Verses 1-34
Chapter 6
When we study the opening verses of Matthew 6:1-34
, we are immediately confronted with one most important question-- What
is the place of the reward motive in the Christian life? Three times in
this section Jesus speaks of God rewarding those who have given to him
the kind of service which he desires (Matthew 6:4,; Matthew 6:18). This question is so important that we will do well to pause to examine it before we go on to study the chapter in detail.
It is very often stated that the reward motive has no
place whatsoever in the Christian life. It is held that we must be good
for the sake of being good, that virtue is its own reward, and that the
whole conception of reward must be banished from the Christian life.
There was an old saint who used to say that he would wish to quench all
the fires of hell with water, and to bum up all the joys of heaven with
fire, in order that men seek for goodness nor nothing but goodness'
sake, and in order that the idea of reward and punishment might be
totally eliminated from life.
On the face of it that point of view is very fine and
noble; but it is not the point of view which Jesus held. We have already
seen that three times in this passage Jesus speaks about reward. The
right kind of almsgiving, the right kind of prayer, and the right kind
of fasting will all have their reward.
Nor is this an isolated instance of the idea of reward
in the teaching of Jesus. He says of those who loyally bear persecution,
who suffer insult without bitterness, that their reward will be great
in heaven (Matthew 5:12).
He says that whoever gives to one of these little ones a cup of cold
water in the name of a disciple will not lose his reward (Matthew 10:42). At least part of the teaching of the parable of the talents is that faithful service will receive its reward (Matthew 25:14-30).
In the parable of the last judgment the plain teaching is that there is
reward and punishment in accordance with our reaction to the needs of
our fellow-men (Matthew 25:31-46).
It is abundantly clear that Jesus did not hesitate to speak in terms of
rewards and punishments. And it may well be that we ought to be careful
that we do not try to be more spiritual than Jesus was in our thinking
about this matter of reward. There are certain obvious facts which we
must note.
(i) It is an obvious rule of life that any action which
achieves nothing is futile and meaningless. A goodness which achieves
no end would be a meaningless goodness. As has been very truly said:
"Unless a thing is good for something, it is good for nothing." Unless
the Christian life has an aim and a goal which it is a joy to obtain, it
becomes largely without meaning. He who believes in the Christian way
and the Christian promise cannot believe that goodness can have no
result beyond itself
(ii) To banish all rewards and punishments from the
idea of religion is in effect to say that injustice has the last word.
It cannot reasonably be held that the end of the good man and the end of
the bad man are one and the same. That would simply mean that God does
not care whether men are good or not. It would mean, to put it crudely
and bluntly, that there is no point in being good, and no special reason
why a man should live one kind of life instead of another. To eliminate
all rewards and punishments is really to say that in God there is
neither justice nor love.
Rewards and punishments are necessary in order to make sense of life. A. E. Housman wrote:
Yonder, on the morning blink,
The sun is up, and so must 1,
To wash and dress and eat and drink
And look at things and talk and think
And work, and God knows why.
And often have I washed and dressed,
And what's to show for all my pain?
Let me lie abed and rest;
Ten thousand times I've done my best,
And all's to do again."
If there are no rewards and no punishments, then that poem's
view of life is true. Action is meaningless and all effort goes
unavailingly whistling down the wind.
(i) The Christian Idea Of Reward
But having gone this length with the idea of reward in the Christian
life, there are certain things about which we must be clear.
(i) When Jesus spoke of reward, he was very definitely not
thinking in terms of material reward. It is quite true that in the Old
Testament the idea of goodness and prosperity are closely connected. If a
man prospered, if his fields were fertile and his harvest great, if his
children were many and his fortune large, it was taken as a proof that
he was a good man.
That is precisely the problem at the back of the Book of Job.
Job is in misfortune; his friends come to him to argue that that
misfortune must be the result of his own sin; and Job most vehemently
denies that charge. "Think now," said Eliphaz, "who that was innocent
ever perished?" (Job 4:7)
"If you are pure and upright," said Bildad, "surely then he would rouse
himself for you and reward you with a rightful habitation" (Job 8:6).
"For you say, My doctrine is pure, and I am clean in God's eyes," said
Zophar, "but oh that God would speak and open his lips to you" (Job 11:4). The very idea that the Book of Job was written to contradict is that goodness and material prosperity go hand in hand.
"I have been young, and now am old," said the Psalmist, "yet
have I not seen the righteous forsaken, or his children begging bread" (Psalms 37:25).
"A thousand may fall at your side," said the Psalmist, "and ten
thousand at your right hand; but it will not come near you. You will
only look with your eyes and see the recompense of the wicked. Because
you have made the Lord your refuge, the Most High your habitation, no
evil shall befall you, no scourge come near your tent" (Psalms 91:7-10).
These are things that Jesus could never have said. It was certainly not
material prosperity which Jesus promised his disciples. He in fact
promised them trial and tribulation, suffering, persecution and death.
Quite certainly Jesus did not think in terms of material rewards.
(ii) The second thing which it is necessary to remember is that
the highest reward never comes to him who is seeking it. If a man is
always seeking reward, always reckoning up that which he believes
himself to be earning, then he will in fact miss the reward for which he
is seeking. And he will miss it because he is looking at God and
looking at life in the wrong way. A man who is always calculating his
reward is thinking of God in terms of a judge or an accountant, and
above all he is thinking of life in terms of law. He is thinking of
doing so much and earning so much. He is thinking of life in terms of a
credit and debit balance sheet. He is thinking of presenting an account
to God and of saying, "I have done so much. Now I claim my reward."
The basic mistake of this point of view is that it thinks of
life in terms of law, instead of love. If we love a person deeply and
passionately, humbly and selflessly, we will be quite sure that if we
give that person all we have to give, we will still be in default, that
if we give that person the sun, the moon and the stars, we will still be
in debt. He who is in love is always in debt; the last thing that
enters his mind is that he has earned a reward. If a man has a legal
view of life, he may think constantly in terms of reward that he has
won; if a man has a loving view of life, the idea of reward will never
enter his mind.
The great paradox of Christian reward is this--the person who
looks for reward, and who calculates that it is due to him, does not
receive it; the person whose only motive is love, and who never thinks
that he has deserved any reward, does. in fact, receive it. The strange
fact is that reward is at one and the same time the by-product and the
ultimate end of the Christian life.
(ii) The Christian Reward
We must now go on to ask: What are the rewards of the Christian life?
(i) We begin by noting one basic and general truth. We have
already seen that Jesus Christ does not think in terms of material
reward at all. The rewards of the Christian life are rewards only to a
spiritually minded person. To the materially minded person they would
not be rewards at all. The Christian rewards are rewards only to a
Christian.
(ii) The first of the Christian rewards is satisfaction. The
doing of the right thing, obedience to Jesus Christ, the taking of his
way, whatever else it may or may not bring, always brings satisfaction.
It may well be that, if a man does the right thing, and obeys Jesus
Christ, he may lose his fortune and his position, he may end in gaol or
on the scaffold, he may finish up in unpopularity, loneliness and
disrepute, but he will still possess that inner satisfaction, which is
greater than all the rest put together. No price-ticket can be put upon
this; this is not to be evaluated in terms of earthly currency, but
there is nothing like it in all the world. It brings that contentment
which is the crown of life.
The poet George Herbert was a member of a little group of
friends who used to meet to play their musical instruments together like
a little orchestra. Once he was on his way to a meeting of this group,
when he passed a carter whose cart was stuck in the mud of the ditch.
George Herbert laid aside his instrument and went to the help of the
man. It was a long job to get the cart out, and lie finished covered
with mud. When he arrived at the house of his friends, it was too late
for music. He told them what had detained him on the way. One said: "You
have missed all the music." George Herbert smiled. "Yes," he said. "but
I will have songs at midnight." He had the satisfaction of having done
the Christlike thing.
Godfrey Winn tells of a man who was the greatest plastic surgeon
in Britain. During the war, he gave up a private practice, which
brought him in 10,000 British pounds per year, to devote all his time to
remoulding the faces and the bodies of airmen who had been burned and
mutilated in battle. Godfrey Winn said to him, "What's your ambition,
Mac?" Back came the answer, "I want to be a good craftsman." The 10,000
British pounds per year was nothing compared with the satisfaction of a
selfless job well done.
Once a woman stopped Dale of Birmingham on the street. "God
bless you, Dr. Dale," she said. She absolutely refused to give her name.
She only thanked him and blessed him and passed on. Dale at the moment
had been much depressed. " But," he said, "the mist broke, the sunlight
came; I breathed the free air of the mountains of God." In material
things he was not one penny the richer, but in the deep satisfaction,
which comes to the preacher who discovers he has helped someone, he had
gained wealth untold.
The first Christian reward is the satisfaction which no money on earth can buy.
(iii) The second reward of the Christian life is still more work
to do. It is the paradox of the Christian idea of reward that a task
well done does not bring rest and comfort and ease; it brings still
greater demands and still more strenuous endeavours. In the parable of
the talents the reward of the faithful servants was still greater
responsibility (Matthew 25:14-30).
When a teacher gets a really brilliant and able scholar, he does not
exempt him from work; he gives him harder work than is given to anyone
else. The brilliant young musician is given, not easier, but harder
music to master. The lad who has played well in the second eleven is not
put into the third eleven, where he could walk through the game without
breaking sweat; he is put into the first eleven where he has to play
his heart out. The Jews had a curious saying. They said that a wise
teacher will treat the pupil "like a young heifer whose burden is
increased daily." The Christian reward is the reverse of the world's
reward. The world's reward would be an easier time; the reward of the
Christian is that God lays still more and more upon a man to do for him
and for his fellow-men. The harder the work we are given to do, the
greater the reward.
(iv) The third, and the final, Christian reward is what men all
through the ages have called the vision of God. For the worldly man, who
has never given a thought to God, to be confronted with God will be a
terror and not a joy. If a man takes his own way, he drifts farther and
farther from God; the gulf between him and God becomes ever wider, until
in the end God becomes a grim stranger, whom he only wishes to avoid.
But, if a man all his life has sought to walk with God, if he has sought
to obey his Lord, if goodness has been his quest through all his days,
then all his life he has been growing closer and closer to God, until in
the end he passes into God's nearer presence, without fear and with
radiant joy--and that is the greatest reward of all.
Right Things From The Wrong Motive (Matthew 6:1)
6:1 Take care
not to try to demonstrate how good you are in the presence of men, in
order to be seen by them. If you do, you have no reward with your Father
in heaven.
To the Jew there were three great cardinal works of the
religious life, three great pillars on which the good life was
based--almsgiving, prayer and fasting. Jesus would not for a moment have
disputed that; what troubled him was that so often in human life the
finest things were done from the wrong motives.
It is the strange fact that these three great cardinal good
works readily lend themselves to wrong motives. It was Jesus' warning
that, when these things were done with the sole intention of bringing
glory to the doer, they lost by far the most important part of their
value. A man may give alms, not really to help the person to whom he
gives, but simply to demonstrate his own generosity, and to bask in the
warmth of some one's gratitude and all men's praise. A man may pray in
such a way that his prayer is not really addressed to God, but to his
fellow-men. His praying may simply be an attempt to demonstrate his
exceptional piety in such a way that no one can fail to see it. A man
may fast, not really for the good of his own soul, not really to humble
himself in the sight of God, but simply to show the world what a
splendidly self-disciplined character he is. A man may practise good
works simply to win praise from men, to increase his own prestige, and
to show the world how good he is.
As Jesus saw it, there is no doubt at all that that kind of
thing does receive a certain kind of reward. Three times Jesus uses the
phrase, as the Revised Standard Version has it: "Truly I say to you,
they have their reward" (Matthew 6:2; Matthew 6:5; Matthew 6:16).
It would be better to translate it: "They have received payment in
full." The word that is used in the Greek is the verb apechein (Greek #568),
which was the technical business and commercial word for receiving
payment in full. It was the word which was used on receipted accounts.
For instance, one man signs a receipt given to another man: "I have
received (apecho, Greek #568)
from you the rent of the olive press which you have on hire." A tax
collector gives a receipt, saying, "I have received (apecho, Greek #568) from you the tax which is due." A man sells a slave and gives a receipt, saying, "I have received (apecho, Greek #568) the whole price due to me."
What Jesus is saying is this: "If you give alms to demonstrate
your own generosity, you will get the admiration of men--but that is all
you will ever get. That is your payment in full. If you pray in such a
way as to flaunt your piety in the face of men, you will gain the
reputation of being an extremely devout man--but that is all you will
ever get. That is your payment in full. If you fast in such a way that
all men know that you are fasting, you will become known as an extremely
abstemious and ascetic man--but that is all you will ever get. That is
your payment in full." Jesus is saying, "If your one aim is to get
yourself the world's rewards, no doubt you will get them--but you must
not look for the rewards which God alone can give." And he would be a
sadly short-sighted creature who grasped the rewards of time, and let
the rewards of eternity go.
How Not To Give (Matthew 6:2-4)
6:2-4 So, when
you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do
in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men.
This is the truth I tell you--they are paid in full. But when you give
alms, your left hand must not know what your right hand is doing, so
that your alms-giving may be in secret, and your Father who sees what
happens in secret will give you your reward in full.
To the Jew almsgiving was the most sacred of all religious
duties. How sacred it was may be seen from the fact that the Jews used
the same word--tsedaqah (Hebrew #6666)--both
for righteousness and almsgiving. To give alms and to be righteous were
one and the same thing. To give alms was to gain merit in the sight of
God, and was even to win atonement and forgiveness for past sins. "It is
better to give alms than to lay up gold; almsgiving doth deliver from
death, and it purges away all sin" (Tobit 12:8).
"Almsgiving to a father shall not be blotted out,
And as a substitute for sins it shall stand firmly planted.
In the day of affliction it shall be remembered to thy credit.
It shall obliterate thine iniquities as the heat, the
hoar-frost." (Sirach 3:14-15).
There was a rabbinic saying: "Greater is he who gives alms than
he who offers all sacrifices." Almsgiving stood first in the catalogue
of good works.
It was then natural and inevitable that the man who desired to
be good should concentrate on almsgiving. The highest teaching of the
Rabbis was exactly the same as the teaching of Jesus. They too forbade
ostentatious almsgiving. "He who gives alms in secret," they said, "is
greater than Moses." The almsgiving which saves from death is that "when
the recipient does not know from whom he gets it, and when the giver
does not know to whom he gives it." There was a Rabbi who, when he
wished to give alms, dropped money behind him, so that he would not see
who picked it up. "It were better" they said, "to give a man nothing,
than to give him something, and to put him to shame." There was one
particularly lovely custom connected with the Temple. In the Temple
there was a room called The Chamber of the Silent. People who wished to
make atonement for some sin placed money there; and poor people from
good families who had come down in the world were secretly helped by
these contributions.
But as in so many other things practice fell far short of
precept. Too often the giver gave in such a way that all men might see
the gift, and gave far more to bring glory to himself than to bring help
to someone else. During the synagogue services, offerings were taken
for the poor, and there were those who took good care that others should
see how much they gave. J. J. Wetstein quotes an eastern custom from
the ancient days: "In the east water is so scarce that sometimes it had
to be bought. When a man wanted to do a good act, and to bring blessing
on his family, he went to a water-carrier with a good voice, and
instructed him: 'Give the thirsty a drink.' The water-carrier filled his
skin and went to the market-place. 'O thirsty ones,' he cried, 'come to
drink the offering.' And the giver stood by him and said, 'Bless me,
who gave you this drink.'" That is precisely the kind of thing that
Jesus condemns. He talks about the hypocrites who do things like that.
The word hupokrites (Greek #5273) is the Greek word for an actor. People like that put on an act of giving which is designed only to glorify themselves.
The Motives Of Giving (Matthew 6:2-4 Continued)
Let us now look at some of the motives which lie behind the act of giving.
(i) A man may give from a sense of duty. He may give not because
he wishes to give, but because he feels that giving is a duty which he
cannot well escape. It may even be that a man can come--perhaps
unconsciously--to regard the poor as being in the world to allow him to
carry out this duty, and thus to acquire merit in the sight of God.
Catherine Carswell in her autobiography, Lying Awake, tells of
her early days in Glasgow: "The poor, one might say, were our pets.
