Bible Characters and Their Imperfections.
By William H. Littlejohn
BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN, It is difficult for some persons to reconcile the sins of individuals who figure prominently in Holy Writ with the fact that those persons were employed by the Lord in the development of the great plan of human redemption. To them it seems incomprehensible that God should ever have spoken words of approval to those who had been guilty of great offenses, and utterly inconceivable that he should make them the direct mediums of revelation. While sympathizing measurably with those who find themselves troubled in the manner in question, we nevertheless believe that their difficulties arise from a superficial view of the subject. More profound reflection, and a larger insight into the purposes and plans of God, would, we believe, enable them to see the matter in a very different light. While it should ever be a source of regret that any person, whether called good or bad, should yield to temptation and fall into sin, it by no means follows that such a person might not, after suitable repentance, be restored to full favor with God. Before the skeptic rejects this proposition, let him pause and consider the terrible consequences which would necessarily follow if this principle were not defensible. Does he claim to be a sinless one himself? If so, we commend him to a deeper study of his own heart. But if he shall concede the fact of his own dereliction in duty, then we inquire whether he feels that he has been restored to full favor with Heaven. Should he answer in the negative, we ask again if he believes that his own iniquities have separated him forever from the loving consideration of the God of Heaven. Does he not believe that82in some way it either is now, or will be at some future time, possible for him to be reinstated in the divine favor? Must he, throughout the endless ages of eternity, be held at a distance from the God who made him, and be debarred from full communion with him, as the penalty of past transgression? Does he really believe that God is irreconcilable to those who once have offended him? If so, he has invented for himself a punishment as long in duration, if not as terrible in its pangs and sorrows, as that which it is claimed will be administered in that orthodox hell which he is so apt to repudiate as repugnant to every idea of right and dictate of reason. But, on the other hand, if he regards it as at least possible that he could, by a proper course of conduct, be brought into full fellowship with his Maker, we ask if he has any other method of accomplishing this except through repentance and reform. If not, are not these routes of return as available to others as to himself? Is it not possible that when Abraham, or Jacob, or Moses, or David did violence to their own convictions of duty, and broke the commandments of God, they, in like manner, might have returned, with suitable words and contrition of heart, to Him whose law they had trodden under foot? If they had done this, is it incredible that he would have received them with open arms, and placed the seal of his approbation upon them by admitting them into full communion with himself? Before the possibility of this is denied, let it be remembered that in doing so the attribute of God’s mercy would thereby be ignored, and the destiny of millions would become unalterably fixed and hopeless. Should it be objected still that the sins of these men were so aggravated in their character that it is difficult to conceive it possible that God should ever condescend to speak through them by the Holy Spirit, we reply that among those whom God directly inspired to write and speak words of instruction for the ages which were to follow, were men of all types of character and shades of temperament. Among them were individuals whose lives were remarkably free from departures from the rule of rectitude, as well as those whose career was marred by transactions which it is not only difficult to justify, but which are unquestionably utterly indefensible. Should we judge of the first class from the standpoint of modern morality, we should not award to them the credit which they deserve; for we should fail to appreciate the unfavorable nature of the surroundings under which their characters were developed. Should we attempt to estimate the censure which should be laid upon the latter class, we should doubtless exaggerate the measure of their blame; for we should fail to make due allowance for the untoward influences which conduced to their fall. The ages in which these persons lived were periods of great moral darkness. The virtues which they practiced were rarely exemplified by others; and the sins which they committed, and which shock us at the present time, were quite generally indulged in and defended by the nations of that epoch. This being the case, the credit due to those whose virtues, like those of Abraham, have hardly been equaled in this age, can scarcely be applauded too highly; while the occasional lapse into popular vices by such persons as Jacob and David must be treated with much greater charity than like acts could possibly be at the present time. The race has gradually moved out of the dim twilight of primeval conceptions of doctrine and duty into the full blaze of the gospel sunlight, which so perfectly illuminates the minds of all men that there is no longer room for doubt as to what course of action would be the proper one in a given set of circumstances. God’s plan seems to have been to lead men forward and upward, slowly it may be, but, nevertheless, as rapidly as the circumstances would admit of. As the mind of the child can only be developed by degrees, so it has been necessary for Providence to patiently lead men on, age after age, in the gradual process of enlightenment and reform. In doing this work, it has been a necessity that he should employ such instruments as were available to his hand. Had he acted upon the principle which some suggest by refusing to reveal himself except through persons of faultless