The Arminian Magazine--Spring, 1994

HOW TO BE A PHARISEE
--Vic Reasoner

The loyalty of the Pharisees was to God's law and their concern was for personal holiness. During the time of Ezra and Nehemiah they contended for God's law of separation, especially in barring heathen from the rebuilt temple and opposing intermarriage with pagans. In fact, the name Pharisee means "the separated ones."

During the intertestimental period when Jerusalem was under Greek control, many Jews went along with the pagan program. Through the practice of the Jewish religion was outlawed, the Pharisees resisted even if it meant their death.

However, over a period of four hundred years the Pharisees went from being heroes to hypocrites. How did it happen?

At first the Pharisees emphasized piety and devotion to God. Gradually they developed their own distinctives. They were so careful to avoid breaking God's commandments that they built a fence around them. They added 248 commandments and 365 prohibitions to insure they did not even approach the original ten.

They did not demand that everyone adopt their personal convictions, but in time a narrowness developed. They began to feel their way was best. In time this led to an unbalance. They came to believe their way was not only best; it was the only way.

Their traditions became laws. Gradually there was a shift away from the spirit of God's law to the letter of their law. Godliness was now measured by external compliance to their rules. Those who did not conform were not accepted within the sect.

The Pharisees put the emphasis on externals. They wore special clothing to attract attention to themselves. Jesus declared that everything they did was for show (Matthew 23:5). They were proud of their spirituality (Luke 18:11) and rigid in their positions. A loss of reality developed. Jesus said they strained at gnats and swallowed camels (Matthew 23:24). They emphasized nonessentials, making the Sabbath a burden instead of a delight. They counted out the herbs of their garden in order to pay tithe, but actually they were very materialistic. Jesus knew that they loved their money (Luke 16:14). It was best not to get involved in a business deal with them.

In fact the strongest language Jesus ever used was directed against the Pharisees. He said they were hypocrites not practicing what they preached (Matthew 23:3). Jesus was not impressed with their strictness. In their zeal to keep their rules they were breaking God's law (Matthew 15:3).

What was once a movement toward holy living had become a dead institution. By the days of Jesus, the Pharisees were the scribes; the professional religious people of that day. They probably did not number over 6000. The perception of the day was that they were holy people, but the common people felt it was impossible to live that strict and be part of the real world. It was an option open only to the clergy. Their legalism became a barrier that actually led to the damnation of those who fell under their influence (Matthew 23:15). While the people of Palestine could be divided into six or seven religious denominations, 90% of the people did not identify with any group.

Jesus never broke the law of God, but He made no effort to observe the traditions of the Pharisees. It was the Pharisees who cried out, "We have a law" (John 19:7). Their law crucified the Messiah. The spirit of legalism will always kill spiritual life.

The eighteenth century Wesleyan revival was a revival of piety and godliness. However, Wesley said

Nor do we desire to be distinguished by actions, customs, or usages of an indifferent nature. Our religion does not lie in doing what God has not enjoined or abstaining from what God has not forbidden.

Wesley went on to say a Christian is one who has the love of God shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost given unto him. The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, which were concerns of Jewish legalism. Christianity is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17).

In time, however, holiness became institutionalized. In the late nineteenth century Beverly Caradine observed

No one can recall the gentleness, patience, long suffering, humility, sweetness, and perfect love which characterized the Holiness Movement some years back and now see what is preached in numerous quarters and by many individuals and churches. There was not a division that we recall among them. There was no strife about non- essential doctrines; no breaking into sets and cliques with watchwords, modes of worship and exclusive ways and teachings peculiar to some school or following. There was no ugly spirit nor unkind speech over honest differences of opinion upon matters that do not effect the soul's salvation and entrance into heaven.

As we look around today and see the splits and divisions and the lack of brotherly love among professors of holiness, we feel forced to say, as the dying mother of Israel said, "The glory is departed" [quoted by J. M. Hames, The Glory Departed].