Decidedly they were always with us. In our particular ark we were taught
to love, honour and entertain the poor." The key-note, as she looked
back upon it, was superiority and condescension. Giving was regarded as a
duty, but often with the giving there was a moral lecture which
provided a smug pleasure for the man who gave it. In those days Glasgow
was a drunken city on a Saturday night. She writes: "Every Sunday
afternoon, for some years, my father went a round of the cells of the
police station, bailing out the week-end drunks with half-crowns, so
that they might not lose their jobs on Monday morning. He asked each one
to sign the pledge, and to return his half-crown out of the next week's
wages." No doubt he was perfectly right, but he gave from a smug
eminence of respectability, and included a moral lecture in the giving.
He clearly felt himself to be in a quite different moral category from
those to whom he gave. It was said of a great, but superior man: "With
all his giving he never gives himself" When a man gives, as it were,
from a pedestal, when he gives always with a certain calculation, when
he gives from a sense of duty, even a sense of Christian duty, he may
give generously of things, but the one thing he never gives is himself,
and therefore the giving is incomplete.
(ii) A man may give from motives of prestige. He may give to get
to himself the glory of giving. The chances are that, if no one is to
know about it, or, if there is no publicity attached to it, he would not
give at all. Unless he is duly thanked and praised and honoured, he is
sadly disgruntled and discontented. He gives, not to the glory of God,
but to the glory of himself. He gives, not primarily to help the poor
person, but to gratify his own vanity and his own sense of power.
(iii) A man may give simply because he has to. He may give
simply because the overflowing love and kindliness in his heart will
allow him to do no other. He may give because, try as he may, he cannot
rid himself of a sense of responsibility for the man in need.
There was a kind of vast kindliness about Dr. Johnson. There was
a poverty-stricken creature called Robert Levett. Levett in his day had
been a waiter in Paris and a doctor in the poorer parts of London. He
had an appearance and manners, as Johnson said himself, such as to
disgust the rich and to terrify the poor. Somehow or other he became a
member of Johnson's household. Boswell was amazed at the whole business,
but Goldsmith knew Johnson better. He said of Levett: "He is poor and
honest which is recommendation enough for Johnson. He is now become
miserable, and that insures the protection of Johnson." Misfortune was a
passport to Johnson's heart.
Boswell tells this story of Johnson. "Coming home late one night
he found a poor woman lying on the street, so much exhausted that she
could not walk: he took her upon his back and carried her to his house,
where he discovered that she was one of these wretched females, who had
fallen into the lowest state of vice, poverty and disease. Instead of
harshly upbraiding her, he had her taken care of with all tenderness for
a long time, at considerable expense, till she was restored to health,
and endeavoured to put her in a virtuous way of living." All that
Johnson got out of that was unworthy suspicions about his own character,
but the heart of the man demanded that he should give.
Surely one of the loveliest pictures in literary history is the
picture of Johnson, in his own days of poverty, coming home in the small
hours of the morning, and, as he walked along the Strand, slipping
pennies into the hands of the waifs and strays who were sleeping in the
doorways because they had nowhere else to go. Hawkins tells that one
asked him how he could bear to have his house filled with "necessitous
and undeserving people." Johnson answered: "If I did not assist them no
one else would, and they must not be lost for want." There you have real
giving, the giving which is the upsurge of love in the heart of a man,
the giving which is a kind of overflow of the love of God.
We have the pattern of this perfect giving in Jesus Christ
himself. Paul wrote to his friends at Corinth: "For you know the grace
of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sake he
became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich" (2 Corinthians 8:9).
Our giving must never be the grim and self-righteous outcome of a sense
of duty, still less must it be done to enhance our own glory and
prestige among men; it must be the instinctive outflow of the loving
heart; we must give to others as Jesus Christ gave himself to us.
How Not To Pray (Matthew 6:5-8)
6:5-8 And when
you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites, for they are fond of
praying standing in the synagogues and at the corners of the streets, so
that they may be seen by people. This is the truth I tell you--they are
paid in full. But when you pray, go into your private room, and shut
the door, and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who
sees what happens in secret will give you your reward in full. When you
pray, do not pile up meaningless phrases, as the Gentiles do, for their
idea is that they will be heard because of the length of their words.
So, then, do not be like them, for your Father knows the things you need
before you ask him.
No nation ever had a higher ideal of prayer than the Jews had;
and no religion ever ranked prayer higher in the scale of priorities
than the Jews did. "Great is prayer," said the Rabbis, "greater than all
good works." One of the loveliest things that was ever said about
family worship is the Rabbinic saying, "He who prays within his house
surrounds it with a wall that is stronger than iron." The only regret of
the Rabbis was that it was not possible to pray all the day long.
But certain faults had crept into the Jewish habits of prayer.
It is to be noted that these faults are by no means peculiar to Jewish
ideas of prayer; they can and do occur anywhere. And it is to be noted
that they could only occur in a community where prayer was taken with
the greatest seriousness. They are not the faults of neglect; they are
the faults of misguided devotion.
(i) Prayer tended to become formalized. There were two things the daily use of which was prescribed for every Jew.
The first was the Shema (compare Hebrew #8088), which consists of three short passages of scripture--Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Deuteronomy 11:13-21; Numbers 15:37-41. Shema is the imperative of the Hebrew word to hear (Hebrew #8085),
and the Shema takes its name from the verse which was the essence and
center of the whole matter: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one
Lord."
The full Shema had to be recited by every Jew every morning and
every evening. It had to be said as early as possible. It had to be said
as soon as the light was strong enough to enable a man to distinguish
between blue and white, or, as Rabbi Eliezer said, between blue and
green. In any event it had to be said before the third hour, that is, 9
a.m.; and in the evening it had to be said before 9 p.m. If the last
possible moment for the saying of the Shema had come, no matter where a
man found himself, at home, in the street, at work, in the synagogue, he
must stop and say it.
There were many who loved the Shema and who repeated it with
reverence and adoration and love; but inevitably there were still more
who gabbled their way through it, and went their way. The Shema had
every chance of becoming a vain repetition, which men mumbled through
like some spell or incantation. We Christians are but ill-qualified to
criticise, for everything that has been said about formally gabbling
through the Shema can be said about grace before meat in many a family.
The second thing which every Jew must daily repeat was called
the Shemoneh 'Esreh which means The Eighteen. It consisted of eighteen
prayers, and was, and still is, an essential part of the synagogue
service. In time the prayers became nineteen, but the old name remains.
Most of these prayers are quite short, and nearly all of them are very
lovely.
The twelfth runs:
"Let Thy mercy, O Lord, be showed upon the upright, the
humble, the elders of thy people Israel, and the rest of its
teachers; be favourable to the pious strangers amongst us, and
to us all. Give thou a good reward to those who sincerely trust
in thy name, that our lot may be cast among them in the world
to come, that our hope be not deceived. Praised be thou, O Lord,
who art the hope and confidence of the faithful."
The fifth runs:
Bring us back to thy law, O our Father; bring us back, O King, to
thy service; bring us back to thee by true repentance. Praised
be thou, O Lord who dost accept our repentance,
No Church possesses a more beautiful liturgy than the Shemoneh
'Esreh The law was that the Jew must recite it three times a day, once
in the morning, once in the afternoon, and once in the evening. The same
thing happened again. The devout Jew prayed it with loving devotion;
but there were many to whom this series of lovely prayers became a
gabbled formula. There was even a summary supplied which a man might
pray, if he had not the time or the memory to repeat the whole eighteen.
The repetition of the Shemoneh 'Esreh became nothing more than the
superstitious incantation of a spell. Again, we Christians are
ill-qualified to criticise, for there are many occasions when we do
precisely the same with the prayer which taught us to pray.
How Not To Pray (Matthew 6:5-8 Continued)
(ii) Further, the Jewish liturgy supplied stated prayers for all
occasions. There was hardly an event or a sight in life which had not
its stated formula of prayer. There was prayer before and after each
meal; there were prayers in connection with the light, the fire, the
lightning, on seeing the new moon, comets, rain, tempest, at the sight
of the sea, lakes, rivers, on receiving good news, on using new
furniture, on entering or leaving a city. Everything had its prayer.
Clearly there is something infinitely lovely here. It was the intention
that every happening in life should be brought into the presence of God.
But just because the prayers were so meticulously prescribed and
stated, the whole system lent itself to formalism, and the danger was
for the prayers to slip off the tongue with very little meaning. The
tendency was glibly to repeat the right prayer at the right time. The
great Rabbis knew that and tried to guard against it. "If a man," they
said, "says his prayers, as if to get through a set task, that is no
prayer." "Do not look on prayer as a formal duty, but as an act of
humility by which to obtain the mercy of God." Rabbi Eliezer was so
impressed with the danger of formalism that it was his custom to compose
one new prayer every day, that his prayer might be always fresh. It is
quite clear that this kind of danger is not confined to Jewish religion.
Even quiet times which began in devotion can end in the formalism of a
rigid and ritualistic timetable.
(iii) Still further, the devout Jew had set times for prayer.
The hours were the third, the sixth and the ninth hours, that is, 9
a.m., 12 midday and 3 p.m. In whatever place a man found himself he was
bound to pray. Clearly he might be genuinely remembering God, or he
might be carrying out an habitual formality. The Mohammedans have the
same custom. There is a story of a Mohammedan who was pursuing an enemy
with drawn knife to kill him. The muezzin rang out; he stopped, unrolled
his prayer mat, knelt and raced through his prayer; and then rose to
continue his murderous pursuit. It is a lovely thing that three times a
day a man should remember God; but there is very real danger that it may
come to no more than this that three times a day a man gabbles his
prayers without a thought of God.
(iv) There was a tendency to connect prayer with certain places,
and especially with the synagogue. It is undeniably true that there are
certain places where God seems very near, but there were certain Rabbis
who went the length of saying that prayer was efficacious only if it
was offered in the Temple or in the synagogue. So there grew up the
custom of going to the Temple at the hours of prayer. In the first days
of the Christian Church, even the disciples of Jesus thought in terms
like these, for we read of Peter and John going up to the Temple at the
hour of prayer (Acts 3:1).
There was a danger here, the danger that a man might come to
think of God as being confined to certain holy places and that he might
forget that the whole earth is the temple of God. The wisest of the
Rabbis saw this danger. They said, "God says to Israel, pray in the
synagogue of your city; if you cannot, pray in the field; if you cannot,
pray in your house; if you cannot, pray on your bed; if you cannot,
commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still."
The trouble about any system lies, not in the system, but in the
men who use it. A man may make any system of prayer an instrument of
devotion or a formality, glibly and unthinkingly to be gone through.
(v) There was amongst the Jews an undoubted tendency towards
long prayers. That was a tendency by no means confined to the Jews. In
18th century worship in Scotland length meant devotion. In such a
Scottish service there was a verse by verse lecture on scripture which
lasted for an hour, and a sermon which lasted for another hour. Prayers
were lengthy and extempore. Dr. W. D. Maxwell writes, "The efficacy of
prayer was measured by its ardour and its fluency, and not least by its
fervid lengthiness." Rabbi Levi said, "Whoever is long in prayer is
heard." Another saying has it: "Whenever the righteous make their prayer
long, their prayer is heard."
There was--and still is--a kind of subconscious idea that if men
batter long enough at God's door, he will answer; that God can be
talked, and even pestered, into condescension. The wisest Rabbis were
well aware of this danger. One of them said, "It is forbidden to
lengthen out the praise of the Holy One. It says in the Psalms: 'Who can
utter the mighty doings of the Lord, or show forth all his praise?' (Psalms 106:2).
There only he who can may lengthen out and tell his praise--but no one
can." "Let a man's words before God always be few, as it is said, 'Be
not rash with your mouth, and let not your heart be hasty to utter a
word before God; for God is in heaven, and you upon earth, therefore let
your words be few'" (Ecclesiastes 5:2).
"The best adoration consists in keeping silence." It is easy to
confound verbosity with piety, and fluency with devotion, and into that
mistake many of the Jews fell.
How Not To Pray (Matthew 6:5-8 Continued)
(vi) There were certain other forms of repetition, which the Jews,
like all eastern peoples, were apt to use and to overuse. The eastern
peoples had a habit of hypnotising themselves by the endless repetition
of one phrase or even of one word. In 1 Kings 18:26 we read how the prophets of Baal cried out, "O Baal answer us," for the space of half a day. In Acts 19:34
we read how the Ephesian mob, for two hours, kept shouting, "Great is
Artemis of the Ephesians." The Mohammedans will go on repeating the
sacred syllable HE for hours on end, running round in circles, until
they drive themselves to ecstasy, and finally fall down unconscious in
total exhaustion. The Jews did that with the Shema. It is a kind of
substitution of self-hypnotism for prayer.
There was another way in which Jewish prayer used repetition.
There was an attempt to pile up every possible title and adjective in
the address of the prayer to God. One famous prayer begins:
"Blessed, praised, and glorified, exalted, extolled and honoured,
magnified and lauded be the name of the Holy One."
There is one Jewish prayer which actually begins with sixteen
different adjectives attached to the name of God. There was a kind of
intoxication with words. When a man begins to think more of how he is
praying than of what he is praying, his prayer dies upon his lips.
(vii) The final fault which Jesus found with certain of the Jews
was that they prayed to be seen of men. The Jewish system of prayer
made ostentation very easy. The Jew prayed standing, with hands
stretched out, palms upwards, and with head bowed. Prayer had to be said
at 9 a.m., 12 midday, and 3 p.m. It had to be said wherever a man might
be, and it was easy for a man to make sure that at these hours he was
at a busy street comer, or in a crowded city square, so that all the
world might see with what devotion he prayed. It was easy for a man to
halt on the top step of the entrance to the synagogue, and there pray
lengthily and demonstratively, so that all men might admire his
exceptional piety. It was easy to put on an act of prayer which all the
world might see.
The wisest of the Jewish Rabbis fully understood and unsparingly
condemned this attitude. "A man in whom is hypocrisy brings wrath upon
the world, and his prayer is not heard." "Four classes of men do not
receive the face of the glory of God--the mockers, the hypocrites, the
liars, and the slanderers." The Rabbis said that no man could pray at
all, unless his heart was attuned to pray. They laid it down that for
perfect prayer there were necessary an hour of private preparation
beforehand, and an hour of meditation afterwards. But the Jewish system
of prayer did lend itself to ostentation, if in a man's heart there was
pride.
In effect, Jesus lays down two great rules for prayer.
(i) He insists that all true prayer must be offered to God. The
real fault of the people whom Jesus was criticising was that they were
praying to men and not to God. A certain great preacher once described
an ornate and elaborate prayer offered in a Boston Church as "the most
eloquent prayer ever offered to a Boston audience." The preacher was
much more concerned with impressing the congregation than with making
contact with God. Whether in public or in private prayer, a man should
have no thought in his mind and no desire in his heart but God.
(ii) He insists that we must always remember that the God to
whom we pray is a God of love who is more ready to answer than we are to
pray. His gifts and his grace have not to be unwillingly extracted from
him. We do not come to a God who has to be coaxed, or pestered, or
battered into answering our prayers. We come to one whose one wish is to
give. When we remember that, it is surely sufficient to go to God with
the sigh of desire in our hearts, and on our lips the words, "Thy will
be done."
The Disciple's Prayer (Matthew 6:9-15)
6:9-15 So,
then, pray in this way: Our Father in heaven, let your name be held
holy: Let your Kingdom come: Let your will be done, as in heaven, so
upon earth: Give us to-day bread for the coming day: Forgive us our
debts as we forgive our debtors: And lead us not into temptation, but
deliver us from the Evil One. For, if you forgive men their trespasses,
your heavenly Father will forgive you too; but if you do not forgive men
their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Before we begin to think about the Lord's Prayer in detail
there are certain general facts which we will do well to remember about
it.
We must note, first of all, that this is a prayer which taught
his disciples to pray. Both Matthew and Luke are clear about that.
Matthew sets the whole Sermon on the Mount in the context of the
disciples (Matthew 5:1); and Luke tells us that Jesus taught this prayer in response to the request of one of his disciples (Luke 11:1).
The Lord's Prayer is a prayer which only a disciple can pray; it is a
prayer which only one who is committed to Jesus Christ can take upon his
lips with any meaning.
The Lord's Prayer is not a child's prayer, as it is so often
regarded; it is, in fact, not meaningful for a child. The Lord's Prayer
is not the Family Prayer as it is sometimes called, unless by the word
family we mean the family of the Church. The Lord's Prayer is
specifically and definitely stated to be the disciple's prayer; and only
on the lips of a disciple has the prayer its full meaning. To put it in
another way, the Lord's Prayer can only really be prayed when the man
who prays it knows what he is saying, and he cannot know that until he
has entered into discipleship.
