antioch,” among whom Saul was the last, Acts 13:1; now his name was scarcely heard, except when he was mentioned as the companion of Paul.

ALEXANDER WHYTE (1836-1921): Has Paul forgotten all that he once owed to Barnabas? Barnabas alone of all the disciples in Jerusalem held out his hand to him. Barnabas alone believed Saul’s wonderful story of his conversion. “They were all afraid of Saul, and believed not that he was a disciple, But Barnabas took Saul, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way to Damascus, and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus Christ,” Acts 9:26,27. Barnabas stood up for Saul; he trusted and befriended him when everyone else suspected him. Barnabas staked his good name and all his influence with the apostles, on the genuineness of Saul’s conversion, and on the sincerity and integrity of his discipleship.

THE EDITOR: Paul could have treated Barnabas more considerately. And subsequent events later proved his hasty judgment of Mark’s character to be wrong. But Paul’s characteristic zeal wouldn’t let it go.

J. S. HOWSON: It is not difficult to understand the obstinacy with which each of the disputants, when feelings were once excited, clung to his opinion.

JOHN WESLEY (1703-1791): There was a sharp contention—Literally, a paroxysm, or fit of a fever.

MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714): They were certainly both at fault to let the contention be sharp; it is to be feared they gave one another some hard words…We may further observe that the church at Antioch seem to countenance Paul in what he did. Barnabas sailed with his nephew to Cyprus, and no notice was taken of him, nor a recommendation given him—but when Paul departed, he was “recommended by the brethren to the grace of God.” They thought he was in the right.

ALEXANDER WHYTE: Who was right and who was wrong in this sharp contention I have no heart to ask. Both were wrong—and multitudes in the churches who heard of the scandal, and took contending sides in it, were wrong also. And this sad story is told us to this day, not that we may take sides in it, but that the like of it may never again happen amongst ourselves.

H. A. IRONSIDE: “A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city,” Proverbs 18:19. The beginning of strife is as a drop of water, which, after a break in the dike, grows into a torrent of water that is practically impossible to stem. However, as the years went on, a kindly, considerate feeling prevailed; in his old age Paul spoke affectionately of Barnabas, 1 Corinthians 9:6, and Mark: “Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry,” 2 Timothy 4:11. I am sure most of us are thankful that Barnabas gave Mark another chance. Many a young Christian has failed in the beginning, but gone on later to become a valuable worker in the vineyard of the Lord Jesus Christ.

ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER (1772-1851): Learn to think for yourselves. Avoid premature judgments and hasty decisions.

JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564): We shall profit greatly, when we have learned to refrain hasty judgment.

 

Posted in John Mark | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Certain Young Man – Part 5 – Mark & Paul

A Certain Young Man – Part 4 – Peter & Mark

Posted on February 16, 2024 by The Editor

Mark 14:47-50

One of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me? I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled. And they all forsook him and fled.

J. C. RYLE (1816-1900): The event here mentioned by Mark is recorded by all four Gospel writers, but John alone gives the name of Peter as the striker, and of Malchus as the person struck. The reason commonly assigned for this is probably correct. John’s Gospel was written long after the other three, when Peter and Malchus were both dead, and their names could, therefore, be safely mentioned. Peter’s impetuous temperament comes out in the action before us. Impulsive, earnest, zealous, and inconsiderate of consequences, he acted hastily, and his zeal soon cooled down and was changed into fear.

JOHANNES BRENZ (1499-1570): One hour he draws his sword against a whole multitude of armed men. Another hour he is frightened out of his Christian profession, and driven into lying by one woman.

 J. C. RYLE: We cannot doubt that Peter meant to kill Malchus with this blow, which was probably aimed at his head. His own agitation, and the special interposition of God, alone prevented him taking away the life of another, and endangering his own life and that of his fellow-disciples. What might have happened if Malchus had been killed, no one can tell. It was clearly an impulsive act, done without reflection. Zeal not according to knowledge often drives a man into foolish actions, and makes work for repentance.

WOLFGANG MUSCULUS (1497-1563): How entirely Peter seems to have forgotten all his Master’s frequent predictions that he would be delivered to the Gentiles and be condemned to death, and acts as if he could prevent what was coming.

 THE EDITOR: It reminds me of an early incident, when Peter tried to turn Christ from dying on the cross, and he “began to rebuke” Jesus for speaking about it; then Jesus, in turn, rebuked him, Mark 8:31-33.

