The Courage That Says “No.”

A GREAT victory is won when the young christian, for the first time, is enabled to say “NO” to the world’s temptation. “By faith Moses... refused,” we read in the list of the grand deeds of faith recorded in the eleventh chapter of the Hebrews. And not only is the refusal of Moses to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, with all its splendid prospects, recorded, but also the refusal of life and liberty of others whose names we know not. “Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance.” “Others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.” These great victories will never be forgotten in heaven, when this world and its glories have long passed away. The career of Moses as the man of faith commences by his saying “NO” to the pleasures of sin and the treasures and the glories of Egypt.
In like manner the great career for God of Daniel opens out to us with the record of his saying “NO” to his prospects of advancement in the court of the king of Babylon. Daniel, together with Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, were royal children of Judah, and captives in Babylon, and in their captivity, they were chosen for honor and advancement in the king’s palace. They were placed under the high authority of a prince who had the wealth and wisdom of Babylon at his command, to fit them for the future the king had designed for them.
Very soon came the test: they were to be fed with the king’s meat and the king’s wine, which, before being eaten and drunk in the king’s palace, was offered to the idols of Babylon. “But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank.” In his inmost soul he made up his mind to fear God, and to say “NO” to the grandest of prospects that might await him. The honor and the glory of the name of Jehovah, the only and the true God, demanded that none who revered Him should partake of food openly dedicated to idols. Daniel had the courage of faith to obey God, and to leave with God all consequences.
Daniel’s resolution God-wards expressed itself courteously towards man —” He requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.” And we feel sure that there was more even than respect and courtesy in him, for, as “God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs,” there surely was love in Daniel’s heart towards the prince. He appealed to Daniel, for his own life’s sake, to consider his determination, for, had Nebuchadnezzar found Daniel and his three companions’ faces wanting in ruddiness, the prince would have suffered by the loss of his head for his failure in caring for the youths.
It is ever more hard to refuse a prospect in the world which will entail loss on others than one which will entail loss upon ourselves only. Had the prince of the eunuchs said to Daniel, “You will lose your head,” that had been a far less weighty argument with Daniel’s brave spirit than that which he did advance. Daniel’s generosity and affection were both appealed to by the kind and gentle prince who was set over him. But Daniel was firm: he placed the honor of Jehovah before the life of the prince. The steward, whom the prince had appointed to attend to Daniel’s food, must surely have considered Daniel and his companions very obstinate! Now, obstinacy is no virtue — quite the contrary; but godly determination is altogether different from obstinacy! God would make a way of escape for His faithful young servants. He is a God who loves to do this. The record of Daniel’s life, and the story of the fiery furnace, and the wrath of the king on that day, witness to this fact. So said Daniel and his companions: “Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink. Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king’s meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants.” Now this was distinctly proving God: Daniel had obeyed God, and he now left the consequences with God. “And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king’s meat.” May our young Christian readers never fail in the courage which says “NO” to the things God forbids, and may they, like Daniel, trust God for the result.
We may be assured that the “strange notions,” the “peculiar ideas,” of these young Hebrews were spoken of in the palace, and that amongst the other youths who were being brought up for great positions in Babylon, these four, who ate pulse and drank water, would be the objects of remark, perhaps of ridicule, certainly of envy. For how did God work for them? “As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom.” Not one of their companions could have one word rightly to say against them. “And Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.”
Three years — the time appointed by the king for their tuition — had passed away, and all the young men stood before Nebuchadnezzar. Then came the great day for these four who had trusted in their God. “In all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm”; in all matters better than all the wise men in all his realm! And by what proportion better? Just that by which three years bore they had sought to be proved about the pulse and water —” ten times.” They had asked to be proved for ten days that God might show what He would do with their countenances, and now, after three years’ training the king proved these young men to be ten times better than all the wisest of his wise men!
No one who says “NO” to the world for God’s sake shall fail to gain the victory.

Narratives from the Gospels, in the Light of Jewish Customs.
PREACHING.