We must note the order of the petitions in the Lord's Prayer.
The first three petitions have to do with God and with the glory of God;
the second three petitions have to do with our needs and our
necessities. That is to say, God is first given his supreme place, and
then, and only then, we turn to ourselves and our needs and desires. It
is only when God is given his proper place that all other things fall
into their proper places. Prayer must never be an attempt to bend the
will of God to our desires; prayer ought always to be an attempt to
submit our wills to the will of God.
The second part of the prayer, the part which deals with our
needs and our necessities, is a marvellously wrought unity. It deals
with the three essential needs of man, and the three spheres of time
within which man moves. First, it asks for bread, for that which is
necessary for the maintenance of life, and thereby brings the needs of
the present to the throne of God. Second, it asks for forgiveness and
thereby brings the past into the presence of God. Third, it asks for
help in temptation and thereby commits all the future into the hands of
God. In these three brief petitions, we are taught to lay the present,
the past, and the future before the footstool of the grace of God.
But not only is this a prayer which brings the whole of life to
the presence of God; it is also a prayer which brings the whole of God
to our lives. When we ask for bread to sustain our earthly lives, that
request immediately directs our thoughts to God the Father, the Creator
and the Sustainer of all life. When we ask for forgiveness, that request
immediately directs our thoughts to God the Son, Jesus Christ our
Saviour and Redeemer. When we ask for help for future temptation, that
request immediately directs our thoughts to God the Holy Spirit, the
Comforter, the Strengthener, the Illuminator, the Guide and the Guardian
of our way.
In the most amazing way this brief second part of the Lord's
Prayer takes the present, the past, and the future, the whole of man's
life, and presents them to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy
Spirit, to God in all his fulness. In the Lord's Prayer Jesus teaches us
to bring the whole of life to the whole of God, and to bring the whole
of God to the whole of life.
6:9 Our Father in Heaven.
It might well be said that the word Father used of God is a
compact summary of the Christian faith. The great value of this word
Father is that it settles all the relationships of this life.
(i) It settles our relationship to the unseen world.
Missionaries tell us that one of the greatest reliefs which Christianity
brings to the heathen mind and heart is the certainty that there is
only one God. It is the heathen belief that there are hordes of gods,
that every stream and river, and tree and valley, and hill and wood, and
every natural force has its own god. The heathen lives in a world
crowded with gods. Still further, all these gods are jealous, and
grudging, and hostile. They must all be placated, and a man can never be
sure that he has not omitted the honour due to some of these gods. The
consequence is that the heathen lives in terror of the gods; he is
"haunted and not helped by his religion."
The most significant Greek legend of the gods is the legend of
Prometheus. Prometheus was a god. It was in the days before men
possessed fire; and life without fire was a cheerless and a comfortless
thing. In pity Prometheus took fire from heaven and gave it as a gift to
men. Zeus, the king of the gods, was mightily angry that men should
receive this gift. So he took Prometheus and he chained him to a rock in
the middle of the Adriatic Sea, where he was tortured with the heat and
the thirst of the day, and the cold of the night. Even more, Zeus
prepared a vulture to tear out Prometheus' liver, which always grew
again, only to be torn out again.
That is what happened to the god who tried to help men. The
whole conception is that the gods are jealous, and vengeful, and
grudging; and the last thing the gods wish to do is to help men. That is
the heathen idea of the attitude of the unseen world to men. The
heathen is haunted by the fear of a horde of jealous and grudging gods.
So, then, when we discover that the God to whom we pray has the name and
the heart of a father it makes literally all the difference in the
world. We need no longer shiver before a horde of jealous gods; we can
rest in a father's love.
(ii) It settles our relationship to the seen world, to this
world of space and time in which we live. It is easy to think of this
world as a hostile world. There are the chances and the changes of life;
there are the iron laws of the universe which we break at our peril;
there is suffering and death; but if we can be sure that behind this
world there is, not a capricious, jealous, mocking god, but a God whose
name is Father, then although much may still remain dark, all is now
bearable because behind all is love. It will always help us if we regard
this world as organized not for our comfort but for our training.
Take, for instance, pain. Pain might seem a bad thing, but pain
has its place in the order of God. It sometimes happens that a person is
so abnormally constituted that he is incapable of feeling pain. Such a
person is a danger to himself and a problem to everyone else. If there
were no such thing as pain, we would never know that we were ill, and
often we would die before steps could be taken to deal with any disease
or illness. That is not to say that pain cannot become a bad thing, but
it is to say that times without number pain is God's red light to tell
us that there is danger ahead.
Lessing used to say that if he had one question to ask the
Sphinx, it would be: "Is this a friendly universe?" If we can be certain
that the name of the God who created this world is Father, then we can
also be certain that fundamentally this is a friendly universe. To call
God Father is to settle our relationship to the world in which we live.
(iii) If we believe that God is Father, it settles our
relationship to our fellow-men. If God is Father, he is Father of all
men. The Lord's Prayer does not teach us to pray My Father; it teaches
us to pray Our Father. It is very significant that in the Lord's Prayer
the words I, me, and mine never occur; it is true to say that Jesus came
to take these words out of life and to put in their place we, us, and
ours. God is not any man's exclusive possession. The very phrase Our
Father involves the elimination of self. The fatherhood of God is the
only possible basis of the brotherhood of man.
(iv) If we believe that God is Father, it settles our
relationship to ourselves. There are times when every man despises and
hates himself. He knows himself to be lower than the lowest thing that
crawls upon the earth. The heart knows its own bitterness, and no one
knows a man's unworthiness better than that man himself.
Mark Rutherford wished to add a new beatitude: "Blessed are
those who heal us of our self-despisings." Blessed are those who give us
back our self-respect. That is precisely what God does. In these grim,
bleak, terrible moments we can still remind ourselves that, even if we
matter to no one else, we matter to God; that in the infinite mercy of
God we are of royal lineage, children of the King of kings.
(v) If we believe that God is Father, it settles our
relationship to God. It is not that it removes the might, majesty and
power of God. It is not that it makes God any the less God; but it makes
that might, and majesty, and power, approachable for us.
There is an old Roman story which tells how a Roman Emperor was
enjoying a triumph. He had the privilege, which Rome gave to her great
victors, of marching his troops through the streets of Rome, with all
his captured trophies and his prisoners in his train. So the Emperor was
on the march with his troops. The streets were lined with cheering
people. The tall legionaries lined the streets' edges to keep the people
in their places. At one point on the triumphal route there was a little
platform where the Empress and her family were sitting to watch the
Emperor go by in all the pride of his triumph. On the platform with his
mother there was the Emperor's youngest son, a little boy. As the
Emperor came near the little boy jumped off the platform, burrowed
through the crowd, tried to dodge between the legs of a legionary, and
to run out on to the road to meet his father's chariot. The legionary
stooped down and stopped him. He swung him up in his arms: "You can't do
that, boy," he said. "Don't you know who that is in the chariot? That's
the Emperor. You can't run out to his chariot." And the little lad
laughed down. "He may be your Emperor," he said, "but he's my father."
That is exactly the way the Christian feels towards God. The might, and
the majesty, and the power are the might, and the majesty, and the power
of one whom Jesus taught us to call Our Father.
So far we have been thinking of the first two words of this
address to God--Our Father, but God is not only Our Father, He is Our
Father who is in heaven. The last words are of primary importance. They
conserve two great truths.
(i) They remind us of the holiness of God. It is very easy to
cheapen and to sentimentalize the whole idea of the fatherhood of God,
and to make it an excuse for an easy-going, comfortable religion. "He's a
good fellow and all will be well." As Heine said of God: "God will
forgive. It is his trade." If we were to say Our Father, and stop there,
there might be some excuse for that; but it is Our Father in heaven to
whom we pray. The love is there, but the holiness is there, too.
It is extraordinary how seldom Jesus used the word Father in
regard to God. Mark's gospel is the earliest gospel, and is therefore
the nearest thing we will ever have to an actual report of all that
Jesus said and did; and in Mark's gospel Jesus calls God Father only six
times, and never outside the circle of the disciples. To Jesus the word
Father was so sacred that he could hardly bear to use it; and he could
never use it except amongst those who had grasped something of what it
meant.
We must never use the word Father in regard to God cheaply,
easily, and sentimentally. God is not an easy-going parent who
tolerantly shuts his eyes to all sins and faults and mistakes. This God,
whom we can call Father, is the God whom we must still approach with
reverence and adoration, and awe and wonder. God is our Father in
heaven, and in God there is love and holiness combined.
(ii) They remind us of the power of God. In human love there is
so often the tragedy of frustration. We may love a person and yet be
unable to help him achieve something, or to stop him doing something.
Human love can be intense--and quite helpless. Any parent with an erring
child, or any lover with a wandering loved one knows that. But when we
say, 'Our Father in heaven,' we place two things side by side. We place
side by side the love of God and the power of God. We tell ourselves
that the power of God is always motivated by the love of God, and can
never be exercised for anything but our good; we tell ourselves that the
love of God is backed by the power of God, and that therefore its
purposes can never be ultimately frustrated or defeated. It is love of
which we think, but it is the love of God. When we pray Our Father in
heaven we must ever remember the holiness of God, and we must ever
remember the power which moves in love, and the love which has behind it
the undefeatable power of God.
6:9 Let your name be held holy.
"Hallowed be Thy name"--it is probably true that of all the
petitions of the Lord's Prayer this is the one whose meaning we would
find it most difficult to express. First, then, let us concentrate on
the actual meaning of the words.
The word which is translated hallowed is a part of the Greek verb hagiazesthai (Greek #37). The Greek verb hagiazesthai is connected with the adjective hagios (Greek #40),
and means to treat a person or a thing as hagios. Hagios is the word
which is usually translated holy; but the basic meaning of hagios is
different or separate. A thing which is hagios (Greek #40) is different from other things. A person who is hagios is separate from other people. So a temple is hagion (Greek #39) because it is different from other buildings. An altar is hagios (Greek #40) because it exists for a purpose different from the purpose of ordinary things. God's day is hagios (Greek #40) because it is different from other days. A priest is hagios (Greek #40)
because he is separate from other men. So, then, this petition means,
"Let God's name be treated differently from all other names; let God's
name be given a position which is absolutely unique."
But there is something to add to this. In Hebrew the name does
not mean simply the name by which a person is called-- John or James, or
whatever the name may be. In Hebrew the name means the nature, the
character, the personality of the person in so far as it is known or
revealed to us. That becomes clear when we see how the Bible writers use
the expression.
The Psalmist says, "Those who know thy name put their trust in thee" (Psalms 9:10).
Quite clearly that does not mean that those who know that God is called
Jehovah will trust in him. It means that those who know what God is
like, those who know the nature and the character of God will put their
trust in him. The Psalmist says, "Some boast of chariots and some of
horses, but we boast of the name of the Lord our God" (Psalms 20:7).
Quite clearly that does not mean that in a time of difficulty the
Psalmist will remember that God is called Jehovah. It means that at such
a time some will put their trust in human and material aids and
defences, but the Psalmist will remember the nature and the character of
God; he will remember what God is like, and that memory will give him
confidence.
So, then, let us take these two things and put them together. Hagiazesthai (Greek #37),
which is translated to hallow, means to regard as different, to give a
unique and special place to. The name is the nature, the character, the
personality of the person in so far as it is known and revealed to us.
Therefore, when we pray "Hallowed be Thy name," it means, "Enable us to
give to thee the unique place which thy nature and character deserve and
demand."
Is there, then, one word in English for giving to God the
unique place which his nature and character demand? There is such a
word, and the word is reverence. This petition is a prayer that we
should be enabled to reverence God as God deserves to be reverenced. In
all true reverence of God there are four essentials.
(i) In order to reverence God we must believe that God
exists. We cannot reverence someone who does not exist; we must begin by
being sure of the existence of God.
To the modern mind it is strange that the Bible nowhere
attempts to prove the existence of God. For the Bible God is an axiom.
An axiom is a self-evident fact which is not itself proved, but which is
the basis of all other proofs. For instance, 'A straight line is the
shortest distance between two points,' and, 'Parallel lines, however far
produced, will never meet,' are axioms.
The Bible writers would have said that it was
superfluous to prove the existence of God, because they experienced the
presence of God every moment of their lives. They would have said that a
man no more needed to prove that God exists than he needs to prove that
his wife exists. He meets his wife every day, and he meets God every
day.
But suppose we did need to try to prove that God
exists, using our own minds to do so, how would we begin? We might begin
from the world in which we live. Paley's old argument is not yet
completely outdated. Suppose there is a man walking along the road. He
strikes his foot against a watch lying in the dust. He has never in his
life seen a watch before; he does not know what it is. He picks it up;
he sees that it consists of a metal case, and inside the case a
complicated arrangement of wheels, levers, springs and jewels. He sees
that the whole thing is moving and working in the most orderly way. He
sees further that the hands are moving round the dial in an obviously
predetermined routine. What then does he say? Does he say: "All these
metals and jewels came together from the ends of the earth by chance, by
chance made themselves into wheels and levers and springs, by chance
assembled themselves into this mechanism, by chance wound themselves up
and set themselves going, by chance acquired their obvious orderly
working"? No. He says, "I have found a watch; somewhere there must be a
watch-maker."
Order presupposes mind. We look at the world; we see a
vast machine which is working in order. Suns rise and set in an
unvarying succession. Tides ebb and flow to a timetable. Seasons follow
each other in an order. We look at the world, and we are bound to say,
"Somewhere there must be a world-maker." The fact of the world drives us
to God. As Sir James Jeans has said, "No astronomer can be an atheist."
The order of the world demands the mind of God behind it.
We might begin from ourselves. The one thing man has
never created is life. Man can alter and rearrange and change things,
but he cannot create a living thing. Where then did we get our life?
From our parents. Yes, but where did they get theirs? From their
parents. But where did all this begin? At some time life must have come
into the world; and it must have come from outside the world for man
cannot create life; and once again we are driven back to God.
When we look in upon ourselves and out upon the world
we are driven to God. As Kant said long ago, "the moral law within us,
and the starry heavens above us," drive us to God.
(ii) Before we can reverence God, we must not only
believe that God is, we must also know the kind of God he is. No one
could reverence the Greek gods with their loves and wars, their hates
and their adulteries, their trickeries and their knaveries. No one can
reverence capricious, immoral, impure gods. But in God as we know him
there are three great qualities. There is holiness; there is justice;
and there is love. We must reverence God, not only because he exists,
but because he is the God whom we know him to be.
(iii) But a man might believe that God is; he might be
intellectually convinced that God is holy, just and loving; and still he
might not have reverence. For reverence there is necessary a constant
awareness of God To reverence God means to live in a God-filled world,
to live a life in which we never forget God. This awareness is not
confined to the Church or to so-called holy places; it must be an
awareness which exists everywhere and at all times.
Wordsworth spoke of it in Lines composed near Tintern Abbey:
"And I have felt
A presence that disturbs me with the joy
Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean, and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man:
A motion and a spirit, that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thought,
And rolls through all things."
One of the finest of modern devotional poets is Henry
Ernest Hardy who wrote under the name of Father Andrew. In The Mystic
Beauty he writes:
"O London town has many moods,
And mingled 'mongst its many broods
A leavening of saints,
And ever up and down its streets,
If one has eyes to see one meets
Stuff that an artist paints.
I've seen a back street bathed in blue,
Such as the soul of Whistler knew:
A smudge of amber light,
Where some fried fish-shop plied its trade,
A perfect note of colour made--
Oh, it was exquisite!
I once came through St. James' Park
Betwixt the sunset and the dark,
And oh the mystery
Of grey and green and violet!
I would I never might forget
That evening harmony.
I hold it true that God is there
If beauty breaks through anywhere;
And his most blessed feet,
Who once life's roughest roadway trod.,
Who came as man to show us God,
Still pass along the street."
God in the back street, God in St. James' Park, God in the fried
fish-shop--that is reverence. The trouble with most people is that
their awareness of God is spasmodic, acute at certain times and places,
totally absent at others. Reverence means the constant awareness of God.
(iv) There remains one further ingredient in reverence. We must
believe that God exists; we must know what kind of a God he is; we must
be constantly aware of God. But a man might have all these things and
still not have reverence. To all these things must be added obedience
and submission to God. Reverence is knowledge plus submission. In his
catechism Luther asks, "How is God's name hallowed amongst us?" and his
answer is, "When both our life and doctrine are truly Christian," that
is to say, when our intellectual convictions, and our practical actions,
are in full submission to the will of God.
