Sunday, March 16, 2008
Sermons and Lessons
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
Alfred Plummer, Ex-Principal of Durham University (retired, 1902); born Heworth, near Gateshead, England, Feb. 17, 1841; educated at Lancing College, Exeter College, Oxford; Fellow Trinity College, Oxford, 1865-75; tutor and dean 1867-74; Master of University College, Durham, 1874-1902; sub-warden University of Durham, 1896-1902; author of translations of several of Dr. Dollinger’s works; commentaries on 2 Peter, and Jude, John’s Gospel and Epistles, The Pastoral Epistles, Epistles of James and Jude, Luke’s Gospel, 2 Corinthians, “Introduction to Joshua and Nehemiah,” “Handbook on the Church of the Early Fathers,” “Lectures on English Church History.”
“Other sheep I have which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and they shall become one flock, one shepherd.” - John 10: 16.
“A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” - John 13: 34-35.
The second of these passages tells us the necessary result of the fulfillment of the prediction and promise made in the first. When all the sheep have been gathered in and they have become one flock under one Shepherd, then the component members of the flock will find that their relation to the Shepherd involves a similar relation to one an¬other. Love, especially on the Shepherd’s part, is the bond which connects each one of them with the Shepherd - a love so strong, that He is ready to die for them: love, therefore, is the bond which must unite each member of the flock with his fellows, and in this each ought to aim at imitating the love of the Shepherd.
But perhaps, with almost equal truth, we might reverse this, and make the mutual love not the result of the oneness of the flock, but the means of producing the oneness. Christ predicts that a time will come when the sheep who are not in the fold will be united with those who are in the fold, and that they will become one body, with Him at its head. And we may say that, when He gives to His followers the new commandment to love one another, even as He has loved them, He is telling them how to become one flock under Himself.
Perhaps it does not matter much which we regard as cause, and which as effect. The important point is, that the two facts are indissolubly connected by some law of divine causation. If there is love such as His there will be unity, and if there is unity under Him there will be love. Consequently, the presence of either fact may, in proportion to the fullness of its presence, be taken as evidence of the presence of the other; and, what is an equally important influence for our guidance, the absence of either fact may, in proportion to the completeness of its absence, be regarded as evidence of the absence of the other. If there is no love there will be no vital unity, and unless there is vital unity there will be no real love.
Unity, not uniformity. The two things are widely different, and either may exist without the other. Indeed, it may be doubted whether uniformity is not more of a hindrance than a help to unity. Uniformity is certainly a serious limitation of liberty; and liberty is the soil in which living unity is likely to flourish. Liberty is a sign of the presence of God’s Spirit; “ Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty; “ and where the spirit of the Lord is not, neither the unity which Christ promised, nor the love which He commanded, is likely to spring up.
And it is very unfortunate that, in one of the two texts which we are considering, our Bibles have made us familiar with a mistranslation, which seems to imply that Christ promised, and therefore enjoined, uniformity, when He does nothing of the kind. The Authorized Version makes Him say that, when the sheep which are not of this fold are brought. “there shall be one fold, one shepherd.” What He does say is, that, when the others are brought, they shall become one flock, one shepherd.” Few corrections made in the Revised Version are more important than this. The mistake originated in Jerome‘s translation, where we have the same Latin word to represent two different Greek words. Wycliff followed him; and, although Tyndale and Coverdale corrected the error, the Authorized Version un¬fortunately followed Wycliff. Christ says nothing about there being one fold, which would imply uniformity: what He promises, and encourages us to work for and to pray for, is one flock,” in which there may be large measures of diversity along with the essential unity of belonging to one and the same Shepherd.
It is impossible to estimate the mischief that has been done by this unhappy substitution of “fold“ for “ flock“ in this important text. Throughout the Middle Ages, few people in Western Europe knew Greek, and Jerome’s Vulgate led them to believe that Christ had used the word “fold“ in both places, and that He had inculcated a doctrine, which the change of word was perhaps intended to exclude. The doctrine, that the sheep not in the fold must be brought in, until there is one fold, with all the sheep penned within it, gave immense support to the claims of the Roman Catholic Church to be the one church, outside which there is no salvation. What Christ says is that those outside the then existing fold, equally with those who were in the fold, shall become one flock, of which He is the Shepherd. Christ had come to break down “the wall of partition“ between the Jewish Church and the Gentiles. In the gospel, the distinction between Jew and Gentile was to cease, and the salvation, which had been offered first to the Jew, became the common inheritance of all.
