|« Prev||Chapter 6. Lessons on Prayer||Next »|
6. LESSONS ON PRAYER
It would have been matter for surprise if, among the manifold subjects on which Jesus gave instruction to His disciples, prayer had not occupied a prominent place. Prayer is a necessity of spiritual life, and all who earnestly try to pray soon feel the need of teaching how to do it. And what theme more likely to engage the thoughts of a Master who was Himself emphatically a man of prayer, spending occasionally whole nights in prayerful communion with His heavenly Father?8686Mark i. 35; Luke vi. 12; Matt. xiv. 23.
We find, accordingly, that prayer was a subject on which Jesus often spoke in the hearing of His disciples. In the Sermon on the Mount, for example, He devoted a paragraph to that topic, in which He cautioned His hearers against pharisaic ostentation and heathenish repetition, and recited a form of devotion as a model of simplicity, comprehensiveness, and brevity.8787Matt. vi. 5-13 At other times He directed attention to the necessity, in order to acceptable and prevailing prayer, of perseverance,8888Luke xi. 1-13, xviii. 1-5. concord,8989Matt. xviii. 19. strong faith,9090Matt. xxi. 22. and large expectation.9191John xvi. 23, 24
The passage cited from the eleventh chapter of Luke’s Gospel gives an account of what may be regarded as the most complete and comprehensive of all the lessons communicated by Jesus to His disciples on the important subject to which it relates. The circumstances in which this lesson was given are interesting. The lesson on prayer was itself an answer to prayer. A disciple, in all probability one of the twelve,9292The twelve are not named; but the lesson must, from its nature, have been given to a close circle of disciples. after hearing Jesus pray, made the request: “Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.” The request and its occasion taken together convey to us incidentally two pieces of information. From the latter we learn that Jesus, besides praying much alone, also prayed in company with His disciples, practising family prayer as the head of a household, as well as secret prayer in personal fellowship with God His Father. From the former we learn that the social prayers of Jesus were most impressive. Disciples hearing them were made painfully conscious of their own incapacity, and after the Amen were ready instinctively to proffer the request, “Lord, teach us to pray,” as if ashamed any more to attempt the exercise in their own feeble, vague, stammering words.
When this lesson was given we know not, for Luke introduces his narrative of it in the most indefinite manner, without noting either time or place. The reference to John in the past tense might seem to indicate a date subsequent to his death; but the mode of expression would be sufficiently explained by the supposition that the disciple who made the request had previously been a disciple of the Baptist.9393The request, in that case, might be paraphrased: “Lord, teach (Thou also) us to prau, as John taught us when we were his disciples. Nor can any certain inference be drawn from the contents of the lesson. It is a lesson which might have been given to the twelve at any time during their disciplehood, so far as their spiritual necessities were concerned. It is a lesson for children, for spiritual minors, for Christians in the crude stage of the divine life, afflicted with confusion of mind, dumbness, dejection, unable to pray for want of clear thought, apt words, and above all, of faith that knows how to wait in hope; and it meets the wants of such by suggesting topics, supplying forms of language, and furnishing their weak faith with the props of cogent arguments for perseverance. Now such was the state of the twelve during all the time they were with Jesus; till He ascended to heaven, and power descended from heaven on them, bringing with it a loosed tongue and an enlarged heart. During the whole period of their discipleship, they needed prompting in prayer such as a mother gives her child, and exhortations to perseverance in the habit of praying, even as do the humblest followers of Christ. Far from being exempt from such infirmities, the twelve may even have experienced them in a superlative degree. The heights correspond to the depths in religious experience. Men who are destined to be apostles must, as disciples, know more than most of the chaotic, speechless condition, and of the great, irksome, but most salutary business of Waiting on God for light, and truth, and grace, earnestly desired but long withheld.