To know that God is, to know what kind of a God he is, to be
constantly aware of God, and to be constantly obedient to him--that is
reverence and that is what we pray for when we pray: "Hallowed be thy
name." Let God be given the reverence which his nature and character
deserve.
6:10 Let your Kingdom come: Let your will be done, as in heaven, so also on earth.
The phrase The Kingdom of God is characteristic of the whole
New Testament. No phrase is used oftener in prayer and in preaching and
in Christian literature. It is, therefore, of primary importance that we
should be clear as to what it means.
It is evident that the Kingdom of God was central to the message
of Jesus. The first emergence of Jesus on the scene of history was when
he came into Galilee preaching the good news of the Kingdom of God (Mark 1:14).
Jesus himself described the preaching of the kingdom as an obligation
laid upon him: "I must preach the good news of the Kingdom of God to the
other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose" (Luke 4:43; Mark 1:38).
Luke's description of Jesus' activity is that he went through every
city and village preaching and showing the good news of the Kingdom of
God (Luke 8:1). Clearly the meaning of the Kingdom of God is something which we are bound to try to understand.
When we do try to understand the meaning of this phrase we meet
with certain puzzling facts. We find that Jesus spoke of the Kingdom in
three different ways. He spoke of the Kingdom as existing in the past.
He said that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets were in the
Kingdom (Luke 13:28; Matthew 8:11).
Clearly therefore the Kingdom goes far back into history. He spoke of
the Kingdom as present. "The Kingdom of God," he said, "is in the midst
of you" (Luke 17:21).
The Kingdom of God is therefore a present reality here and now. He
spoke of the Kingdom of God as future, for he taught men to pray for the
coming of the Kingdom in this his own prayer. How then can the Kingdom
be past, present and future all at the one time? How can the Kingdom be
at one and the same time something which existed, which exists, and for
whose coming it is our duty to pray?
We find the key in this double petition of the Lord's Prayer.
One of the commonest characteristics of Hebrew style is what is
technically known as parallelism. The Hebrew tended to say everything
twice. He said it in one way, and then he said it in another way which
repeated or amplified or explained the first way. Almost any verse of
the Psalms will show this parallelism in action. Almost every verse of
the Psalms divides in two in the middle; and the second half repeats or
amplifies or explains the first half.
Let us take some examples and the thing will become clear:
"God is our refuge and strength--a very present help in trouble (Psalms 46:1).
"The Lord of Hosts is with us--the God of Jacob is our refuge (Psalms 46:7).
"The Lord is my shepherd--I shall not want.
He makes me lie down in green pastures--He leads me beside
still waters" (Psalms 23:1-2).
Let us apply this principle to these two petitions of the Lord's Prayer. Let us set them down side by side:
"Thy Kingdom come--Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven."
Let us assume that the second petition explains, and amplifies,
and defines the first. We then have the perfect definition of the
Kingdom of God--The Kingdom of God is a society, upon earth where Gods
will is as perfectly done as it is in heaven. Here we have the
explanation of how the Kingdom can be past, present and future all at
the one time. Any man who at any time in history perfectly did God's
will was within the Kingdom; any man who perfectly does God's will is
within the Kingdom; but since the world is very far from being a place
where God's will is perfectly and universally done, the consummation of
the Kingdom is still in the future and is still something for which we
must pray.
To be in the Kingdom is to obey the will of God. Immediately we
see that the Kingdom is not something which primarily has to do with
nations and peoples and countries. It is something which has to do with
each one of us. The Kingdom is in fact the most personal thing in the
world. The Kingdom demands the submission of my will, my heart, my life.
It is only when each one of us makes his personal decision and
submission that the Kingdom comes.
The Chinese Christian prayed the well-known prayer, "Lord,
revive thy Church, beginning with me," and we might well paraphrase that
and say, "Lord, bring in thy Kingdom, beginning with me." To pray for
the Kingdom of Heaven is to pray that we may submit our wills entirely
to the will of God.
From what we have already seen it becomes clear that the
most important thing in the world is to obey the will of God; the most
important words in the world are "Thy will be done." But it is equally
clear that the frame of mind and the tone of voice in which these words
are spoken will make a world of difference.
(i) A man may say, "Thy will be done," in a tone of
defeated resignation. He may say it, not because he wishes to say it,
but because he has accepted the fact that he cannot possibly say
anything else; he may say it because he has accepted the fact that God
is too strong for him, and that it is useless to batter his head against
the walls of the universe. He may say it thinking only of the
ineluctable power of God which has him in its grip. As Omar Khayyam had
it:
"But helpless Pieces of the Game He plays
Upon this Checkerboard of Nights and Days;
Hither and thither moves, and checks, and slays,
And one by one back in the closet lays.
The Ball no question makes of Ayes and Noes,
But Here or There as strikes the Player goes;
And He that Toss'd you down into the Field,
He knows about it all--He knows--HE knows!"
A man may accept the will of God for no other reason than that he has realized that he cannot do anything else.
(ii) A man may say, "Thy will be done," in a tone of
bitter resentment. Swinburne spoke of men feeling the trampling of the
iron feet of God. He speaks of the supreme evil, God. Beethoven died all
alone; and it is said that when they found his body his lips were drawn
back in a snarl and his fists were clenched as if he were shaking his
fists in the very face of God and of high heaven. A man may feel that
God is his enemy, and yet an enemy so strong that he cannot resist. He
may therefore accept God's will, but he may accept it with bitter
resentment and smouldering anger.
(iii) A man may say, "Thy will be done," in perfect
love and trust. He may say it gladly and willingly, no matter what that
will may be. It should be easy for the Christian to say, "Thy will be
done," like that; for the Christian can be very sure of two things about
God.
(a) He can be sure of the wisdom of God. Sometimes when
we want something built or constructed, or altered or repaired, we take
it to the craftsman and consult him about it. He makes some suggestion,
and we often end up by saying, "Well, do what you think best. You are
the expert." God is the expert in life, and his guidance can never lead
anyone astray.
When Richard Cameron, the Scottish Covenanter, was
killed his head and his hands were cut off by one Murray and taken to
Edinburgh. "His father being in prison for the same cause, the enemy
carried them to him, to add grief unto his former sorrow, and inquired
at him if he knew them. Taking his son's head and hands, which were very
fair (being a man of fair complexion like himself), he kissed them and
said, 'I know them--I know them. They are my son's--my own dear son's.
It is the Lord. Good is the will of the Lord, who cannot wrong me or
mine, but hath made goodness and mercy to follow us all our days.'" When
a man can speak like that, when he is quite sure that his times are in
the hands of the infinite wisdom of God, it is easy to say, "Thy will be
done."
(b) He can be sure of the love of God. We do not
believe in a mocking and a capricious God, or in a blind and iron
determinism. Thomas Hardy finishes his novel Tess with the grim words:
"The President of the Immortals had finished his sport with Tess." We
believe in a God whose name is love. As Whittier had it:
"I know not where His islands lift
Their fronded palms in air.
I only know I cannot drift
Beyond His love and care."
As Browning triumphantly declared his faith:
"God, Thou art love! I build my faith on that ...
I know thee who has kept my path and made
Light for me in the darkness, tempering sorrow
So that it reached me like a solemn joy.
It were too strange that I should doubt thy love."
And as Paul had it: "He who did not spare his own Son, but gave
him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?" (Romans 8:32).
No man can look at the Cross and doubt the love of God, and when we are
sure of the love of God, it is easy to say, "Thy will be done."
6:11 Give us to-day bread for the coming day.
One would have thought that this is the one petition of the
Lord's Prayer about the meaning of which there could have been no
possible doubt. It seems on the face of it to be the simplest and the
most direct of them all. But it is the fact that many interpreters have
offered many interpretations of it. Before we think of its simple and
obvious meaning, let us look at some of the other explanations which
have been offered.
(i) The bread has been identified with the bread of the Lord's
Supper. From the very beginning the Lord's Prayer has been closely
connected with the Lord's Table. In the very first orders of service
which we possess it is always laid down that the Lord's Prayer should be
prayed at the Lord's Table, and some have taken this petition as a
prayer to be granted the daily privilege of sitting at the Table of our
Lord, and of eating the spiritual food which a man receives there.
(ii) The bread has been identified with the spiritual food of the word of God. We sometimes sing the hymn:
Break thou the bread of life,
Dear Lord, to me,
As thou didst break the loaves
Beside the sea.
Beyond the sacred page
I seek thee, Lord,
My spirit pants for thee,
O living word."
So this petition has been taken to be a prayer for the true
teaching, the true doctrine, the essential truth, which are in the
scriptures and the word of God, and which are indeed food for a man's
mind and heart and soul.
(iii) The bread has been taken to stand for Jesus himself. Jesus called himself the bread of life (John 6:33-35),
and this has been taken to be a prayer that daily we may be fed on him
who is the living bread. It was in that way that Matthew Arnold used the
phrase, when he wrote his poem about the saint of God he met in the
east end of London one suffocating day:
"'Twas August, and the fierce sun overhead
Smote on the squalid streets of Bethnal Green,
And the pale weaver, through his windows seen,
In Spitalfields, look'd thrice dispirited.
I met a preacher there I knew and said:
'Ill and o'er worked, how fare you in this scene?'
'Bravely!' said he, 'for I of late have been
Much cheer'd with thoughts of Christ, the living
bread.'"
So then this petition has been taken as a prayer that we too
might be cheered and strengthened with Christ the living bread.
(iv) This petition has been taken in a purely Jewish sense. The
bread has been taken to be the bread of the heavenly kingdom. Luke tells
how one of the bystanders said to Jesus: "Blessed is he who shall eat
bread in the Kingdom of God" (Luke 14:15).
The Jews had a strange yet vivid idea. They held that when the Messiah
came, and when the golden age dawned, there would be what they called
the Messianic banquet, at which the chosen ones of God would sit down.
The slain bodies of the monsters Behemoth and Leviathan would provide
the meat and the fish courses of the banquet. It would be a kind of
reception feast given by God to his own people. So, then, this has been
taken to be a petition for a place at the final Messianic banquet of the
people of God.
Although we need not agree that any one of these explanations is
the main meaning of this petition, we need not reject any of them as
false. They all have their own truth and their own relevance.
The difficulty of interpreting this petition was increased by
the fact that there was very considerable doubt as to the meaning of the
word epiousios (Greek #1967),
which is the word which the Revised Standard Version translates
"daily." The extraordinary fact was that, until a short time ago, there
was no other known occurrence of this word in the whole of Greek
literature. Origen knew this, and indeed held that Matthew had invented
the word. It was therefore not possible to be sure what it precisely
meant. But not very long ago a papyrus fragment turned up with this word
on it; and the papyrus fragment was actually a woman's shopping list!
And against an item on it was the word epiousios (Greek #1967).
It was a note to remind her to buy supplies of a certain food for the
coming day. So, very simply, what this petition means is: "Give me the
things we need to eat for this coming day. Help me to get the things
I've got on my shopping list when I go out this morning. Give me the
things we need to eat when the children come in from school, and the men
folk come in from work. Grant that the table be not bare when we sit
down together to-day." This is a simple prayer that God will supply us
with the things we need for the coming day.
When we see that this is a simple petition for the needs of the everyday, certain tremendous truths emerge from it.
(i) It tells us that God cares for our bodies. Jesus showed us
that; he spent so much time healing men's diseases and satisfying their
physical hunger. He was anxious when he thought that the crowd who had
followed him out into the lonely places had a long road home, and no
food to eat before they set out upon it. We do well to remember that God
is interested in our bodies. Any teaching which belittles, and
despises, and slanders the body is wrong. We can see what God thinks of
our human bodies, when we remember that he himself in Jesus Christ took a
human body upon him. It is not simply soul salvation, it is whole
salvation, the salvation of body, mind and spirit, at which Christianity
aims.
(ii) This petition teaches us to pray for our daily bread, for
bread for the coming day. It teaches us to live one day at a time, and
not to worry and be anxious about the distant and the unknown future.
When Jesus taught his disciples to pray this petition, there is little
doubt that his mind was going back to the story of the manna in the
wilderness (Exodus 16:1-21 http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Ex+16%3A1-21).
The children of Israel were starving in the wilderness. and God sent
them the manna. the food from heaven; but there was one condition--they
must gather only enough for their immediate needs. If they tried to
gather too much, and to store it up, it went bad. They had to be
satisfied with enough for the day. As one Rabbi put it: "The portion of a
day in its day, because he who created the day created sustenance for
the day." And as another Rabbi had it: "He who possesses what he can eat
to-day, and says, 'What shall I eat to-morrow?' is a man of little
faith." This petition tells us to live one day at a time. It forbids the
anxious worry which is so characteristic of the life which has not
learned to trust God.
(iii) By implication this petition gives God his proper place.
It admits that it is from God we receive the food which is necessary to
support life. No man has ever created a seed which will grow. The
scientist can analyse a seed into its constituent elements, but no
synthetic seed would ever grow. All living things come from God. Our
food, therefore, is the direct gift of God.
(iv) This petition very wisely reminds us of how prayer works.
If a man prayed this prayer, and then sat back and waited for bread to
fall into his hands, he would certainly starve. It reminds us that
prayer and work go hand in hand and that when we pray we must go on to
work to make our prayers come true. It is true that the living seed
comes from God, but it is equally true that it is man's task to grow and
to cultivate that seed. Dick Sheppard used to love a certain story.
There was a man who had an allotment; he had with great toil reclaimed a
piece of ground, clearing away the stones, eradicating the rank growth
of weeds, enriching and feeding the ground, until it produced the
loveliest flowers and vegetables. One evening he was showing a pious
friend around his allotment. The pious friend said, "It's wonderful what
God can do with a bit of ground like this, isn't it?" "Yes." said the
man who had put in such toil, "but you should have seen this bit of
ground when God had it to himself!" God's bounty and man's toil must
combine. Prayer, like faith, without works is dead. When we pray this
petition we are recognizing two basic truths--that without God we can do
nothing, and that without our effort and co-operation God can do
nothing for us.
(v) We must note that Jesus did not teach us to pray: "Give me
my daily bread." He taught us to pray: "Give us our daily bread." The
problem of the world is not that there is not enough to go round; there
is enough and to spare. The problem is not the supply of life's
essentials; it is the distribution of them. This prayer teaches us never
to be selfish in our prayers. It is a prayer which we can help God to
answer by giving to others who are less fortunate than we are. This
prayer is not only a prayer that we may receive our daily bread; it is
also a prayer that we may share our daily bread with others.
6:12,14,15
Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors ... For if you forgive
men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will forgive you too; but, if
you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father
forgive your trespasses.
Before a man can honestly pray this petition of the Lord's
Prayer he must realize that he needs to pray it. That is to say, before a
man can pray this petition he must have a sense of sin. Sin is not
nowadays a popular word. Men and women rather resent being called, or
treated as, hell-deserving sinners.
The trouble is that most people have a wrong conception of sin.
They would readily agree that the burglar, the drunkard, the murderer,
the adulterer, the foul-mouthed person is a sinner. But they are guilty
of none of these sins; they live decent, ordinary, respectable lives,
and have never even been in danger of appearing in court, or going to
prison, or getting some notoriety in the newspapers. They therefore feel
that sin has nothing to do with them.
The New Testament uses five different words for sin.
(i) The commonest word is hamartia (Greek #266).
This was originally a shooting word and means a missing of the target.
To fail to hit the target was hamartia. Therefore sin is the failure to
be what we might have been and could have been.
Charles Lamb has a picture of a man named Samuel le Grice. Le
Grice was a brilliant youth who never fulfilled his promise. Lamb says
that there were three stages in his career. There was a time when people
said, "He will do something." There was a time when people said, "He
could do something if he would." There was a time when people said, "He
might have done something, if he had liked." Edwin Muir writes in his
Autobiography: "After a certain age all of us, good and bad, are grief
stricken because of powers within us which have never been realized:
because, in other words, we are not what we should be."
That precisely is hamartia (Greek #266);
and that is precisely the situation in which we are all involved. Are
we as good husbands or wives as we could be? Are we as good sons or
daughters as we could be? Are we as good workmen or employers as we
could be? Is there anyone who will dare to claim that he is all he might
have been, and has done all he could have done? When we realise that
sin means the failure to hit the target, the failure to be all that we
might have been and could have been, then it is clear that every one of
us is a sinner.
(ii) The second word for sin is parabasis (Greek #3847), which literally means a stepping across. Sin is the stepping across the line which is drawn between right and wrong.