ALEXANDER MacLAREN (1826-1910): Peter’s rash “rebuke,” like most of his appearances in the Gospel, is strangely compounded of warm-hearted, impulsive love and presumptuous self-confidence.

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): I think that Mark must have found a very congenial friend in Peter.

THE EDITOR: Mark and Peter were a lot alike in that hasty, impetuous temperament, weren’t they? I think that was one of the strongest bonds between them. As an older man, when Peter looked at Mark, surely he must have seen a lot of himself in that young man. That same impetuous character was seen in Mark on the night they arrested Jesus; and again years later, in A.D. 45, when Mark left Barnabas and Saul in Perga, and returned to Jerusalem, Acts 13:13. Luke records that little incident without explanation, but his brief mention of it suggests it was both abrupt and unexpected.

C. H. SPURGEON: As long as they were on the island of Cyprus, Mark stuck to them. No, while they traveled along the coast of Asia Minor, they had Mark to be their minister—but the moment they went up into the inland countries, among the robbers and the mountain streams—as soon as ever the road began to be a little too rough, Mark left them! His missionary zeal had oozed out.

ADAM CLARKE (1760-1832): It does not appear that Mark was under any obligation to accompany them any longer or farther than he pleased. He seems to have been little else than their servant, and certainly was not divinely appointed to this work as they were; consequently, he might leave them innocently, though not kindly, if they could not readily supply his place.

THE EDITOR: Whatever the particular reason was for Mark’s sudden departure, it certainly wasn’t to his credit; that’s clear from Paul’s later disapproval of it, Acts 15:38.

C. H. MACKINTOSH (1820-1896): Home influences, as well as religious privileges, would, no doubt, attract the heart of Mark, and induce him to abandon the arduous path of missionary labour. We read of “the house of Mary, the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying,” Acts 12:12. Need we wonder that Mark vastly preferred a prayer meeting in his mother’s house at Jerusalem, to the hardships of a mission in Pamphylia or Pisidia? There was a vast difference between a comfortable home, regular habits, a mother’s love and care—the peaceful charms of well-ordered domestic life, and all the roughness, severity, and hardship of a precarious missionary tour. Furthermore, there was a striking contrast, indeed, between an assembly of loving and united Christian friends gathered for prayer in the city of Jerusalem, and a synagogue of bigoted Jews at Antioch, or a fickle mob at Lystra of Lycaonia.

ADAM CLARKE: Probably he went to visit his pious mother Mary at Jerusalem, and to see Peter, to whom he is supposed to have been much attached.

C. H. MACKINTOSH: It is also well worthy of notice, that the Holy Ghost should have selected Mark as His instrument to write that Gospel.

ALEXANDER MacLAREN (1826-1910): It is a very old Christian tradition that Mark’s Gospel is in some sense the Apostle Peter’s.

H. A. IRONSIDE (1876-1951): According to some very early writers Mark accompanied Peter in later years and wrote his Gospel in collaboration with the venerable apostle, under the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

WILLIAM KELLY (1821-1906): At least, that view was generally accepted in the primitive church on the authority of such men as John the Presbyter, Irenaeus and others, who regarded the Gospel by Mark as having been dictated and accredited by Peter the apostle.

JEROME (340-420): Peter recommended it by his authority to the church.

MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714): Why should we have recourse to the authority of Peter for the support of this gospel?

ROBERT HAWKER (1753-1827): One thing is certain; the Holy Ghost gave the record.

THE EDITOR: In A.D. 60, when Peter wrote his first epistle in A.D. 60 from Babylon, we know Mark was with him, 1 Peter 5:13. But apparently, Mark wrote his gospel nearly ten years later, after Peter had died.

C. H. SPURGEON: Notice that Mark gives the most explicit account of Peter’s fall.

THE EDITOR: You mean Peter’s denial of Christ?

C. H. SPURGEON: He enters very fully into it, Mark 14:54-72. I believe he received it from Peter viva voce, and that Peter bade him write it down. And I think the modest spirit of Mark seemed to say, “Friend Peter, while the Holy Spirit moves me to tell of your fault and let it stand on record, He also constrains me to write my own as a sort of preface to it, for I, too, in my mad, hare-brained folly—away I fled, timid, fainthearted and afraid I should be too roughly handled.”