It was well for the church that her
first ministers needed this lesson on prayer; for the time comes in the case of
most, if not all, who are spiritually earnest, when its teaching is very
seasonable. In the spring of the divine life, the beautiful blossom-time of
piety, Christians may be able to pray with fluency and fervor, unembarrassed by
want of words, thoughts, and feelings of a certain kind. But that happy stage
soon passes, and is succeeded by one in which prayer often becomes a helpless
struggle, an inarticulate groan, a silent, distressed, despondent waiting on
God, on the part of men who are tempted to doubt whether God be indeed the
hearer of prayer, whether prayer be not altogether idle and useless. The three
wants contemplated and provided for in this lesson — the want of ideas, of words,
and of faith — are as common as they are grievous. How long it takes most to fill
even the simple petitions of the Lord’s Prayer with definite meanings! the
second petition, e.g., “Thy kingdom come,” which can be presented with perfect
intelligence only by such as have formed for themselves a clear conception of
the ideal spiritual republic or commonwealth. How difficult, and therefore how
rare, to find out acceptable words for precious thoughts slowly reached! How
many, who have never got any thing on which their hearts were set without
needing to ask for it often, and to wait for it long (no uncommon experience),
have been tempted by the delay to give up asking in despair! And no wonder; for
delay is hard to bear in all cases, especially in connection with spiritual
blessings, which are in fact, and are by Christ here assumed to be, the
principal object of a Christian man’s desires. Devout souls would not be utterly
confounded by delay, or even refusal, in connection with mere temporal goods;
for they know that such things as health, wealth, wife, children, home,
position, are not unconditionally good, and that it may be well sometimes not to
obtain them, or not easily and too soon. But it is most confounding to desire
with all one’s heart the Holy Ghost, and yet seem to be denied the priceless
boon; to pray for light, and to get instead deeper darkness; for faith, and to
be tormented with doubts which shake cherished convictions to their foundations;
for sanctity, and to have the mud of corruption stirred up by temptation from
the bottom of the well of eternal life in the heart. Yet all this, as every
experienced Christian knows, is part of the discipline through which scholars in
Christ’s school have to pass ere the desire of their heart be
fulfilled.9494 Readers may be reminded here of the well-known hymn of Newton, beginning —
“I asked the Lord that I might grow
In faith, and love, and every grace.” — (No. 25, F. C. Hymn-Book.)
The lesson on prayer taught by Christ, in answer to request, consists of two parts, in one of which thoughts and words are put into the mouths of immature disciples, while the other provides aids to faith in God as the answerer of prayer. There is first a form of prayer, and then an argument enforcing perseverance in prayer.
The form of prayer commonly called the Lord’s Prayer, which appears in the Sermon on the Mount as a sample of the right kind of prayer, is given here as a summary of the general heads under which all special petitions may be comprehended. We may call this form the alphabet of all possible prayer. It embraces the elements of all spiritual desire, summed up in a few choice sentences, for the benefit of those who may not be able to bring their struggling aspirations to birth in articulate language. It contains in all six petitions, of which three — the first three, as was meet — refer to God’s glory, and the remaining three to man’s good. We are taught to pray, first for the advent of the divine kingdom, in the form of universal reverence for the divine name, and universal obedience to the divine will; and then, in the second place, for daily bread, pardon, and protection from evil for ourselves. The whole is addressed to God as Father, and is supposed to proceed from such as realize their fellowship one with another as members of a divine family, and therefore say, “Our Father.” The prayer does not end, as our prayers now commonly do, with the formula, “for Christ’s sake;.” nor could it, consistently with the supposition that it proceeded from Jesus. No prayer given by Him for the present use of His disciples, before His death, could have such an ending, because the plea it contains was not intelligible to them previous to that event. The twelve did not yet know what Christ’s sake (sache) meant, nor would they till after their Lord had ascended, and the Spirit had descended and revealed to them the true meaning of the facts of Christ’s earthly history. Hence we find Jesus, on the eve of His passion, telling His disciples that up to that time they had asked nothing in His name, and representing the use of His name as a plea to be heard, as one of the privileges awaiting them in the future. “Hitherto,” He said, “have ye asked nothing in my name; ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.”9595John xvi. 24. And in another part of His discourse: “Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.”9696John xiv. 13.