Do we always stay on the right side of the line which divides
honesty and dishonesty? Is there never any such thing as a petty
dishonesty in our lives?
Do we always stay on the right side of the line which divides
truth and falsehood? Do we never, by word or by silence, twist or evade
or distort the truth?
Do we always stay on the right side of the line which divides
kindness and courtesy from selfishness and harshness? Is there never an
unkind action or a discourteous word in our lives?
When we think of it in this way, there can be none who can claim
always to have remained on the right side of the dividing line.
(iii) The third word for sin is paraptoma (Greek #3900),
which means a slipping across. It is the kind of slip which a man might
make on a slippery or an icy road. It is not so deliberate as parabasis
(Greek #3847).
Again and again we speak of words slipping out; again and again we are
swept away by some impulse or passion, which has momentarily gained
control of us, and which has made us lose our self-control. The best of
us can slip into sin when for the moment we are off our guard.
(iv) The fourth word for sin is anomia (Greek #458),
which means lawlessness. Anomia is the sin of the man who knows the
right, and who yet does the wrong; the sin of the man who knows the law,
and who yet breaks the law. The first of all the human instincts is the
instinct to do what we like; and therefore there come into any man's
life times when he wishes to kick over the traces, and to defy the law,
and to do or to take the forbidden thing. In Mandalay, Kipling makes the
old soldier say:
Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst,
Where there aren't no Ten Commandments, an' a man can raise a
thirst'
Even if there are some who can say that they have never broken
any of the Ten Commandments, there are none who can say that they have
never wished to break any of them.
(v) The fifth word for sin is the word opheilema (Greek #3783)
which is the word used in the body of the Lord's Prayer; and opheilema
means a debt. It means a failure to pay that which is due, a failure in
duty. There can be no man who will ever dare to claim that he has
perfectly fulfilled his duty to man and to God: Such perfection does not
exist among men.
So, then, when we come to see what sin really is, we come to see
that it is a universal disease in which every man is involved. Outward
respectability in the sight of man, and inward sinfulness in the sight
of God may well go hand in hand. This, in fact, is a petition of the
Lord's Prayer which every man needs to pray.
Not only does a man need to realize that he needs to pray this
petition of the Lord's Prayer; he also needs to realize what he is doing
when he prays it. Of all petitions of the Lord's Prayer this is the
most frightening.
"Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors." The literal
meaning is : "Forgive us our sins in proportion as we forgive those who
have sinned against us." In Matthew 6:14-15
Jesus says in the plainest possible language that if we forgive others,
God will forgive us; but if we refuse to forgive others, God will
refuse to forgive us. It is, therefore, quite clear that, if we pray
this petition with an unhealed breach, an unsettled quarrel in our
lives, we are asking God not to forgive us.
If we say, "I will never forgive so-and-so for what he or she
has done to me," if we say, "I will never forget what so-and-so did to
me," and then go and take this petition on our lips, we are quite
deliberately asking God not to forgive us. As someone has put it:
"Forgiveness, like peace, is one and indivisible." Human forgiveness and
divine forgiveness are inextricably intercombined. Our forgiveness of
our fellow-men and God's forgiveness of us cannot be separated; they are
interlinked and interdependent. If we remembered what we are doing when
we take this petition on our lips, there would be times when we would
not dare to pray it.
When Robert Louis Stevenson lived in the South Sea Islands he
used always to conduct family worship in the mornings for his household.
It always concluded with the Lord's Prayer. One morning in the middle
of the Lord's Prayer he rose from his knees and left the room. His
health was always precarious, and his wife followed him thinking that he
was ill. "Is there anything wrong?" she said. "Only this," said
Stevenson, "I am not fit to pray the Lord's Prayer today." No one is fit
to pray the Lord's Prayer so long as the unforgiving spirit holds sway
within his heart. If a man has not put things right with his fellow-men,
he cannot put things right with God.
If we are to have this Christian forgiveness in our lives, three things are necessary.
(i) We must learn to understand. There is always a reason why a
person does something. If he is boorish and impolite and cross-tempered,
maybe he is worried or in pain. If he treats us with suspicion and
dislike, maybe he has misunderstood, or has been misinformed about
something we have said or done. Maybe the man is the victim of his own
environment or his own heredity. Maybe his temperament is such that life
is difficult and human relations a problem for him. Forgiveness would
be very much easier for us, if we tried to understand before we allowed
ourselves to condemn.
(ii) We must learn to forget. So long as we brood upon a slight
or an injury, there is no hope that we will forgive. We so often say, "I
can't forget what so-and-so did to me," or "I will never forget how I
was treated by such-and-such a person or in such-and-such a place."
These are dangerous sayings, because we can in the end make it humanly
impossible for us to forget. We can print the memory indelibly upon our
minds.
Once the famous Scottish man of letters, Andrew Lang, wrote and
published a very kind review of a book by a young man. The young man
repaid him with a bitter and insulting attack. About three years later
Andrew Lang was staying with Robert Bridges, the Poet Laureate. Bridges
saw Lang reading a certain book. "Why," he said, "that's another book by
that ungrateful young cub who behaved so shamefully to you." To his
astonishment he found that Andrew Lang's mind was a blank on the whole
affair. He had completely forgotten the bitter and insulting attack. To
forgive, said Bridges, was the sign of a great man, but to forget was
sublime. Nothing but the cleansing spirit of Christ can take from these
memories of ours the old bitterness that we must forget.
(iii) We must learn to love. We have already seen that Christian love, agape (Greek #26),
is that unconquerable benevolence, that undefeatable good-will, which
will never seek anything but the highest good of others, no matter what
they do to us, and no matter how they treat us. That love can come to us
only when Christ, who is that love, comes to dwell within our
hearts--and he cannot come unless we invite him.
To be forgiven we must forgive, and that is a condition of
forgiveness which only the power of Christ can enable us to fulfil.
6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the Evil One.
There are two matters of meaning at which we must look before we begin to study this petition in detail.
(i) To modern ears the word tempt is always a bad word; it
always means to seek to seduce into evil But in the Bible the verb
peirazein (Greek #3985)
is often better translated by the word test than by the word tempt. In
its New Testament usage to tempt a person is not so much to seek to
seduce him into sin, as it is to test his strength and his loyalty and
his ability for service.
In the Old Testament we read the story of how God tested the
loyalty of Abraham by seeming to demand the sacrifice of his only son
Isaac. In the King James Version the story begins: "And it came to pass
that God did tempt Abraham" (Genesis 22:1).
Obviously the word tempt cannot there mean to seek to seduce into sin,
for that is something that God would never do. It means rather to submit
to a test of loyalty and obedience. When we read the story of the
temptations of Jesus, it begins: "Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit
into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil" (Matthew 4:1).
If we take the word tempt there in the sense of to seduce into sin, it
makes the Holy Spirit a partner in an attempt to compel Jesus to sin.
Time and again in the Bible we will find that the word tempt has the
idea of testing in it, at least as much as the idea of seeking to lead
into sin.
Here, then, is one of the great and precious truths about
temptation. Temptation is not designed to make us fall. Temptation is
designed to make us stronger and better men and women. Temptation is not
designed to make us sinners. It is designed to make us good. We may
fail in the test, but we are not meant to. We are meant to emerge
stronger and finer. In one sense temptation is not so much the penalty
of being a man; it is the glory of being a man. If metal is to be used
in a great engineering project, it is tested at stresses and strains far
beyond those which it is ever likely to have to bear. So a man has to
be tested before God can use him greatly in his service.
All that is true; but it is also true that the Bible is never in
any doubt that there is a power of evil in this world. The Bible is not
a speculative book, and it does not discuss the origin of that power of
evil, but it knows that it is there. Quite certainly this petition of
the Lord's Prayer should be translated not, "Deliver us from evil," but,
"Deliver us from the Evil One." The Bible does not think of evil as an
abstract principle or force, but as an active, personal power in
opposition to God.
The development of the idea of Satan in the Bible is of the
greatest interest. In Hebrew the word Satan simply means an adversary.
It can often be used of men. A man's adversary is his Satan. In the King
James Version the Philistines are afraid that David may turn out to be
their Satan (1 Samuel 29:4): Solomon declares that God has given him such peace and prosperity that there is no Satan left to oppose him (1 Kings 5:4); David regards Abishai as his Satan (2 Samuel 19:22).
In all these cases Satan means an adversary or opponent. From that the
word Satan goes on to mean one who pleads a case against someone. Then
the word leaves earth and, as it were, enters heaven. The Jews had the
idea that in heaven there was an angel whose charge it was to state the
case against a man, a kind of prosecuting angel; and that became the
function of Satan. At that stage Satan is not an evil power; he is part
of the judgment apparatus of heaven. In Job 1:6,
Satan is numbered among the sons of God: "Now there was a day when the
sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also
came among them." At this stage Satan is the divine prosecutor of man.
But it is not so very far a step from stating a case against a
man to making up a case against a man. And that is the next step. The
other name of Satan is the Devil; and Devil comes from the Greek word
Diabolos (Greek #1228),
which is the regular word for a slanderer. So Satan becomes the Devil,
the slanderer par excellence, the adversary of man, the power who is out
to frustrate the purposes of God and to ruin mankind. Satan comes to
stand for everything which is anti-man and anti-God. It is from that
ruining power that Jesus teaches us to pray to be delivered. The origin
of that power is not discussed; there are no speculations. As someone
has put it: "If a man wakes up and finds his house on fire, he does not
sit down in a chair and write or read a treatise on the origin of fires
in private houses; he attempts to try to extinguish the fire and to save
his house." So the Bible wastes no time in speculations about the
origin of evil. It equips man to fight the battle against the evil which
is unquestionably there.
Life is always under attack from temptation, but no enemy
can launch an invasion until he finds a bridgehead. Where then does
temptation find its bridgehead? Where do our temptations come from? To
be forewarned is to be forearmed, and, if we know whence the attack is
likely to come, we will have a better chance to overcome it.
(i) Sometimes the attack of temptation comes from
outside us. There are people whose influence is bad. There are people in
whose company it would be very difficult even to suggest doing a
dishonourable thing, and there are people in whose company it is easy to
do the wrong things. When Robert Burns was a young man he went to
Irvine to learn flax-dressing. There he fell in with a certain Robert
Brown, who was a man who had seen much of the world, and who had a
fascinating and a dominating personality. Burns tells us that he admired
him and strove to imitate him. Burns goes on: "He was the only man I
ever saw who was a greater fool than myself when Woman was the guiding
star.... He spoke of a certain fashionable failing with levity, which
hitherto I had regarded with horror.... Here his friendship did me a
mischief." There are friendships and associations which can do us a
mischief. In a tempting world a man should be very careful in his choice
of friends and of the society in which he will move. He should give the
temptations which come from outside as little chance as possible.
(ii) It is one of the tragic facts of life that
temptations can come to us from those who love us; and of all kinds of
temptation this is the hardest to fight. It comes from people who love
us and who have not the slightest intention of harming us.
The kind of thing that happens is this. A man may know
that he ought to take a certain course of action; he may feel divinely
drawn to a certain career; but to follow that course of action may
involve unpopularity and risk; to accept that career may be to give up
all that the world calls success. It may well be that in such
circumstances those who love him will seek to dissuade him from acting
as he knows he ought, and they will do so because they love him. They
counsel caution, prudence, worldly wisdom; they want to see the one they
love do well in a worldly sense; they do not wish to see him throw his
chances away; and so they seek to stop him doing what he knows to be
right for him.
In Gareth and Lynette Tennyson tells the story of
Gareth, the youngest son of Lot and Bellicent. Gareth wishes to join
this brothers in the service of King Arthur. Bellicent his mother does
not wish him to go. "Hast thou no pity on my loneliness?" she asks. His
father Lot is old and lies "like a log all but smouldered out." Both his
brothers have gone to Arthur's court. Must he go too? If he will stay
at home, she will arrange the hunt, and find him a princess for his
bride, and make him happy. It was because she loved him that she wished
to keep him; the tempter was speaking with the very voice of love. But
Gareth answers:
"O mother,
How can you keep me tethered to you--shame.
Man am I grown, and man's work must I do.
Follow the deer? Follow the Christ the King.
Live pure, speak true, right wrong, follow the King--
Else, wherefore born?"
The lad went out, but the voice of love tempted him to stay.
That was what happened to Jesus. "A man's foes," said Jesus, "will be those of his own household" (Matthew 10:36). They came and they tried to take him home, because they said that he was mad (Mark 3:21).
To them he seemed to be throwing his life and his career away; to them
he seemed to be making a fool of himself; and they tried to stop him.
Sometimes the bitterest of all temptations come to us from the voice of
love.
(iii) There is one very odd way in which temptation can come,
especially to younger people. There is in most of us a queer streak,
which, at least in certain company, makes us wish to appear worse than
we are. We do not wish to appear soft and pious, namby-pamby and holy.
We would rather be thought daredevil, swashbuckling adventurers, men of
the world and not innocents. Augustine has a famous passage in his
confessions: "Among my equals I was ashamed of being less shameless than
others, when I heard them boast of their wickedness.... And I took
pleasure not only in the pleasure of the deed but in the praise.... I
made myself worse than I was, that I might not be reproached, and when
in anything I had not sinned as the most abandoned ones, I would say
that I had done what I had not done, that I might not seem
contemptible." Many a man has begun on some indulgence, or introduced
himself to some habit, because he did not wish to appear less
experienced in worldliness than the company in which he happened to be.
One of the great defences against temptation is simply the courage to be
good.
(iv) But temptation comes not only from outside us; it comes
from inside us too. If there was nothing in us to which temptation
could appeal then it would be helpless to defeat us. In every one of us
there is some weak spot; and at that weak spot temptation launches its
attack.
The point of vulnerability differs in all of us. What
is a violent temptation to one man, leaves another man quite unmoved;
and what leaves one man quite unmoved may be an irresistible temptation
to another. Sir James Barrie has a play called The Will. Mr. Davizes,
the lawyer, noticed that an old clerk, who had been in his service for
many years, was looking very ill. He asked him if anything was the
matter. The old man told him that his doctor had informed him that he
was suffering from a fatal and incurable disease.
Mr Devizes [uncomfortably]: I'm sure it's not what you fear.
Any specialist would tell you so.
Surtees [without looking up]: I've been to one, sir--yesterday.
Mr Devizes: Well?
Surtees: It's--that, sir.
Mr Devizes: He couldn't be sure.
Surtees: Yes, sir.
Mr Devizes: An operation--
Surtees: Too late for that, he said. If I had been operated on
long ago, I might have had a chance.
Mr Devizes: But you didn't have it long ago.
Surtees: Not to my knowledge, sir; but he says it was there all
the same, always in me, a black spot, not as big as a pin's
head, but waiting to spread and destroy me in the fulness of
time.
Mr Devizes [helplessly]: It seems damnably unfair.
Surtees [humbly]: I don't know, sir. He says there is a spot of
that kind in pretty nigh all of us, and, if we don't look out,
it does for us in the end.
Mr Devizes: No. No. No.
Surtees: He called it the accursed thing. I think he meant we
should know of it, and be on the watch.
In every man there is the weak spot, which, if he is not on the
watch, can ruin him. Somewhere in every man there is the flaw, some
fault of temperament which can ruin life, some instinct or passion so
strong that it may at any time snap the leash, some quirk in our make-up
that makes what is a pleasure to someone else a menace to us. We should
realize it, and be on the watch.
(v) But, strangely enough, temptation comes sometimes not from
our weakest point, but from our strongest point. If there is one thing
of which we are in the habit of saying. "That is one thing anyway which I
would never do," it is just there that we should be upon the watch.
History is full of the stories of castles which were taken just at the
point where the defenders thought them so strong that no guard was
necessary. Nothing gives temptation its chance like over-confidence. At
our weakest and at our strongest points we must be upon the watch.
We have thought of the attack of temptation; let us now assemble our defences against temptation.
(i) There is the simple defence of self-respect. When
Nehemiah's life was in danger, it was suggested that he should quit his
work and shut himself in the Temple until the danger was past. His
answer was: "Should such a man as I flee? And what man such as I could
go into the temple and live? I will not go in" (Nehemiah 6:11).
A man may escape many things, but he cannot escape himself. He must
live with his memories, and if he has lost his self-respect life becomes
intolerable. Once President Garfield was urged to take a profitable,
but dishonourable, course of action. It was said, "No one will ever
know." His answer was, "President Garfield will know--and I've got to
sleep with him." When a man is tempted, he may well defend himself by
saying, "Is a man like me going to do a thing like that?"