THE EDITOR: That would make Mark’s mention of Peter following “afar off,” even more significant; as it is recorded directly after Mark’s own escape from the Garden, but just before the account of Peter’s denial. Maybe Peter did know about Mark’s flight—if so, he had kept Mark’s secret, and Mark knew it. Perhaps that was another strong bond between them. Also, during the six years between Mark’s return to Jerusalem, and the dispute between Barnabas and Paul, apparently some spiritual growth took place in Mark. Peter, as well as Barnabas, were likely responsible for that spiritual growth.

Next week, let’s take a close look at that dispute between Barnabas and Paul about Mark.

 

Posted in John Mark | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on A Certain Young Man – Part 4 – Peter & Mark

A Certain Young Man – Part 3 – More Minute Details

Posted on February 8, 2024 by The Editor

Mark 14:51,52

And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

JOHN GILL (1697-1771): Some have thought he was a young man of the house where Christ and His disciples ate their Passover; who had followed Him to the garden, and still followed Him, to see what would be the issue of things: but it seems most likely, he was one that lived in an house near the garden; who, being awaked out of sleep with the noise of a band of soldiers, and others with them, leaped out of bed, and ran out in his shirt, and followed after them, to know what was the matter: “having a linen cloth cast about his naked body;” which was either his shirt in which he lay, or one of the sheets, which he took and wrapped himself in, not staying to put on his clothes.

CHARLES SIMEON (1759-1836): It was done in haste, and without due consideration.

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): This was quite in keeping with Mark’s general character. We gather his character partly from the Book which he has written—the Gospel of Mark is the most impulsive of all the Gospels. The word eutheos, translated, “straightway,” “forthwith,” “immediately,” is used a very great number of times by this evangelist.

THE EDITOR: He uses the word “straightway,” nineteen times, and “immediately,” seventeen times.

C. H. SPURGEON: Mark is a man who does everything straightway—he is full of impulse, dash, fire, flash—the thing must be done, and done at once.

JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564): It is probable the young man had some attachment to Christ, and hearing the tumult by night, not stopping to put on his clothes, and covered only with a linen garment, came to discover their traps, or at least that he might not be wanting in a duty of friendship.

THOMAS COKE (1747-1814): He must be understood to have been a disciple of Jesus, or he needed not to have been afraid.

WILLIAM KELLY (1821-1906): Mark started from a good home.

THE EDITOR: Mark’s mother was a believer; likely his father was also, before he died, given what Jesus had told Peter and John to say to the “goodman,” when they requested the upper room. But was Mark was converted at this time? More likely, his conversion occurred later, through Peter’s ministry. So, what do we have? An impulsive young man from a good Christian home, aroused from his bed, and naked but for a nightshirt,  following after Jesus to Gethsemane. But why?

D. L. MOODY (1837-1899): The Bible does not tell us.

THE EDITOR: Not specifically. But maybe it does, if we reason from what details the Bible does provide. “With desire,” Jesus wanted to observe the Passover with His beloved disciples, undisturbed, Luke 22:15; therefore He concealed the location, so Judas had no chance to organize prior arrangements to betray Him. But after observing the Passover, Satan entered into Judas, and Jesus said, “That thou doest, do quickly,” John 13:27. Why did Christ say that?

J. C. RYLE: The full meaning and purport of this solemn saying is not easy to define—we can only conjecture about it.

THE EDITOR: Judas “went immediately out, and it was night,” John 13:30. Since he had no pre-arranged plans, the chief priests and Pharisees could not know that Judas was coming; it being night, they were in their own homes. Jesus knew what they had to do. Quickly, they must gather themselves together, decide to act, and dispatch a band of men to return with Judas to arrest Him. Think about what happened. Jesus knew there was time to institute the Lord’s Supper; and time for a long profound conversation with His disciples, John chapters 14-16. Then He prayed, John 17. They sang a hymn; then, before Judas could return, they left for Gethsemane; and Jesus warned His disciples that they would desert Him, Mark 14:26-31.

A. W. PINK (1886-1952): “He went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples,” John 18:1. In crossing the brook Cedron, accompanied by His disciples, an Old Testament type was most strikingly fulfilled. In 2 Samuel 15:1-37 we read of David, at the time of his shameful betrayal by his friend Ahithophel, crossing the same brook in tears, accompanied by his faithful followers. So David’s Son and Lord, crossed the Cedron while Judas was betraying Him…Christ’s object was to afford His enemies more free scope to take Him—where they might have full opportunity to apprehend Him, and carry Him away in the night, quietly and secretly. In addition, His arrest in the Garden made it easier for His disciples to escape.