THE attentive reader of the New Testament will probably conclude that public preaching was a custom familiar to the Jews. The preaching of the Lord Jesus in the synagogues referred to so frequently, and without a word to point to its being any innovation — the request sent to “Paul and his company” by the rulers of the synagogue at Antioch, that if they had any word of exhortation for the people, to “say on”— these facts point to preaching being an ordinary part of the synagogue service. Such indeed was the case. Following upon the reading from the Law and the Prophets — as will be remembered is expressly stated to have been the case in the synagogue at Antioch — came an address, if a capable Rabbi or a distinguished stranger were present. Tradition, after its manner, traced the institution back to the appointment of Moses, and extolled it in the highest terms. The Divine Spirit rested upon the preacher, and the office entailed merit equal to the sacrifice of a burnt offering.
It is not our purpose to write at any length about the popular preacher (the Haggadist), familiar though he was in the days of the Lord Jesus. But we find no trace of him in the Gospels, while, on the other hand, the teacher of the Law is frequently met with (the Halachist), and to him learning and the traditions of the elders were all-important.
It agrees with the nature of things that a man, whose end and aim is popularity, should pass away without leaving any mark behind him. Yet ancient Jewish literature shows the Haggadist to have been a very prominent person, and states minutely the things necessary for his popularity. We cannot do better than quote a description drawn from these sources. “The type of a popular preacher was not very different from what in our own days would form his chief requisites. He ought to have a good figure, a pleasant expression, and melodious voice (his words ought to be ‘like those of the bride to the bridegroom’), fluency, speech ‘sweet as honey,’ ‘pleasant as milk and honey,’ ‘finely sifted like fine flour,’ a diction richly adorned, ‘like a bride on her wedding day’; and sufficient assurance in his own knowledge, so as never to be disconcerted. Above all, he must be conciliatory, and avoid being too personal. Moses had addressed Israel as rebellious and hard-hearted, and he was not allowed to bring them into the land of promise. Elijah had upbraided them with having broken the covenant, and Elisha was immediately appointed his successor. Even Isaiah had his lips touched with burning coals because he spoke of dwelling among a people of sinful lips. As for the mental qualifications of the preacher, he must know his Bible well, for as a bride knows properly how to make use of her twenty-four ornaments, so must the preacher of the twenty-four books the Bible. He must carefully prepare his subject — he is to ‘hear himself’ before the people hear him. But whatever else he may be or do, he must be attractive.” As to the matter of his sermon, he was absolutely unfettered. The Scripture might indeed be referred to, but it served merely as “a golden nail on which to hang a gorgeous tapestry.” It was really reduced to nothing by these preachers, as it was by the tradition-loving Scribe. Anything and everything might be worked into the address. “Parables, stories, allegories, witticisms, strange and foreign words, absurd legends, in short, anything which might startle an audience was introduced.” His whole purpose was to please, amuse, and amaze his hearers. There was little or nothing for the heart. That the method was popular is proved by the saying that “the traditions” were like bread, but this popular preaching (the Haggadah), was like water, because it was more frequently required, and was more refreshing than the former.
But we do not stay over this feature of Jewish religious life; it seems to be referred to by the Apostle Paul, when he writes: “Ruse profane and old wives’ fables.” In the Gospels we neither hear the voice of the popular preacher nor feel his presence; he never appears as a leader; he has no power to mold events, and the showy labors passed away leaving no impression. The men are prominent in Jewish literature; they have left no mark in that enduring record, the word of God. Surely this is a grave warning to those who in any way labor in the Word. The earnest question of St. Paul applies to each: “Do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” That only endures for time or eternity which is done to God.
Leaving the popular Haggadist, we turn to the teachers of the law, and find overlies in very different company. And the inquiry which we especially make is, What was their attitude towards the people — towards the poor? We have seen something of these men, their assumption of authority, their extravagant claims for the oral law of which they were the depositaries. In what relation did they stand to the mass of people? For on turning to the Gospels we are struck with this fact — indeed, it is stated as if an unusual thing — that “the common people heard Jesus gladly.” All the evangelists bear a like testimony. Matthew tells us that “great multitudes of people followed Jesus.” Mark, already quoted, says that “much people gathered unto Him.” Luke tells us that “all the people were very attentive to hear Him,” or as the margin more literally and expressively gives it, the people “hanged on Him”; and John reports the fear of the Sanhedrim: “If we let Him thus alone, all will believe on Him.” These are selections only from the very full testimony of the Gospels to the eagerness and willingness with which “the common people” heard the words of the Lord, and our question recurs, Was it customary for the people thus to hang upon their teachers? Did the Rabbis consider the so-called “lower classes” and the wants of weary hearts? for only so could they really reach the people.
