QUIT YOURSELVES LIKE MEN
[p. 438] QUIT YOURSELVES LIKE MEN
1 Timothy 2: 5; Genesis 1: 26, 27; Genesis 4:2-4; Genesis 4:26; Genesis 5: 21 - 24; Genesis 6: 9
I had in mind 1 Corinthians 16: 13: “Quit yourselves like men”. That is a word that enters into what I have to say, especially in regard to Corinthian conditions. When partisan features arise, the growth of the saints is stunted; for, without wishing to be, perhaps, they are usually divided up under certain heads — leading persons, and, of course, there can be no growth according to God under these circumstances. Some may be especially spiritually energetic and overcome, like Stephanas and his house, and doubtless others in Corinth; but generally, the growth of the saints becomes abnormal under these unholy conditions. And so the injunction, “Quit yourselves like men” applies peculiarly. The apostle had already been saying to them that they were not like men, that is, in the sense of the passage quoted; that they were so far from being men in a spiritual sense, he had to treat them as babes, which was, of course, a very discriminating service; he had to feed them with milk. But they were not ordinary babes; they were “babes in Christ”. So the Corinthians were of consequence, notwithstanding that their spiritual growth had been checked; indeed, malformation was taking place. They were babes in Christ. The apostle is careful to add that, in commenting on their walk and condition, for no one knew better than he what was at Corinth. It was a fruitful field, and the Lord had told him beforehand that he would not be labouring for nothing; he would get results. It is a great stimulus when the results are assured; and he laboured, carefully presenting the truth from the outset, so that their faith should [p. 439] stand in the power of God and not in the wisdom of men: but still in spite of his stay amongst them for eighteen months, they retrograded rapidly, and undoubtedly it was due largely to the divided state of things. He had said there were divisions among them. That was the first thing that he noticed in his admonition, but still he did not lose sight of the thought of manhood; and doubtless, as I said, there were some there who were men; Stephanas certainly was, and his house was so characterised. So that “Quit yourselves like men” was intelligible; the thought was exemplified among them. Every Corinthian, as taking that word home, if he were with God, and prayed about it, would say, “Is this act or that manly, or is it just the act of a babe, with little or no understanding or affection?” The word would thus be effective; it was the word of God, living and operative as ever.
Well, if I am to inquire what manliness is, I must go to the perfect standard, and that is the Man Christ Jesus. The word ‘Man’ is not set down there for nothing, dear brethren. The apostle might have said, “the one mediator, Christ Jesus”, but he says, “the man Christ Jesus”; the idea being of One great enough as Man to be Mediator between God and men, so that there was perfect balance in the service of mediatorship. He was Man, but He was God, too — “over all God blessed for ever”.
Now, having made the foregoing remarks, I wish to show how the thought of man, as reached, became immediately developed; though it became lost, but it was not lost immediately. Nothing that God sets up fails immediately; there is always testimony to its perfectness; whether it be a day or a week or a year, there is always sufficient time to testify to the perfectness of God’s work. Now that is what comes out in these chapters. God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have [p. 440] dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over the whole earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth on the earth. And God created Man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them”, Genesis 1: 26, 27. So that the word ‘man’ at the beginning covered men and women. That is important to bear in mind. “Male and female created he them”. So that what I have to say will apply to sisters as well as to brothers; so that every sister may rightly inquire as to any action of hers: “Is this manly?” Of course, it might be equally said, “Is it womanly?” for the Scriptures treat of the conduct that is suitable to women, but normally it is the outcome of the hidden man of the heart. The idea of “man” is underneath it. In one sense, the word means the human race; and woman is as much of the race as man is, so that the instruction as to manhood necessarily covers both. The idea of the man and woman will be carried through into eternity; not as between us, but as between Christ and the assembly; the heavenly city comes down as a bride adorned for her husband. That is the final thing. All idea of sex otherwise is dropped; it will be just “men”. “The tabernacle of God is with men”, that is, the saints of God. So that chapter 1 of Genesis conveys the great thought of God as to the order of being that was to be supreme in His creation; that is to say, the creation of the six days. He was to be God’s image, so that he was a very superior creature. God looking on what He had done at the end of the six days, is greatly pleased. This is the first time you get the word ‘very’ attached to “good”; that is, after man is brought in. “And behold it was very good”, verse 31. May I suggest that aside from man according to God, you will not get anything that God will be much pleased with? If things are to be as God would like them to [p. 441] be, He must have manhood. There is much that is kept on among us that is not according to manhood; consequently God is not pleased; things are not very good, although there may be certain features of goodness. For instance, we may come together to hear the word of God, but if I cannot judge what is said — if we cannot discern right and wrong doctrine — that is not “very good”. It denotes a babe condition. It denotes a want of the exercises of the senses for discerning between good and evil; so that, speaking very simply, if things are to be divinely approved, there must be a man — somebody able to act according to the image of God; one who is without natural prejudice. God looks upon such a condition of things as “very good”. That is how things are to be amongst the saints of God. As heaven looks down upon Jesus, it is not just “very good” — it is very, very, very good — infinitely good: “This is my beloved Son in whom I have found my delight”. That is heaven’s estimate of Him. It was a Man here, One taking up things for God and carrying them out to His pleasure.