In what sense was the command which Christ gave to His followers, to love one another, “a new commandment?”
It may be said to be as old as the human race, a fundamental instinct, known even to the heathen. Wherever human beings lived together, the obligation to mutual affection existed, and was attested by inward promptings, of which each was conscious, and by inward reproaches, whenever the law of mutual affection was grossly violated, as by grievous injury or murder. Even to the Gentile, whose life was often one long transgression of it, the commandment to love his fellows was not, in the strictest sense, new.
Still less was it new to the Israelite. Every well-instructed Jew knew that it stood written in the book of Leviticus: “Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” If the obligation to love one‘s fellow-man was as old as the human race, the obligation to love him as oneself was as old as Judaism. It lies at the basis of many of the minute ordinances of the Jewish code.
What then does our Lord mean by calling it new?
First, it had been promulgated afresh, and in much clearer language. The original instinct of mutual affection, born in heaven and renewed in Paradise, had long since been almost forgotten. Even by those who dimly remembered it, and at times feebly recognized it, it was constantly ignored. In most men, other instincts far more congenial to man‘s fallen will, had stifled it or driven it out of court. Its faint whisperings were scarcely heard among the strident voices of selfishness and passion. A Plato or a Seneca might here and there suggest precepts of self-restraint and benevolence. But “what were they among so many?“ And what chance had they against the self-indulgence which generations of practice had stereotyped into a habit, and which philosophers had formulated into a system?
Nor did the Jew need a new proclamation of the law of love much less than the heathen did. The Jew had so narrowed the scope of the command to love his neighbor, and had so overlaid it with qualifications and exceptions, that the word of God was made of none effect. He was quick to raise the previous question: “And who is my neighbor?” And when it was evident that, at any rate, a man‘s own parents must be considered as among his neighbors, there was the monstrous device of Corban to free him from obligation. And, as regards all mankind outside Judaism, the divine command had been not merely evaded, but reversed, by the unholy addition, “hate thine enemy.”
But Christ‘s law of love was new for other reasons than because it had been published anew with greater clearness and emphasis. It was not merely the old instinct of our unfallen nature, dragged from oblivion, and quickened into new life. It was not merely the old Jewish precept, freed from glosses and perversions, and set forth once more in its original simplicity and comprehensiveness. It was all this; but it was a great deal more. It was the old instinct, the old precept, so transfigured, enlarged, and glorified, as to be indeed “ a new commandment “; new in its extent; new in its sanction. It was no longer the old standard of loving one‘s neighbor as oneself. It was no longer the old sanction of loving him, because God would punish us if we did not. “Even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another “: that is the new standard; that is the new sanction. Not the measure of our love for ourselves is to be our standard, but the measure of Christ‘s love for us. Not fear of God’s judgments, not even obedience to His commands, is to be the mainspring of our love, but love itself. His love is to kindle our love; and the newborn fire is to know no limit but that of the fire that kindled it. “Even as I have loved you.” In determining our duty to others, it is not enough to ask, “What, if our positions were reversed, should I wish them to do to me? That is a very practical and useful question: it will help to clear the ground. But it is not the final question; and it may lead to serious mistakes; for we sometimes wish others to do to us what would be anything but beneficial. The final and the safe question is this: “What would Jesus Christ have me to do?” And, when we have answered it, and find our selfish wills shrinking back from the answer, let us confront them with another question: What has Jesus Christ done for me? What is He still doing for me?“ “Even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.”
Let us ask ourselves what we are doing towards the fulfillment of the divine promise, one flock, one shepherd,” and the fulfillment of the divine command,” that ye love one an¬other, even as I have loved you.” It is a test question. Nay, by the declaration of Christ Himself, it is the test question. “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” This is the true note of the Church; not miracles; miracles are no absolute test of truth; “ there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect; “ not formularies nor discipline, for both of these may change, and a past discipline may be a present heresy; not numbers, numbers are no test of truth; truth may be on the side of an Athanasius or a Galileo against the large majority of Christians. The ultimate absolute test is love. Where is the man who loves his neighbors, loves his opponents, and loves them because Christ has loved him, and as Christ has loved him? There, in the noblest form, is the true Christian.