To what extent the disciples afterwards made use of this beautifully simple yet profoundly significant form, we do not know; but it may be assumed that they were in the habit of repeating it as the disciples of the Baptist might repeat the forms taught them by their master. There is, however, no reason to think that the “Lord’s Prayer,” though of permanent value as a part of Christ’s teaching, was designed to be a stereotyped, binding method of addressing the Father in heaven. It was meant to be an aid to inexperienced disciples, not a rule imposed upon apostles.9797Jeremy Taylor, in his Apology for Authorized and Set Forms of Liturgy, makes no distinction between disciples and apostles. When the distinction is attended to, much of his argument falls to the ground. Vid. §§ 86-112. Even after they had attained to spiritual maturity, the twelve might use this form if they pleased, and possibly they did occasionally use it; but Jesus expected that by the time they came to be teachers in the church they should have outgrown the need of it as an aid to devotion. Filled with the Spirit, enlarged in heart, mature in spiritual understanding, they should then be able to pray as their Lord had prayed when He was with them; and while the six petitions of the model prayer would still enter into all their supplications at the throne of grace, they would do so only as the alphabet of a language enters into the most extended and eloquent utterances of a speaker, who never thinks of the letters of which the words he utters are composed.9898Keim takes the same view: he thinks the Mustergebet was not meant to be an Alltagsgebet, and in proof adduces the facts that no trace of its use appears in the history of Christ’s own life, in the times of the Jerusalem Church, in the recollections of the Apostle Paul, and that only in the second century it began to be the object of a regular “ja mechanisch-katholischen” use. — Jesu von Nazara, ii. 280.
In maintaining the provisional, pro tempore character of the Lords’ Prayer, so far as the twelve were concerned, we lay no stress on the fact already adverted to, that it does not end with the phrase, “for Christ’s sake.” That defect could easily be supplied afterwards mentally or orally, and therefore was no valid reason for disuse. The same remark applies to our use of the prayer in question. To allow this form to fall into desuetude merely because the customary concluding plea is wanting, is as weak on one side as the too frequent repetition of it is on the other. The Lord’s Prayer is neither a piece of Deism unworthy of a Christian, nor a magic charm like the “Pater noster” of Roman Catholic devotion. The most advanced believer will often find relief and rest to his spirit in falling back on its simple, sublime sentences, while mentally realizing the manifold particulars which each of them includes; and he is but a tyro in the art of praying, and in the divine life generally, whose devotions consist exclusively, or even mainly, in repeating the words which Jesus put into the mouths of immature disciples.
The view now advocated regarding the
purpose of the Lord’s Prayer is in harmony with the spirit of Christ’s whole
teaching. Liturgical forms and religious methodism in general were much more
congenial to the strict ascetic school of the Baptist than to the free school of
Jesus. Our Lord evidently attached little importance to forms of prayer, any
more than to fixed periodic fasts, else He would not have waited till He was
asked for a form, but would have made systematic provision for the wants of His
followers, even as the Baptist did, by, so to speak, compiling a book of
devotion or composing a liturgy. It is evident, even from the present
instructions on the subject of praying, that Jesus considered the form He
supplied of quite subordinate importance: a mere temporary remedy for a minor
evil, the want of utterance, till the greater evil, the want of faith, should be
cured; for the larger portion of the lesson is devoted to the purpose of
supplying an antidote to unbelief.9999 From the design of the Lord’s Prayer as now explained we may determine the
proper place and use of all fixed forms of devotion. Liturgical forms are for private rather than for public use;
for those who are in the dumb, arid stage of the spiritual life, rather than for those who have attained the
power and utterance of spiritual maturity. To the private use of such forms by persons who desire to pray, yet cannot
do it, no reasonable objection can be taken. Advantage justifies use. The less experienced Christian
may ask the more experienced to teach him to pray, and the more experienced may reply, “After this manner
pay ye.” If we may read and repeat the sacred songs of Christian poets to find expression for emotions
which are common to us and them, but which we cannot, like them, adequately express, why may we not read and repeat the
prayers of the saints for a similar purpose? The superficial, who have not earnestness and sincerity enough to know
what it is to stammer, may despise such aids as suited only for children; and those who are yet in the first flush of
religious fervor may turn away from written forms as cold and dead, however classical. Well, let all do without such aids
who can; only the time
may come, even for the fervent, when, forsaken of emotion, deficient in experience, discouraged by failure, disappointed
in ardent youthful hopes, tormented by speculative doubts concerning the utility and the reasonableness of prayer
coming over the soul like chill east winds in the winter of its religious history, they may
be very glad to read over forms of devotion which, by their simplicity and dignity, serve to
inspire a sense of reality, and to produce a soothing, sedative effect on their distressed,
restless spirits. For all such a plight, we, having respect to the example of Christ, are
entitled to plead that they shall not be required to remain prayerless because they
cannot for the time pray without book.
