The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-11-28
THE VOICE OF THE PULPIT.
HOW GOD JUDGES, THE CASE OF
THE PHARIsEE AND THE PUBLICAN.
Sermon by the Rev. Charles H. REM
ingtOn, Rector of st. Marks Epis-
!, copal Church, Fort Dodge, In.


I possess.
And the publican, standing afar of, would
not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven,
but smote upon his breast, saying: God be
merciful to me. a sinner tell you, this
man went down to his house Justified rather
than the other; for every one that exalteth
himself shall be abased. and he that hum
bleth himself shall be exalted.-Luke xviii,
lila
On what grounds does God Judge man? Is
it on the ground of moral character?
The Pharisee and the publican in the par
able stand for moral distinctions; the one
represents a man Of good moral character,
the other a bad man. In view of Gods
preference for the worse man, it might seem
impossible to retain the idea that the ap-
parent moral discrepancy between these
men was real. There is a strong inclination
to take refuge in the belief that somehow
there was a secret, invisible morality about
the publican which might overbalance the
wickedness of his unjust extortions and I'M
cleanness; or at least sudden sanctificat on
at that instant of prayer which gives sufh-
Gent ground for Gods preference.
Now let us put away these prepossessions
and see what impression the scene was
meant to produce by the context.
The parable was spoken unto certain
which trusted in themselves because they
were righteous, and despised others" No
slur is meant to be casL upon the genuine
ness of the Pharisee's superior morality.
This class were a very respectable people.
They were the strictest sect of the Jews.
They were not unjust, extortioners, as the
publicans were well known to be, who
gathered the taxes for the Roman empire.
They did not belong to the class which
was known in those days by the epithet
SINNERS" to which class the publican, by
his own testimony did belong. When we
put ourselves into the context of the par
able I think there can be no doubt that
the impression given and intended was that
the Pharisee, as far as moral character
went, was the better man of the two.
Nevertheless Gods preference was an
nounced to be with the publican.
And this is not the only instance in the
New Testament in which God, through
Christ, showed His preference for the sin
ner and outcast. Jesus was known in His
day as "the friend of sinners" In the par
ables of the prodigal son, the lost sheep
and the lost coin we find distinct express
sions of this preference. The shepherd did
not go after the lost sheep because 1t was
a better sheep than the ninety-nine in the
fold; rather does the imagination picture it
as a. weak little straggler. Nor did the
father run to meet and welcome the prod
igal home with a kiss because he was a
better son than the elder who did not run
away and spend his substance in riotous
living These parallels make it plain that
the ground of Gods preference in each
case was not in the moral character of the
rnen. There is an indication of something
deeper.
The parable is not meant to teach simply
a moral difference between these two men
much less that the plain and accepted diff
ference was an unreal one. This difference
is taken for granted, and the aim of the
teaching is to turn our thoughts away from
the men to the nature of God and
His work through Christ Jesus, who de-
clared, 'I came not to call the righteous,
but sinners, to repentance"
The publican went down to his house JUS
titled rather than the Pharisee. In what
did his justification consist?
The moment we say the publican pos
eessed something the Pharisee did not and
concentrate our Investigation for the
ground of preference in the moral nature
of the publican we lose the meaning and
force of the parable, and are obliged to
introduce into the Interpretation of it that
false conception of a sudden sanctification
rality of Protestant Christianity.
Even if we maintain that the publican
had faith which the Pharisee had not and
support our position with the common doc
trine that the publican was justified by
faith there is danger of missing the mean
ing of the parable. The publican's faith
would not justify him, as he was unjust,
extortioner, ETC., any more than the prodi-
gals faith could justify him in his sinful
life away from home.
No, it was the spirit manifested by the
return Of the prodigal, and by the prayer
of the publican, which gives us the clew
to the faith that justifies. The only
faith that could justify the publican's
confession or the prodigars return is the
faith of Father God in his children.
1t is only that unbounded faith of God
in his children that justifes the exist
ence Of the sinner in this world. If God
were anything but the faithful Father of
mankind that He is, one sweep of His
power might wreak full vengeance upon
the sinners in their destruction.
In the lesson of the parable, Gods
fatherhood is at stake His preference
for sinners shown here and elsewhere is
the natural expression of His fatherly
nature. Through the influence of the con-
temporary life of Christ the publican has
perceived, no doubt, something of this
fatherhood. At any rate, by His humble
confession 1t is evident that he placed
his claim to Gods favor on the ground of
the opportunity of sonship alone and he
went away satisfied.
But the Pharisee was blinded to the truth,
as it was so plainly exhibited in the acts of
Jesus, and he attempted to argue himself
into Gods favor on the basis of his moral
character, as compared with that of his
companion. He was self-righteous, while
the publican showed contrition and i'm
plored Gods mercy The keynote is found
in their respective attitudes.
This feeling that moral character is the
only thing that justifles a man before God
is very strong in human nature. This is the
phariseeism Of our modern thinking, where
in it is claimed that with the right and the
good alone belong the privileges of life. We
afe too often inclined to say of the unfor-
tulate, when we behold him in his uncon-
genial inferiority, He is not worthy" at
the same time tickling our own superiority
by the congratulation that anticipates for
the poor and degraded more of our sympa-
thy and interest when they are more
worthy. Indeed, we even hear the question.
'Is all this endeavor to lift the degraded
worth while? If they were worthy would
they not already have their due share of
{, LIES blessings?"