We have now to enter the detailed examination of the evil characters which the apostle points out as impressing on the last days the stamp of “grievous times.” The first and last words are remarkably and painfully instructive. It is Christendom which comes before us; yet those bearing the Lord's name can only be designated as “men,” morally as corrupt and violent as the heathen (compare Rom. 1:29-31), if not so gross, yet having a form of godliness while they have denied its power.
“For men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, uncontrolled, fierce, haters of good, traitors, headstrong, puffed up, pleasure-lovers rather than God-lovers, having a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof; and from these turn away” (ver. 2-5).
If the Holy Spirit has thus minutely qualified the evils which render the times grievous, to me it does not seem reverent to pass them over sicco pede, as if His designations were either intelligible on the surface, or unworthy of deep meditation for our better profit. Far more to be admired than this levity of the Genevese Reformer is the spirit of one in our own day who devoted an entire treatise to the laudable endeavor that we should learn what the apostle would have Timothy to know; and the rather, as the days in which we live display in a far more developed degree the dark features, which in the germ were even of old coming to view. The apostle had laid down other things of prime importance; but Timothy was “to know this also;” and assuredly we know imperfectly what we only apprehend in a dim and hazy light. He who writes to us with the utmost precision would have us read and study with attention. The practical duty can be but imperfectly discharged (“and from these turn away,") if we are not clear who and what the characters are whom one is thus called to have done with. We are bound so to discern, not in one case only, but in each and all, that there be no mistake. If charity may plead, holiness and obedience are imperative, and especially with snob as may fairly be charged, in measure like Timothy, with care for sound doctrine, and order, and godliness.
“For men shall be lovers of self.” Such is the opening characteristic, so grievous to the Lord and His own in those bearing His name. Justly does it hold the first place in this list of Christ-dishonoring professors; for it is a very mother of evils, as it directly contravenes the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning His children. Christ died for all indeed; but the moral end was that those who live (whatever do others who remain dead) “should henceforth not live unto themselves, but unto Him Who for them died and rose again.” “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another” (John 13:34, 35). For “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; and His commandments are not grievous” (1 John 5:1-3). Thus loving God proves that we truly love His children; as obeying His commands proves that we truly love God. So the first condition of discipleship, if we hear our Lord (Matt. 16; Mark 8:34), is denying self, the clean contrary of loving it. Oh, what a pattern in Him who, though He was rich, yet for our sakes became poor, that we through His poverty might become rich! Fully do I admit that such love as we are called to is not the original unfallen condition of Adam, still less of course the hateful and hating state of man now; it is what we see and know in the Second Man, the last Adam; it is to be imitators of God, as dear children, and to walk in love as the Christ also loved us and gave Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweet-smelling savor. As having put on the new man and sealed with the Holy Spirit of God, no other standard could be set before us; in awful contrast with which stand lovers of self, and so much the more sadly, if baptized to Christ's name and death.
Say not that self reigns only outside among the profane; show me where it does not reign among true believers throughout Christendom. The world loves its own, says the Lord: is this as true of His members scattered as they, are in parties, national and dissenting, each the rival of the other? And this false position with its isolating effect has told powerfully on souls to wither all true sense of unity on earth, and to hold out mere progress of party, or at best labor for individual blessing, instead of the glory of Christ in the church which is His body.
Next, they shall be “lovers of money.” Let believers hear the judgment of one who scanned their ways not untruly, though with no friendly eyes. “As far as we are enabled to discover, they testify no refusal to follow the footsteps of the, worldly in the road to wealth. We look in vain for any distinguishing mark in this respect between the two classes of society, That which is ‘of the world,' and that which is 'not of the world.' All appear to be actuated by the same impulse to push their fortunes in life; all exhibit the same ardent, active, enterprising, zeal in their respective pursuits.”
Can any serious person deny the enormous impetus given to the love of money in our own days? and this, among those who profess the Lord's name as keenly and commonly as in the careless world? Doubtless, as has been remarked, the recent discoveries of fresh sources of wealth, and the remarkable inventions of men, and the habits of far-spread enterprise, not to speak of growing luxury; which have followed in the train, have helped on this eager quest of gain. But the fact is unquestionable, and the effect most mischievous; yet who lays it to heart, or judges it as a sin of the first magnitude? And has it not been accelerated and justified by that new and increasing peculiarity of the last century, those religious and philanthropic institutions, the offspring and the pride of ecclesiastical divisions, which avowedly depend on the collections, and subscriptions, and donations, of money? Certainly our Lord has ruled otherwise in the Sermon on the Mount, and His inspired servants have both acted and written for our admonition in terms meant to make the service of mammon intolerable, and to refuse a place in the church for the covetous.
