Teachers tend to worry when children don’t make progress in the classroom, and will put in extra support to ensure that they don’t fall behind. But as learners in Christ’s school, do we notice when we fail to grow? What extra steps do pastors take when they notice members of the congregation getting stuck at the first principles of the doctrines of Christ? It’s not as if the gospel is a shallow subject or the Bible something superficial. In the following updated extract, Westminster Assembly member William Gouge discusses the criticism made in the letter to the Hebrews, which mentions learning about Christ, the believer’s high priest, “of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God …” (Hebrews 5:10–12).

The revelations of Scripture are profound

The previous chapters of Hebrews have been discussing the doctrine of Christ’s priesthood, which contains many profound mysteries. Christ’s priesthood is the main ground of our salvation. Most of the profoundest points of our Christian religion must be known in order to attain the knowledge of this, including the distinction between Father and Son, the distinction between the two natures of Christ (and how in both natures He was our priest — God, for works of authority and dignity; man, for works of service and suffering), as well as the union of those two natures in one person (because the perfection of all the things which Christ did as our priest did consisted in this).

It can be no wonder that so many heresies have started up in all ages about the priesthood of Christ. Most of the heresies of the Roman Church, especially those that are most fundamental, are about Christ’s priesthood. For there are two parts to Christ’s priesthood — the offering of His sacrifice, and His continual intercession — and most of their capital heresies are against these two. These include, for example, the sacrifice of the mass (which they say is a true, real, propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead), their sacrificing priests, their doctrines of merit, of supererogation, of intercession of saints and angels, and most of their errors about the sacraments.

From this, we can see how necessary it is to be well instructed in the priesthood of Christ. Ministers should be stirred up to study and to preach Christ’s priesthood, as well as other doctrines. The people also should be stirred up to attend to it patiently and diligently.

We should be keen to understand

The Greek word translated “dull” properly signifies slow, or slothful.

They who are ready, willing, and forward to hearken to a thing are said to be “swift to hear.” Contrarily, they who are negligent and careless are said to be “slow in their ears,” or “slow in hearing.” By this we see that their lack of knowledge is through their own fault, as the dullness of understanding, which people bring on themselves by their own slothfulness, makes the mysteries of the Word to be more difficult than otherwise they would be.

This is what prompted Christ to reprove His disciples for not understanding what He spoke (Matt. 15:16, 16:9; Luke 24:25; John 3:10), and the apostles spoke similarly (1 Cor. 3:1; 2 Pet. 3:16). Those who do not understand the Word, and the mysteries it contains, should be humbled by this, for it shows that they have been slothful and careless about exercising themselves in God’s Word, and so made themselves dull in hearing, dull in understanding. Let them therefore lay the blame, not on God’s Word, but on themselves. Take away dullness from people’s understanding, and Scripture will be much easier than it appears to many!

The phrase, “hard to be uttered,” shows that hearers’ dullness keeps ministers from a full and clear expression of the mysteries of the Word. They don’t know how to speak to their hearers (1 Cor. 3:1). This forces them to pass over various mysteries, or to express them in simplistic terms, which suit dull capacities but are not very appropriate for divine mysteries. This in turn further exacerbates people’s dullness.

Preaching should have the effect of instructing people

This phrase, “for the time,” implies that these Hebrews had had the gospel preached to them for many years. By preaching they had been called into the Christian church, and made scholars in Christ’s school, and given Christ’s ministers to be their instructors, and the holy Scriptures for their books.

Our proficiency ought to correspond to how long we have continued sitting under the ministry of God’s Word. Christ reproves Philip for failing in this. “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?” (John 14:9). It aggravated the sin of the Israelites that they had been tutored in the wilderness for forty years, “Yet,” Moses says, “the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day” (Deut. 29:4). Jeremiah similarly complained that for 23 years in a row he had spoken to them the word of the Lord, but they had not hearkened (Jer. 25:3).

The continuance of the means of knowledge among us is a great aggravation of our people’s ignorance; for who among us have not been born and brought up under the light of the gospel? Are there any now who were born before Queen Elizabeth’s days? [Elizabeth I began to reign in 1558.] But from the beginning of her days till these days of ours [the 1650s], the gospel has been preached in this land. The truth of God’s Word has all this time been publicly preached and strongly maintained. A shame, therefore, it is for people to be dull in hearing the mysteries of the Word. Believers have a responsibility to learn thoroughly.

Believers should assist each other to grow

Seeing the Hebrews had enjoyed the continuance of the means, they should have attained to a measure of knowledge which would have enabled them to instruct others. The word translated “teachers” signifies someone who has learned in such a way as to be able and fit to teach others. Sometimes it is used for one who has an office of teaching (Eph. 4:11; 1 Cor. 12:28); sometimes for one who has ability to teach (Rom. 2:20). The second sense is how we take it here (as it does not follow that all who are able to instruct others should take on the ministerial teaching office: all who have the office of teacher must have the ability of teachers, but all who have the ability need not have the office).

The word translated “ye ought” signifies a bounden duty. It was fitting for them, and it was their duty, to make use of the means of knowledge that had been so long afforded to them in this way. In this respect the apostle requires aged women to be teachers of good things (Tit. 2:4). So Aquila and Priscilla instructed Apollos (Acts 18:26).

By such proficiency, both God, His Word, and His ministers are much honoured. Indeed, in this way the church may be much increased, and they themselves made able to do much good to others, and to themselves. What then should we think of those who do all they can to keep people from knowledge, and to nuzzle them up in ignorance?

This may be a spur to such as think they have gone great lengths, if they have so much as attained to some fundamental principles. Are they fit to be teachers? Where is the fullness of knowledge (Col. 1:9), and abounding in knowledge (2 Cor. 8:7), which is required of Christians?

If it is the duty of ordinary Christians to be able to instruct others, how much more is it the duty of ministers, heads of families, parents, and those who have responsibility for others? What a shame it is for them to be unable to be teachers!

It becomes us therefore to give the more earnest heed to the things we hear (Heb. 2:1), so that we may profit the more by them, and still more and more grow in knowledge, till we come to be able teachers.

Pastors should be patient teachers

This phrase, “ye have need,” is brought in as a reason why the apostle has forborne to handle deep points — they had need of other kind of instructions.

People are to be instructed according to their need. “Ye are not able to bear such and such doctrines,” Paul said (1 Cor. 3:2); “I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now,” Christ said to His disciples (John 16:12). It is expressly said that He spoke the word to them “as they were able to bear it” (Mark 4:33). Christ would not press on His disciples the austere discipline of much fasting, while they were but novices. He declares the equity of this in two familiar comparisons, one taken from putting a piece of new cloth into an old garment; the other, from putting new wine into old bottles, which He says no one will do (Matt. 9:14–15, etc.).