But when we pass from the closet to the church, the case is altered. There we ought to find pastors capable of doing, each one for his fellow-worshippers, what Christ did for His disciples, and of praying with the freedom and force to which the disciples themselves afterwards attained. It may be asserted, inded, that this, though the desirable, is not the actual state of matters. A recent writer, in advocating the introduction of written forms of prayer into the Presbyterian Church, says: “I feel persuaded that a verbatim report of all the public prayers uttered in Scotland any one Sunday in the year would settle the question forever in the mind of every person who was capable of forming a rational judgment on such a matter” [The Reform of the Church of Scotland, by Robert Lee, D.D., p. 76.]. It is to be hoped that this is an exaggerated view of existing ministerial incapacity; but even granting its accuracy, it is a fair question whether the remedy proposed would not be worse than the evil, and the gain in propriety more than counterbalanced by a loss in the more important quality of fervor. This much we may say, even if not disposed to take up high ground of principles in opposition to liturgical forms, but rather to concur in the moderate sentiments of Richard Baxter, when he says: “I cannot be of their opinion who think God will not accept him that prayeth by the common Prayer-book, and that such forms are a self-invented worship which God rejecteth; nor yet can I be of their mind that say the like of extemporary prayers” [Baxter’s Life, from his own original MS., lib. i. part i. § 213.]. In Baxter’s time religious controversy ran very high, and opposed views were stated in extreme form. The Churchman derided the extempore effusions of the Puritan; the Puritans went so far in his opposition to liturgical prayer as even to maintain that the Lord’s Prayer itself should never be repeated. Baxter, not being a partisan, but a lover of truth, sympathized with neither party, but regarded the question at issue as one of policy rather than of principle, to be settled not by abstract reasoning, but by a calm consideration of what on the whole was most conducive to edification; in which point of view his judgment and his practice were both on the side of extempore prayer.
Looking at the question, with Baxter, as one of policy, we are fully persuaded that the existing practice of Presbyterian and other churches can be justified on such good grounds as should make them contented, to say the least, with their own way, and indisposed to imitate those whose way is different in this matter. The ministers of religion, like the apostles, ought to be able to dispense with liturgical forms; and the best way to secure that they shall possess such ability, is to throw them on their own resources, and on God, and so convert the ideal into a requirement applicable to all, making no provision for exceptions. The full benefit of a system cannot be obtained unless it be rigidly enforced; and while such enforcement may involve occasional disadvantages, the relaxation of the rule would probably produce greater damage to the church. Allowance made for timidity, inexperience, or extraordinary incapacity, would be abused by the indolent and the careless; and many would remain permanently in a state similar to that of the disciples, who, if compelled to stir up the gift of God which is in them, or to seek earnestly gifts and graces not possessed, might ere long attain to apostolic freedom and power. The same remarks might be applied to preaching. In individual instances congregations might benefit by the preacher being allowed to use foreign materials of instruction; but under such a permission, how many would content themselves with reading sermons out of books, or from manuscripts purchased at so much per dozen, who, under a system aiming at turning to the utmost account individual talent, and therefore requiring all teachers of truth to give their hearers the benefit of their own thoughts, would through practice attain to a fair measure of preaching power.