“Boasters” follow; and who fails to hear its hollow voice to day? It follows as close on the track of money-loving, as this love on self-love. And the materials which furnished the means of gratifying the love of money have built up the pedestal from which the empty vaunts of the boasters are heard on all sides. If you doubt it of religions profession, your ears are assuredly dull of hearing, and your eyes, if seeing, see not. For all is blazoned before the world, whether of religious contributions, or of charity to the poor, or of aught else that occupies men publicly. And then this enlightened age of ours! Who does not sing its achievements? Who does not praise its science physical if not metaphysical, its chemistry if not its learning? Say not again that these boasters are the mere devotees of natural philosophy. Alas! it is from professedly pious theologians that we hear the hasty and ignorant premises that Geology declares one thing, Genesis another; and the base conclusion is that Genesis must bow down and worship Geology at what time is heard the sound of cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of music. For the spirit of vain glory has banished all sense of pain and shame when God's word is thus dishonored; and even those who preach it are not ashamed to swell the chorus of the “boasters.”
Can one wonder that we have “haughty” next? They present an evil more deeply seated than the “boasters” though not so loud in its vain expression. They are the proud against whom God ranges Himself; the most akin to Satan's fault; the most alien from the mind which is in Christ Jesus, Who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondman, being made in the likeness of men, and, being found in fashion as a man, humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, yea, death of the cross. Thus it is that appreciation of Christ is Our only sure and holy deliverance; for pride hides itself under many different veils, which may deceive itself as much as others, and none more than the mere professor or even the real Christian who walks with the world. Grace gives true lowliness, which consists not so much in thinking all the evil we can of ourselves, as in thinking of Christ and not of ourselves at all. When we have seen Him, as He is, we can see ourselves not worth thinking of, save before God to judge our ways when faulty. We can then, readily and without effort, each esteem the other as more excellent than ourselves, regarding each not his own things but each those of others. Is it possible to draw a sketch more unlike what prevails in Christendom? “Proud” or “haughty” is the truest designation of the type that abounds.
Then come “blasphemers” and “disobedient to parents,” which fittingly fall next and in due order and together. For self-exaltation paves the way for unworthy thoughts and slighting words against God; and self-will against parental authority is the natural result. Some greatly to be respected for their spiritual judgment, understood the first of the pair to mean “evil speakers” in general. But this appears to be out of harmony, not only with its companion, but with “Slanderers” in verse 3, which it would thus render an almost needless repetition. “Blasphemers” would therefore seem to be right here, as it is the natural and full force of the word, unless the requirements of the context should tone it down, as is sometimes the unquestionable fact.
Further, it is the liberalism of the day which has given occasion to the unprecedented spread of blasphemy on the one hand, and of disobedience to parents on the other. For it is now more and more accepted, that authority—and above all divine authority—is nothing but the bugbear of unenlightened ages, and that there is no inflexible standard of truth and righteousness. Thus public opinion assumes to decide, and society becomes the supreme power on earth, with its ordinances (i.e. the laws and the commands of magistrates, who act in the name and for the welfare of the society!) binding on all its members, but not authorizing one national society to govern another, still less entitling its officers to rule contrary to the will of the society, or to exercise greater power than it pleases! I have purposely adopted the ideas and words of an able, learned, and pious advocate of this impious scheme, which contradicts all that the godly in the past have gathered from scripture, especially such passages as Rom. 13 and 1 Peter 2. On the texts there is the less reason to dwell as almost all who read these pages reject on principle that wretched fruit of French Revolution, or rather of the infidel philosophy which gave so deep and strong an impulse to it, not only immediately, but from our own land for a century, before. Blasphemers began to assert their lawless will, not without the reproof of public law and to the horror of believing ears. But gradually restraint gave way, and men have got to think that every form of blasphemous iniquity, which can count so many heads, is entitled to its representation in the high places of the earth. For after all what the Christian calls blasphemy is the religion or school of thought sincerely accepted by others, who are no less entitled to be heard as themselves, and to rule if they can command a majority! For, again says their pious oracle, what human power can pronounce authoritatively upon the truth of a religion, when every nation, or part of a nation, will with equal zeal maintain the truth of its own? Thus God is excluded, where He is most of all needed, and the creature, in all the aberrations of his guilty will, is worshipped rather than the Creator, Who is blessed forever. Amen.