It is therefore a special point of wisdom in those who have responsibility for others, to observe carefully what they have need of. It’s as if Paul said, “At your first entrance into Christ’s school, you were ignorant of its mysteries, and needed to be instructed in the first principles of Christian religion. But notwithstanding the long time that you have enjoyed such great means of knowledge, you remain the same as you were in the beginning. So it is needful that we begin from scratch all over again!”

Where need requires it, the same things are to be taught again, and again. “To write the same things, is for you safe,” says the apostle (Phil. 3:1). The prophet agrees. “Precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line” (Isa. 28:10). This is how we deal with our friends. If we observe that by reason of weakness they need to be fed with the same kind of sustenance as they ate in their childhood, we will give them the same again. Should we not be equally wise for people’s souls as for their bodies?

Believers should strive to move beyond the basics

What the Hebrews needed to be taught again is called “the first principles of the oracles of God.” All the arts have their distinct principles, which learners are first taught. So Christians have their principles, in which those who desire knowledge of the Christian religion are first instructed.

To show what kind of principles he means, the apostle adds, “of the oracles of God.” He means the principles which God makes known in His Word. For example, the laws which Moses declared from God are called “oracles” (Acts 7:38), as are the precepts committed to the Jews (Rom. 3:2), and in general the whole Word of God (1 Pet.4:11).

In particular, these are called “the principles of the doctrine of Christ,” (Heb. 6:1).

In this case, to be ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth, is a great shame (2 Tim. 3:7). God Himself is much dishonoured by this, and His Word and ministers disgraced. This is of direct concern to those who have been church members and hearers of God’s Word for a very long time. Adversaries are ready to open their mouths in criticism against them, to blaspheme the name of God (Rom. 2:21). They are also easily made a prey to every seducer (Eph. 4:14). Take heed therefore how you hear.

FURTHER READING

AUTHOR MENU

Some people are expert at identifying disagreements and upsets and then probing continually to keep the difficulty at the forefront of everyone’s minds. This is not the honest interest of wanting to arrive at a settled view of a doubtful question in their own minds, but comes from a darker motivation that finds some kind of satisfaction in seeing other people at loggerheads. Yet this is the opposite of what a Christian should be like. When there are disagreements between Christians, fellow believers should do all they can not to make things worse, and everything possible to bring reconciliation and harmony. In the following updated extract, Westminster Assembly member Jeremiah Burroughs offers a series of considerations to help us prioritise peace between Christian and Christian.

Think of how far we can agree

We differ in this way and that way, but what do we agree in? Do we not agree in enough things that we may spend all the days of our lives and all the strength we have in glorifying God together?

Many love to be altogether busied about their brethren’s differences. Their discourse, their pens, and all their ways are about these. But it is not to heal the breaches, but rather to widen them. You do not hear them speak of or get involved with their agreements; their strength is not bent to heighten and strengthen agreement. If at any time they do take notice of their agreements, it only to render their disagreements the more odious, or to strengthen themselves in what they differ from them. They desire to get in men, and to get from them, only what will serve their own interests. This is an evil spirit.

Pliny tells us about the famous painter Apelles, who was drawing the face of King Antiochus, who only had one eye. In order to hide this deformity, Apelles came up with the idea of painting him with his face slightly turned away. From him, says Pliny, came the invention of concealing the defects and blemishes of the face. But the painters of our time do things quite differently. If there is any deformity or defect on any side, they will be sure to paint that side in all its detail, and set it forth fully to the view of all. Indeed, if it may be made to look more ugly and monstrous than it is, then that is what they will use all the skill they have to do.

But, my brethren, this ought not to be! God does not treat us like this. He takes notice of the good of His children, and conceals their evil. There was only one good word in what Sarah said to Abraham, in what was otherwise a speech of unbelief (Gen. 18:12), yet when the Holy Ghost speaks of her afterwards, He conceals all the evil in it, and mentions only the respectful title she gave to her husband, commending her for it (1 Pet. 3:6). This is what we should do, and if we had peaceable hearts, it is what we would do. All the good of our brethren we would amplify to the utmost, and what is evil, so far as we could with a good conscience, we would conceal.

Realise that what we gain by contention will never be worth the cost

A merchant thinks it a bad venture, if when he comes to do his accounts he finds that the cost of his voyage exceeds his income. If you can calmly sit down and look at your accounts truly, and set down in one column what good you got by such and such contentions, and in the other column add up what hurt you have done, what sin has been committed, what evil has got into your spirit, I fear you will have little gain to rejoice in.

“To be freed from the expense that comes in by strife, is not a little gain,” says Ambrose. In strife you will find there is a very great expense of time, of gifts and of abilities. Many men have good gifts given by God, and might have proved shining lights in the church, but by reason of their contentious spirits, they prove nothing but smoking firebrands. It may well be that, even with all the fuss you stir up, you will never get your own way; but even if you do, it will not exceed the cost. What you have spent on it, comes to much more than it is worth. God deliver me from having things my own way at such a dear rate!

Watch out for the work of the devil

When people provoke us, we are ready to flare up against them, looking no further than the people with whom we are displeased. But if you look a little further, perhaps you may see the devil hiding over there, and he may be the chief agent in the business.

Augustine says that when a fowler sets his net to catch birds, he sets it at a distance from the hedge, then he takes stones and throws them at the hedge. This makes the birds fly out, and flutter about. The fowler does not intend to damage the hedge, neither does he plan to hit any birds with his stones, but his eye is on the net on the other side of the hedge, and he drives the birds in there.

So, says Augustine, the devil prepares his net, then he raises up contentions, and causes much trouble in churches and among brethren, and you think all the evil is in the trouble of your present contentions. Oh no! The devil is behind the hedge, and he intends to bring you into some great sin by these upsets. When you are troubled and vexed by such contentions, the devil sees you fit for a temptation. “Now,” he says, “I shall get him to do such and such things, which otherwise I could never have got him to.” When we find contentions stirring, we should consider, “Is there not a temptation in them?”

Remember what we are called to

God has called us to peace (1 Cor. 7:15). The apostle mentions this call to peace in the context of a situation as difficult to preserve peace in as any that can occur in anyone’s life. It was the case of man and wife unequally yoked — one is a believer, the other an infidel. Yet as they are man and wife, the apostle says that the believer must be content to live with the unbeliever, as is becoming in a wife or a husband, unless he or she of themselves chooses to depart. But they should give the unbeliever no reason to depart, but rather by their holy, humble way of life they should seek to convert them.