THE EDITOR: It was but a fifteen minute walk to Gethsemane. Yet Jesus still had time for three agonizing sessions of private prayer, returning occasionally to reprove His disciples, who couldn’t stay awake; it was now very late. Meanwhile, Judas returns to Mark’s house. Mark and his parents are in bed, but a loud hammering on the door awakens them to see Judas with a mob carrying swords and torches. Mark stands nervously behind his parents, wearing only his white linen nightshirt. “Where’s Jesus?” is the impatient demand. “He’s not here,” says the goodman, “They’ve all gone; I don’t know where.” “I know,” Judas tells his men, “they’ve gone to Gethsemane.” “Judas knew the place, for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples,” John 18:3. The men rush off; and now, impulsively, Mark decides to run to Gethsemane and warn Jesus.

C. H. SPURGEON: Once more, the known life of Mark tends to make it very probable that he would do such a thing. Mark does not wait to robe himself, but, just as he is, he dashes out.

THE EDITOR: There’s no time to waste. He slips out his bedroom window, or a back door, unknown to his parents—they’d only try to stop him. What mother would let her teenager run out half-dressed like that?

But Mark is too late; in Gethsemane, Judas and his band of men have already confronted Jesus and His disciples. Fearfully, he hangs back, out of their torchlight, watching. And what does he see? All of Christ’s disciples forsaking Jesus and fleeing—men he probably admired and respected. Now Mark gets another sudden impulse of youthful bravado: ‘they all ran—but I’ll follow and see what happens; then I’ll tell the disciples. And I will be a hero.’

However, he follows too close. When the moonlight, or torchlight, flashes on his white linen nightshirt, Mark is spotted—not by soldiers, nor any principle Jews like Malchus, the high priest’s servant, but by the “young men,”—‘the wanna-be’ up and comers at the tail end of the mob, and they lay hold of him. Though Mark’s courage fails, characteristically he still reacts quickly, slipping out of his nightshirt and escaping out of their hands. Later, those young ‘wanna-be’s don’t want to broadcast their dismal embarrassing failure to anyone. Nor, after running home naked, and sneaking back into his bedroom, does an ashamed Mark want it known, especially not by his parents.

No other chain of events adequately explains how Mark could be in the Garden that night, dressed as he was; and why nobody else knew about it—except maybe Peter, who was following “afar off.” And that raises some other considerations for next week.

 

Posted in John Mark | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on A Certain Young Man – Part 3 – More Minute Details

A Certain Young Man – Part 2 – Was it Mark?

Posted on February 2, 2024 by The Editor

Mark 14:51

And there followed him a certain young man.

J. C. RYLE (1816-1900): Mark is the only evangelist who relates this circumstance: and he has given us no clue to further knowledge as to who it was, or why the event is mentioned.

C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892): One wonders why it is introduced, but a moment’s reflection will, I think, suggest a plausible reason.

ALEXANDER MacLAREN (1826-1910): Only he tells the incident, which has no bearing on the course of events, and was of no importance but to the person concerned.

C. H. SPURGEON: It strikes me that this “certain young man” was none other than Mark himself—I grant it is merely a supposition, yet it is supported by the strongest chain of probabilities. The only person likely to know it, was the man himself. I cannot think anyone else would have been likely to tell it to Mark—for he might scarcely have thought it worthy of recording if it had been told him by someone else! And it is not likely that anyone to whom it had occurred would have felt it was much to his credit, and been likely to relate it to Mark with a view to its being recorded!

THE EDITOR: It’s possible one other person knew about it.

C. H. SPURGEON: Who was that?

THE EDITOR: Peter. He also followed the mob as they led Jesus away, though “afar off,” Mark 14:53,54. That very minute detail explains why this young man was spotted; he was closer to the mob, while Peter was afar off, and not seen in the darkness. But how could Mark come to be in Gethsemane that night?

J. C. RYLE: Theophylact and Buthymius think it probable that it was some young man who followed our Lord from the house where He ate the Passover with His disciples.

THE EDITOR: That’s very possible. Jesus observed the Passover in a “large upper room,” Mark 14:15. Mark’s mother owned a house in Jerusalem with a large room; eleven years later, after an angel freed Peter from Herod’s prison, Peter went to her house “where many gathered together praying,” Acts 12:12.