natures, then he would never have revealed himself at all; for such persons could not have been found in the past any more than they can be at the present time. All men have sinned, and “like sheep have gone astray.” The bigot of to-day may wrap himself in the mantle of his own perfection, and indulge in hypocritical “cant” in regard to the sins of Bible characters; but let him pass through the same ordeal through which these men passed, and let his inner life be revealed through the pen of Inspiration, and we apprehend that—taking into account the difference in the opportunities and moral surroundings—there are few of this class whose lives would bear the scrutiny thus turned upon them as well as have those whose virtues they forget, and whose vices they never weary of condemning. In the closets of many of the modern praters against Abraham, and Moses, and Jacob, and David are suspended skeletons the exposure of whose unsightly forms—should the door be set ajar by some modern Nathan—would at least rebuke their hypocrisy, if it did not correct their folly. God, however, knows how to discriminate, and he has manifested his wisdom in speaking by those by whom he must have spoken if he spoke at all. We think also that he has displayed his divine love, as well as knowledge, in employing just the classes which he has employed in the work of making up the canon of Inspiration. Had he confined himself in the work of revealing his will to the world to men who, like Enoch, were able to walk with him without stumbling for three hundred years, it appears to us that his word would have lost much of its power in, and adaptation for, the work of saving men. While there are a few individuals who are comparatively blameless in their lives, the great mass of mankind, when convicted by the Holy Spirit, realize the turpitude of their sins so fully that unless God had made the most ample provision to counteract the reaction of the mind thus awakened they would fall into despair and discomfiture. It would be in vain for you to try to help such by citing them to some sinless one whom God had loved, and to whom he had revealed himself. Turning away from you with an air of hopeless distrust you would receive this response: “His case was not like mine; God loved him because he had never sinned; but he cannot love me, because I am covered all over with pollution.” If, then, you should avail yourself of the opportunity with which God has furnished you in the cases of great transgressors in the past, and call his attention to the fact that the Most High could even so far pardon David and Jacob, and others who had been the perpetrators of great and terrible wrongs, as to make them the objects of his tender regard, and chosen instruments in the evolution of his great plan for the redemption of others, then you would pour courage into his soul and inspire hope in his dejected heart. It is not enough that pardon simply should be offered to the erring one. He needs something more than this to assure his complete return to the path of virtue. It will be necessary that you should be able to promise not only that the penalty for his crimes shall be made void, but you must also be in a situation to declare confidently that his past sins shall not act as a bar to his future usefulness and full fruition of joy. Let him feel that it will be merely possible for him to be saved, but that his sins have so far estranged him from the God of Heaven that he can never again win his confidence and enjoy that fullness of fellowship which others may experience who have been less faulty than himself, and you hang over his spirits a dark cloud, whose shadow will be ever present to bring gloom into the soul, and to induce that fruitless regret for past mistakes which, if not dispelled, so often develops into despair and ends in ruin. He who has not made this phase of human experience a matter of study, has but little conception of the important place which it must fill in every successful plan for the redemption of men. The Christian minister not unfrequently finds it necessary to have recourse to the history of such cases as that of Peter, who denied his Lord and swore that he never knew him, before he can make the least impression upon minds which the enemy, having first led into sin, has afterward driven to despondency. The relief is not found simply in the fact that Peter was guilty of a terrible crime, but in that fact when coupled with another one, which was that the Lord did not cast him off entirely because of what he had done, but, after the hearty repentance of the apostle, brought him into a nearness to himself more close and sacred than he had enjoyed before. The hopeless one sees in such a case not only pardon but restoration. He loathes his sin, and now with all his heart he loves the God who can pardon the sin, and open to the sinner the road of usefulness as fully as though he had never gone astray. Here, then, we have the solution of the whole question. God has not erred in calling into his service men who either had previously been transgressors, or those whom he knew would fall thereafter. The man who finds fault with him for so doing is quarreling with his own soul. There is no feature in God’s work, as revealed in his word, which should inspire in our hearts such love for him as should the fact that he has given us practical demonstrations of his willingness to make, not only Enoch and Abraham, and Joseph and John, but also Jacob and David and Peter, the vehicles to bear his message of mercy to a fallen race. Let us therefore praise his name that while everywhere throughout his word he condemns the wrong-doing of the sinner, and speaks in the most approving manner of holiness, he has nevertheless devised a plan whereby he that has gone astray can return to his Father’s house, feeling not only that there is bread enough there, but also that he will be welcomed to a place as near the heart of the great Father as is that occupied by other sons and daughters who have been more fortunate in their earthly pilgrimage.—Allegan County Democrat.