Unquestionably this is a hard task, but it must be, says the apostle, and the reason is, “for God hath called us to peace.”

There is another case, almost as difficult as this, where patience and quietness of spirit is very much tried, and that is when a servant meets with a harsh, rugged, cruel master, who abuses him very injuriously. If anything would put someone’s spirit into a rage, you would think this would. “No,” says the apostle, “you must have such command over your spirit that you patiently bear this,” and this is the reason he gives, “For hereunto were ye called …” (1 Pet. 2:21–22).

You might object, “I grant that husbands and wives should live at peace, though they suffer one from another, and servants should put up with wrongs from their masters, yet it does not follow that similar patience should be required in us when we are wronged by our equals, or by those to whom we have no such bond of relation.” But yes, the argument from our calling is strong in this case also. “Love as brethren, be courteous, not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railings, but contrariwise, blessing, knowing that ye are thereunto called” (1 Pet. 3:8–9).

Think what account we can give to Jesus Christ for all our divisions

When Christ comes, are you going stand before Him with scratched faces and black eyes? “The Lord make you to increase and abound in love one towards another, and towards all men,” the apostle says, and to what end? “To the end he may establish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints” (1 Thess. 3:12–13).

It will be a sad thing to be found in our divisions at the coming of Jesus Christ. In Matthew 24:50, the coming of Christ is mentioned as a terror to those who so much as begin to smite their fellow-servants. We may wrangle and stand out one against another in our contentions now, but it will not be so easy to answer Jesus Christ as it is to answer back to one another.

In the name of Jesus Christ I speak to you now, and indeed, as from Him I charge you. Let no reason move you to contend with, differ from or separate from your brethren, but that which you are persuaded in your conscience (after due and serious examination) will stand before — in fact, will be approved of — by Jesus Christ at His coming.

Take to heart our mortality

We only have a little time to live. Will the greater part of it — actually, why should any part of it? — be snarled up with contentions and quarrels? Virgil says that if swarms of bees meet in the air, they will sometimes fight, as if in a set battle, with great violence. But if you throw a little dust on them, they will all go quiet. Sprinkle on your hearts the meditations of death, the thought that within a while this flesh of yours will be turned to dust, and this will quiet you.

Reflect on the life of heaven

There is and will be perfect agreement in heaven. Here, we are like bees, flying up and down from flower to flower all day, but at night all the bees come into the same hive. That is a place where Luther and Zwingli well agree. Considering that from all eternity God has ordained us to live co-heirs in heaven, to join together in praises there, shall we not agree together here on earth?

FURTHER READING

AUTHOR MENU

It is a joyful time when new members are added to a congregation, formally identifying themselves as believers in Jesus and committing to live as one of His disciples. All churches have some kind of admission process which allows them to decide whether somebody can be accepted as a new member. However, what criteria should a church use? Robert Baillie (1602–1662) served as a minister in Kilwinning, an army chaplain, and Professor of Divinity (later Principal) at Glasgow University. He was also one of the Scottish commissioners to the Westminster Assembly. In his writings he interacted with some who believed that people were obliged to provide evidence that they were truly regenerate before they could be accepted as church members. Robert Baillie argues in the following extract that this sets the bar for church membership too high. We cannot see into each other’s hearts, so how can we know whether someone is genuinely saved or not? Also, the Lord Himself has organised His church in the world in such a way that it will never be composed entirely of the truly regenerate. Baillie’s position strives for the highest standards for church members to live up to, while relieving us of the burden of deciding whether each individual church member is genuinely born again.

This is not a question of open profaneness in church members, but whether they have or lack true grace — i.e., whether they can show convincing signs of regeneration. The argument is not only that the church has a power and responsibility to discipline profaneness, but that there is a power in every member of the church to exclude from membership all who do not satisfy them that they are truly saved by grace.

I grant that it is earnestly to be wished that all the members of a church were most holy and gracious, and that all lawful means should diligently be used, both by pastors and people, to attain this.

I grant also that it is the duty of the church leadership to prevent every person who causes spiritual stumbling from profaning the holy things of the Lord to their own damnation. It is the duty of the church leadership not only to suspend from the Lord’s table all persons who cause stumbling, but further, if those persons are obstinate, and cannot be brought to repentance, they are to be excluded from the church, without respect of persons. I grant also that when church leaders are deficient in these duties, they ought themselves to be disciplined with church censures. These things are beyond dispute.

But the question is, Is a church essentially defective because it admits to church membership some who have not given satisfaction to every member of the church in the point of their real regeneration?

I argue that the answer to this question is No, for the following reasons.

Moses and the prophets

Moses and the prophets did not separate from the churches of their times on account of lack of convincing signs of true grace in many members of the church. Indeed, they were so far from separating from the churches of their days that they remained even to their dying day in the bosom of these churches, communicating with them in the Word, prayer, sacraments and sacrifices, even though they were assured of the evident wickedness of the majority of their fellow-members.

Moses knew the body of Israel to be a crooked and perverse generation. Isaiah tells the Jews that they were another Sodom. Jeremiah shows that Israel in his day was uncircumcised in heart, no better than Moab, Ammon, or Edom. Micah said that the godly in his time were as rare as the summer fruits, as the grapes after the vintage. Of this truth all the prophets are full, yet for all this, none of the prophets did ever think of separation.

The church in the days of Moses and the prophets was one and the same with the church of our days. The house of God, the body of Christ, the elect and redeemed people, the holy nation, the peculiar treasure and spouse of the Lamb — the difference in the true church in any age is at most only in incidental circumstances, and not in any essentials.

Whatever moral evil defiles the church now, that is a rightful cause of excommunication or separation, must be so at all times, and especially under the Old Testament. All the ceremonial differences between the church then and now only strengthen this argument, because then the causes of separation were stricter and smaller. In those days, a little ceremonial defilement would have kept someone out of the sanctuary; much more a moral uncleanness would have made the sacrifice abominable.

If, therefore, in the Old Testament a matter was no cause of separating from the church, much less can it be so now.

Christ and the apostles

Again, Christ and His apostles did not separate from the church of their time for lack of convincing signs of the true grace of every member of the church. The implications for us are clear, unless we desire a better pattern for our practices than Christ and His apostles, for anything that carries us beyond their line must be high presumption and deep hypocrisy.