On the whole, therefore, the Presbyterian Church has reason to be satisfied with its existing system of public worship, whatever reason there may be for dissatisfaction with the existing state of worship in particular instances. The ideal is good, however far short the reality may come of it. The aim and effect of the liturgical system is to make the mass of worshippers as independent as possible of the individual minister; the aim, if not the effect of our system, is to make individual ministers as valuable as possible to the worshippers, for their instruction and edification. The one system may secure a uniform solemnity and decency, but the other system tends to secure the more important qualities of fervor, energy, and life; and we believe, whatever fastidious critics may allege, it does to a considerable extent secure them. At lowest, the non-liturgical method secures that the worship of the church shall be a true reflection of here life, and therefore, however beggarly, at least sincere. Men who preach their own sermons and pray their own prayers are more likely to preach and pray as they believe and live, than those who merely read compositions provided to their hand. It only remains to add, that while having no objection on principle to an attempt at amalgamating the two methods so as to reap the advantages of both — a scheme favored by some respected brethren in all the churches — we confess to grave doubts, for the reasons above explained, as to the utility of such an attempt. [We leave the above as in the second edition. Our present impression, however, is that a mixture of the liturgical system, with fixed forms, with the free extempore method, is not impracticable, and might yield better results than either separately. — Note to third edition.]
The second part of this lesson on prayer is intended to convey the same moral as that which is prefixed to the parable of the unjust judge — "that men ought always to pray, and not to faint.” The supposed cause of fainting is also the same, even delay on the part of God in answering our prayers. This is not, indeed, made so obvious in the earlier lesson as in the later. The parable of the ungenerous neighbor is not adapted to convey the idea of long delay: for the favor asked, if granted at all, must be granted in a very few minutes. But the lapse of time between the presenting and the granting of our requests is implied and presupposed as a matter of course. It is by delay that God seems to say to us what the ungenerous neighbor said to his friend, and that we are tempted to think that we pray to no purpose.
Both the parables spoken by Christ to inculcate perseverance in prayer seek to effect their purpose by showing the power of importunity in the most unpromising circumstances. The characters appealed to are both bad — one in ungenerous, and the other unjust; and from neither is any thing to be gained except by working on his selfishness. And the point of the parable in either case is, that importunity has a power of annoyance which enables it to gain its object.
It is important again to observe what is supposed to be the leading subject of prayer in connection with the argument now to be considered. The thing upon which Christ assumes His disciples to have set their hearts is personal sanctification.100100The supposed subject of prayer in Luke xviii. is the general interest of the divine kingdom on the earth. This appears from the concluding sentence of the discourse: “How much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him!” Jesus takes for granted that the persons to whom He addresses Himself here seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. Therefore, though He inserted a petition for daily bread in the form of prayer, He drops that object out of view in the latter part of His discourse; both because it is by hypothesis not the chief object of desire, and also because, for all who truly give God’s kingdom the first place in their regards, food and raiment are thrown into the bargain.101101In Matt. vii. 11, which answers to Luke xi. 13, the phrase expressive of the object of desire is ἀγαθὰ, “good things.’ instead of πνεῦμα ἄγιον. The Pauline character of the latter expression has been remarked on, as one of many traces of the apostle’s influence on the third Evangelist. The doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the immanent ground of Christian sanctity is emphatically Pauline. But the doctrine of gradual sanctification is not prominent in Paulinism.
To such as do not desire the Holy Spirit above all things, Jesus has nothing to say. He does not encourage them to hope that they shall receive any thing of the Lord; least of all, the righteousness of the kingdom, personal sanctification. He regards the prayers of a double-minded man, who has two chief ends in view, as a hollow mockery — mere words, which never reach Heaven’s ear.
The supposed cause of fainting being delay, and the supposed object of desire being the Holy Spirit, the spiritual situation contemplated in the argument is definitely determined. The Teacher’s aim is to succor and encourage those who feel that the work of grace goes slowly on within them, and wonder why it does so, and sadly sigh because it does so. Such we conceive to have been the state of the twelve when this lesson was given them. They had been made painfully conscious of incapacity to perform aright their devotional duties, and they took that incapacity to be an index of their general spiritual condition, and were much depressed in consequence.