There are traces in the Gospels, abundantly confirmed by ancient Jewish records of the direct opposite. There was no bond of sympathy between Rabbis and people. There were no “cords of love” between the Scribe and the unlearned man. When the officers sent by the Pharisees to take Jesus returned without Him, they owned the grace and power of Christ’s word. “Never man spake like this man.” “Are ye also deceived? “is the amazed answer. “Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on Him?” And the next remark has a terribly bitter ring about it. “But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed! Unskilled in the subtleties of Rabbinic learning they were a useless, worthless, and accursed people. For by “the law” here is not meant the law of Moses simply; some knowledge of the Scriptures abundantly appears in the people’s questions concerning the Messiah. But the Rabbis taught that if a man knew only the Scriptures, he was “an empty cistern,” unlike the instructed Scribe, who was compared to a “well-plastered pit out of which no drop of water could escape.” If a man had never studied in the schools of the wise, though his knowledge might embrace both Scripture and traditions, he was still despised — an ignoramus, a boor.
An expression of the Apostle Paul’s (himself a scholar of one of the greatest of the Rabbis, Gamaliel), points to the cause of this contempt of the poor and unlearned. “Knowledge puffeth up.” Study, learning, knowledge, were the substance and the end of a Rabbinist’s desires and ambitions. The want of souls was unheeded. And all knowledge was grouped around the law, written and oral. At the judgment seat of God, rich and poor alike will be asked (it was said) what excuse they can offer for not having studied the law. There could be nothing higher or better than this, for as the traditions laid it down: “the study of the law is equivalent to all the commandments, and the other commandments are to give way to this study.”
Learning being so extolled, it was but a step further, and that an easy one, to look down with contempt upon the unlearned. We find it so in the New Testament. The apostles, excellent as was their knowledge of the Scriptures, were, in the estimation of the rulers, but unlearned and ignorant men. Rabbi Eleazar thought that the house where the law was not studied should be destroyed. The evidence of the unlearned was inadmissible; it was forbidden to journey in their company; the very touch of their garments polluted. And the great Rabbi Hillel (whom some unbelievers think may, as to his teaching, be compared with Jesus), laid it down that “an ignorant man cannot properly abhor sin; a peasant cannot be pious!”
We turn again from such language and thoughts to the Gospels, and ask the attention of our readers to two occasions. At the beginning of the Lord’s ministry He went into the synagogue at Nazareth, and, from the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, He declared His commission. At the very head of His charter, so to speak, we find these gracious words: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to preach the Gospel to the poor.” Yet again. When John the Baptist was cast into prison, and from thence sent his question to Jesus, “Art Thou He that should come [the coming One], or look we for another?” for answer the Lord appealed to His works — that the blind saw, the lame walked, the lepers were cleansed, the deaf heard, the dead were raised up, and last of all, as though the climax to the whole, the great proof His Messianic claims — “ to the poor the Gospel is preached,”
Here, then, is an immense difference between the preaching of the Christ and the ordinary preaching of His days. If the preaching of the popular Haggadist was fanciful and shallow, giving nothing to meet the crying need of souls, the learned preaching of the Scribe also ignored that need; it dealt only with ceremonial and outward forms, imposing burdens which could not be borne. Even the Rabbinic description of such is “they made the yoke of the law upon them heavy”; for that which they esteemed to be ignorance there was but a curse. In contrast with this came the blessed Lord. Words of mercy and grace fell from His lips; He despised none; He received all who came to Him; the poorest beggar by the wayside being heeded as much as the wealthy. And to all, whether rich or poor, was this invitation given: “Come unto Me, all ye that laborand are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” He, too, had a “yoke” to give, but those who wore it would find that it was easy, and the burden He would impose was light.
May such servants of the Lord as shall read this be led much into His Spirit and love! Lord of all though He was, He took upon Him the form of a servant, and as that “servant of Jehovah,” of whom Isaiah prophesied, He knew how to speak a word in season to him that was weary. And herein He is the pattern to all His servants. And to the laboring and heavy laden, toiling beneath a burden of sin — of sin, too, against Him whose love was so great and was so painfully proved — we say that His love still remains; He has a welcome still for all who come to Him, be they rich or poor, learned or ignorant, the noble nr the base ones of this world. Jr.