Many Scriptures back this up. The scribes and Pharisees were a generation of vipers. Jerusalem was worse than Sodom and Gomorrah. Chorazin and Bethsaida were worse than Tyrus and Sidon, and to be cast lower in hell then they. Yet the Lord did not cease to preach, to pray, to go to the temple with them. Judas, when a declared traitor, did not deter Him nor any of His company from the sacrament. After he went from the table, when his wickedness was revealed, yet none of the apostles offered to cast themselves out of the body because this wicked member was not cut off.

Many members of the apostolic churches were so far from convincing signs of true grace, that what was most evident in their life was the works of the flesh. In the Corinthian church were fundamental errors, open idolatry, grievous scandal, bitter contentions, profanation of the Lord’s Table. In the Galatian church were errors which destroyed grace, and made Christ of none effect. In the churches of Ephesus, Laodicea, and the other golden candlesticks, various members were so evidently faulty that the Lord threatened to remove the candlestick. Yet from none of these churches did any of the apostles ever separate, nor did they give the least warrant to any of their disciples to make a separation from any of them.

The nature of the church

If we believe Scripture, it is the nature of a visible church that it is such a body whose members are never all gracious. It is not like the invisible church, the church of the elect.

The visible church is a heterogeneous body, and the parts of it are very dissimilar, some chaff, some corn, some wheat, some tares. It is a net of fish, good and bad; a house in which are vessels of honour and dishonour; a fold of sheep and goats; a tree of green and withered branches; a table of guests, some with and some without a wedding garment. In the best churches of the Scripture we have too many bad members, including Judas, Ananias and Sapphira, Simon Magus, Hymeneus and Philetus, Demas and the like.

In a word, every visible church is a society in which many are called, few are chosen. So unless we will alter the nature of all the visible churches of which Scripture speaks, we must grant that in every church there are some members which have no true grace. If so, how can they give convincing and satisfactory signs of that which is not to be found? Hypocrites may put a good front on the outside of something which does not exist on the inside, but shall we lay an obligation on every hypocritical member of a church to be so eminently skilful in the art of counterfeiting as to produce in the midst of his gracelessness such clear, evident and satisfactory signs of his true grace that it will convince the hearts of every member of the church that there is something in his heart which certainly is not there?

The Corinthians were referred to as “sanctified in Christ, and called to be saints.” If this refers to an inward, efficacious call, it is true not of every member, but only of some, and is attributed to the whole church of Corinth indefinitely, because of these some, who truly were elected, justified, and sanctified. That this was not true of all and every one of that church is clear by the apostle’s complaint of many among them. Some he complained of for incest, of others for injurious defrauding of their neighbours, of some for carnal schisms, of others for profane drunkenness at the Lord’s table itself, of others for fundamental errors.

Christ is said to have died for the Galatians’ sins, and separated them from this evil world. If this refers to true grace, yet it may not be applied to every member of the Galatian church, for in the next words, the apostle testifies that some of them were removed to “another gospel,” and that they were foolish and bewitched to rebel against the truth.

The relation of the church to the persons of the Trinity is, that it is the body and spouse of Christ, the temple of the Holy Ghost, the sons and daughters of the Father. This must be understood (along with many similar privileges) of the universal and invisible church. When any such privileges are referred to a particular visible church, they must be understood of that church not according to every one of its members, but only its living and gracious members.

The burden on every member

It would not be right to separate from a church because of the lack of something that cannot reasonably be expected of every member of a congregation. But if every member is supposed to be satisfied that every other member shows signs of true regeneration, it would end up in an unreasonable situation.

For one thing, every member of the congregation would need to have the power to judge all their fellow members, as to whether they should be let in to or kept out of church membership. This way lies anarchy!

For another thing, how is it possible to attain any well-grounded certainty about the true grace in the heart of any other person? The “hidden man of the heart” and “the new name” are not certainly known to any but to those who have them. The grounds of each individual’s own certainty, the act of their faith either direct or reflex, the witness of their conscience, or the sealing of the Spirit, cannot go outside their own heart. All the demonstrations which can be made to someone else are so often found false that they can provide at most a fallible opinion, or a charitable hope, far from any certainty of sense or science, never mind faith or direct revelation.

Then also, it lays on the conscience of every weak one a burden that is unbearable to the strongest. They will be kept in constant perplexity and doubt what to do — whether to stay in the church, or under the pain of sin to separate from it, till they have accurately examined and verified and attained to a full satisfaction and assurance of mind about the regeneration of every member, however many members were in the church they belonged to. The burden of such a task might break the back of the strongest pastor, much more of a poor lamb.

FURTHER READING

AUTHOR MENU

Believers grow by feeding on the Word. But when the Word is so rich and complex, where do we make a start? While it makes sense that we need to learn doctrine in order to become more proficient in theology, what we sometimes miss is the connection between knowing the truth and any kind of Christian growth. We cannot really grow in our relationship with God at all without a good doctrinal foundation. The Bible itself makes a distinction between basic truths and those that are more advanced. This is reflected in the age-old practice of catechising — identifying those basic, primary truths and ensuring that new converts, and children, are well instructed in these basics. William Gouge (1575–1653), a member of the Westminster Assembly, noticed the flow of thought in Hebrews 5. From a discussion of the work of Christ as the atoning high priest, the chapter turns to challenge the readers to grow in the faith. “When for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat” (Hebrews 5:12). In the following excerpt, Gouge explains the necessity of catechising and invites us all, whether catechised or catechising, to enjoy the benefits of being properly grounded in the truths of God’s Word.

This phrase, ‘Ye have need that one teach you again,’ etc., is a description of those who were to be instructed in the first principles of the Christian religion. It is apparent from this that the early church, even in the days of the apostles, had forms of catechisms, and a custom of catechising, just as the Jews had the law for their catechism, and its abbreviation (Matthew 22:37–39).

To ‘catechise,’ according to the Greek verb, is to instruct, and that by word of mouth, or by sounding a thing in one’s ears.

Among Christians, to ‘catechise’ is to teach the first principles of Christian religion; a catechism is a brief form of such principles. Such forms there were from the beginning of the New Testament church, as we can see from phrases such as, ‘a form of knowledge’ (Romans 2:20); ‘a form of doctrine’ (Romans 6:17); ‘a form of sound words’ (2 Timothy 1:13); ‘the principles of the doctrine of Christ’ (Hebrews 6:1), as well as ‘the first principles of the oracles of God’ (Hebrews 5:12). This is how Theophilus (Luke 1:4) and Apollos (Acts 10:25) were catechised.

As in the apostle’s time, so in succeeding ages, different churches had their distinct catechisms.