The argument by which Jesus sought to inspire His discouraged disciples with hope and confidence as to the ultimate fulfilment of their desires, is characterized by boldness, geniality, wisdom, and logical force. Its boldness is evinced in the choice of illustrations . Jesus has such confidence in the goodness of His cause, that He states the case as disadvantageously for Himself as possible, by selecting for illustration not good samples of men, but persons rather below than above the ordinary standard of human virtue. A man who, on being applied to at any hour of the night by a neighbor for help in a real emergency, such as that supposed in the parable, or in a case of sudden sickness, should put him off with such an answer as this, “Trouble me not, the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee,” would justly incur the contempt of his acquaintances, and become a byword among them for all that is ungenerous and heartless. The same readiness to take an extreme case is observable in the second argument, drawn from the conduct of fathers towards their children. “If a son shall ask bread of any of you” — so it begins.102102Or “of which of you that is a father shall his son ask a loaf,” as in R. V. The sense is the same. Jesus does not care what father may be selected; He is willing to take any one they please: He will take the very worst as readily as the best; nay, more readily, for the argument turns not on the goodness of the parent, but rather on his want of goodness, as it aims to show that no special goodness is required to keep all parents from doing what would be an outrage on natural affection, and revolting to the feelings of all mankind.
The genial, kindly character of the argument is manifest from the insight and sympathy displayed therein. Jesus divines what hard thoughts men think of God under the burden of unfulfilled desire; how they doubt His goodness, and deem Him indifferent, heartless, unjust. He shows His intimate knowledge of their secret imaginations by the cases He puts; for the unkind friend and unnatural father, and we may add, the unjust judge, are pictures not indeed of what God is, or of what He would have us believe God to be, but certainly of what even pious men sometimes think Him to be.103103See the Book of Job, passim, and Ps. lxxiii., lxxvii., etc. And He cannot only divine, but sympathize. He does not, like Job’s friends, find fault with those who harbor doubting and apparently profane thoughts, nor chide them for impatience, distrust, and despondency. He deals with them as men compassed with infirmity, and needing sympathy, counsel, and help. And in supplying these, He comes down to their level of feeling, and tries to show that, even if things were as they seem, there is no cause for despair. He argues from their own thoughts of God, that they should still hope in Him. “Suppose,” He says in effect, “God to be what you fancy, indifferent and heartless, still pray on; see, in the case I put, what perseverance can effect. Ask as the man who wanted loaves asked, and ye shall also receive from Him who seems at present deaf to your petitions. Appearances, I grant, may be very unfavorable, but they cannot be more so in your case than in that of the petitioner in the parable; and yet you observe how he fared through not being too easily disheartened.”
Jesus displays His wisdom in dealing with the doubts of His disciples, by avoiding all elaborate explanations of the causes or reasons of delay in the answering of prayer, and using only arguments adapted to the capacity of persons weak in faith and in spiritual understanding. He does not attempt to show why sanctification is a slow, tedious work, not a momentary act: why the Spirit is given gradually and in limited measure, not at once and without measure. He simply urges His hearers to persevere in seeking the Holy Spirit, assuring them that, in spite of trying delay, their desires will be fulfilled in the end. He teaches them no philosophy of waiting on God, but only tells them that they shall not wait in vain.
This method the Teacher followed not from necessity, but from choice. For though no attempt was made at explaining divine delays in providence and grace, it was not because explanation was impossible. There were many things which Christ might have said to His disciples at this time if they could have borne them; some of which they afterwards said themselves, when the Spirit of Truth had come, and guided them into all truth, and made them acquainted with the secret of God’s way. He might have pointed out to them, e.g., that the delays of which they complained were according to the analogy of nature, in which gradual growth is the universal law; that time was needed for the production of the ripe fruits of the Spirit, just in the same way as for the production of the ripe fruits of the field or of the orchard; that it was not to be wondered at if the spiritual fruits were peculiarly slow in ripening, as it was a law of growth that the higher the product in the scale of being, the slower the process by which it is produced;104104This idea is well worked out in a sermon by H. W. Beecher on “Waiting for the Lord.” — Sermons, vol. 1. that a momentary sanctification, though not impossible, would be as much a miracle in the sense of a departure from law, as was the immediate transformation of water into wine at the marriage in Cana; that if instantaneous sanctification were the rule instead of the rare exception, the kingdom of grace would become too like the imaginary worlds of children’s dreams, in which trees, fruits, and palaces spring into being full-grown, ripe, and furnished, in a moment as by enchantment, and too unlike the real, actual world with which men are conversant, in which delay, growth, and fixed law are invariable characteristics.