Today they gather in conventions to brag upon themselves. They refer to themselves as "God's choice saints," but their hypocrisy is a barrier to the salvation of their children. They emphasize the tradition they are committed to keeping, but they have little grasp of Church history.

Certainly we should respect the creeds of the early church councils. We should be humbled and challenged by the tradition passed on to us by martyrs, missionaries, scholars, pastors, and evangelists. This does not mean, however, that we are under any obligation to perpetuate the idiosyncracies of a small subculture.

At one time in America, Methodism was the dominant religion. During a 17 year period around the time of the founding of the United States our population increased 75%. During that same period Methodism grew 5500%. Today the entire holiness movement in America amounts to about 1% of the population. The conservative holiness movement of today represents about 0.6% of the larger holiness movement or 0.0075% of the American population.

While they continue to subdivide and separate from each other they are making no impact upon American society.

Make no mistake, we are to keep God's commandments. This obedience is a mark of salvation (1 John 5:2). However, His commandments are not burdensome (1 John 5:3). It is possible to maintain all the rules of the modern Pharisees and yet not be born again. We are still saved by grace through faith. Ultimately it is not what we do, but what He has done that justifies us.

A. J. Smith went to China as a missionary and while there experienced the new birth. In 1953 he wrote in Bible Holiness and the Modern, Popular, Spurious

You may not go to the show, but you have fits of anger, that shows you are unsaved no matter what you profess. You don't go to the ball games, but you slander your neighbor and speak evil of others. You do not drink, smoke or clew, but you have idols in your heart, which shows God is not first in your life. You do not curse, but are mean and ugly to wife, husband, or children. You do not use "make up" but you make up for it by being proud over your plain clothes and more so than others who make no such a high profession over their latest styles. It is possible that you are more proud over the fact that you do not wear a necktie, than others are who wear them. You do not gamble, but talk mean about your pastor behind his back.

Sometimes people become ultra-conservative in one area of their life to compensate for their defeat in another area. Here are three guidelines that will help maintain the Pharisaical tradition:

1. Fill in where the Bible is silent and then preach your notions as Bible truth. Most people do not know the Bible well. They will accept what you say as gospel and despair of ever becoming a Christian.

2. It is not necessary to keep God's law so long as you keep man's rules. The more rules the better. Eventually you can develop a discipline so strict that you are the only one qualified to be the potentate. If anyone notices your inconsistences, accuse them of compromise and separate from them.

3. Always put the emphasis upon human achievement and never mention God's grace. Preach you experience (highly edited, of course). Give the impression that the stricter the better. Say little about Christ or the cross.

CAN WE KNOW?
--Everett S. Stackpole

Suppose a prisoner to be confined from birth in a dark dungeon where only the faintest light has ever shone. He has the power of sight but never had the opportunity to exercise it beyond the limits of his dark cell. He has been told of the sun and his latent power of seeing cries out for gratification. He exercises his imagination about the nature of the sun and how he shall feel when he beholds it. Yet no one can describe the sun to him so that he can get any conception even faintly resembling it. His fancy compels him to form mental images, yet he knows on reflection that they must be far form the reality. But never mind, the reality will be more splendid than the imagination. Do not urge the seeker to form no preconception of the blessing sought. You may as well tell him to stop thinking about the subject that is dearest to his heart. God can do exceeding abundantly above all that he can ask or think. The heart of man has never conceived the things that are prepared for those who love God, Well, the prisoner is promised that on a certain day he shall be led forth to see the sun. Bright visions fill his soul. He cannot sleep or direct his thought to any other subject. If weariness overcomes him, his dreams are filled with fancies about the sun and often he wakes with his heart overflowing with desire.