So frequent was the practice of catechising in ancient times that they had ministers set apart for the particular duty of catechising (they were called catechisers). All who were admitted to the church were from time to time catechised, and instructed in the principles of Christian religion. From the time of their entrance into the church till they were judged fit to partake of the sacrament, they were called ‘the catechised,’ or disciples of the catechisers.

Many of the ancient councils made various decrees for catechising. And many of the ancient church fathers made treatises about it.

Why is catechising necessary?

Weighty reasons may be given for the necessity of catechising.

By catechising, a good and sure foundation is laid, and it is necessary in all buildings that a good foundation be laid, lest for want of it the building come to ruin.

By catechising, people are bit by bit made capable of deeper mysteries, just as by learning letters and syllables, children are brought on to read fluently. The most intelligent hearers are those who have been well instructed in the principles of religion.

By catechising, those who profess the faith are enabled to ‘render a reason of the hope that is in them,’ as is required (1 Peter 3:15), for a well compiled catechism contains the sum and substance of all that a Christian is to believe.

By catechising, pastors may know their people’s capacity and understanding. This is requisite in two respects. Firstly, so that he will know the better who to admit to the Lord’s table; secondly, so that he will the better discern how to order his preaching, both for matter and manner.

The fruits of catechising have always been observed to be many and great. This is how families have been made seminaries for the church. Catechising was one of the most effectual ordinary means of drawing pagans to embrace the Christian faith. The fruit which Julian the apostate observed to arise from instructing children in the principles of Christianity made him suppress all places that were used to that end. It has always been observed that, in this latter spring of the gospel, the use of catechising has been a special means of drawing people from the darkness of Romanism to the light of the gospel. For every Reformed church has her catechism, by which multitudes have been so well grounded in the true religion that nothing could draw them away from it. This is why the Council of Trent decreed to compile their own catechism of the principles of Roman religion.

What is the difference between catechising and preaching?

By catechising, a foundation is laid (Heb. 6:1). By preaching, the building is farther reared up, beautified, and perfected.

By catechising, many and large points are contracted into brief sums, as in the ten commandments, the creed, and Lord’s prayer. By preaching, distinct points are amplified, enlarged, and applied in various ways.

By catechising, weak and ignorant ones are fed, as with milk. By preaching, the strong are further nourished with strong food. For in catechising the most necessary principles are plainly laid down, but in preaching, all sorts of points can be handled, difficult as well as easy, and indeed the contrary errors can be refuted.

By catechising, a particular account is taken of the learners, which is not so done by preaching. For catechising is by question and answer, such that the catechised give an account of their proficiency; whereas preaching is only by a minister declaring his mind.

Catechising is for those who are newly entered into the church, and that only for a time, till they are fitted for the sacrament. But preaching is for all, of all sorts, as long as they live. Even if someone had all knowledge, yet preaching is requisite to work on their affections, and to bring to their mind and memory the things which they know. Preaching is profitable to all the uses that are mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:16.

From this it is evident that catechising is to be used as well as preaching.

Those who have the authority to order church affairs ought to make guidance and laws for catechising, and be careful to see them put into practice.

Ministers who have the charge of souls committed to them must make conscience of laying this foundation where they see need. Even if they themselves are well educated, yet they do not need to be ashamed of doing so. It is no shame to lay a foundation, but a great shame to build without a foundation.

Parents and heads of families are especially to make it a matter of conscience to catechise their families. This is what is intended in Deuteronomy 6:7 (“teach [these words] diligently unto thy children …), and it is commended by God himself (e.g., in the case of Abraham, Genesis 18:19). This would be a great help to the public ministry of the Word. If milk was frequently and seasonably given in families, then more strong meat could be ministered in public churches.

Those who are not well acquainted with the first principles ought to allow this foundation to be laid in their souls, and not think it too much to be catechised, as it is a way for them to profit better by the public ministry of the Word.

What should be covered in a good catechism?

The words, ‘oracles of God,’ gives proof that the principles which are taught in catechisms ought to be grounded on God’s Word. Those were the principles in which the Hebrews were instructed. To this purpose this advice was given, ‘If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God’ (1 Peter 4:11). In this sense, catechistical points are styled ‘the principles of the doctrine of Christ’ (Hebrews 6:1).

These only are ‘sound’ words (2 Timothy 1:13), or ‘wholesome’ words, ‘even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which is according to godliness’ (1 Timothy 6:3).

Those who draw up catechisms have good direction here to make sure they have good warrant out of God’s Word for every principle that they set down. It is useful, in this respect, to quote the Scriptures on which their principles are grounded in the margin.

Those who have such catechisms available have here a powerful motive to use them conscientiously. Ministers, heads of families, parents, tutors, schoolmasters, and others who have responsibility for souls, ought to be all the more conscientious in instructing those who are under their charge, because what they are instructing them is in ‘the oracles of God.’ Likewise, learners ought to be the more diligent in learning them.

FURTHER READING

AUTHOR MENU

Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has recently resigned over failures in his handling of one of the Church of England’s worst child abuse scandals. A damning report found a conspiracy of silence around the sadistic abuse of young boys both in the UK and in Africa, perpetrated by John Smyth, a prominent evangelical in the Church of England, and left unchallenged by bishops and others in church leadership. Several commentators have noted how church leaders can remain aloof from on-the-ground pastoral concerns and instead use their platforms for airing their own views on issues of little concern to local congregations. The daily spiritual needs of people’s souls are low in their priorities and when genuine wrongs are perpetrated, victims are easy to ignore. In perhaps less heinous cases, this picture is very recognisable in other churches too. When we drill down to the essential features of this situation, we find that God has already spoken His utter opposition to this kind of wickedness in the church. Long ago, He expressed His disgust at the prophets who brought defilement into His church by their conspiracy of cruelty and selfishness. Westminster Assembly member William Greenhill explains in the following updated extract from his commentary on Ezekiel.

Multi-faceted wickedness

Taking together the 25th and 28th verses of Ezekiel 22, you have expressed the sins of the prophets which defiled the land, making it to be called “The Uncleansed Land.” These sins are: conspiracy, cruelty, soul-murder, covetousness, inhumanity, and flattery.

Jerusalem was the holy city, the city of God, the place where God’s name was recorded, a type of the church of God in all ages. Yet there, even there, were wicked and false prophets. It shows us clearly that there will always be false prophets in the church of God. They were there in Christ’s time: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing” (Matt. 7:15). They were there in Paul’s time: “there was one Bar-Jesus, a Jew, and a false prophet” (Acts 13:6). They were there in John’s time: “Many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). So many have gone out that there is a generation of them here to this day, and they will not cease as long as the Lord has His church in the world. There will be false prophets around even at doomsday.

