The Spurgeon Series 1859 & 1860. Charles H. Spurgeon

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ tells us. That is enough for us. If it should be worth while for us to know more, God would have revealed more. What God has told us, we are to believe; but to the knowledge thus gained, we are too apt to add our own vague notions, and then we are sure to go wrong. It would be better, if in all controversies, men had simply stood hard and fast by “Thus says the Lord,” instead of having it said, “Thus and thus I think.” I shall now endeavour, by the help of the Holy Spirit, to throw the light of God’s Word upon this great doctrine of divine sovereignty, and give you what I think to be a Scriptural statement of the fact, that some men are chosen, other men are left, — the great fact that is declared in this text, — “I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau.”

      3. It is a terrible text, and I will be honest with it if I can. One man says the word “hate” does not mean hate; it means “love less”: — “I have loved Jacob, but I have loved Esau less.” It may be so; but I do not believe it is. At any rate, it says “hate” here; and until you give me another version of the Bible, I shall keep to this one. I believe that the term is correctly and properly translated; that the word “hate” is not stronger than the original; but even if it is a little stronger, it is nearer the mark than the other translation which is offered to us in those meaningless words, “love less.” I like to take it and let it stand just as it is. The fact is, God loved Jacob, and he did not love Esau; he did choose Jacob, but he did not choose Esau; he did bless Jacob, but he never blessed Esau; his mercy followed Jacob all the way of his life, even to the last, but his mercy never followed Esau; he permitted him still to go on in his sins, and to prove that dreadful truth, “I have hated Esau.” Others, in order to get rid of this ugly text, say, it does not mean Esau and Jacob; it means the nation; it means Jacob’s children and Esau’s children; it means the children of Israel and Edom. I should like to know where the difference lies. Is the difficulty removed by extending it? Some of the Wesleyan brethren say that there is a national election; God has chosen one nation and not another. They turn around and tell us it is unjust in God to choose one man and not another. Now, we ask them by everything reasonable, is it not equally unjust of God to choose one nation and leave another? The argument which they imagine overthrows us overthrows them also. There never was a more foolish subterfuge than that of trying to bring out national election. What is the election of a nation but the election of so many units, of so many people? and it is tantamount to the same thing as the particular election of individuals. In thinking, men cannot see clearly that if — which we do not for a moment believe — that if there is any injustice in God choosing one man and not another, how much more must there be injustice in his choosing one nation and not another. No! the difficulty cannot be removed by this, but is greatly increased by this foolish wresting of God’s Word. Besides, here is the proof that that is not correct; read the verse preceding it. It does not say anything at all about nations; it says, “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not by works, but by him who calls: It was said to her, The elder shall serve the younger,” — referring to the children, not to the nations. Of course the threatening was afterwards fulfilled in the position of the two nations; Edom was made to serve Israel. But this text means just what it says; it does not mean nations, but it means the two individuals mentioned. “Jacob,” — that is the man whose name was Jacob — “I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau.” Take care, my dear friends, how any of you meddle with God’s Word. I have heard of people altering passages they did not like. It will not do, you know, you cannot alter them; they are really just the same. Our only power with the Word of God is simply to let it stand as it is, and to endeavour by God’s grace to accommodate ourselves to that. We must never try to make the Bible bow to us, in fact we cannot, for the truths of divine revelation are as sure and firm as the throne of God. If a man wants to enjoy a delightful prospect, and a high mountain lies in his path, does he commence cutting away at its base, in the vain hope that ultimately it will become a level plain before him? No, on the contrary, he diligently uses it for the accomplishment of his purpose by ascending it, well knowing this to be the only means of obtaining the end in view. So must we do; we cannot bring down the truths of God to our poor finite understandings; the mountain will never fall before us, but we can seek strength to rise higher and higher in our perception of divine things, and only in this way may we hope to obtain the blessing.

      4. Now, I shall have two things to notice tonight. I have explained this text to mean just what it says and I do not want it to be altered — “I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau.” To take off the edge of this terrible doctrine that makes some people bite their lips so, I must just notice that this is a fact, and, after that I shall try to answer the question, — Why was it that God loved Jacob and hated Esau?

      5. I. First, then, THIS IS A FACT. Men say they do not like the doctrine of election. Truly, I do not want them to; but is it not a fact that God has elected some? Ask an Arminian brother about election, and at once his eye turns fiercely upon you, and he begins to get angry, he cannot bear it; it is a horrible thing, like a war cry to him, and he begins to sharpen the knife of controversy at once. But say to him, “Ah, brother! was it not divine grace that made you to differ? Was it not the Lord who called you out of your natural state, and made you what you are?” “Oh, yes,” he says, “I quite agree with you there.” Now, put this question to him: “What do you think is the reason why one man has been converted, and not another?” “Oh,” he says, “the Spirit of God has been at work in this man.” Well, then, my brother, the fact is, that God does treat one man better than another; and is there anything wonderful in this fact? It is a fact we recognise every day. There is a man up in the gallery, who works as hard as he likes, he cannot earn more than fifteen shillings a week; and here is another man that gets a thousand a year; what is the reason for this? One is born in the palaces of kings, while another draws his first breath in a roofless hovel. What is the reason for this? God’s providence. He puts one man in one position, and another man in another. Here is a man whose head cannot hold two thoughts together, do what you can with him; here is another who can sit down and write a book, and dive into the deepest of questions; what is the reason for it? God has done it. Do you not see the fact, that God does not treat every man alike? He has made some eagles, and some worms; some he has made lions, and some creeping lizards; he has made some men kings, and some are born beggars. Some are born with gigantic minds, and some verge on being idiots. Why is this? Do you murmur at God for it? No, you say it is a fact, and it is pointless to murmur. What is the use of kicking against facts? It is only kicking against the pricks with naked feet and you hurt yourself and not them. Well, then, election is a positive fact; it is as clear as daylight, that God does, in matters of religion, give to one man more than to another. He gives to me opportunities of hearing the word, which he does not give to the Hottentot. He gives to me, parents who, from infancy, trained me in the fear of the Lord. He does not give that to many of you. He places me afterwards in situations where I am restrained from sin. Other men are cast into places where their sinful passions are developed. He gives to one man a temperament and disposition which keeps him back from some lust, and to another man he gives such impetuosity of spirit, and depravity turns that impetuosity so much aside, that the man runs headlong into sin. Again, he brings one man under the sound of a powerful ministry, while another sits and listens to a preacher whose drowsiness is only exceeded by that of his hearers. And even when they are hearing the gospel, the fact is God works in one heart when he does not in another. Though, I believe to a degree, the Spirit works in the hearts of all who hear the Word, so that they are all without excuse, yet I am sure he works in some so powerfully, that they can no longer resist him, but are constrained by his grace to cast themselves at his feet, and confess him to be Lord of all; while others resist the grace that comes into their hearts; and it does not act with the same irresistible force that it does in the other case, and they perish in their sins, deservedly and justly condemned. Are not these things facts? Does any man deny them? Can any man deny them? What is the use of kicking against facts? I always like to know when there is a discussion, what are the facts. You have heard the story of King Charles the Second and the philosophers — King Charles asked one of them, “What is the reason why, if you had a pail of water, and weighed it, and then put a fish into it, that the weight would be the same?” They gave a great many elaborated reasons for СКАЧАТЬ