WHO IS ON THE LORD'S SIDE?

WHO IS ON THE LORD’S SIDE?

Once sin entered, and man was governed by his own will, with Satan ever ready to aid him, to stand for God was a conflict, and opposed to all around. The man of God had no resource but in faith; neither to himself, nor to any other man, must he look for succour. He can only endure as seeing Him who is invisible. Where the opposition is open and avowed, the man of God has less difficulty in seeing his course. But when there is the profession by the many of doing what is right, and yet not according to God, the true path is more difficult, and attended with more suffering. Nay, the nearer the mass ^[p. 371] approach in terms or form to the revelation of God, the more arduous and exacting is it for the faithful. If Cain had made no profession or attempt to be accepted of God, it would not have been fatal to Abel to have offered what was simply true. Cain, frustrated in his attempt to secure a desired end in his own wilful way, slew his brother, who in faith, seeing Him who is invisible, acted according to the mind of God. Abel acted in faith, and having God before his mind, did not think of consequences, he thought only of what was due to God. There was no effort on his part to effect a compromise with Cain. He presented the right thing; God accepted him and was on his side, though his own brother, in deadly hate, rose up against him.

That which occurred at the very beginning, between only two brothers, depicts the two lines which have coursed the earth from that day to this. It is not only that all who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution, but the more divinely anyone adheres to the call of God, the more will he at the same time suffer, not only from the ignorant unbeliever, but from those who hold the truth avowedly, but unspiritually. It is a great help to the man of God to see that his greatest opponent and enemy is the brother who dippeth in the same dish with him, and with whom he has gone in company to the house of the Lord, if he be not really and truly in the place he has taken. It was God’s accepting Abel’s offering which awoke all the diabolical rage of Cain. And so it has been ever since; the favour of God in communicating His mind to the faithful has evoked the deadliest opposition from those who considered themselves entitled to it. It was the grace and goodness of our Lord on the earth which woke up the bitter, unrelenting hate of the great professors of the hour. It was not the cavillers or indifferent who were His chief enemies, but those who assumed to be leaders and guides of God’s people on earth. To any reflecting mind it must be clear that there is a deeper opposition from those who accept ^[p. 372] the truth in form, against those who seek to hold it spiritually, than from those quite ignorant of it. Moses suffered more from his own immediate relations and associates than from any. The men Paul had a right to count on were the ones who most openly deserted him and damaged the truth. If you accept the truth, and are not in true exercise of soul in the maintenance of it, you neither gain anything by the profession of it, nor by any step you may have taken on account of it; while on the other hand there is a repugnance in your heart (though often concealed) to those who, however little, are eager before God to reach on to the greatness of the blessing ensured by the truth they have accepted, and of which in mercy they taste.

Now having seen, in some measure, the quarter from which the deadliest opposition will come, let us examine what would be the only true course for the man of God with regard to those from whom he will suffer most. His course will, I apprehend, be marked by a twofold action; the first, more of a negative character - no temporising; the other aggressive. By no temporising I mean no concession of any principle, in theory or in practice. Abel best considered for Cain when he kept fully and distinctly before his mind that which was due from a sinner to God. True, Abel did not live to practise the aggressive part, but God followed it up, and Cain was a marked man on the earth. Thus with Moses; he not only resisted the envy of his brother and sister, but Aaron has to entreat of him that the judgment of God might be removed from Miriam. (Numbers 12.) In like manner Moses does not yield at all to Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, but he is aggressive, he seeks judgment from God upon their heads. It was in this spirit, too, that he charged the sons of Levi, when he “stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord’s side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them... Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and ^[p. 373] out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour”, Exodus 32: 26,27.

Thus our blessed Lord, the true Israelite, not only did not in any way temporise with the religious leaders of the people, but He eventually denounced and exposed them as blind guides, etc. We see the same with the apostle Paul; he was not content with the most distinct line with regard to them, but while he consigned Hymenaeus and Philetus to the judgment of God, he openly warns of Alexander, and looks to God to reward him according to his works.

The instruction I gather from all these examples is that a time may come when one is not to think so much of the congregation as of God. The truth and glory of Christ must be considered far more than the feelings of any; nay, the best way to ensure the true and solid blessing of every believer is by the most decided maintenance of the truth in its integrity. “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments”, 1 John 5: 1, 2. It is the man who gives the uncertain sound who does the real mischief. “But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand”, Ezekiel 33: 6.

But besides this, while there will, I trust, be an interest in and care for the poor of the flock who seek the Lord, there will be less seeking after numbers as there is a deeper sense of the responsibility of the hour. Numbers impede when they are not whole-hearted. Hence Gideon’s thirty-two thousand were reduced first to ten thousand and eventually to three hundred. He did not strive to retain the many; he sought, as faithfulness ^[p. 374] would seek now, those who would do as the Lord directed. The gravity of the hour spiritually has not been understood, or there would never have been the godless haste, or urging believers to take a step for which they were not in heart prepared. There has been a time, and there is a time now, when it is true and proper, because of the demoralised condition of the congregation of God’s people, to inquire, “Who is on the Lord’s side?” Any on His side are called to distinct and peculiar faithfulness, involving not only separation from others, but aggression. It is a delusion to urge that the terms of Acts 2 must be the terms now. Of course there can be no other terms for reception at the Lord’s table, any more than there could be any other but the one circumcision, entitling the children of Israel to the blessings of the covenant. But the circumstances are morally lower now than they were in Moses’ day; and if it was necessary in that day to invite those who were on the Lord’s side to act irrespectively of natural feelings, how much more so in this day? Timothy is exhorted not only to purge himself from the vessels to dishonour, but to “pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart”, 2 Timothy 2: 22. Does not the term “a pure heart” imply that there must be something in addition to the terms in Acts 2? Is it just or true to accept anyone ignorant of the responsibilities to which he is called? I do not advocate mere intelligence, but I press the necessity of faith; and if a believer, however young or ignorant, has simple faith in the Lord, he will be led of Him to contend valiantly, like Ittai, in a day like this. Can everyone assuming to be on the ground of the assembly of God, and in the unity of the Spirit, while outwardly connected with the testimony, be said to be faithful in refusing and condemning the worldliness and unholy association into which members of his own family descend? If the children of Levi were required to declare their faithfulness by their unsparing cutting of their nearest relations, how much now, when ^[p. 375] the uniting bond of peace is disturbed by every one persisting in a course painful to the Spirit of God?

Alas! if parents wink at children, and children yield to parents, in their ways and manner of life, how can we expect the manifest interposition of God on our behalf?