As indifference to blasphemers, nay the right to plead the cause of their party, is now the order of the day, so religious men, nationalist and dissenting, seek their support, making common cause with these open enemies of God and His Son, in order to promote their party measures and political ends. All the old hatred of blasphemy, all the, once burning indignation against daring impiety, has well-nigh disappeared from Christendom, yea, is treated by the diabolically spurious charity of our times as no less effete, disreputable, and cruel, than the burning of witches, the prosecution of necromancers, or the denunciation of astrologers. You may not libel a man; his character is sacred and of the utmost importance. Say what you like of God the Father, the Son, and the Spirit; if you will, denounce their ways and character; deny their being; defame divine revelation. It is your right as a man to say what you think of God or His word, of Christ or His cross. Never before this nineteenth century has the world seen such unlimited license to blaspheme; and nowhere is it more rampant and shameless than in Christendom, Catholic and Protestant. Who can doubt then that “blasphemers” characterize the grievous times in the last days? or that they are already in a most aggravated form?
And surely the marked and growing lack of reverence to parents, the increasing self-will of the young, cannot have escaped the notice of any observing Christian. So it was to be according to the warning of inspiration. “Disobedient” follows “blasphemers"; and most suitably as to order; for parents stand in a position altogether unique toward their children. As it is written in the epistle to the Hebrews, Furthermore, we had the fathers of our flesh to chasten us, and we gave reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection to the Father of spirits, and live? For they, verily for a few days chastened as seemed good to them; but He for profit in order to our partaking of His holiness. If not God but forms are in men's thoughts, real obedience of a parent is nowhere; submission is only where it is unavoidable; where then is the conscientious and loving heart to pay honor and obedience? And the most serious element in this general ruin of so primary a relationship is, that the parents are as much or more to blame than the children, the mothers no less than the fathers; and this confined and peculiar to no class, but pervading every grade of the race. The multitude of societies and devices, to care for the young in our day is not the least striking proof of the plague which has set in permanently for the appalling growth of the evil called out the efforts of pious men to stem it, however superficially, by the Sunday Schools, Homes, Reformatories, and such like. And now they would fain forget the frightful root of this evil in their own class and in every other, glorifying their benevolence in so partial a remedy. Relaxation of discipline, or even its abandonment, on the parents' part cannot but breed disobedience in the children; and in the face of such a prevalent snare, all other means of correction are but the feeblest reeds to avert a gathering storm.
Nor should we overlook the next pair of humiliating characters in these last days, “unthankful, unholy,” which appear to be as appropriately set together as their two predecessors were, and indeed all those described hitherto: not, that those who read them unconnectedly do not glean instruction from each and all, but that the observance of them jointly gives, order, and adds to the harvest. Now what an anomaly is a professing Christian who is thankless! He professes to have life in Christ, and the forgiveness of sins; he is baptized to Christ's death whereby he died with Him to sin; he is under grace, not under law, that sin should not have dominion over him; he is in Christ and so freed from condemnation, and has received the Spirit of adoption whereby to cry Abba, Father. For if any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. All this individually belongs to the believer. Think next of the precious privileges he enjoys as of the body of Christ, in the worship, in the apostolic doctrine, in the fellowship, in the breaking of bread, in the prayers; not to speak of that holy and wholesome and most needful discipline which attaches inseparably to those But keep the feast on the sacrifice of Christ. But why need one set out these countless blessings which all saints share in His Name and by the Spirit of our God with which scripture teems? To be “unthankful” then, while bearing that Name which ensures all to the believer, is the extreme of ingratitude.
“Unholy,” or impious, naturally and one may say necessarily, follows at once. For thankfulness cannot but be, where the heart dwells ever so little on those precious and exceeding great promises, now made sure in our Lord and enjoyed in the power of the Holy Spirit, whilst we wait for glory unfading and eternal, of which He who has sealed us is earnest. To profess what we believe not, is to play the hypocrite; and if we can speak of natural honesty remaining under a Christian mask, indifference to reality and familiarity with forms both contribute to bring about that contempt of the Holy One, Who is trifled with, and of all that pertains to His service, worship, and will, which forms the character of the “unholy.”
The fact too that the word designating “holy” here is not ἄγιος (separate from evil to God), but ὄσιος (holy in the sense of gracious and merciful), shows yet more how one is justified in classing “unholy” with “unthankful.” For grace unfelt soon ends in grace despised, scorned, and trampled on the consequence of unthankfulness is unholiness, a profanity in this kind.
Christ is He who concentrates all grace, and is thus designated “chasid” (Psa. 16; Psa. 89 &c.), as men so described are regarded as piously upright. The reverse of this is intended here; and perhaps even these few words suffice to show how true of Christian professors in our day is this apostolic description. It is not merely the lack of gracious affections, proper to those whose profession implies God's mercy in Christ, but the impious presumption that stands in direct opposition. It is a question neither of injustice nor of impurity.