Jesus might further have sought to reconcile His disciples to delay by descanting on the virtue of patience. Much could be said on that topic. It could be shown that a character cannot be perfect in which the virtue of patience has no place, and that the gradual method of sanctification is best adapted for its development, as affording abundant scope for its exercise. It might be pointed out how much the ultimate enjoyment of any good thing is enhanced by its having to be waited for; how in proportion to the trial is the triumph of faith; how, in the quaint words of one who was taught wisdom in this matter by his own experience, and by the times in which he lived, “It is fit we see and feel the shaping and sewing of every piece of the wedding garment, and the framing and moulding and fitting of the crown of glory for the head of the citizen of heaven;.” how “the repeated sense and frequent experience of grace in the ups and downs in the way, the falls and risings again of the traveller, the revolutions and changes of the spiritual condition, the new moon, the darkened moon, the full moon in the Spirit’s ebbing and flowing, raiseth in the heart of saints on their way to the country a sweet smell of the fairest rose and lily of Sharon;.” how, “as travellers at night talk of their foul ways, and of the praises of their guide, and battle being ended, soldiers number their wounds, extol the valor, skill, and courage of their leader and captain,” so “it is meet that the glorified soldiers may take loads of experience of free grace to heaven with them, and there speak of their way and their country, and the praises of Him that hath redeemed them out of all nations, tongues, and languages.105105Samuel Rutherford, Trial and Triumph of Faith, Sermon xviii.”
Such considerations, however just, would have been wasted on men in the spiritual condition of the disciples. Children have no sympathy with growth in any world, whether of nature or of grace. Nothing pleases them but that an acorn should become an oak at once, and that immediately after the blossom should come the ripe fruit. Then it is idle to speak of the uses of patience to the inexperienced; for the moral value of the discipline of trial cannot be appreciated till the trial is past. Therefore, as before stated, Jesus abstained entirely from reflections of the kind suggested, and adopted a simple, popular style of reasoning which even a child could understand.
The reasoning of Jesus, while very simple, is very cogent and conclusive. The first argument — that contained in the parable of the ungenerous neighbor — is fitted to inspire hope in God, even in the darkest hour, when He appears indifferent to our cry, or positively unwilling to help, and so to induce us to persevere in asking. “As the man who wanted the loaves knocked on louder and louder, with an importunity that knew no shame,106106The Greek word is ἀναιδειαν = shamelessness. and would take no refusal, and thereby gained his object, the selfish friend being glad at last to get up and serve him out of sheer regard to his own comfort, it being simply impossible to sleep with such a noise; so (such is the drift of the argument), so continue thou knocking at the door of heaven, and thou shalt obtain thy desire if it were only to be rid of thee. See in this parable what a power importunity has, even at a most unpromising time — midnight — and with a most unpromising person, who prefers his own comfort to a neighbor’s good: ask, therefore, persistently, and it shall be given unto you also; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.”
At one point, indeed, this most pathetic and sympathetic argument seems to be weak. The petitioner in the parable had the selfish friend in his power by being able to annoy him and keep him from sleeping. Now, the tried desponding disciple whom Jesus would comfort may rejoin: “What power have I to annoy God, who dwelleth on high, far beyond my reach, in imperturbable felicity? ‘Oh that I knew where I might find Him, that I might come even to His seat! But, behold, I go forward, but He is not there; and backward, but I cannot perceive Him: on the left hand, where He doth work, but I cannot behold Him: He hideth Himself on the right hand, that I cannot see Him.’“107107Job xxiii. 3, 8, 9. The objection is one which can hardly fail to occur to the subtle spirit of despondency, and it must be admitted that it is not frivolous. There is really a failure of the analogy at this point. We can annoy a man, like the ungenerous neighbor in bed, or the unjust judge, but we cannot annoy God. The parable does not suggest the true explanation of divine delay, or of the ultimate success of importunity. It merely proves, by a homely instance, that delay, apparent refusal, from whatever cause it may arise, is not necessarily final, and therefore can be no good reason for giving up asking.
