Apostolic, Versus Modern, Preaching.
WHEN the apostle Paul came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews, he went in unto them as his manner was, and for three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures. There is something suggestive in this. Paul was desirous of convincing the Jews that Jesus was the Christ, and so he pursued the only plan likely to attain that object, he reasoned with them. But that was not all. The style of his reasoning demands our attention. He reasoned with them out of the Scriptures. He did not reason about the Scriptures. He reasoned out of them, a very different thing. It is quite common to reason about the Scriptures. It is not quite so common to reason out of them. Many infer from certain pre-conceived ideas, that the Scriptures teach thus and thus, but it is not every one that is prepared to back his opinions by a Thus saith the Lord. I met a case of that sort some time ago. Conversing with a man, I found he believed in the world's conversion. I asked him what scriptural authority he had for believing that, and the gist of what he said amounted to this, that the gospel was from God, it had done much good in the world already, and therefore, it was destined to convert the whole world at last. The reasoning was not very sound at best, but it had this fatal defect that it was not out of the Scriptures, it was only about them. The truth of the second coming of the Lord is frequently treated in the same manner. When we press the importance of attending to that truth, and point out that the Scripture tells us to watch, wait, and look for the Advent of Jesus, we are frequently told that if we are prepared for the coming of death, we are prepared for the coming of Christ. The reasoning may be plausible, but it is not sound. It is at best only an inference. It is not taken out of the Scriptures. It is interesting to notice what the Scriptures say upon this subject, and what was the style of apostolic preaching so far as that is put upon record. For example, we are told that Paul and Barnabas came to Salamis and preached the Word of God in the synagogue of the Jews, Acts xiii, 5. Here was reasoning out of the Scriptures with a witness. They preached the Word of God. They did not preach about the Word of God, they preached the Word of God itself. Neither did they preach what learned men said about the Word of God. They preached the Word of God itself. There was no lack of commentation in those days any more than there is in ours. We read for example of one Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, and a man had in reputation among the people, and we know that Paul was acquainted with him, for he was brought up at his feet. But we do not find that when he came to Thessalonica he reasoned out of the writings of Gamaliel, he reasoned out of the Scriptures. Nor when he came to Salamis did he preach Gamaliel, he preached the Word of God. What does this mean? It means that his aim was to let his hearers know what the Word of God contained. I do not imagine that Paul came to the Word of God with a ready-made theory and then set to work to call texts, and string them together in order to give that theory an appearance of Divine sanction. Such things have been done, are now, but such was not the manner of him who was wont to reason out of the Scriptures. He was not accustomed to preach the opinions of Paul of Tarsus. He took another plan, he preached the Word of God. Perhaps an example of his preaching will best show how he handled this matter. He came to Antioch in Pisidia, and according to his custom, went into the synagogue, and upon being invited, he arose and spoke. You will find his sermon given at some length in Acts xiii, and as a sample of apostolic preaching, it is worthy of study. Men of Israel, he says, and ye that fear God give audience, and then he goes on to tell them—what? Why, what their own Scriptures contained. Reminding them that God chose their fathers, delivered them out of Egypt, and brought them into the land of Canaan, he first refers to the reign of the judges, then to the erection of the kingdom in the person of Saul, the son of Cis, and then to the establishment of the royal house of David. Having traced their own history thus far, he then tells them that of David's seed God had according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus. After a brief reference to John the baptist, as the forerunner of Jesus, he makes them aware of the vast importance of the coming of Jesus to themselves in these words, “Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.” He then refers to the conduct of the rulers, and of Pilate in crucifying Jesus, carefully taking note that they fulfilled what was written of him in the Scriptures, and then he speaks of his resurrection and the evidence of it. Having thus rehearsed these scriptural and historical facts, he proceeds to show that God in sending Jesus had fulfilled his promise to the fathers, of which he gives several proofs, and concludes by telling them that through Jesus was preached unto them forgiveness of sins, and warning them from the Scriptures of the awful danger they would incur if they rejected the Saviour. Such is an outline of the sermon, and when we consider it, what is the idea that presents itself to our minds. It is this, that Paul was preaching the Word of God, and nothing but the Word of God. He was doing with the Jews of Antioch in Pisidia, what he did with the Jews of Thessalonica, he was reasoning with them out of the Scriptures. The whole address is an appeal to scripture and to fact. There is nothing of the nature of an essay in it. He preaches the word of God, not the opinions of man. He does not reason about the Scriptures, he reasons out of them. But this is not all. We are told what the effects of this sermon were, and we find that they were twofold. “And,” it is said, “the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the Word of God.” Here was a blessed result and one well worthy of our attention. Paul was a great orator. It is true that speaking of himself he says that his bodily presence was weak and his speech contemptible, but that saying was the result