What have we done, what are we doing day by day, to produce this character in ourselves? What are we doing to produce that peace and unity among Christians, which depends, not upon uniformity of worship, or identity of dogma, but upon fervency of love? What are we doing to make mankind, and especially those with whom we come most closely in contact, healthier, happier, and holier? Those of us who keep any kind of watch over our thoughts, and words, and actions will hardly be able to reply to questions such as these in a way that would pro¬duce solid self-satisfaction.
Those unworthy suspicions of the motives of others; those pitiful jealousies of our neighbor’s advancement; that diabolical gloat¬ing over what brings shame or loss to others - are thoughts of this kind quite unknown to us? And then, those impatient rejoinders, which seem to imply that the whole world is bound to satisfy us; those outbursts of anger, when our wills have been crossed; those harsh criticisms of the conduct of other people; that readiness to repeat what is discreditable to our neighbor, without any certainty that it is true, or that any good can come of repeating it - can we honestly plead “not guilty” to such things as these? And if we made even a rough calculation of the amount of time and energy we day by day expend upon unselfish attention to the wants of others, and the amount which we devote to the promotion of our own personal interests and pleasures, what kind of a balance sheet could we present to our consciences and to God? How many of our prayers are directed towards alleviating the sufferings and strengthening the characters of others rather than towards getting our own personal wants supplied? We often read newspapers as a mere amusement; and among the things that we find interesting are the records of the calamities, and it may be the disgrace, of other people. How callously we read it all, with scarcely a moment‘s sympathy, and altogether without even a momentary prayer for those whose sufferings have been a pastime to us!
In short, the love of Christ does not constrain us, does not fence us in, so as to keep us from squandering upon self those affections and energies which ought to be devoted to the service of others; and thus the divine law of love is only fitfully and feebly fulfilled by us, if at all. We look perhaps with indignation upon the animosities which separate class from class, and with contempt upon the controversial bitterness which divides Christian from Christian. But we forget how largely our own lack of the spirit of love and unity has contributed towards perpetuating the obstacles, which still hinder the realization of the divine ideal of “one flock, one Shepherd.”
Technorati Tags:sermon, lesson, alfred plummer
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Alfred Plummer, Ex-Principal of Durham University (retired, 1902); born Heworth, near Gateshead, England, Feb. 17, 1841; educated at Lancing College, Exeter College, Oxford; Fellow Trinity College, Oxford, 1865-75; tutor and dean 1867-74; Master of University College, Durham, 1874-1902; sub-warden University of Durham, 1896-1902; author of translations of several of Dr. Dollinger’s works; commentaries on 2 Peter, and Jude, John’s Gospel and Epistles, The Pastoral Epistles, Epistles of James and Jude, Luke’s Gospel, 2 Corinthians, “Introduction to Joshua and Nehemiah,” “Handbook on the Church of the Early Fathers,” “Lectures on English Church History.”
Christian Unity
“Other sheep I have which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and they shall become one flock, one shepherd.” - John 10: 16.
“A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” - John 13: 34-35.
The second of these passages tells us the necessary result of the fulfillment of the prediction and promise made in the first. When all the sheep have been gathered in and they have become one flock under one Shepherd, then the component members of the flock will find that their relation to the Shepherd involves a similar relation to one an¬other. Love, especially on the Shepherd’s part, is the bond which connects each one of them with the Shepherd - a love so strong, that He is ready to die for them: love, therefore, is the bond which must unite each member of the flock with his fellows, and in this each ought to aim at imitating the love of the Shepherd.
But perhaps, with almost equal truth, we might reverse this, and make the mutual love not the result of the oneness of the flock, but the means of producing the oneness. Christ predicts that a time will come when the sheep who are not in the fold will be united with those who are in the fold, and that they will become one body, with Him at its head. And we may say that, when He gives to His followers the new commandment to love one another, even as He has loved them, He is telling them how to become one flock under Himself.
Perhaps it does not matter much which we regard as cause, and which as effect. The important point is, that the two facts are indissolubly connected by some law of divine causation. If there is love such as His there will be unity, and if there is unity under Him there will be love. Consequently, the presence of either fact may, in proportion to the fullness of its presence, be taken as evidence of the presence of the other; and, what is an equally important influence for our guidance, the absence of either fact may, in proportion to the completeness of its absence, be regarded as evidence of the absence of the other. If there is no love there will be no vital unity, and unless there is vital unity there will be no real love.
