The Self-Drawn Portrait of the Apostle Paul. (4)
Posted by Marvin Pagkanlungan on Wednesday, May 28, 2014
by Charles H. Welch
#4. Earnest Indignation.
“Here we see . . . . . that earnest indignation which bids his converts ‘beware of dogs, beware of the concision’, and pours itself forth in the emphatic ‘God forbid’, which meets every antinomian suggestion.” (Conybeare and Howson).
The Apostle Paul could use great plainness of speech when the occasion required, and he did not hesitate when the truth was at stake, to speak of the enemies of the faith in the strongest terms. The Dictionary defines “indignation” as “extreme anger caused by a sense of injury or injustice; contemptuous hatred of what is mean or base; the action of counting or treating as unworthy of regard”. The word is associated with the Latin indignari, “to regard as unworthy”. Conybeare and Howson are careful to speak of the Apostle’s “earnest indignation”, realizing only too well that, while we are in the flesh, “wrath” and “hatred” can easily spoil our protests against evil. Nor for a moment must we countenance “railing for railing”. The Apostle himself bids us to let our “moderation” be known to all men. Nevertheless, if we rule out all passion that has the flesh as its origin, there is still a place for “earnest indignation” in the make-up of the saint, and it certainly found a place in Paul’s own character. The Apostle approved this holy intolerance when practiced by the Corinthians in connection with their own evils, although, at the same time, he urged them to exercise forgiveness, and love toward the repentant offender (II Cor. ii. 6-11). “Ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation!” (II Cor. vii. 11). It is incumbent upon us to repudiate “anything that is unworthy”, even though sorrow temper our zeal, and love lead us to help the very one whose errors we so vehemently reject. This double attitude is characteristic of the apostle Paul. It is almost impossible for us, with the two natures that belong to this present life, to “hate” without sin, and yet we read that He who was perfect “hated iniquity” (Heb. i. 9). “Indignation” is certainly right and legitimate if it is not spoilt by what is of the flesh.
We can sense a little of the Apostle’s “earnest indignation” in his reply to the questioner of Rom. ix. “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus?” (Rom. ix. 19, 20). Or again, when replying to the questioner of I Cor. xv. 35, 36: “Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die.”
The Apostle’s indignation is again apparent in I Thess. ii., where he feelingly refutes some of the charges made against him:
“For our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile; but as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, Which trieth our hearts. For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloke of covetousness; God is witness; nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ” (I Thess. ii. 3-6).
There are many occasions in the life of a servant of God when he should allow slanderous statements made against him to pass in silence. Only when the ministry entrusted to this charge is in danger of being compromised, or the glory of the Lord tarnished, is self-vindication justified. During the years that The Berean Expositor has been published, we have naturally had our share of misrepresentation, but, while “earnest indignation” has often been felt, there has seldom been any need for public refutation.
Some believers object to the A.V. translation “God forbid”, and point out that the name of God is not used in the original. This is certainly true, and various alternative renderings, such as “Far be it”, “Far be the thought”, “No, indeed”, “May it not come to that”, “Certainly not”, have been suggested. There is not much to choose between these various suggestions—all express the Apostle’s utter repudiation and abhorrence. The R.V., however, retains the translation given in A.V. in most places, and we must confess that, much as we should deprecate using the name of God carelessly, the possible alternatives hardly seem to do justice to the indignation, unhesitating, uncompromising repudiation that the Apostle intended. We give below fourteen occurrences of the expression as used by him.
Me genoito, “God forbid” (A.V.).
“For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid” (Rom. iii. 3, 4).
“If our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous Who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) God forbid” (Rom. iii. 5, 6).
“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid” (Rom. iii. 31).
“What shall we then say? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid” (Rom. vi. 1, 2).
“What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid” (Rom. vi. 15).
“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid” (Rom. vii. 7).
“Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid” (Rom. vii. 13).
“What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid” (Rom. ix. 14).
“I say then, Hath God cast away His people? God forbid” (Rom. xi. 1).
“I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid” (Rom. xi. 11).
“Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid” (I Cor. vi. 15).
These fourteen repudiations throw a wonderful light upon the spiritual portrait of the Apostle. If the reader will ponder these passage, he will understand a little of our own feelings of “earnest indignation” at some recent attempts to shift human responsibility and make Christ “the minister of sin”.
The fourteen references group themselves as follows:
Faith without effect? \
Unrighteous who taketh vengeance? } The dealings of God.
Void by faith? /
Continue in sin? \
Shall we sin? \ The saint’s relation
Is the law sin? / to sin and law.
Was good made death? /
Unrighteousness because hate? \
Cast away His people? } The dealings of God.
Stumbled that they fall? /
Members of an harlot? \
Christ the minister of sin? \ The saint’s relation
Law against promises? / to sin in the flesh,
Cross and the world? / the world, and law.