This is a real if not a great service rendered. But the doubting disciple, besides discovering with characteristic acuteness what the parable fails to prove, may not be able to extract any comfort from what it does prove. What is he to do then? Fall back on the strong asseveration with which Jesus follows up the parable: “And I say unto you.” Here, doubter, is an oracular dictum from One who can speak with authority; One who has been in the bosom of the eternal God, and has come forth to reveal His inmost heart to men groping in the darkness of nature after Him, if haply they might find Him. When He addresses you in such emphatic, solemn terms as these, “I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you,” you may take the matter on His word, at least pro tempore. Even those who doubt the reasonableness of prayer, because of the constancy of nature’s laws and the unchangeableness of divine purposes, might take Christ’s word for it that prayer is not vain, even in relation to daily bread, not to speak of higher matters, until they arrive at greater certainty on the subject than they can at present pretend to. Such may, if they choose, despise the parable as childish, or as conveying crude anthropopathic ideas of the Divine Being, but they cannot despise the deliberate declarations of One whom even they regard as the wisest and best of men.
The second argument employed by Jesus to urge perseverance in prayer is of the nature of a reductio ad absurdum, ending with a conclusion à fortiori. “If,” it is reasoned, “God refused to hear His children’s prayers, or, worse still, if He mocked them by giving them something bearing a superficial resemblance to the things asked, only to cause bitter disappointment when the deception was discovered, then were He not only as bad as, but far worse than, even the most depraved of mankind. For, take fathers at random, which of them, if a son were to ask bread, would give him a stone? or if he asked a fish, would give him a serpent? or if he asked an egg, would offer him a scorpion? The very supposition is monstrous. Human nature is largely vitiated by moral evil; there is, in particular, an evil spirit of selfishness in the heart which comes into conflict with the generous affections, and leads men ofttimes to do base and unnatural things. But men taken at the average are not diabolic; and nothing short of a diabolic spirit of mischief could prompt a father to mock a child’s misery, or deliberately to give him things fraught with deadly harm. If, then, earthly parents, though evil in many of their dispositions, give good, and, so far as they know, only good, gifts to their children, and would shrink with horror from any other mode of treatment, is it to be credited that the Divine Being, that Providence, can do what only devils would think of doing? On the contrary, what is only barely possible for man is for God altogether impossible, and what all but monsters of iniquity will not fail to do God will do much more. He will most surely give good gifts, and only good gifts, to His asking children; most especially will He give His best gift, which His true children desire above all things, even the Holy Spirit, the enlightener and the sanctifier. Therefore again I say unto you: Ask, and ye shall receive; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened.”
Yet it is implied in the very fact that Christ puts such cases as a stone given for bread, a serpent for a fish, or a scorpion for an egg, that God seems at least sometimes so to treat His children. The time came when the twelve thought they had been so treated in reference to the very subject in which they were most deeply interested, after their own personal sanctification, viz., the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. But their experience illustrates the general truth, that when the Hearer of prayer seems to deal unnaturally with His servants, it is because they have made a mistake about the nature of good, and have not known what they asked. They have asked for a stone, thinking it bread, and hence the true bread seems a stone; for a shadow, thinking it a substance, and hence the substance seems a shadow. The kingdom for which the twelve prayed was a shadow, hence their disappointment and despair when Jesus was put to death: the egg of hope, which their fond imagination had been hatching, brought forth the scorpion of the cross, and they fancied that God had mocked and deceived them. But they lived to see that God was true and good, and that they had deceived themselves, and that all which Christ had told them had been fulfilled. And all who wait on God ultimately make a similar discovery, and unite in testifying that “the Lord is good unto them that wait for Him, to the soul that seeketh Him.”108108Lam. iii. 25.
For these reasons should all men pray, and not faint. Prayer is rational, even if the Divine Being were like men in the average, not indisposed to do good when self-interest does not stand in the way — the creed of heathenism. It is still more manifestly rational if, as Christ taught and Christians believe, God be better than the best of men — the one supremely good Being — the Father in heaven. Only in either of two cases would prayer really be irrational: if God were no living being at all, — the creed of atheists, with whom Christ holds no argument; or if He were a being capable of doing things from which even bad men would start back in horror, i.e., a being of diabolic nature, — the creed, it is to be hoped, of no human being.
|« Prev||Chapter 6. Lessons on Prayer||Next »|
►Proofing disabled for this book
► Printer-friendly version