Well, that is what was in mind in Genesis 1. In chapter 2 you have an enlargement of the thought. God says, “Now I have done with the lower order of things; I have pronounced my judgment as to that in relation to man; it is very good”. In chapter 2, we have Jehovah Elohim. There is food for the soul in contemplating this new name of God. God is pleased, and not only pleased, but virtually says, “I will have special relations with man”; and I will give him a wife, his counterpart. There is history in that chapter as to what God is, how He thinks, and how He feels as regards man. Adam does not use the same word for “man” that God does, and that is of importance in relation to what I am presenting: the Spirit would emphasise Adam’s intelligence before he fails. There is in that being what justifies God [p. 442] in His handiwork whether for a day or a year or ten years or twenty years or a century. Here are the animals coming up. What will Adam do in testing out the handiwork of God? Is God right in making a covenant with him? Certainly. The creatures come up one by one and he names every one, and God as it were says, “I will not change the names given”; that is to say, what Adam called the creatures was right. He was intelligent, and this is especially seen in the name he gave the woman, and it reflected glory to God. That is how the truth stands in chapter 2.
In chapter 3 there is the fall, alas! but then, is God giving up His thought? Is there to be nobody to do things for Him? Eve was not doing anything good; Adam was not doing anything good, according to chapter 3. Is God giving up? It is well for every one of us as having to do with God in a day of brokenness and contrariety, in “difficult times”, as they are called in Scripture, to ponder this chapter. God has a word for the serpent. Let us not forget that He deals directly with him; otherwise what could we do when he attacks? But then there is the coming seed of the woman; the serpent had overcome her, but her seed would overcome him: while God acts for us against Satan as he attacks. He would act through us, or through One who is of us. You say, “The difficulties are too great; we may as well give up”. No, the failure has to be met, and it is to be met by the seed of the woman; it is to be a man. This is very practical. In meeting difficulties, it is a question of manhood. You cannot call on babes to take up the sword. It must be men. So the military in Numbers are from “twenty years and upward”; they have reached manhood. God was taking up the issue in what He said of the woman’s seed; it was a word to Satan, not directly to Eve or to Adam. A Man would in due course appear who could deal with [p. 443] him effectively, destroy him in all his powers of wisdom. That is how the truth stands in Genesis 3.
I was saying that the promise was not made exactly to Eve, but she was there and undoubtedly she knew of it. When Cain is born, she says, “I have acquired a man with Jehovah”. The preposition is ‘with’, and I mention that because it is important. Eve is the first person to use the word ‘Jehovah’. It may be assumed that it was the name taken for the first time with Moses; but that is not just so. The fulness of the name was made known in Moses’ time, but the first person to use it in Scripture is Eve. It is a remarkable thing that the poor fallen woman says, “I have acquired a man with Jehovah” — meaning by the help of God, obviously. If it were Mary, the virgin, the mother of our Lord, how applicable it would be — the power of God, no human agency. But the Holy Spirit is behind all this and we can never read Scripture aright unless we bear this in mind; the Holy Spirit is behind all that happened. Eve could not have understood, but can there be a doubt that she had in her mind what was said about her seed? She was thinking about what God would do. She made no reference to Adam. It was Jehovah, and what will Jehovah Elohim not do — a covenant God, a God that enters into a covenant with His people? What will He not do, whether it be in a year or four millenniums? The latter period ran its course before the fulfilment of the promise.