(ii) There is the defence of tradition. No man can
lightly fail the traditions and the heritage into which he has entered,
and which have taken generations to build up. When Pericles, the
greatest of the statesmen of Athens, was going to address the Athenian
Assembly, he always whispered to himself: "Pericles, remember that you
are an Athenian and that you go to speak to Athenians."
One of the epics of the Second World War was the
defence of Tobruk. The Coldstream Guards cut their way out of Tobruk,
but only a handful of them survived, and even these were just shadows of
men. Two hundred survivors out of two battalions were being cared for
by the R.A.F. A Coldstream Guards officer was in the mess. Another
officer said to him, "After all, as Foot Guards, you had no option but
to have a go." And an R.A.F. man standing there said, "It must be pretty
tough to be in the Brigade of Guards, because tradition compels you to
carry on irrespective of circumstances."
The power of a tradition is one of the greatest things
in life. We belong to a country, a school, a family, a Church. What we
do affects that to which we belong. We cannot lightly betray the
traditions into which we have entered.
(iii) There is the defence of those whom we love and
those who love us. Many a man would sin, if the only penalty he had to
bear was the penalty he would have to bear himself; but he is saved from
sin because he could not meet the pain that would appear in someone's
eyes, if he made shipwreck of his life.
Laura Richards has a parable like this:
"A man sat by the door of his house smoking his pipe, and his
neighbour sat beside him and tempted him. 'You are poor,' said
the neighbour, 'and you are out of work and here is a way of
bettering yourself. It will be an easy job and it will bring in
money, and it is no more dishonest than things that are done
every day by respectable people. You will be a fool to throw
away such a chance as this. Come with me and we will settle the
matter at once.' And the man listened. Just then his young wife
came to the door of the cottage and she had her baby in her
arms. 'Will you hold the baby for a minute,' she said. 'He is
fretful and I must hang out the clothes to dry.' The man took
the baby and held him on his knees. And as he held him, the
child looked up, and the eyes of the child spoke: 'I am flesh of
your flesh,' said the child's eyes. 'I am soul of your soul.
Where you lead I shall follow. Lead the way, father. My feet
come after yours.' Then said the man to his neighbour: 'Go,
and come here no more.'"
A man might be perfectly willing to pay the price of sin, if
that price affected only himself. But if he remembers that his sin will
break someone else's heart, he will have a strong defence against
temptation.
(iv) There is the defence of the presence of Jesus Christ. Jesus
is not a figure in a book; he is a living presence. Sometimes we ask,
"What would you do, if you suddenly found Christ standing beside you ?
How would you live, if Jesus Christ was a guest in your house?" But the
whole point of the Christian faith is that Jesus Christ is beside us,
and he is a guest in every home. His is the unescapable presence, and,
therefore, we must make all life fit for him to see. We have a strong
defence against temptation in the memory of the continual presence of
Jesus Christ.
How Not To Fast (Matthew 6:16-18)
6:16-18 When
you fast, don't put on a sad face, as the hypocrites do, for they
disfigure their faces, so that all men may see that they are fasting.
This is the truth I tell you--they are paid in full. But when you fast,
anoint your head and wash your face, so that to men you may not look as
if you were fasting, but to your Father who is in secret; and your
Father, who sees what happens in secret, will give you your reward in
full.
To this day fasting is an essential part of the religious life
in the east. The Mohammedan strictly keeps the fast of Ramadan, which
falls in the ninth month of the Mohammedan year, and which commemorates
the first revelation which came to Mohammed. The fast lasts from
dawn--when it is light enough to distinguish a white thread from a black
thread--until sunset. Bathing, drinking, smoking, smelling perfumes,
eating, every unnecessary indulgence is forbidden. Nurses and pregnant
women are exempt. Soldiers and those on a journey are excused, but must
at some other time fast for an equivalent number of days. If for
health's sake a man must have food, he must make good his breach of the
law of fasting by giving alms to the poor.
The Jewish fasting customs were exactly the same. It is to be
noted that, as we have said, fasting lasted from dawn to sunset; outside
that time normal meals could be eaten. For the Jew, in the time of
Jesus, there was only one compulsory fast, the fast on the Day of
Atonement. On that day from morning to evening, all men had "to afflict
themselves" (Leviticus 16:31).
The Jewish scribal law lays it down: "On the Day of Atonement it is
forbidden to eat, or to drink, or to bathe, or to anoint oneself, or to
wear sandals, or to indulge in conjugal intercourse." Even young
children had to be trained to some measure of fasting on the Day of
Atonement so that, when they grew up, they would be prepared to accept
the national fast.
But, although there was only the one compulsory, universal day of fasting, the Jews made great use of private fasting.
There was the fasting which was connected with mourning. Between
the time of death and burial mourners must abstain from all flesh and
wine. There was fasting to expiate some sin. It was said, for instance,
the Reuben fasted for seven years for his share in the selling of
Joseph: "He drank no wine or other liquor; no flesh passed his lips, and
he ate no appetising food" (The Testament of Reuben 1: 10). For the
same reason, "Simeon afflicted his soul with fasting for two years,
because he had hated Joseph" (The Testimony of Simeon 3: 4). In
repentance of his sin with Tamar, it was said that Judah to his old age
"took neither wine nor flesh, and saw no pleasure" (The Testament of
Judah 15: 4). It is fair to say that Jewish thought saw no value in
fasting apart from repentance. The fast was only designed to be the
outer expression of an inward sorrow. The writer of Ecclesiasticus (Sirach 31:30)
says, "A man who fasts to get rid of his sins, and goes again and does
the same thing--who will listen to his prayer, and what profit is there
in his humbling himself?"
In many cases fasting was an act of national penitence. So the
whole nation fasted after the disaster of the civil war with Benjamin ( 20:26). Samuel made the people fast because they had strayed away after Baal (1 Samuel 7:6). Nehemiah made the people fast and confess their sins (Nehemiah 9:1). Again and again the nation fasted as a sign of national penitence before God.
Sometimes fasting was a preparation for revelation. Moses in the mountain fasted for forty days and forty nights (Exodus 24:15). Daniel fasted as he awaited God's word (Daniel 9:3). Jesus himself fasted as he awaited the ordeal of temptation (Matthew 4:2).
This was a sound principle, for when the body is most disciplined, the
mental and the spiritual faculties are most alert. Sometimes fasting was
an appeal to God. If, for instance, the rains failed and the harvest
was in jeopardy, a national fast would be called as an appeal to God.
In Jewish fasting there were really three main ideas in the minds of men.
(i) Fasting was a deliberate attempt to draw the attention of
God to the person who fasted. This was a very primitive idea. The
fasting was designed to attract God's attention, and to make him notice
the person who thus afflicted himself.
(ii) Fasting was a deliberate attempt to prove that penitence
was real. Fasting was a guarantee of the sincerity of words and prayers.
It is easy to see that there was a danger here, for that which was
meant to be a proof of repentance could very easily come to be regarded
as a substitute for repentance.
(iii) A great deal of fasting was vicarious. It was not designed
to save a man's own soul so much as to move God to liberate the nation
from its distresses. It was as if specially devoted people said,
"Ordinary people cannot do this. They are too involved in work and in
the world. We will do this extra thing to counterbalance the necessary
deficiency of piety in others."
Such then was the Jewish theory and practice of fasting.
How Not To Fast (Matthew 6:16-18 Continued)
High as the ideal of fasting might be, the practice of it involved
certain inevitable dangers. The great danger was that a man might fast
as a sign of superior piety, that his fasting might be a deliberate
demonstration, not to God, but to men, of how devoted and disciplined a
person he was. That is precisely what Jesus was condemning. He was
condemning fasting when it was used as an ostentatious parade of piety.
The Jewish days of fasting were Monday and Thursday. These were market
days, and into the towns and villages, and especially into Jerusalem,
there crowded the people from the country; the result was that those who
were ostentatiously fasting would on those days have a bigger audience
to see and admire their piety. There were many who took deliberate steps
to see that others could not miss the fact that they were fasting. They
walked through the streets with hair deliberately unkempt and
dishevelled, with clothes deliberately soiled and disarrayed. They even
went the length of deliberately whitening their faces to accentuate
their paleness. This was no act of humility; it was a deliberate act of
spiritual pride and ostentation.
The wisest of the Rabbis would have condemned this as
unsparingly as Jesus did. They were quite clear that fasting for its own
sake was valueless. They said that a vow of abstinence was like an iron
collar which prisoners had to wear; and he who imposed on himself such a
vow was said to be like a man who found such a collar lying about, and
who misguidedly stuck his head into it, thereby voluntarily undertaking a
useless slavery. One of the finest things ever said is the Rabbinic
saying, "A man will have to give an account on the judgment day for
every good thing which he might have enjoyed, and did not."
Dr. Boreham has a story which is a commentary on the wrong idea
of fasting. A traveller in the Rocky mountains fell in with an old Roman
Catholic priest; he was amazed to find so aged a man struggling amidst
the rocks and the precipices and the steep passes. The traveller asked
the priest, "What are you doing here?" The old man answered, "I am
seeking the beauty of the world." "But," said the traveller, "surely you
have left it very late in life?" So the old man told his story. He had
spent nearly all his life in a monastery; he had never been further
outside it than the cloisters. He fell seriously Hi, and in his illness
he had a vision. He saw an angel stand beside his bed. "What have you
come for?" he asked the angel. "To lead you home," the angel said. "And
is it a very beautiful world to which I am going?" asked the old man.
"It is a very beautiful world you are leaving," said the angel. "And
then," said the old man, "I remembered that I had seen nothing of it
except the fields and the trees around the monastery." So he said to the
angel, "But I have seen very little of the world which I am leaving."
"Then," said the angel, "I fear you will see very little beauty in the
world to which you are going." "I was in trouble," said the old man,
"and I begged that I might stay for just two more years. My prayer was
granted, and I am spending all my little hoard of gold, and all the time
I have, in exploring the world's loveliness--and I find it very
wonderful!"
It is the duty of a man to accept and enjoy the world's
loveliness, and not to reject it. There is no religious value in fasting
undertaken for its own sake, or as an ostentatious demonstration of
superior piety.
The True Fasting (Matthew 6:16-18 Continued)
Although Jesus condemned the wrong kind of fasting, his words imply
that there is a wise fasting, in which he expected that the Christian
would take part. This is a thing of which few of us ever think. There
are very few ordinary people in whose lives fasting plays any part at
all. And yet there are many reasons why a wise fasting is an excellent
thing.
(i) Fasting is good for health. Many of us live a life in which
it is easy to get soft and flabby. It is even possible for a man to
reach the stage when he lives to eat instead of eating to live. It would
do a great many people a great deal of physical good to practise
fasting far more than they do.
(ii) Fasting is good for self-discipline. It is easy to become
almost completely self-indulgent. It is easy to come to a stage when we
deny ourselves nothing which it is in our power to have or to pay for.
It would do most people a great deal of good to cease for some time each
week to make their wishes and their desires their master, and to
exercise a stringent and an antiseptic self-discipline.
(iii) Fasting preserves us from becoming the slaves of a habit.
There are not a few of us who indulge in certain habits because we find
it impossible to stop them. They have become so essential that we cannot
break them; we develop such a craving for certain things that what
ought to be a pleasure has become a necessity; and to be cut off from
the thing which we have learned so to desire can be a purgatory. If we
practiced a wise fasting no pleasure would become a chain, and no habit
would become a master. We would be masters of our pleasures, and not our
pleasures masters of us.
(iv) Fasting preserves the ability to do without things. One of
the great tests of any man's life is the number of things which he has
come to regard as essential. Clearly, the fewer things we regard as
essentials, the more independent we will be. When all kinds of things
become essentials, we are at the mercy of the luxuries of life. It is no
bad thing for a man to walk down a street of shop windows, and to look
in at them, and remind himself of all the things that he can do without.
Some kind of fasting preserves the ability to do without the things
which should never be allowed to become essentials.
(v) Fasting makes us appreciate things all the more. It may be
that there was a time in life when some pleasure came so seldom that we
really enjoyed it when it did come. It may be that nowadays the appetite
is blunted; the palate is dulled; the edge is gone off it. What was
once a sharp pleasure has become simply a drug which we cannot do
without. Fasting keeps the thrill in pleasure by keeping pleasure always
fresh and new.
Fasting has gone almost completely out of the life of the
ordinary person. Jesus condemned the wrong kind of fasting, but he never
meant that fasting should be completely eliminated from life and
living. We would do well to practise it in our own way and according to
our own need. And the reason for practicing it is,
"So that earth's bliss may be our guide,
And not our chain."
6:19-21 Do not
lay up for yourselves treasures upon earth. where moth and rust destroy
them, and where thieves dig through and steal. Lay up for yourselves
treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy them, and where
thieves do not dig through and steal. For where your treasure is, there
will your heart be also.
In the ordinary, everyday management of life it is simple
wisdom to get to oneself only those things which will last. Whether we
are buying a suit of clothes, or a motor car, or a carpet for the floor,
or a suite of furniture, it is common sense to avoid shoddy goods, and
to buy the things which have solidity and permanence and craftsmanship
wrought into them. That is exactly what Jesus is saying here; he is
telling us to concentrate on the things which will last.
Jesus calls up three pictures from the three great sources of wealth in Palestine.
(i) He tells men to avoid the things that the moth can destroy.
In the east, part of a man's wealth often consisted in fine and
elaborate clothes. When Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, wished to make
some forbidden profit out of Naaman, after his master had cured him, he
asked him for a talent of silver and two festal garments (2 Kings 5:22). One of the things which tempted Achan to sin was a beautiful mantle from Shinar (Joshua 7:21).
But such things were foolish things to set the heart upon, for
the moths might eat at them, when they were stored away. and all their
beauty and their value be destroyed. There was no permanence about
possessions like that.
(ii) He tells men to avoid the things that rust can destroy.
The word translated rust is brosis (Greek #1035).
It literally means an eating away, but it is nowhere else used to mean
rust. Most likely the picture is this. In the east many a man's wealth
consisted in the corn and the grain that he had stored away in his great
barns. But into that corn and rain there could come the worms and the
rats and the mice, until the store was polluted and destroyed. In all
probability, the reference is to the way in which rats, and mice, and
worms, and other vermin, could get into a granary and eat away the
grain.
There was no permanence about possessions like that.
(iii) He tells men to avoid the treasure, which thieves can steal by digging through.
The word which is used for "to dig through" (the Revised Standard Version has "break in") is diorussein (Greek #1358).
In Palestine the walls of many of the houses were made of nothing
stronger than baked clay; and burglars did effect an entry by literally
digging through the wall. The reference here is to the man who has
hoarded up in his house a little store of gold, only to find, when he
comes home one day, that the burglars have dug through his flimsy walls
and that his treasure is gone.
There is no permanency about a treasure which is at the mercy of any enterprising thief.
So Jesus warns men against three kinds of pleasures and possessions.
(i) He warns them against the pleasures which will wear out like
an old suit of clothes. The finest garment in the world, moths or no
moths, will in the end disintegrate. All purely physical pleasures have a
way of wearing out. At each successive enjoyment of them the thrill
becomes less thrilling. It requires more of them to produce the same
effect. They are like a drug which loses its initial potency and which
becomes increasingly less effective. A man is a foolish man who finds
his pleasures in things which are bound to offer diminishing returns.
(ii) He warns against the pleasures which can be eroded away.
The grain store is the inevitable prey of the marauding rats and mice
who nibble and gnaw away the grain. There are certain pleasures which
inevitably lose their attraction as a man grows older. It may be that he
is physically less able to enjoy them; it may be that as his mind
matures they cease in any sense to satisfy him. In life a man should
never give his heart to the joys the years can take away; he should find
his delight in the things whose thrill time is powerless to erode.
(iii) He warns against the pleasures which can be stolen away.
All material things are like that; not one of them is secure; and if a
man builds his happiness on them, he is building on a most insecure
basis. Suppose a man arranges his life in such a way that his happiness
depends on his possession of money; suppose a crash comes and he wakes
up to find his money gone; then, with his wealth, his happiness has
gone.
If any man is wise, he will build his happiness on things which
he cannot lose, things which are independent of the chances and the
changes of this life. Burns wrote of the fleeting things:
"But pleasures are like poppies spread:
You seize the flower, its bloom is shed;
Or like the snow falls in the river,
A moment white--then melts for ever."