At length the day arrives. He is led forth into a room where a taper is burning. "Is this the sun?" he asks in a half- disappointed tone. It is beautiful, but does not satisfy his hopes. He is led on into a more spacious apartment where a bright lamp is shining. "Is this the sun?" he asks more eagerly and hopefully. He feels not quite satisfied though; he delays to look upon it with pleasure. He is led on into a large covered court where an electric lamp sends forth a glare of light. "Is THIS the sun?" he cries excitedly. His previous dreams are realized and yet the question reveals a doubt in his mind. Presently a broad door is flung open and the beams of the noonday sun fall through a unclouded sky full upon him. He leaps for joy and shorts, "THIS IS THE SUN." No longer he makes an inquiry but a positive assertion and doubtless the counter assertions of all the world combined would not convince him that he had not seen the sun.

So the imprisoned soul, "fast bound in sin and nature's night" has heard wonderful tales told of Him who is the Light of the world. A desire to see Him is awakened and he commences groping blindly in the dark. Some glimmering ray of hope shines upon him from the prophetic word, relieving his self-despair. He gives heed to it as it "a light that shineth in a dark place' and at first wonders if this be the sun. As he advances by consecration and resultant faith, some deep emotional experiences are granted him and perhaps he rests satisfied for a time thinking he has attained all. But the Spirit does His officework and leads him on. At some Bethel or Pisgah or Mount of Transfiguration he gets a heavenly vision or a glorious prospect is unrolled or his eyes are dazzled with celestial light. For the time he is contented and says, "I'll build me a tabernacle and abide here." But in some never to be forgotten day comes his personal Pentecost and the Sun of righteousness in His ineffable splendor rises on his spiritual vision with healing in His wings. He is raised up to sit with Christ in the Heavenlies. Doubts and fears and the "restless, unsatisfied longing" have flow away. He has arrived at "the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God."

Now all the other evidences heretofore mentioned come to him with multiplied force and make assurance doubly sure. He fells the love of God shed abroad in his heart and a responsive love welling up within. A new love for the brethren is felt. Joy ebbs and flows like the ocean. Peace like a mighty river flows on, ever broadening and deepening toward the sea. The promises of God are yea and amen. He lives on the confines of heaven. Such fruit of the Spirit, called the indirect witness, necessarily follows the direct witness and may easily be distinguished from the modified approval of conscience and from the first fruits of the Spirit that arise from prevenient grace. The direct witness is the tree; the indirect is the fruit of it. Once cannot exist without the other, but logically and in fact the tree precedes the fruit and as in the natural world the abundance of fruit is determined by the size and life of the tree, so the clearness and fullness of the abiding Comforter determine the measure and constancy of the fruit of the Spirit. If you would be happy and useful, be filled with the Spirit.

Editor's Note: This essay is excerpted from The Evidence of Salvation or The Direct Witness of the Spirit, written in 1894. It was reprinted in 1994 by Fundamental Wesleyan Publishers.

FROM OUR MAILBAG

December 2, 1993

Brother Marion Brown,

Gracious brother, I believe that the moral degradation and spiritual stagnation is due to the spiritual indifference in the pulpit. When are we going to get serious about being serious about the most serious thing possible, the salvation of the human soul?

The gift of God (not from God) is eternal life to as many as receive Him. Christ in you, the hope of glory! The ultimate in spiritual experience is "seated with him in heavenly places." To say with Wesley, "Thou, O Christ, art all I want." In other words, Christ plus nothing.

Evangelism stirs the emotions. Revival stirs the conscience. Evangelism is the work of man. Revival is the work of the Spirit.

Blessings,

Leonard Ravenhill
Lindale, TX

THE EARLE & CLARKE EXPOSITION
--Vic Reasoner

Adam Clarke was once considered a dunce, yet he learned twenty languages. He overcame his fears to become the most able biblical scholar of his time in the English-speaking world. When he died the Conference recorded in its minutes, "No man is any age of the church, was ever known for so long a period, to have attracted larger audiences." Three times Clarke was elected president of the British Conference of the Methodist Church.