Unhealthy consensus

Ezekiel says there was “a conspiracy of her prophets.” They combined together, all of one heart and mind. The evil prophets met in Jerusalem and consulted, and they consented to prophesy the same thing, and none of them should prophesy otherwise. If anyone did, they would cry them down, along with any who might follow them. Thus they “made a conspiracy” against the true prophets, and those who were truly religious, opposing God and godliness. Read for yourself how they set themselves against Jeremiah (Jer. 26:8), and stirred up the princes and people against him (Jer. 26:11), and how they prophesied the same things (Jer 13:17 and 6:14).

Threatening words

These prophets are “like a roaring lion ravening the prey.” Lions are fierce and cruel, especially when hungry. Just as lions first roar, to scare people and other animals, before they then hunt their prey, so wicked prophets roared against the true prophets and their followers. “This man is worthy to die,” they said about Jeremiah (Jer. 26:11) — not to be silenced, or imprisoned, or banished, but “to die.” Nothing but death would suffice them. They were greedy of the prey, and said he should “surely die” (Jer 26:8).

Destructive policies

“They have devoured souls.” “Souls” means “people,” by a figure of speech called synecdoche, where the part stands for the whole. These prophets preached dreams and visions out of their own heads, whereby they seduced and ruined multitudes (Eze. 13:10; Jer. 14:13; Jer 13:13).

When prophets fail to warn the people about their sins, they destroy them (Eze. 3:18), and it is the same when they present their own fancies instead of God’s word (Jer. 23:22 and 32). If only they had delivered the word of God, they would have turned people from evil ways, but by their lies and dreams they made them err.

Ambitiousness

“They have taken the treasure and precious things.” These prophets were false, and would not do the work of a prophet unless the people gave to them — and gave them the best things. Micah said the same thing: the prophets teach for money (Mic. 3:11), and prepare war for those who refuse to put into their mouths (Mic. 3:5). They did not necessarily take the people’s treasure by force, or steal away their precious things, but the way they behaved was that the people must give. They were not content with what was their stipend, but they had ways, arts, devices, to get more.

Note that an alternative meaning for the Hebrew word is glory, or honour. The sense then would be that these false prophets were ambitious, aspiring to high place and the glory of popular acclaim.

Highly incongruous wickedness

It was the men who should have openly declared against sin, who openly committed sin. “There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof.” They roared like lions, not caring who heard or saw them; they made many widows in the very midst of Jerusalem. They sinned notorious sins, and were not ashamed of them. “Both prophet and priest are profane; in my house have I found their wickedness, saith the Lord” (Jer. 23:11). In the temple, the most public place of worship, there they set up their idols and detestable things (Eze. 7:20).

When prophets and men in near relations to God are bad, they proceed from sin to sin, from degree to degree of the same sin, till they become impudent. These prophets conspired against those who were good in Jerusalem. They were cruel, murderous, covetous, inhumane, and all that even in the midst of Jerusalem. They did not blush at any or all these sins, only proceeded in their covetousness so that they got the treasure and precious things the people had.

Seen wickedness

God takes special notice of the sins of prophets. They are mentioned first in the general corruption that affected all sorts. There were priests’ sins, princes’ sins, and people’s sins, but the prophets are set in the front. They provoked God greatly. They did the most hurt. “From the prophets of Jerusalem is profaneness gone forth into all the land” (Jer. 23:15). They were the corrupt springs, which corrupted the whole Jewish earth with the streams of their false doctrines, and the example of their sinful practices.

Their sins are spoken of in great detail in the Word, and set on record. God takes note of it all. They dealt falsely (Jer. 6:13). They “belied the Lord” (Jer. 5:12). They “taught rebellion against the Lord”’ (Jer. 28:16; 29:32). They “strengthened the hands of evil-doers,” so that no one returned from his wickedness (Jer. 23:14). They were “light and treacherous” (Zeph. 3:4). They deluded the people, and murdered their souls (Jer. 8:11; Eze. 13:10). They were exceedingly covetous, and greedy of gain from every quarter (Isa. 56:11; Mic. 3:5). They made the people forget the name of the Lord (Jer. 23:27). They were sly like foxes (Eze. 13:4).

When the prophets were defiled with such sins, they defiled the land with them, kindled the indignation of the Lord, and made Him say concerning them, “Behold, I will feed them with wormwood, and make them drink the water of gall” (Jer. 23:15), and that He would consume them by sword and famine (Jer. 14:15).

FURTHER READING

AUTHOR MENU

Although the church in general currently has little influence in wider society, this does not eliminate the problem of ministers and pastors striving for power and influence within their own smaller circles. Sometimes there is seeking for pre-eminence among their brother ministers, sometimes it is a domineering attitude towards the people in the pews. Although this may go hand in hand with sound doctrine and other forms of usefulness, it is the opposite of the spirit of meekness and gentleness which the Lord Jesus Christ models for His servants. As Thomas Manton pointed out in one of his sermons, pastors should lead by light and love, not with force and fear. In the following extract from a sermon on 2 Thessalonians 2:3–4, Manton diagnoses the basic problem as lack of Christ-like humility and sounds the warning that pride in the church is the defining characteristic of what it means to be anti-Christ.

Humility makes ministers Christ-like

That which is most remarkable in Christ, and should be in all his followers, is humility. He expressed a wonderful contempt of the riches and greatness of the world, and all the honour which is of man, taking the form of a servant, and making Himself of no reputation, and living a mean, inferior life. He came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many (Matt. 9:28). He kept no state, nor affected pomp of attendants. Though He was Lord of all, yet He became poor, to make us rich (2 Cor. 8:9).

But even if this was appropriate for Him, does He also expect it from His servants and officers in the church? Yes. This is the grace He has recommended to all his followers: Mat. 11:29, “Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly” (Matt. 11:29). But especially He recommends it to the ministers of the gospel. Because our Lord foresaw what spirit would work in them, therefore He forewarned them of pride and lordliness: Mat. 20:25, 26, “Ye know that the princes of the earth do exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them; but it shall not be so among you but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister” (Matt. 20:25–26). Among Christ’s servants, he that is chief must be chief in service, even as a servant to all: “He that is chief, as he that doth serve” (Luke 22:26).

Domination, greatness, principality and power, is allowed in the civil state, for there it is necessary, yet it is excluded in the church. This pretentious taking on of pre-eminence and chiefness is the bane of the church — it is taxed as a great sin in Diotrephes (3 John 9) — whether it is pre-eminence either over their fellow-labourers, or the people of the Lord.