Any one whose happiness depends on things like that is doomed
to disappointment. Any man whose treasure is in things is bound to lose
his treasure, for in things there is no permanence, and no thing lasts
forever.
The Jews were very familiar with the phrase treasure in heaven. They identified such treasure with two things in particular.
(i) They said that the deeds of kindness which a man did upon earth became his treasure in heaven.
The Jews had a famous story about a certain King Monobaz of
Adiabdne who became a convert to Judaism. "Monobaz distributed all his
treasures to the poor in the year of famine. His brothers sent to him
and said, 'Thy fathers gathered treasures, and added to those of their
fathers, but thou hast dispersed yours and theirs.' He said to them, 'My
fathers gathered treasures for below, I have gathered treasures for
above; they stored treasures in a place over which the hand of man can
rule, but I have stored treasures in a place over which the hand of man
cannot rule; my fathers collected treasures which bear no interest, I
have gathered treasures which bear interest; my fathers gathered
treasures of money, I have gathered treasures in souls; my fathers
gathered treasures for others, I have gathered treasures for myself; my
fathers gathered treasures in this world, I have gathered treasures for
the world to come.'"
Both Jesus and the Jewish Rabbis were sure that what is
selfishly hoarded is lost, but that what is generously given away brings
treasure in heaven.
That was also the principle of the Christian Church in the days
to come. The Early Church always lovingly cared for the poor, and the
sick, and the distressed, and the helpless, and those for whom no one
else cared. In the days of the terrible Decian persecution in Rome, the
Roman authorities broke into a Christian Church. They were out to loot
the treasures which they believed the Church to possess. The Roman
prefect demanded from Laurentius, the deacon: "Show me your treasures at
once." Laurentius pointed at the widows and orphans who were being fed,
the sick who were being nursed, the poor whose needs were being
supplied, "These," he said, "are the treasures of the Church."
The Church has always believed that "what we keep, we lose, and what we spend, we have."
(ii) The Jews always connected the phrase treasure in heaven
with character. When Rabbi Yose ben Kisma was asked if he would dwell in
a heathen city on condition of receiving very high pay for his
services, he replied that he would not dwell anywhere except in a home
of the Law, "for," he said, "in the hour of a man's departure neither
silver, nor gold, nor precious stones accompany him, but only his
knowledge of the Law, and his good works." As the grim Spanish proverb
has it, "There are no pockets in a shroud."
The only thing which a man can take out of this world into the
world beyond is himself; and the finer the self he brings, the greater
his treasure in heaven will be.
(iii) Jesus ends this section by stating that where a man's
treasure is, his heart is there also. If everything that a man values
and sets his heart upon is on earth, then he will have no interest in
any world beyond this world; if all through his life a man's eyes are on
eternity, then he will evaluate lightly the things of this world. If
everything which a man counts valuable is on this earth, then he will
leave this earth reluctantly and grudgingly; if a man's thoughts have
been ever in the world beyond, he will leave this world with gladness,
because he goes at last to God. Once Dr. Johnson was shown through a
noble castle and its grounds; when he had seen round it he turned to his
companions and said, "These are the things which make it difficult to
die."
Jesus never said that this world was unimportant; but he said
and implied over and over again that its importance is not in itself,
but in that to which it leads. This world is not the end of life, it is a
stage on the way; and therefore a man should never lose his heart to
this world and to the things of this world. His eyes ought to be for
ever fixed on the goal beyond.
6:22-23 The
light of the body is the eye. So then, if your eye is generous, the
whole body will be full of light; but if your eye is grudging, your
whole body will be in the dark. If, then, the light which is in you is
darkness, how great is that darkness!
The idea behind this passage is one of childlike simplicity.
The eye is regarded as the window by which the light gets into the whole
body. The state of a window decides what light gets into a room. If the
window is clear, clean. and undistorted, the light will come flooding
into the room, and will illuminate every corner of it. If the glass of
the window is coloured or frosted, distorted, dirty, or obscure, the
light will be hindered, and the room will not be lit up.
The amount of light which gets into any room depends on the
state of the window through which it has to pass. So, then, says Jesus,
the light which gets into any man's heart and soul and being depends on
the spiritual state of the eye through which it has to pass, for the eye
is the window of the whole body.
The view we take of people depends on the kind of eye we have.
There are certain obvious things which can blind our eyes and distort
our vision.
(i) Prejudice can distort our vision. There is nothing which so
destroys a man's judgment as prejudice does. It prevents him from
forming the clear, reasonable and logical judgment which it is the duty
of any man to form. It blinds him alike to the facts and to the
significance of the facts.
Almost all new discoveries have had to fight their way against
unreasonable prejudice. When Sir James Simpson discovered the virtues of
chloroform he had to fight against the prejudice of the medical and
religious world of his day. One of his biographers writes: "Prejudice,
the crippling determination to walk only in time-worn paths, and to
eschew new ways, rose up against it, and did their best to smother the
new-found blessing." "Many of the clergy held that to try to remove the
primal curse on women was to fight against divine law."
One of the most necessary things in life is the fearless
self-examination which will enable us to see when we are acting on
principle and when we are the victims of our own unreasonable and
unreasoning prejudices. In any man who is swayed by prejudice the eye is
darkened and the vision distorted.
(ii) Jealousy can distort our vision. Shakespeare gave us the
classic example of that in the tragedy of Othello. Othello, the Moor,
won fame by his heroic exploits and married Desdemona, who loved him
with utter devotion and complete fidelity. As general of the army of
Venice, Othello promoted Cassio and passed over Iago. Iago was consumed
with jealousy. By careful plotting and the manipulation of facts Iago
sowed in Othello's mind the suspicion that Cassio and Desdemona were
carrying on an intrigue. He manufactured evidence to prove it, and moved
Othello to such a passion of jealousy that he finally murdered
Desdemona by smothering her with a pillow. A. C. Bradley writes, "Such
jealousy as Othello's converts human nature into chaos, and liberates
the beast in man."
Many a marriage and many a friendship have been wrecked on the
rock of a jealousy which distorted perfectly innocent incidents into
guilty actions, and which blinded the eye to truth and fact.
(iii) Self-conceit can distort our vision. In her biography of
Mark Rutherford, Catherine Macdonald Maclean has a curiously caustic
sentence about John Chapman, the bookseller and publisher, who was at
one time Mark Rutherford's employer: "Handsome in the Byronic fashion
and pleasant-mannered, he was exceedingly attractive to women, and he
thought himself even more attractive to them than he actually was."
Self-conceit doubly affects a man's vision, for it renders him
incapable of seeing himself as he really is, and incapable of seeing
others as they really are. If a man is convinced of his own surpassing
wisdom, he will never be able to realise his own foolishness; and if he
is blind to everything except his own virtues, he will never be aware of
his own faults. Whenever he compares himself with others, he will do so
to his own advantage, and to their disadvantage. He will be for ever
incapable of self-criticism, and therefore for ever incapable of
self-improvement. The light in which he should see himself and see
others will be darkness.
But here Jesus speaks of one special virtue which fills the eye with
light, and one special fault which fills the eye with darkness. The King
James Version speaks here about the eye being single and the eye being
evil Certainly that is the literal meaning of the Greek, but the words
single and evil are here used in a special way which is common enough in
the Greek in which scripture is written.
The word for single is haplous (Greek #573), and its corresponding noun is haplotes (Greek #572). Regularly in the Greek of the Bible these words mean generous and generosity. James speaks of God who gives generously (James 1:5), and the adverb he uses is haplos (Greek #574). Similarly in Romans 12:8, Paul urges his friends to give in liberality (haplos, Greek #574). Paul reminds the Corinthian Church of the liberality (haplotes, Greek #574) of the Churches in Macedonia, and talks about their own generosity to all men (2 Corinthians 9:11). It is the generous eye which Jesus is commending.
The word which is in the King James Version translated evil is poneros (Greek #4190). Certainly that is the normal meaning of the word; but both in the New Testament and in the Septuagint poneros (Greek #4190)
regularly means niggardly or grudging. Deuteronomy speaks of the duty
of lending to a brother who is in need. But the matter was complicated
by the fact that every seventh year was a year of release when debts
were cancelled. It might, therefore, very well happen that, if the
seventh year was near, a cautious man might refuse to help, lest the
person helped might take advantage of the seventh year never to repay
his debt. So the law lays it down: "Take heed lest there be a base
thought in your heart, and you say, 'The seventh year, the year of
release is near,' and your eye be hostile to your poor brother, and you
give him nothing" (Deuteronomy 15:9). Clearly poneros (Greek #4190)
there means niggardly, grudging and ungenerous. It is the advice of the
proverb: "Do not eat the bread of a man who is stingy" (Proverbs 23:6).
That is to say, "Don't be a guest in the house of a man who grudges you
every bite you eat." Another proverb has it: "A miserly man hastens
after wealth" (Proverbs 28:22).
So Jesus is saying, "There is nothing like generosity for giving
you a clear and undistorted view of life and of people; and there is
nothing like the grudging and ungenerous spirit for distorting your view
of life and of people."
(i) We must be generous in our judgments of others. It is
characteristic of human nature to think the worst, and to find a
malignant delight in repeating the worst. Every day in life the
reputations of perfectly innocent people are murdered over the tea-cups
by gossiping groups whose judgments are dipped in poison. The world
would be saved a great deal of heartbreak, if we would put the best, and
not the worst, construction on the actions of other people.
(ii) We must be generous in our actions. In her biography of
Mark Rutherford, Catherine Macdonald Maclean speaks of the days when
Mark Rutherford came to work in London: "It was about this time that
there can be noted in him the beginning of that 'cherishing pity for the
souls of men' which was to become habitual with him.... The burning
question with him, haunted as he was at times by the fate of many in the
district in which he lived, was, 'What can I do? Wherein can I help
them?' It seemed to him then, as always, that any kind of action was of
more value than the most vehement indignation that spent itself in
talk." When Mark Rutherford was with Chapman the publisher, George
Eliot, or Marian Evans as her real name was, lived and worked in the
same place. One thing impressed him about her: "She was poor. She had
only a small income of her own; and, although she hoped to earn a
livelihood as a woman of letters, her future was very uncertain. But she
was fantastically generous. She was always helping lame dogs over
stiles, and the poverty of others pressed on her more than her own. She
wept more bitterly because she could not adequately relieve a sister's
poverty than because of any of her own privations."
It is when we begin to feel like that that we begin to see
people and things clearly. It is then that our eye becomes full of
light.
There are three great evils of the ungenerous spirit, of the eye that is grudging.
(i) It makes it impossible to live with ourselves. If a man is
for ever envying another his success, grudging another his happiness,
shutting his heart against another's need, he becomes that most pitiable
of creatures--a man with a grudge. There grows within him a bitterness
and a resentment which robs him of his happiness, steals away his peace,
and destroys his content.
(ii) It makes it impossible to live with other people. The mean
man is the man abhorred by all; the man whom all men despise is the man
with the miser's heart. Charity covers a multitude of sins, but the
grudging spirit makes useless a multitude of virtues. However bad the
generous man may be, there are those who will love him; and however good
the mean man may be, all men will detest him.
(iii) It makes it impossible to live with God. There is no one
so generous as God, and, in the last analysis, there can be no
fellowship between two people who guide their lives by diametrically
opposite principles. There can be no fellowship between the God whose
heart is afire with love, and the man whose heart is frozen with
meanness.
The grudging eye distorts our vision; the generous eye alone sees clearly, for it alone sees as God sees.
6:24 No man can
be a slave to two owners; for either he will hate the one and love the
other, or he will cleave to the one and despise the other. You cannot be
a slave to God and to material things.
To one brought up in the ancient world this is an even more
vivid saying than it is to us. The Revised Standard Version translates
it: No one can serve two masters. But that is not nearly strong enough.
The word which the Revised Standard Version translates "serve" is
douleuein (Greek #1398); doulos (Greek #1401) is a slave; and douleuein (Greek #1398) means to be a slave to. The word that the Revised Standard Version translates master is kurios (Greek #2962),
and kurios is the word which denotes absolute ownership. We get the
meaning far better, if we translate it: No man can be a slave to two
owners.
To understand all that this means and implies we must remember
two things about the slave in the ancient world. First, the slave in the
eyes of the law was not a person but a thing. He had absolutely no
rights of his own; his master could do with him absolutely as he liked.
In the eyes of the law the slave was a living tool. His master could
sell him, beat him, throw him out, and even kill him. His master
possessed him as completely as he possessed any of his material
possessions. Second, in the ancient world a slave had literally no time
which was his own. Every moment of his life belonged to his master.
Under modern conditions a man has certain hours of work, and outside
these hours of work his time is his own. It is indeed often possible for
a man nowadays to find his real interest in life outside his hours of
work. He may be a clerk in an office during the day and play the violin
in an orchestra at night; and it may be that it is in his music that he
finds his real life. He may work in a shipyard or in a factory during
the day and run a youth club at night, and it may be that it is in the
youth club that he finds his real delight and the real expression of his
personality. But it was far otherwise with the slave. The slave had
literally no moment of time which belonged to himself. Every moment
belonged to his owner and was at his owner's disposal.
Here, then, is our relationship to God. In regard to God we have
no rights of our own; God must be undisputed master of our lives. We
can never ask, "What do I wish to do?" We must always ask, "What does
God wish me to do?" We have no time which is our own. We cannot
sometimes say, "I will do what God wishes me to do," and, at other
times, say, "I will do what I like." The Christian has no time off from
being a Christian; there is no time when he can relax his Christian
standards, as if he was off duty. A partial or a spasmodic service of
God is not enough. Being a Christian is a whole-time job. Nowhere in the
Bible is the exclusive service which God demands more clearly set
forth.
Jesus goes on to say, "You cannot serve God and mammon." The
correct spelling is with one m. Mammon was a Hebrew word for material
possessions. Originally it was not a bad word at all. The Rabbis, for
instance, had a saying, "Let the mammon of thy neighbour be as dear to
thee as thine own." That is to say, a man should regard his neighbours
material possessions as being as sacrosanct as his own. But the word
mammon had a most curious and a most revealing history. It comes from a
root which means to entrust; and mammon was that which a man entrusted
to a banker or to a safe deposit of some kind. Mammon was the wealth
which a man entrusted to someone to keep safe for him. But as the years
went on mammon came to mean, not that which is entrusted, but that in
which a man puts his trust. The end of the process was that mammon came
to be spelled with a capital M and came to be regarded as nothing less
than a god.
The history of that word shows vividly how material possessions
can usurp a place in life which they were never meant to have.
Originally a man's material possessions were the things which he
entrusted to someone else for safe-keeping; in the end they came to be
the things in which a man puts his trust. Surely there is no better
description of a man's god, than to say that his god is the power in
whom he trusts; and when a man puts his trust in material things, then
material things have become, not his support, but his god.
This saying of Jesus is bound to turn our thoughts to the place which
material possessions should have in life. At the basis of Jesus'
teaching about possessions there are three great principles.
(i) In the last analysis all things belong to God. Scripture
makes that abundantly clear. "The earth is the Lord's and the fulness
thereof; the world and those who dwell therein" (Psalms 24:1).
"For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand
hills.... If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world and all
that is in it is mine" (Psalms 50:10; Psalms 50:12).
In Jesus' teaching it is the master who gives his servants the talents (Matthew 25:15), and the owner who gives the husbandmen the vineyard (Matthew 21:33).
This principle has far-reaching consequences. Men can buy and sell
things; men can to some extent alter and rearrange things; but man
cannot create things. The ultimate ownership of all things belongs to
God. There is nothing in this world of which a man can say, "This is
mine." Of all things he can only say, "This belongs to God, and God has
given me the use of it."
Therefore this basic principle of life emerges. There is nothing
in this world of which any man can say, "This is mine, and I will
therefore do what I like with it." Of everything he must say, "This is
God's, and I must use it as its owner would have it to be used." There
is a story of a city child who was taken for a day in the country. For
the first time in her life she saw a drift of bluebells. She turned to
her teacher and said, 'Do you think God would mind, if I picked one of
his flowers?' That is the correct attitude to life and all things in the
world.
(ii) The second basic principle is that people are always more
important than things. If possessions have to be acquired, if money has
to be amassed, if wealth has to be accumulated at the expense of
treating people as things, then all such riches are wrong. Whenever and
wherever that principle is forgotten, or neglected, or defied,
far-reaching disaster is certain to follow.