Yet Clarke is known primarily for his commentary on the entire Bible. Before he began the commentary, he translated the whole Bible from the original languages. Unlike W. B. Godbey who dictated his random thoughts to a secretary, Clarke spent thirty years of hard work on his commentary.

Milton S. Terry wrote in 1885 that next to Matthew Henry, no commentary of similar scope and magnitude "has had a wider circulation or is better known than the commentary of Adam Clarke."

From the first edition which quickly sold out in 1810, his commentary has remain in print until the present. However, in 1967, Ralph Earle produced a one volume abridged edition. Earle stated that dated or extraneous material was eliminated and I would concede that the commentary does contain extraneous material. My concern is that Earle has omitted Clarke's teaching at one significant point while claiming to allow "the great scholar to speak for himself."

In the Preface Earle claims "the actual words of Adam Clarke have not been changed, except to modernize the language and to abbreviate where appropriate." Judge for yourself.

At Ezekiel 36:27 Earle omits one half of one page, including Clarke's comment that "true Christians are those who are filled with the nature and Spirit of Christ."

Jesus said in John 3:5, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Clarke wrote,

Reader, hast thou never had any other baptism than that of water? If thou hast not had any other, take Jesus Christ's word for it, thou canst not, in thy present state, enter into the kingdom of God. I would not say to thee merely, read what it is to be born of the Spirit: but pray, pray to God incessantly, till He give thee to feel what is implied in it! Remember, it is Jesus only who baptizes with the Holy Ghost. He who receives not this baptism has neither right nor title to the kingdom of God; nor can he with any propriety be termed a Christian, because that which essentially distinguished the Christian dispensation from that of the Jews was, that its author baptized all His followers with the Holy Ghost.

Ralph Earle omitted this entire paragraph.

Where Jesus teaches His disciples that the Holy Spirit is with them and will be in them (John 14:17), Clarke explains:

It is certain the Holy Spirit was not yet given to the disciples so as to dwell in them; this St. John himself assures us, 7:39. And it is evidently of that Spirit and its influences, which was not given till the day of pentecost, that our Lord here speaks.

Ralph Earle has omitted this paragraph.

At Acts 2:28 Peter preached, "Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Clarke points out:

In reference to the remission or removal of sins: baptism pointing out the purifying influences of the Holy Spirit; [and it is in reference to that purification that it is administered, and should in consideration never be separated from it. For baptism itself purifies not the conscience; it only points out the grace by which this is to be done. If ye faithfully use the sign, ye shall get the substance.]

Clarke is making a connection between Spirit baptism and water baptism (see also Clarke's Christian Theology, 255). Earle omits everything bracketed which does not allow this connection to be made.

Earle sees Acts 8:14-17 as an experience subsequent to conversion. He believes "unquestionably, the receiving of the Spirit was subsequent to conversion" [Beacon Bible Commentary, 7:353]. Clarke, however, said the gift of the Spirit was "certainly not for the sanctification of the souls of the people . . . . It was the miraculous gifts of the Spirit which were thus communicated."

Where Paul was filled with the Spirit in Acts 9:17, Clarke comments that prior to this point in time Paul "was not even a Christian; and the Holy Ghost, which he received now, was given more to make him a thorough Christian convert than to make him an apostle."

Earle omits this reference. However, Earle believes that "one is filled with the Holy Spirit when his heart is cleansed from all sin in the experience of entire sanctification" [Beacon, 7:305].

When Cornelius receives the Spirit and is then baptized in water, Clarke again makes the tie between Spirit baptism and water baptism (Acts 10:47).

These had evidently received the Holy Ghost, and consequently were become members of the mystical body of Christ; and yet St. Peter requires that they shall receive baptism by water, that they might become members of the Christian Church.

Clarke concludes by noting that the baptism of the Spirit did not supersede the baptism by water, "nor indeed can it."

Earle quotes the paragraph, but omits the concluding note. However, in Earle's own commentary on Acts, he states the experience of cornelius is "commonly known as entire sanctification" [Beacon, 7:380].