Unity, not uniformity. The two things are widely different, and either may exist without the other. Indeed, it may be doubted whether uniformity is not more of a hindrance than a help to unity. Uniformity is certainly a serious limitation of liberty; and liberty is the soil in which living unity is likely to flourish. Liberty is a sign of the presence of God’s Spirit; “ Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty; “ and where the spirit of the Lord is not, neither the unity which Christ promised, nor the love which He commanded, is likely to spring up.
And it is very unfortunate that, in one of the two texts which we are considering, our Bibles have made us familiar with a mistranslation, which seems to imply that Christ promised, and therefore enjoined, uniformity, when He does nothing of the kind. The Authorized Version makes Him say that, when the sheep which are not of this fold are brought. “there shall be one fold, one shepherd.” What He does say is, that, when the others are brought, they shall become one flock, one shepherd.” Few corrections made in the Revised Version are more important than this. The mistake originated in Jerome‘s translation, where we have the same Latin word to represent two different Greek words. Wycliff followed him; and, although Tyndale and Coverdale corrected the error, the Authorized Version un¬fortunately followed Wycliff. Christ says nothing about there being one fold, which would imply uniformity: what He promises, and encourages us to work for and to pray for, is one flock,” in which there may be large measures of diversity along with the essential unity of belonging to one and the same Shepherd.
It is impossible to estimate the mischief that has been done by this unhappy substitution of “fold“ for “ flock“ in this important text. Throughout the Middle Ages, few people in Western Europe knew Greek, and Jerome’s Vulgate led them to believe that Christ had used the word “fold“ in both places, and that He had inculcated a doctrine, which the change of word was perhaps intended to exclude. The doctrine, that the sheep not in the fold must be brought in, until there is one fold, with all the sheep penned within it, gave immense support to the claims of the Roman Catholic Church to be the one church, outside which there is no salvation. What Christ says is that those outside the then existing fold, equally with those who were in the fold, shall become one flock, of which He is the Shepherd. Christ had come to break down “the wall of partition“ between the Jewish Church and the Gentiles. In the gospel, the distinction between Jew and Gentile was to cease, and the salvation, which had been offered first to the Jew, became the common inheritance of all.
In what sense was the command which Christ gave to His followers, to love one another, “a new commandment?”
It may be said to be as old as the human race, a fundamental instinct, known even to the heathen. Wherever human beings lived together, the obligation to mutual affection existed, and was attested by inward promptings, of which each was conscious, and by inward reproaches, whenever the law of mutual affection was grossly violated, as by grievous injury or murder. Even to the Gentile, whose life was often one long transgression of it, the commandment to love his fellows was not, in the strictest sense, new.
Still less was it new to the Israelite. Every well-instructed Jew knew that it stood written in the book of Leviticus: “Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” If the obligation to love one‘s fellow-man was as old as the human race, the obligation to love him as oneself was as old as Judaism. It lies at the basis of many of the minute ordinances of the Jewish code.
What then does our Lord mean by calling it new?
First, it had been promulgated afresh, and in much clearer language. The original instinct of mutual affection, born in heaven and renewed in Paradise, had long since been almost forgotten. Even by those who dimly remembered it, and at times feebly recognized it, it was constantly ignored. In most men, other instincts far more congenial to man‘s fallen will, had stifled it or driven it out of court. Its faint whisperings were scarcely heard among the strident voices of selfishness and passion. A Plato or a Seneca might here and there suggest precepts of self-restraint and benevolence. But “what were they among so many?“ And what chance had they against the self-indulgence which generations of practice had stereotyped into a habit, and which philosophers had formulated into a system?
Nor did the Jew need a new proclamation of the law of love much less than the heathen did. The Jew had so narrowed the scope of the command to love his neighbor, and had so overlaid it with qualifications and exceptions, that the word of God was made of none effect. He was quick to raise the previous question: “And who is my neighbor?” And when it was evident that, at any rate, a man‘s own parents must be considered as among his neighbors, there was the monstrous device of Corban to free him from obligation. And, as regards all mankind outside Judaism, the divine command had been not merely evaded, but reversed, by the unholy addition, “hate thine enemy.”