-----------------------------------
(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 32, page 172).
------------------------------------
#4. Earnest Indignation.
“Here we see . . . . . that earnest indignation which bids his converts ‘beware of dogs, beware of the concision’, and pours itself forth in the emphatic ‘God forbid’, which meets every antinomian suggestion.” (Conybeare and Howson).
The Apostle Paul could use great plainness of speech when the occasion required, and he did not hesitate when the truth was at stake, to speak of the enemies of the faith in the strongest terms. The Dictionary defines “indignation” as “extreme anger caused by a sense of injury or injustice; contemptuous hatred of what is mean or base; the action of counting or treating as unworthy of regard”. The word is associated with the Latin indignari, “to regard as unworthy”. Conybeare and Howson are careful to speak of the Apostle’s “earnest indignation”, realizing only too well that, while we are in the flesh, “wrath” and “hatred” can easily spoil our protests against evil. Nor for a moment must we countenance “railing for railing”. The Apostle himself bids us to let our “moderation” be known to all men. Nevertheless, if we rule out all passion that has the flesh as its origin, there is still a place for “earnest indignation” in the make-up of the saint, and it certainly found a place in Paul’s own character. The Apostle approved this holy intolerance when practiced by the Corinthians in connection with their own evils, although, at the same time, he urged them to exercise forgiveness, and love toward the repentant offender (II Cor. ii. 6-11). “Ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation!” (II Cor. vii. 11). It is incumbent upon us to repudiate “anything that is unworthy”, even though sorrow temper our zeal, and love lead us to help the very one whose errors we so vehemently reject. This double attitude is characteristic of the apostle Paul. It is almost impossible for us, with the two natures that belong to this present life, to “hate” without sin, and yet we read that He who was perfect “hated iniquity” (Heb. i. 9). “Indignation” is certainly right and legitimate if it is not spoilt by what is of the flesh.
We can sense a little of the Apostle’s “earnest indignation” in his reply to the questioner of Rom. ix. “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus?” (Rom. ix. 19, 20). Or again, when replying to the questioner of I Cor. xv. 35, 36: “Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die.”
The Apostle’s indignation is again apparent in I Thess. ii., where he feelingly refutes some of the charges made against him:
“For our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile; but as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, Which trieth our hearts. For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloke of covetousness; God is witness; nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ” (I Thess. ii. 3-6).
There are many occasions in the life of a servant of God when he should allow slanderous statements made against him to pass in silence. Only when the ministry entrusted to this charge is in danger of being compromised, or the glory of the Lord tarnished, is self-vindication justified. During the years that The Berean Expositor has been published, we have naturally had our share of misrepresentation, but, while “earnest indignation” has often been felt, there has seldom been any need for public refutation.
Some believers object to the A.V. translation “God forbid”, and point out that the name of God is not used in the original. This is certainly true, and various alternative renderings, such as “Far be it”, “Far be the thought”, “No, indeed”, “May it not come to that”, “Certainly not”, have been suggested. There is not much to choose between these various suggestions—all express the Apostle’s utter repudiation and abhorrence. The R.V., however, retains the translation given in A.V. in most places, and we must confess that, much as we should deprecate using the name of God carelessly, the possible alternatives hardly seem to do justice to the indignation, unhesitating, uncompromising repudiation that the Apostle intended. We give below fourteen occurrences of the expression as used by him.
Me genoito, “God forbid” (A.V.).
“For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid” (Rom. iii. 3, 4).
“If our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous Who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) God forbid” (Rom. iii. 5, 6).
“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid” (Rom. iii. 31).
“What shall we then say? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid” (Rom. vi. 1, 2).
“What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid” (Rom. vi. 15).
“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid” (Rom. vii. 7).
“Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid” (Rom. vii. 13).
“What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid” (Rom. ix. 14).
“I say then, Hath God cast away His people? God forbid” (Rom. xi. 1).
“I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid” (Rom. xi. 11).
“Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid” (I Cor. vi. 15).
These fourteen repudiations throw a wonderful light upon the spiritual portrait of the Apostle. If the reader will ponder these passage, he will understand a little of our own feelings of “earnest indignation” at some recent attempts to shift human responsibility and make Christ “the minister of sin”.
The fourteen references group themselves as follows:
Faith without effect? \
Unrighteous who taketh vengeance? } The dealings of God.
Void by faith? /
Continue in sin? \
Shall we sin? \ The saint’s relation
Is the law sin? / to sin and law.
Was good made death? /
Unrighteousness because hate? \
Cast away His people? } The dealings of God.
Stumbled that they fall? /
Members of an harlot? \
Christ the minister of sin? \ The saint’s relation
Law against promises? / to sin in the flesh,
Cross and the world? / the world, and law.
-----------------------------------
(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 32, page 172).
------------------------------------