Poor Cain was not the man, and hence the principle of displacement appears. This was seen in Abel, in whom properly the thought of man according to God (now that sin was there) begins. I do not say it was not in Adam. I think it was, and in Eve, too; but in the government and ordering of God they retain the place of responsibility as sinners, although, like Moses in the wilderness, they were beyond the outward [p. 444] place they had. In Hebrews 11 Abel begins the history of faith. It says of Eve, “And she further bore his brother Abel”. She had called Cain as born, “a man”. I suppose the word ‘babe’ was not in existence. Words are the outcome of circumstances. Even divine names, as we understand them, arose in that way. But the use of the word ‘man’ by Eve was not accidental. The Lord says, “For joy that a man is born into the world”. The full thought was in the Lord’s mind. The disciples were then travailing, but their sorrow would be turned into joy; it would culminate in the full apprehension of manhood in Christ. Eve says “man”; the idea is there, but it did not develop in Cain, but it did develop in Abel — thank God! Note that it is after a “process of time”. That is remarkable; but developments, whether good or evil, take time. The original is, as you will see in the margin, “at the end of days”; that is to say, it is a course of experience, and then Cain brought an offering. There must have been some light there to move him in that way. The “churches” have baptism, the “sacrament”, etc.; there is some light there, but it is very poor, and because of mixture with other things is very misleading. How could a heathen today find his way if he looks at Christendom just as it is? Cain had the thought of offering to God, but what he brought did not own that death was on him on account of sin. He “brought of the fruit of the ground”; his offering was bloodless, and without shedding of blood there is no remission, Scripture says. Thus Cain fails of the thought of manhood, of “the truth as in Jesus”. The “new man” is created in righteousness and true holiness. Abel corresponds with this: he “brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat”; and God had respect to him. The word is “looked on him” — not now a look of disapproval, not a rebuking gaze, but a look of acceptance. He looked [p. 445] upon Abel and on his offering. The idea of man according to God was in measure there.
Now, dear brethren, this is a word for every one present. What am I doing that God may look favourably on? Am I putting away childish things? As soon as God sees me do that, He looks favourably on me. I am expressing manhood. The apostle says, “When I became a man, I put away childish things”. That is Abel, and God looked on him. These early chapters in Genesis are full of instruction on this point.
Chapter 4 is marked by disaster, but in the beginning and at the end you have victory; that is, in Abel and in Seth. There is light at both ends of the tunnel. It is always so; God never gives us occasion for discouragement. If we are discouraged, He always brings in an occasion of encouragement; He is “God of all encouragement”. And so Seth is born, and Eve called him “Seth”, or “appointed”. There is one now that would take the place of Abel, for the true idea of man is to be continued. How did Seth continue the idea? It is an important thing that you carry on what you find. “Others have laboured, and ye have entered into their labours”, John 4: 38. Let us be sure that we do, and that we do not bring in anything extraneous, that there may be no diminution of quality. What are you going to add to what you found? David said to Solomon, “Thou shalt add to it”; but what was to be added to? David had accumulated enormously in gold, silver, brass, stones, and everything that was necessary for the house, and Solomon must add accordingly, and he did so.
Well, what did Seth do? He had a son born, too. Cain’s world is developing, and will Seth’s son become part of it? Cain had built a city, and called it after the name of his son. That is the principle of the world, to make much of oneself and one’s son,
[p. 446] as if sin did not exist and God’s judgment on man because of it. Shall I take pattern from that sort of thing? I have a young family and I look at them and say, “Well, my children are better; my ducks are all swans”. But they are not; they are just ducks. They are not a bit better in themselves than Cain’s children, for that which is born of the flesh is flesh. And so Seth says, “Look at this babe; I see he is but a dying creature. He is not a bit better than the rest of them”. And so he called his name Enosh, which meant that he was subject to death. You say, ‘That is not saying very much’; but it brought in light. That very little thing God uses; Scripture says, “Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord”. Was that not something? It was needed light for that time; that is to say, men had testimony that all, whether low-born or high-born, were dying and there was no hope for any of them except in God, hence men began to call on His name. Calling on the name of the Lord implies that, having proved my own impotency, I count on His power for help. Thus the gospel announces that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. And now at the beginning of chapter 5 God brings out again His great thought about Adam and Eve; that is virtually saying, “I have not lost anything”. Seth in principle had laid the foundation for this in naming his child Enosh, owning thereby that he is a poor mortal creature; the judgment of God is owned and hence a moral foundation laid for what follows in chapter 5. “This is the book of Adam’s generations”. Chapter 5 is the life-line and that runs right through. It is represented in Enoch. Thus in Seth we have clearly the continuation of manhood according to God which began in Abel. Seth is a figure of Christ in resurrection, as taking Abel’s place, whom Cain slew. In Christ, God’s thought of manhood is established, and God’s judgment [p. 447] on the man after the flesh maintained. Hence, “This is the book of Adam’s generations”, in chapter 5. Life is contemplated and attested in Enoch.