of his humility. His speech was far from being contemptible. He is spoken of by ancient historians as an excellent speaker. But we are not told that the people crowded to hear him. They came for another and far nobler purpose; they came to hear the Word of God. If what the Scriptures say about Paul lets us see how preachers ought to preach, the statement here made teaches us how hearers ought to hear. The preacher should preach the Word of God, and the people should come to hear it. But there was another effect produced by Paul's preaching, “When,” it is said, “the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.” It is very clear from this statement that it was not the Word of God the Jews wanted. Had Paul come in his own name they would have revered him, but seeing that he came in the name of Christ, they rejected him. And in rejecting Paul, they rejected more than Paul, for we are informed that when they acted in this manner, Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, “It was necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken unto you, but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.” There is something very suggestive in these words. Paul and Barnabas preached the Word of God to these Jews, and they rejected it. And what followed? That they thereby passed judgment upon themselves as being unworthy of everlasting life. That was not Paul's doing, it was theirs. It was they themselves that condemned themselves to perdition. All unwittingly they passed the sentence of condemnation upon themselves. But mark how they did it. It was by putting the Word of God from them. It was, be it carefully noted, by rejecting not the word of Paul, but the Word of God. I think it would be well if ministers would pay attention to this fact. I have more than once heard preachers say from the pulpit that their hearers would be responsible to God for202every sermon that they heard. The saying is subject to considerable limitation. I entertain much too low an opinion of the general run of sermons to give it a universal application, and greatly doubt if any man incurs much responsibility by listening to a dreary essay, read in a monotone. I remember hearing one minister of my acquaintance making that assertion, and yet some time afterward he complained to me that some of his hearers thought they had got a great triumph over him when they found that he took his ideas from Matthew Henry. Now we do not read that men judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life because they put Matthew Henry's Commentary from them. They only do so when they put away the Word of God. And the Commentary of Matthew Henry is not the Word of God, neither does it in every case give a correct exposition of that Word. For example, we are told in Daniel ii, 34, that the stone smites the feet of the image, and breaks them in pieces, and the inspired commentary gives us to understand that this symbolizes what the kingdom of Christ will do to the kingdoms of the earth, for it is said, “it shall break in pieces, and consume all these kingdoms.” Verse 44. But Matthew Henry says that it shall wear away these kingdoms, which is quite a different thing. Now as according to his own confession, my friend was preaching Matthew Henry rather than the Word of God, I doubt if he was justified in saying that his hearers would have to answer to God for every sermon that he preached them. And the same line of remark applies to more than him. If Paul had preached Gamaliel to the Jews of Antioch in Pisidia would he have been justified in saying that they judged themselves unworthy of everlasting life because they put away his word? The preaching of Commentators is the bane of the Christian church. We hear a great many complaints in the present day about the poverty of the pulpit and the much poor matter which is enunciated there. I do not wonder at it. How can men preach good sermons if they depend upon others for their thoughts? Let a man pursue that course for any length of time, and he becomes a mental slave. God may have given him a measure of originality and a capacity for searching into truth and making it plain to others, but of what avail is such a priceless gift if he subjects himself to the will of another? He is cramped, cribbed, confined within the limits of that other's opinions, and cannot think for himself. He cannot exert his God-given powers. Matthew Henry, or Adam Clarke, or Thomas Scott sit heavy upon his soul. Says a Presbyterian minister of my acquaintance to another, “Do you know that Matthew Henry is against you?” Of course his meaning was that, therefore, that other must be in the wrong. Says a Methodist minister to me, bringing out a volume of Wesley's works, what time we were discussing the subject, if I remember aright, of the world's conversion, “That's what Wesley says,” and so of course the matter in his opinion was settled. “What is your opinion of this passage?” asked an acquaintance of mine of a Methodist preacher. “Adam Clarke says so and so,” was the answer. “I would not like to differ with Dr. Chalmers,” said a Scotch lady in a solemn tone of voice, as if such an act of independence had been closely allied to sacrilege. And so the world wags. Matthew Henry, John Wesley, Adam Clarke, Thomas Chalmers, and such like reign supreme, and their word must not be disputed. They govern the pulpit, the pulpit rules the pew, and so the church is subjected to a terrene instead of a celestial influence. The noble Bereans tested the teaching of an inspired apostle by the Word of God, and were commended for so doing, but the man who in our day would venture to do the same thing with Adam Clarke or Matthew Henry, would run some risk of having his orthodoxy called in question. This is an evil state of matters. Water drawn fresh from the spring is pleasant and refreshing, but if it stands long in an earthen vessel it becomes vapid. So with preaching. The Scripture is a well of living water, sparkling, sweet, refreshing, good. The Commentary contains a portion of that water mixed with earthly matter. Go direct to the spring. But alas, many have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep.
—Advent. Herald.