In this country we are to this day suffering in the world of
industrial relationships from the fact that in the days of the
industrial revolution people were treated as things. Sir Arthur Bryant
in English Saga tells of some of the things which happened in those
days. Children of seven and eight years of age--there is actually a case
of a child of three--were employed in the mines. Some of them dragged
trucks along galleries on all fours; some of them pumped out water
standing knee deep in the water for twelve hours a day; some of them,
called trappers, opened and shut the ventilating doors of the shafts,
and were shut into little ventilating chambers for as much as sixteen
hours a day. In 1815 children were working in the mills from 5 a.m. to 8
p.m. without even a Saturday half-holiday, and with half an hour off
for breakfast and half an hour off for dinner. In 1833 there were 84,000
children under fourteen in the factories. There is actually a case
recorded in which the children whose labour was no longer required were
taken to a common and turned adrift. The owners objected to the
expression "turned adrift." They said that the children had been set at
liberty. They agreed that the children might find things hard. "They
would have to beg their way or something of that sort." In 1842 the
weavers of Burnley were being paid 7 1/2d. a day, and the miners of
Staffordshire 2 shillings 6d. a day. There were those who saw the
criminal folly of all this. Carlyle thundered, "If the cotton industry
is founded on the bodies of rickety children, it must go; if the devil
gets in your cotton-mill, shut the mill." It was pleaded that cheap
labour was necessary to keep costs down. Coleridge answered, "You talk
about making this article cheaper by reducing its price in the market
from 8d. to 6d. But suppose in so doing you have rendered your country
weaker against a foreign foe; suppose you have demoralized thousands of
your fellow-countrymen, and have sown discontent between one class of
society and another, your article is tolerably dear, I take it, after
all."
It is perfectly true that things are very different nowadays.
But there is such a thing as racial memory. Deep in the unconscious
memory of people the impression of these bad days is indelibly
impressed. Whenever people are treated as things, as machines, as
instruments for producing so much labour and for enriching those who
employ them, then as certainly as the night follows the day disaster
follows. A nation forgets at its peril the principle that people are
always more important than things.
(iii) The third principle is that wealth is always a subordinate
good. The Bible does not say that, "Money is the root of all evil," it
says that "The love of money is the root of all evils" (1 Timothy 6:10).
It is quite possible to find in material things what someone has called
"a rival salvation." A man may think that, because he is wealthy, he
can buy anything, that he can buy his way out of any situation. Wealth
can become his measuring-rod; wealth can become his one desire; wealth
can become the one weapon with which he faces life. If a man desires
material things for an honourable independence, to help his family and
to do something for his fellow-men, that is good; but if he desires it
simply to heap pleasure upon pleasure, and to add luxury, if wealth has
become the thing he lives for and lives by, then wealth has ceased to be
a subordinate good, and has usurped the place in life which only God
should occupy.
One thing emerges from all this--the possession of wealth,
money, material things is not a sin, but it is a grave responsibility.
If a man owns many material things it is not so much a matter for
congratulation as it is a matter for prayer, that he may use them as God
would have him to do.
There are two great questions about possessions, and on the answer to these questions everything depends.
(i) How did a man gain his possessions? Did he gain them in a
way that he would be glad that Jesus Christ should see, or did he gain
them in a way that he would wish to hide from Jesus Christ?
A man may gain his possessions at the expense of honesty and
honour. George Macdonald tells of a village shop-keeper who grew very
rich. Whenever he was measuring cloth, he measured it with his two
thumbs inside the measure so that he always gave short measure. George
Macdonald says of him, "He took from his soul, and he put it in his
siller-bag." A man can enrich his bank account at the expense of
impoverishing his soul.
A man may gain his possessions by deliberately smashing some
weaker rival. Many a man's success is founded on someone else's failure.
Many a man's advancement has been gained by pushing someone else out of
the way. It is hard to see how a man who prospers in such a way can
sleep at nights.
A man may gain his possessions at the expense of still higher
duties. Robertson Nicoll, the great editor, was born in a manse in the
north-east of Scotland. His father had one passion, to buy and to read
books. He was a minister and he never had more than 1200 a year. But he
amassed the greatest private library in Scotland amounting to 17,000
books. He did not use them in his sermons; he was simply consumed to own
and to read them. When he was forty he married a girl of twenty-four.
In eight years she was dead of tuberculosis; of a family of five only
two lived to be over twenty. That cancerous growth of books filled every
room and every passage in the manse. It may have delighted the owner of
the books, but it killed his wife and family.
There are possessions which can be acquired at too great a cost.
A man must ask himself: "How do I acquire the things which I possess?"
(ii) How does a man use his possessions? There are various ways in which a man may use the things he has acquired.
He may not use them at all. He may have the miser's
acquisitiveness which delights simply in possession. His possessions may
be quite useless--and uselessness always invites disaster.
He may use them completely selfishly. A man may desire a bigger
pay for no other reason than that he wants a bigger car, a new
television set, a more expensive holiday. He may think of possessions
simply and solely in terms of what they can do for him.
He may use them malignantly. A man can use his possessions to
persuade someone else to do things he has no right to do, or to sell
things he has no right to sell. Many a young person has been bribed or
dazzled into sin by someone else's money. Wealth gives power, and a
corrupt man can use his possessions to corrupt others--and that in the
sight of God is a very terrible sin.
A man may use his possessions for his own independence and for
the happiness of others. It does not need great wealth to do that, for a
man can be just as generous with half a crown as with a thousand
pounds. A man will not go far wrong, if he uses his possessions to see
how much happiness he can bring to others. Paul remembered a saying of
Jesus which everyone else had forgotten: "It is more blessed to give
than to receive" (Acts 20:35).
It is characteristic of God to give, and, if in our lives giving always
ranks above receiving, we will use aright what we possess, however much
or however little it may be.
6:25-34 I tell
you, therefore, do not worry about your life, about what you are to eat,
or what you are to drink; and do not worry about your body, about what
you are to wear. Is not your life more than food, and your body more
than clothes? Look at the birds of the air, and see that they do not
sow, or reap, or gather things into store-houses, and yet your heavenly
Father feeds them. Are you not better than they? Who of you can add one
span to his life by worrying about it? And why do you worry about
clothes? Learn a lesson from the lilies of the field, from the way in
which they grow. They do not toil or spin; but I tell you that not even
Solomon in all his glory was clothed like one of these. If God so
clothes the grass of the field, which exists to-day, and which is thrown
into the oven to-morrow, shall he not much more clothe you, O you of
little faith? So then do not worry, saying, What are we to eat? or, What
are we to drink? or, What are we to wear? The Gentiles seek after all
these things. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness and all
these things will come to you in addition. So, then, do not worry about
to-morrow; to-morrow will worry about itself. Its own troubles are quite
enough for the day.
We must begin our study of this passage by making sure that we
understand what Jesus is forbidding and what he is demanding. The King
James Version translates Jesus' commandment: Take no thought for the
morrow. Strange to say, the King James Version was the first translation
to translate it in that way. Wyclif had it: "Be not busy to your life."
Tyndale, Crammer and the Geneva Version all had: "Be not careful for
your life." They used the word careful in the literal sense of full of
care. The older versions were in fact more accurate. It is not ordinary,
prudent foresight, such as becomes a man, that Jesus forbids; it is
worry. Jesus is not advocating a shiftless, thriftless, reckless,
thoughtless, improvident attitude to life; he is forbidding a care-worn,
worried fear, which takes all the joy out of life.
The word which is used is the word merimnan (Greek #3309), which means to worry anxiously. Its corresponding noun is merimna (Greek #3308),
which means worry. In a papyrus letter a wife writes to her absent
husband: "I cannot sleep at night or by day, because of the worry
(merimna, Greek #3308)
I have about your welfare." A mother, on hearing of her son's good
health and prosperity writes back: "That is all my prayer and all my
anxiety (merimna, Greek #3308)." Anacreon, the poet, writes: "When I drink wine, my worries (merimna, Greek #3308) go to sleep." In Greek the word is the characteristic word for anxiety, and worry, and care.
The Jews themselves were very familiar with this attitude to
life. It was the teaching of the great Rabbis that a man ought to meet
life with a combination of prudence and serenity. They insisted, for
instance, that every man must teach his son a trade, for, they said, not
to teach him a trade was to teach him to steal. That is to say, they
believed in taking all the necessary steps for the prudent handling of
life. But at the same time, they said, "He who has a loaf in his basket,
and who says, 'What will I eat tomorrow?' is a man of little faith."
Jesus is here teaching a lesson which his countrymen well
knew--the lesson of prudence and forethought and serenity and trust
combined.
In these ten verses Jesus sets out seven different arguments and defences against worry.
(i) He begins by pointing out (Matthew 6:25)
that God gave us life, and, if he gave us life, surely we can trust him
for the lesser things. If God gave us life, surely we can trust him to
give us food to sustain that life. If God gave us bodies, surely we can
trust him for raiment to clothe these bodies. If anyone gives us a gift
which is beyond price, surely we can be certain that such a giver will
not be mean, and stingy, and niggardly, and careless, and forgetful
about much less costly gifts. So, then, the first argument is that, if
God gave us life, we can trust him for the things which are necessary to
support life.
(ii) Jesus goes on to speak about the birds (Matthew 6:26).
There is no worry in their lives, no attempt to pile up goods for an
unforeseen and unforeseeable future; and yet their lives go on. More
than one Jewish Rabbi was fascinated by the way in which the animals
live. "In my life," said Rabbi Simeon, "I have never seen a stag as a
dryer of figs, or a lion as a porter, or a fox as a merchant, yet they
are all nourished without worry. If they, who are created to serve me,
are nourished without worry, how much more ought 1, who am created to
serve my Maker, to be nourished without worry; but I have corrupted my
ways, and so I have impaired my substance." The point that Jesus is
making is not that the birds do not work; it has been said that no one
works harder than the average sparrow to make a living; the point that
he is making is that they do not worry. There is not to be found in them
man's straining to see a future which he cannot see, and man's seeking
to find security in things stored up and accumulated against the future.
(iii) In Matthew 6:27,
Jesus goes on to prove that worry is in any event useless. The verse
can bear two meanings. It can mean that no man by worrying can add a
cubit to his height; but a cubit is eighteen inches, and no man surely
would ever contemplate adding eighteen inches to his height! It can mean
that no man by worrying can add the shortest space to his life; and
that meaning is more likely. It is Jesus' argument that worry is
pointless anyway.
(iv) Jesus goes on to speak about the flowers (Matthew 6:28-30),
and he speaks about them as one who loved them. The lilies of the field
were the scarlet poppies and anemones. They bloomed one day on the
hillsides of Palestine; and yet in their brief life they were clothed
with a beauty which surpassed the beauty of the robes of kings. When
they died they were used for nothing better than for burning. The point
is this. The Palestinian oven was made of clay. It was like a clay box
set on bricks over the fire. When it was desired to raise the
temperature of it especially quickly, some handfuls of dried grasses and
wild flowers were flung inside the oven and set alight. The flowers had
but one day of life; and then they were set alight to help a woman to
heat an oven when she was baking in a hurry; and yet God clothes them
with a beauty which is beyond man's power to imitate. If God gives such
beauty to a short-lived flower, how much more will he care for man?
Surely the generosity which is so lavish to the flower of a day will not
be forgetful of man, the crown of creation.
(v) Jesus goes on to advance a very fundamental argument against
worry. Worry, he says, is characteristic of a heathen, and not of one
who knows what God is like (Matthew 6:32).
Worry is essentially distrust of God. Such a distrust may be
understandable in a heathen who believes in a jealous, capricious,
unpredictable god; but it is beyond comprehension in one who has learned
to call God by the name of Father. The Christian cannot worry because
he believes in the love of God.
(vi) Jesus goes on to advance two ways in which to defeat worry.
The first is to seek first, to concentrate upon, the Kingdom of God. We
have seen that to be in the Kingdom and to do the will of God is one
and the same thing (Matthew 6:10).
To concentrate on the doing of, and the acceptance of, God's will is
the way to defeat worry. We know how in our own lives a great love can
drive out every other concern. Such a love can inspire a man's work,
intensify his study, purify his life, dominate his whole being. It was
Jesus; conviction that worry is banished when God becomes the dominating
power of our lives.
(vii) Lastly, Jesus says that worry can be defeated when we acquire the art of living one day at a time (Matthew 6:34).
The Jews had a saying: "Do not worry over tomorrow's evils, for you
know not what today will bring forth. Perhaps tomorrow you will not be
alive, and you will have worried for a world which will not be yours."
If each day is lived as it comes, if each task is done as it appears,
then the sum of all the days is bound to be good. It is Jesus' advice
that we should handle the demands of each day as it comes, without
worrying about the unknown future and the things which may never happen.
Let us now see if we can gather up Jesus' arguments against worry.
(i) Worry is needless, useless and even actively
injurious. Worry cannot affect the past, for the past is past. Omar
Khayyam was grimly right:
"The moving finger writes, and, having writ,
Moves on; nor all thy piety nor wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,
Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it."
The past is past. It is not that a man can or ought to
dissociate himself from his past; but he ought to use his past as a
spur and a guide for better action in the future, and not as something
about which he broods until he has worried himself into a paralysis of
action.
Equally, worry about the future is useless. Alistair
MacLean in one of his sermons tells of a story which he had read. A
London doctor was the hero. "He was paralysed and bedridden, but almost
outrageously cheerful, and his smile so brave and radiant that everyone
forgot to be sorry for him. His children adored him, and when one of his
boys was leaving the nest and starting forth upon life's adventure, Dr.
Greatheart gave him good advice: 'Johnny,' he said, 'the thing to do,
my lad, is to hold your own end up, and to do it like a gentleman, and
please remember the biggest troubles you have got to face are those that
never come.'" Worry about the future is wasted effort, and the future
of reality is seldom as bad as the future of our fears.
But worry is worse than useless; it is often actively
injurious. The two typical diseases of modern life are the stomach ulcer
and the coronary thrombosis, and in many cases both are the result of
worry. It is a medical fact that he who laughs most lives longest. The
worry which wears out the mind wears out the body along with it. Worry
affects a man's judgment, lessens his powers of decision, and renders
him progressively incapable of dealing with life. Let a man give his
best to every situation--he cannot give more--and let him leave the rest
to God.
(ii) Worry is blind. Worry refuses to learn the lesson
of nature. Jesus bids men look at the birds, and see the bounty which is
behind nature, and trust the love that lies behind that bounty. Worry
refuses to learn the lesson of history. There was a Psalmist who cheered
himself with the memory of history: "O my God," he cries, "my soul is
cast down within me." And then he goes on: "Therefore I remember Thee,
from the land of Jordan, and of Hermon, from Mount Mizar" (Psalms 42:6; compare Deuteronomy 3:9).
When he was up against it, he comforted himself with the memory of what
God had done. The man who feeds his heart on the record of what God has
done in the past will never worry about the future. Worry refuses to
learn the lesson of life. We are still alive and our heads are still
above water; and yet if someone had told us that we would have to go
through what we have actually gone through, we would have said that it
was impossible. The lesson of life is that somehow we have been enabled
to bear the unbearable and to do the undoable and to pass the
breaking-point and not to break. The lesson of life is that worry is
unnecessary.
(iii) Worry is essentially irreligious. Worry is not
caused by external circumstances. In the same circumstances one man can
be absolutely serene, and another man can be worried to death. Both
worry and serenity come, not from circumstances, but from the heart.
Alistair MacLean quotes a story from Tauler, the German mystic. One day
Tauler met a beggar. "God give you a good day, my friend," he said. The
beggar answered, "I thank God I never had a bad one." Then Tauler said,
"God give you a happy life, my friend." "I thank God," said the beggar,
"I am never unhappy." Tauler in amazement said, "What do you mean?"
"Well," said the beggar, "when it is fine, I thank God; when it rains, I
thank God; when I have plenty, I thank God; when I am hungry, I thank
God; and since God's will is my will, and whatever pleases him pleases
me, why should I say I am unhappy when I am not?" Tauler looked at the
man in astonishment. "Who are you?" he asked. "I am a king," said the
beggar. "Where then is your kingdom?" asked Tauler. And the beggar
answered quietly: "In my heart."
Isaiah said it long ago: "Thou dost keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusts in thee" (Isaiah 26:3).
As the north country woman had it: "I am always happy, and my secret is
always to sail the seas, and ever to keep the heart in port."
There may be greater sins than worry, but very
certainly there is no more disabling sin. "Take no anxious thought for
the morrow"--that is the commandment of Jesus, and it is the way, not
only to peace, but also to power.
-Barclay's Daily Study Bible (NT)