What will Enoch do? Will he add to this? It is a question of developing the great principle of manhood, and so we come down the line, one after another he begat so-and-so, and we come to Enoch, and he begets a son, Methushelah. There is not much to say about him. He is the oldest man — an attenuated life with nothing much in it; but we can say much about Enoch, as we are told that as soon as Methushelah is born, he walked with God; he has developed as man. Let us all note that, especially those of us who are fathers and mothers; we cannot influence our children aright if we do not walk with God ourselves. That is the secret. We need the closet to pray for them, and then go out to them and pray with and read with them. Walking with God means that you frequent your closet and ask the Father for them. The quickening and keeping power of God is needed. If we are to have children according to God, it is through prayer which is included in walking with God. This marks a man. In the sense of the passage before us, God does not walk with babes. You take a babe by the hand, as He took Israel by the hand to lead them out of Egypt. That is a different thing. But walking with God as a companion is a mutual thing; it is not a babe thought. When I called, there was no man, God said; but when Jesus appears, His delight was in Him: and Enoch was a reflection of Jesus; he walked with God, and before he was translated, he had the testimony that he pleased God, and he was not, for God took him. These words are full of meaning. They mean that I am not a politician or society man; I am not in evidence at all in the world’s circles. That is the idea, that one is not as to this world; he is out of sight. He had a living existence with God, being a man in the true sense.
[p. 448] How sweet a thought it is, to be made conscious that God is pleased with me!
Well now, the final thought in this section is in Noah. Enoch is taken away from this scene at God’s pleasure; but we have “This is the history of Noah”. Here again is a man. God does not write the history of a man or his generations unless he is of spiritual importance. It is said, “Noah was a just man, perfect amongst his generations: Noah walked with God”. We have increase in manhood in him in the thought of justness and perfectness. Although neither Methushelah nor Lemech is said to have carried on the thought of manhood seen in Enoch, it appeared in Noah, his great-grandson. He was a just man, perfect in his generations and walked with God. God valued him accordingly. There was in him moral stamina, that we have in Noah a man who faces difficulties. He was building the ark a hundred and twenty years before the flood came. Think of the weight of that upon his mind! May we not suppose that he was jeered at by his neighbours for building such a thing as an ark when there was no apparent need for it? There is not a word about rain in Scripture until the flood. Doubtless there was rain, but the lack of mention of it is no doubt to bring the position of Noah into greater prominence. It would appear a ridiculous thing to the natural mind to build an ark — a ship, that is what it was, a very big ship; so that it would draw great attention, you may be sure. There was not the like of it before, and here was a man toiling day in and day out on this hitherto unheard-of thing. But he had light in his soul, and what a burden it would be to him — the prospect of the whole race of mankind save himself and his family wiped out; and here he is, toiling and toiling. It is an example for us in our days of difficult toiling. It was not to be “in vain”. Scripture encourages us with this: “ye know that [p. 449] your labour is not in vain in the Lord”. Some day it will come into evidence that what we are doing is the very thing needed. Though it seems to be useless, God knows; He foresees everything. He has each of us in his place for that very purpose. Think of Noah looking at the ark as it floats abreast of the waters. What a satisfaction — although a sorrowful one — it must have been to him to see his own handiwork rise up over the judgment and carrying across the judgment into another world every thought of God, every feature of life needed! In Noah we have thus a man that can face difficulties and overcome them through faith, a man that can do things, and do them well, do them according to God; a man who in obedience can take orders from God and carry them out perfectly; who can build according to divine specifications.
The New Testament says that Noah by faith, “prepared an ark for the saving of his house”; and in this we have a very important feature of manhood there is not only headship, but also the consideration and provision that go with it. Noah is also marked by discernment, a quality noted in Scripture as essential to manhood. He distinguished between clean and unclean animals.
Finally, Noah was a worshipper of God. His is the first altar mentioned in Scripture; he offered thereon to Jehovah burnt-offerings of clean animals and fowls. And in this service we may observe wholehearted devotedness, for it is said that he offered of every clean animal, and of all clean fowl; “and Jehovah smelled the sweet odour”. On this ground God makes a covenant with Noah and the creation, and man is invested with general governmental prerogative.
Thus, in the early men of faith, manhood according to the divine thought was steadily developed, until [p. 450] it is seen glorifying God in worship and then established in the magisterial government of the world.
All that I have been saying is presented in absolute fulness in Christ — “the man Christ Jesus”. John’s gospel calls attention to Him in this sense strikingly. Pilate brought forth the Lord Jesus robed in the robes His enemies put upon Him. How it touches our hearts to see our Saviour so maltreated by His creatures! But there He was in the presence of the gathered throng of Israel, their priests animated with hatred against their Messiah, and Pilate said, “Behold the man!” What a word that was! As thus presented, the chief priests and officers of Israel railed against Him, saying, “Crucify, crucify him”. Paul says, triumphantly, “the man Christ Jesus” the anointed One! He is everything to God and has done all things well.
It is for us to follow up this great thought of manhood, which runs through Scripture, and answer to it in being no longer babes, but men; as the scripture already quoted says, “Quit yourselves like men; be strong”.