You see how tender the apostles were in this point. Everywhere they disclaim this affectation of lordship: “Not that we are lords of your faith, but helpers of your joy” (2 Cor. 1:24). Peter says to his fellow-elders, “Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being examples to the flock” (1 Pet. 5:3). And if the apostles would not assume lordship, who may?

It is true, there is a government in the church, and the people are to obey their guides (Heb 13:17), and to “have them highly in honour, for their works’ sake” (1 Thess 5:13), but yet the pastors of the church should govern by light and love, not by pomp and force, and not be known by such pomp and authority as begets fear.

Signs of an un-Christ-like spirit in the church

Well, now, let us see the opposite state. If humility and meekness be in the very essence of Christianity, and woven throughout the whole frame of it, then it is anti-Christian to be lordly and proud, especially in those who claim to be successors of Christ and His apostles.

With some, all their business is to get power. What schemes they have for getting ahead! How studiously they pursue promotion! They blush not to say so openly before angels and men. This worldly ambition to rise higher and higher is their design and trade of life.

Within the church, they presume to exercise supreme authority. But it is the unique and incommunicable property of Christ to be Lord and lawgiver to the church. “The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us” (Isa. 33:22). God alone has such interest in His people as to prescribe supreme or universal laws to them, and we are His subjects. “There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy” (James 4:12). Now anyone who makes laws that immediately bind the conscience, invades Christ’s sovereignty. This is spiritual tyranny, and the worst sort of tyranny, to arrogate a power over the subjects of Christ and their consciences as lord of their faith. Likewise, it is an exercising an authority no less than divine, to take upon oneself to absolve others from their duty to God, or the penalty which sin has made his due. To do this as of right, is to sit in the church of God as God.

How Christ’s church should operate

How then should things carry on in the true and reformed Christianity?

With meekness

With such meekness, modesty, and mortification, that our religion may be known to be established by a crucified Lord, whose doctrine and example do visibly and eminently hold forth the contempt of the world. The pride and ambition of the pastors of the church hath been the cause of all the evil in it; therefore nothing so unsuitable to the gospel as a domineering spirit. We, that are to preach heavenly-mindedness and self-denial, should not affect the greatness of the world, lest our lives contradict our doctrine.

With respect towards civil authorities

How eminent and exemplary we should be in our obedience to magistrates! For this is the opposite of anti-Christian pride. God is very tender of the honour of civil powers and authorities, and wants every soul to be subject to them: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God” (Rom. 13:1), and again, “Submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether it be to the king as supreme, or to governors, as them that are sent by him” (1 Pet. 2:13). Great respect and submission is due to them for God’s sake, and so that we may commend religion to the profane world, and live down the reproaches of the gospel. Those who were not afraid to speak evil of dignities, who despise government in their own hearts, or weaken the esteem of it in the hearts of others by their words, are branded as wicked (2 Pet. 2:10), ‘But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanliness, and despise government; presumptuous are they, self-willed; they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.’

With reverence towards the Lord

What a wickedness it is to usurp divine honours! We do so when we take to ourselves the praise and admiration which is only due to God. “And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our power or holiness we had made this man to walk? The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus, &c.; and his name, through faith in his name, hath made this man strong, whom we see and know; yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all” (Acts 3:12).

FURTHER READING

AUTHOR MENU

Shepherds are God’s gift to the church, given because He wants His dear flock to be well looked after. But sometimes the shepherds turn rogue and instead of caring for God’s flock, they put their own interests first. Pastoral ministry becomes all about their own position and prestige and what they can get out of it. The needs of the flock are left unmet and instead they suffer spiritually at the hands of those supposed to nurture them. As the Westminster Assembly member William Greenhill noted, this may be endemic in a church culture, and daring to speak out against it may be penalised. While we are familiar with high-profile scandals in evangelicalism in recent years, this is not a new problem. Nor do things have to reach extremes of financial, emotional or sexual abuse in order for pastors to be guilty of flouting their responsibility to feed the Lord’s flock. Harshness, neglect and a multitude of little ways of lording it over the Lord’s heritage belong to the same category of un-shepherdlike behaviour. Yet as Greenhill points out in his remarks on Ezekiel 34, when the sheep suffer, God notices, and He will ultimately intervene to rescue His maltreated people.

Ezekiel has already reproved the people and threatened the judgments of God against them for their sins. Now he comes chapter 34 to deal with their ‘shepherds,’ whose fault it was that the people had become so wicked. The first ten verses are God’s reproof of the shepherds, and the judgment He will bring on them.

The behaviour of the shepherds

The ‘shepherds of Israel’ (v.2) were the chief rulers, whether in church or state. A ‘woe’ or general judgment is threatened against them — a variety of evils, not just one but several sad judgments will come on them.

The shepherds should have been ‘feeding’ the people, leading and teaching them. But here was their sin — they ‘fed themselves, not the flock.’ Those who are shepherds in the church, are set up for the good of the people, to benefit and advantage them, not to seek themselves, to draw from the people what they can to make themselves great. They should be content with their allowance, and give themselves fully and wholly for the good of those who are committed to their trust. This interrogative, ‘Should not the shepherds feed the flock?’ highlights the heinousness of their sin, and the indignation of God against it. ‘What? You are shepherds, and you don’t feed the flock? You are perverting the course of nature, and violating the order which God has set!’ That is intolerable, and God will treat them severely for it.

Office-bearers should care like shepherds

Those who are set over the people in the church are shepherds, and ought to act like shepherds do towards their flocks. They should govern them gently, protect them constantly, provide for them carefully, feed them faithfully, and seek their good diligently.

God who is the great Shepherd does this. ‘He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young’ (Isaiah 40:11). ‘The Lord is my Shepherd,’ meaning He provided green pastures and still waters for him, and for all his (Psalm 23). He gave them David for a shepherd, ‘to feed Jacob his people, and Israel his inheritance;’ and he ‘fed them according to the integrity of his heart’ (Jeremiah 5:7).

Ministers should be like to God in all these ways. Yet few of those who are over God’s flock in the church prove to be what they ought to be. The political rulers were wicked, and so were the ecclesiastical rulers. They are called shepherds, but they did not do the work of shepherds. The shepherds of Israel did not feed the flock! From Ezekiel 22:25–28 you may see what the prophets, priests, and princes were like — not a true shepherd amongst them.

The three defining characteristics of wicked shepherds in the church are given here.