MATTHEW HENRY (1662-1714):  Mary was a sister of Barnabas, and mother of Mark, whose house, it should seem, was frequently made use of for the private meeting of the disciples.

THE EDITOR: Quite likely, this was the same “upper room” to which the apostles returned from Mount Olivet after Christ’s ascension, and where they “abode” and held prayer meetings; what more appropriate place to gather together than where they had observed the Lord’s Supper? It was also likely the “one place” where they gathered on Pentecost, when the Spirit descended—compare Acts 1:12-15 & Acts 2:1. Why else would the Holy Spirit include those very minute details? He doesn’t inspire words to be recorded on a whim, to no purpose. “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times,” Psalm 12:6.

A. W. PINK (1886-1952): No detail in Scripture is meaningless.

THE EDITOR: But that’s not all. Notice the method our Lord used to direct Peter and John to where they prepared the Passover, Luke 22:8. “And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guest chamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. And in the evening he cometh with the twelve,” Mark 14:13-15.

ALEXANDER MacLAREN: The remarkable thing here is the picture it gives of Christ elaborately adopting precautions to conceal the place. What is the reason? To baffle the traitor Judas by preventing him from acquiring previous knowledge of the place. He was watching for some quiet hour in Jerusalem to take Jesus, Mark 14:10,11. So Christ does not eat the Passover at the house of any well-known disciple who had a house in Jerusalem, but goes to some man unknown to the Apostolic circle, and takes steps to prevent the place being known beforehand.

THE EDITOR: Exactly. The Greek word translated as “goodman” means “the head of a family.” I believe this particular “goodman” was the husband of Mark’s mother. This Passover was in A.D. 33; however, Peter’s imprisonment, with its reference to “Mark’s mother’s house,” was in A.D. 44, which suggests that Mark’s father had died by then. Other references tend to confirm that. Mark’s uncle’s name was actually Joses; but because of his habit of consoling others, he “was surnamed Barnabas, which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,” Acts 4:36. Barnabas certainly had a strong fatherly care for his nephew; after Mark’s father died, Barnabas likely took young Mark under his protective wing; thus his advocacy for Mark in his later dispute with Paul, Acts 15:36-40. And later, in A.D. 60, Peter refers to Mark as “Marcus, my son,” 1 Peter 5:13; Peter also had a deep fatherly affection for him.

ADAM CLARKE (1760-1832): He is called Peter’s son, Peter having been likely the means of his conversion. This is very probable, as Peter seems to have been intimate at his mother’s house.

JOHN GILL (1697-1771): Peter was either an instrument of converting him, or of instructing him, or Mark was one that was as dear to him as a son; in like manner as Paul calls Timothy, and also Titus, his own son.

THE EDITOR: This brings us to Mark’s age at the time of Christ’s arrest.

C. H. MACKINTOSH (1820-1896): How can we know that?

THE EDITOR: We can’t, not precisely. But in 45 A.D., when Barnabas and Paul took Mark along on their first missionary journey, as “their minister,”—or their servant, he was training for the ministry, Acts 13:4; just as a young Elisha had served Elijah, in training for his own later ministry, 1 Kings 19:19-21; 2 Kings 2:1-15. Scripturally, Levites didn’t begin their public ministry until age thirty, Numbers 4:3, as did Christ Himself, Luke 3:23. If Mark was thirty in A.D. 45, or being still only a servant, perhaps yet in his twenties, then when Jesus was arrested in A.D. 33, Mark was eighteen, maybe even younger, and likely living with his parents. Tradition puts Mark born in A.D. 12, but I prefer the sufficiency of Scriptural reasoning.

THOMAS MANTON (1620-1677): Nothing is more profitable to dissolve doubts and objections raised from Scripture, than to compare one Scripture with another. For Scripture is not opposite to Scripture. There is a fair agreement and harmony between the truths therein compared—one place doth not cross another, but clear and explain another.

ALEXANDER MacLAREN: Probably, this young man was Mark.

C. H. SPURGEON: There is no other hypothesis in favour of any other man that is supported by equal probabilities. Very well, then. We will assume that he was the man and use the incident as the groundwork of our discourse.

THE EDITOR: Next week, let’s see what we might learn from that probability.

 

Posted in John Mark | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on A Certain Young Man – Part 2 – Was it Mark?