But Christ‘s law of love was new for other reasons than because it had been published anew with greater clearness and emphasis. It was not merely the old instinct of our unfallen nature, dragged from oblivion, and quickened into new life. It was not merely the old Jewish precept, freed from glosses and perversions, and set forth once more in its original simplicity and comprehensiveness. It was all this; but it was a great deal more. It was the old instinct, the old precept, so transfigured, enlarged, and glorified, as to be indeed “ a new commandment “; new in its extent; new in its sanction. It was no longer the old standard of loving one‘s neighbor as oneself. It was no longer the old sanction of loving him, because God would punish us if we did not. “Even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another “: that is the new standard; that is the new sanction. Not the measure of our love for ourselves is to be our standard, but the measure of Christ‘s love for us. Not fear of God’s judgments, not even obedience to His commands, is to be the mainspring of our love, but love itself. His love is to kindle our love; and the newborn fire is to know no limit but that of the fire that kindled it. “Even as I have loved you.” In determining our duty to others, it is not enough to ask, “What, if our positions were reversed, should I wish them to do to me? That is a very practical and useful question: it will help to clear the ground. But it is not the final question; and it may lead to serious mistakes; for we sometimes wish others to do to us what would be anything but beneficial. The final and the safe question is this: “What would Jesus Christ have me to do?” And, when we have answered it, and find our selfish wills shrinking back from the answer, let us confront them with another question: What has Jesus Christ done for me? What is He still doing for me?“ “Even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.”
Let us ask ourselves what we are doing towards the fulfillment of the divine promise, one flock, one shepherd,” and the fulfillment of the divine command,” that ye love one an¬other, even as I have loved you.” It is a test question. Nay, by the declaration of Christ Himself, it is the test question. “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” This is the true note of the Church; not miracles; miracles are no absolute test of truth; “ there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect; “ not formularies nor discipline, for both of these may change, and a past discipline may be a present heresy; not numbers, numbers are no test of truth; truth may be on the side of an Athanasius or a Galileo against the large majority of Christians. The ultimate absolute test is love. Where is the man who loves his neighbors, loves his opponents, and loves them because Christ has loved him, and as Christ has loved him? There, in the noblest form, is the true Christian.
What have we done, what are we doing day by day, to produce this character in ourselves? What are we doing to produce that peace and unity among Christians, which depends, not upon uniformity of worship, or identity of dogma, but upon fervency of love? What are we doing to make mankind, and especially those with whom we come most closely in contact, healthier, happier, and holier? Those of us who keep any kind of watch over our thoughts, and words, and actions will hardly be able to reply to questions such as these in a way that would pro¬duce solid self-satisfaction.
Those unworthy suspicions of the motives of others; those pitiful jealousies of our neighbor’s advancement; that diabolical gloat¬ing over what brings shame or loss to others - are thoughts of this kind quite unknown to us? And then, those impatient rejoinders, which seem to imply that the whole world is bound to satisfy us; those outbursts of anger, when our wills have been crossed; those harsh criticisms of the conduct of other people; that readiness to repeat what is discreditable to our neighbor, without any certainty that it is true, or that any good can come of repeating it - can we honestly plead “not guilty” to such things as these? And if we made even a rough calculation of the amount of time and energy we day by day expend upon unselfish attention to the wants of others, and the amount which we devote to the promotion of our own personal interests and pleasures, what kind of a balance sheet could we present to our consciences and to God? How many of our prayers are directed towards alleviating the sufferings and strengthening the characters of others rather than towards getting our own personal wants supplied? We often read newspapers as a mere amusement; and among the things that we find interesting are the records of the calamities, and it may be the disgrace, of other people. How callously we read it all, with scarcely a moment‘s sympathy, and altogether without even a momentary prayer for those whose sufferings have been a pastime to us!
In short, the love of Christ does not constrain us, does not fence us in, so as to keep us from squandering upon self those affections and energies which ought to be devoted to the service of others; and thus the divine law of love is only fitfully and feebly fulfilled by us, if at all. We look perhaps with indignation upon the animosities which separate class from class, and with contempt upon the controversial bitterness which divides Christian from Christian. But we forget how largely our own lack of the spirit of love and unity has contributed towards perpetuating the obstacles, which still hinder the realization of the divine ideal of “one flock, one Shepherd.”
Technorati Tags:sermon, lesson, alfred plummer
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