They feed themselves. They are covetous, self-seekers. They eat the fat, clothe themselves with the wool. They kill them that were fed, full of fat and flesh, they made a prey of the rich and wealthy. See how butchers deal with oxen and sheep, killing, flaying, chopping in pieces, breaking their bones, selling some parts, and eating others, and whatever they do is for their own interest. The shepherds in the church were selfish and covetous. ‘They are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand; they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter’ (Isaiah 56:11). One’s gain comes from one quarter, a second’s from another quarter, a third’s from a third, and their eyes were upon their gain and nothing else. ‘The heads of Jerusalem judge for reward, the priests teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money’ (Micah 3:11). They all sought themselves, and so declared what they were.

They do not feed the flock. A good shepherd’s care and delight is to feed his flock. He shows his care by strengthening the weak, by healing the sick, by binding up the broken, by bringing back those that have gone astray, and seeking out those who are lost. These shepherds did none of these things.

They treat the flock harshly and cruelly. ‘With force and cruelty have ye ruled them’ (v.4). These shepherds did not distinguish between the weak and strong, the healthy and sick, so as to rule them wisely, gently, compassionately. Instead they were rough, rigid, bitter, and cruel to them. As the political shepherds were out for dishonest gain (Ezekiel 22:27), so the ecclesiastical shepherds also ruled after their own wills. The prophets were roaring lions ravening the prey — they devoured souls, they took the treasure and precious things, they made many widows in the midst of Jerusalem. The priests violated the law of God, and so wronged the people (v.25–26). The prophets and priests conspired together to tyrannize over the people, who were so accustomed to it, that they were content to have it so (Jeremiah 5:31). ‘My people hath been lost sheep; their shepherds have caused them to go astray’ (Jeremiah 50:6).

God notices the behaviour of bad shepherds

God’s flock here needs shepherds to look after it. Some in God’s flock are diseased or infirm, some sick, some broken, some driven away, some straggling and in danger of getting lost. God’s sheep are vulnerable to many evils, diseases, and dangers. These could be ‘vain customs’ (Jeremiah 10:3); being bruised and broken (Jeremiah 6:14); being hunted by wild animals (Ezekiel 13:18); being beaten and ground to pieces (Isaiah 3:15); being devoured (Psalm 14:4); errors, heresies, corrupt opinions and practices (Matthew 24:5; 2 Peter 2:2); backsliding (Jeremiah 8:5); mistakes and all sorts of evils (Isaiah 5:20).

It is mercy, indeed, great mercy, that God has appointed shepherds for His flock, to make provision for the weaknesses, maladies, and dangers of the soul. Where the shepherds are wicked, it is bad for the flock. If they are selfish, negligent, or harsh, the flock will suffer.

O pray to God earnestly, that He would give us good shepherds! There is a wonderful promise or two in Jeremiah. ‘I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them; and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall they be lacking’ (Jeremiah 23:4). And, ‘I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you according to knowledge and understanding’ (Jeremiah 3:15) These promises speak of good shepherds for the church. Let us put these promises to a good use, and urge God to fulfil them.

In fact, wicked ministers, in God’s account, are effectively not ministers at all. He says His flock were scattered, ‘because there is no shepherd’ (v.5). There were many shepherds in the church, yet as good as none, because they were wicked, self-seeking, did not feed the flock, but ruled with cruelty. When shepherds degenerate so far as to be contrary to what they should be, then they are as non-shepherds before God. In Zephaniah 11:17, they are called ‘idol shepherds,’ and idols are nothing. When things are like this, then the sheep are scattered.

Yet God eyes the ones in positions in the church, and He deals impartially with them. He observed what the ministers did in their places, and, seeing them selfish, negligent, and cruel, he threatens them all: ‘Woe to the shepherds of Israel.’ He saw they were all guilty of grievous sins, and they did not amend after His had shown them long forbearance, and therefore without respect He denounces judgment against them. God is greater than the greatest. He has no fear of the faces of princes or prophets. Let them cover their ways with whatever pretence they wish, the Lord discerns them. However terrifying they are to the people, the Lord will be a terror to them. However long they continue in their wickedness, God will eventually be avenged on them.

The Lord is against bad shepherds

‘Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord’ (v.7, v.9). Great indignation was in the breast of God against these shepherds. ‘Hear the word of the Lord, shepherds: He is vehemently displeased with you, and can hold back no longer.’ As surely as He is the living God, He will punish the shepherds who treat His flock like this (v.8), making laws, imposing burdens, finding out ways to enrich themselves and impoverish the people.

Verse 10 enumerates the punishments of these shepherds. The first is God’s enmity against them. They were so great that they kept all in such awe that no one dared to say or do anything against them. If any did, they were soon crushed. So the Lord says, ‘ Behold, I am against the shepherds’ — ‘I, that am the Governor of nations, the Lord of heaven and earth, the dread Sovereign of princes, priests, and prophets, I am against them.’ The Hebrew means, ‘I come to set myself against them;’ the Vulgate puts it, ‘I am above them;’ others translate it, ‘I am against them.’

Secondly, ‘I will require my flock at their hand.’ ‘Not only will I demand an account from them, what is become of My flock, but I will have recompence for every one that is wounded, weak, lost, or slain. I will require at your hand limb for limb, blood for blood, and life for life.’

Thirdly, He will displace them. ‘I will cause them to cease from feeding the flock.’ Some were cut off by the hand of justice (e.g., Jeremiah 52:10–11, 24–27; Lamentations 5:12). Others were carried away captive, and held in chains and bonds.

Fourthly, ‘Neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more.’ They will be deprived of the opportunities they had to enrich themselves. They made a prey of the flock, using it to their own advantage, but they would not do so any longer.

The sins of ministers in seeking themselves, and neglecting and wronging the flock, greatly provoke God, and bring certain and severe judgments upon themselves.

God will eventually put things right

God promises, ‘I will deliver my flock from their mouth’ (v.10). Like a shepherd rescuing a lamb out of a lion or bear’s mouth, so God will pull His flock out of these predators’ mouths, so that they will no more be violated and devoured by these tyrants.

Instead God will relieve them, make them safe and set them at liberty. Many years His flock had been molested by wicked princes, priests, and prophets. They had eaten up many of His flock, and the rest were in danger of being devoured. The poor sheep could not withstand their violence; these shepherds were like young lions among the flocks, going through, treading them down, and tearing them in pieces, and none can deliver (Micah 5:8). But though the sheep had no one able to deliver them from these lion-like shepherds, yet God was able to do it, and did it. He was a lion to these lions, and tore them in pieces, rescuing his flock. He will do it eventually.

FURTHER READING

AUTHOR MENU