At Acts 11:16 Clarke observed that the promise of the Spirit's baptism was made to all "who should believe on Jesus Christ." Earle let this statement stand, but omitted Clarke's closing comment, "Hence we learn that the promise of the Holy Spirit is given to the whole body of Christians - to all that believe on Christ as dying for their sins, and rising for their justification."

Two verses later it is recorded that at the household of Cornelius God granted the Gentiles repentance unto life. Clarke says they embraced the Christian religion. Earle omits this reference.

At Acts 19 Earle does let stand Clarke's note that the Ephesian disciples "therefore were not Christians." Earle, however, omits the following paragraph:

And to this day the genuine disciples of Christ are distinguished from all false religionists, and from nominal Christians, by being made partakers of this Spirit, which enlightens their minds, and convinces of sin, righteousness, and judgment; quickens their souls, witnesses to their conscience that they are the children of God, and purifies their hearts. Those who have not received these blessings from the Holy Spirit, whatever their profession may be, know nothing better than John's baptism: good, excellent in its kind, but ineffectual to the salvation of those who live under the meridian of Christianity.

In Earle's own commentary he states that those who have believed and entered the Christian faith still need to be filled with the Spirit as a subsequent experience [Beacon, 7:477].

At Romans 8:9 Clarke can almost be heard preaching.

God made man in union with Himself, and his heart was His temple. Sin being committed, the temple was defiled, and God abandoned it. Jesus Christ is come by His sacrifice and Spirit to cleanse the temple, and make man again a habitation of God through the Spirit. And when this almighty Spirit again makes the heart His residence, then the soul is delivered from the moral effects of the fall. And that this is absolutely necessary to our present peace and final salvation is proved from this: that if any man have not the Spirit of Christ - the mind that was in him, produced there by the power of the Holy Ghost - he is none of His; he does not belong to the kingdom, flock, or family of God. This is an awful conclusion! Reader, lay it to heart.

Earle did not see fit to include anything cited above. At Ephesians 1:13 Clarke said:

The Holy Spirit, which is promised to them who believe on Christ Jesus, was given to you and thus you were ascertained to be the children of God, for God has not child who is not a partaker of the Holy Ghost, and he who has this Spirit has God's seal that he belongs to the heavenly family.

At 1 John 4:18 Clarke exhorts:

Let such earnestly seek, and fervently believe on the Son of God; and he will son give them another baptism of his Spirit, will purge out all the old leaven, and fill their whole souls with that love which is the fulfilling of the law.

This exhortation was omitted by Earle.

Ralph Earle said he found it "difficult to understand the almost universal neglect in the Christian Church of the baptism of the Holy Spirit" [The Gospel According to Mark, 30]. However, he omits most of Clarke's references to Spirit baptism. This is probably because Clarke did not connect Spirit baptism exclusively to entire sanctification.

Wesley Tracy concluded, "Clarke strongly emphasized the Holy Spirit in conversion." In entire sanctification the believer is baptized with a great effusion of the Spirit, but Clarke did not connect Pentecost and the experience of sanctification "in any direct way" [When Adam Clarke Preached, People Listened, 124]. However, Earle does in his commentary [Beacon, 7:274].

Who gave Ralph Earle the authority to edit out those passages which do not fit his theology and publish the results under Clarke's name? If the holiness movement teaches the same doctrine as early Methodism, why was so much editing necessary? How many people will think they are actually reading Clarke when they are only reading a sanitized version? Perhaps Clarke should have been abridged by someone who was more sympathetic to Clarke's theology.

Thomas Oden has raised his voice against "modern Chauvinists" which he defines as:

those who have decided that there is precious little worth learning from any premodern voice. They assume the intrinsic inferiority of all premodern texts and the intrinsic superiority of all modern methods of investigation of those texts [Life in the Spirit, 469].

In the early history of our nation the Lewis & Clark Expedition paved the way for expansion. However, the Earle & Clarke Exposition leads to suppression of the truth.