Acts 15

Acts 15:1-35

CHURCH QUARREL AND COUNCIL Acts 15:1-35. CHURCH councils occupy a prominent place in history. Many volumes have been devoted to their relation and interpretation. Hardouin, Labbe, Cossart, Mansi—these are all writers upon this subject, and the folios are described as ponderous and dull. The student who is sufficiently interested in this subject to pull his way through them will be profited, and he will be impressed by the fact that they are a practical unit in placing the council at Jerusalem, held probably in the year 48 A. D., at the head of the list, and giving to it the attention its importance deserves.We are accustomed to search the New Testament for model plans and programs in spiritual things. The first chapter of Acts records a model prayer meeting; the second chapter records a model Pentecost; the same chapter later records the work of a model church; succeeding chapters reveal the life history of model preachers and exhibit model programs of procedure.

We are accustomed to explain this circumstance on the ground of the presence, domination and direction of the Holy Spirit, and the force of this argument would apply to the first church council. It could hardly be said that later councils have assiduously sought to be modeled after this; neither could it be denied that the report of this one has had its influence upon councils small and great for well-nigh twenty centuries.In proportion as any people are loyal to the authority of the Word and consequently influenced by apostolic example and apostolic utterance, this council will continue to play a conspicuous part in the ecclesiastical program.We can hardly consent with Joseph Parker that “this chapter is the Magna Charta of the Christian church; * * * * the key to universal confidence and progress is here,” but beyond all question, he is right in saying, “This is one of the most important chapters in ecclesiastical history.”The church has never been able to mark progress apart from controversy.

By its nature, it is controversial! Truth—its message, and salvation—its mission, are both born of and maintained by contention! The beneficent mission of the church, instead of saving it from this non-coveted experience, serves rather to accentuate the same. The fact that “God is love” in no wise reduces the hatred and opposition that Satan everywhere stirs against Him, and the fact that the church is in the world to serve that world unselfishly, renders it even less acceptable to that same world. It doesn’t recognize its need of such service and doesn’t desire spiritual salvation. The man, therefore, who condemns the church because it gets into controversy with the world, or because the world interjects controversy into it, is incapable of clear, logical reasoning.The occasion of this council, the arguments introduced into it, the fruits that followed from it— these are all worthy of the most careful study and will inevitably result in profit to a sympathetic student.His perusal of this chapter will impress three things—The Contention, The Council and The Conclusion.THE The contention originated with unnamed men.“And certain men which came down from Judaea, taught the brethren, and said, “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1).

The phrase, “certain men”, is suggestive in the last degree. Their names are not called—they never will be known.

Peter became compromised in his course at Antioch, as. Galatians 2:12 says, “Certain men came from James * * and Peter withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision”. When a final conclusion on this matter is reached and the Apostles put the same into a formal decision to be sent to the troubled churches, they say, “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the Law, to whom we gave no such commandment” (Acts 15:24). Every reference to these men leaves their names uncalled. From time immemorial that has been the most aggravating incident of ecclesiastical difficulties. The men who make them escape the condemnation they deserve, because their names are unknown beyond the disturbed circle.The moment trouble occurs in a church the newspapers giving publicity to it, exploit the preacher’s name and call his opponents, “the faction”, “the minority”, “the displeased”, etc.Commonly they have a ring-leader, but even his name is seldom or never called.

The consequence is that the country-wide talk is about the trouble that Reverend Peter is making, that Evangelist Paul is having, that teacher Barnabas is stirring up, that Dr, James is provoking! It is very rare indeed that the real mischief-maker is important enough to have the calling of his name make any impression on the public mind.One of the exceptions you have recorded in 1 Kings 18:17 : “It came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel”?

How like the indictment of the world! Of course if there is “trouble in Israel”, it must be the prophet that is making it! That is the common opinion! But in that instance Elijah answers with perfect truthfulness, “I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim” (1 Kings 18:18).Beyond all dispute one of the best things that can be done with the ecclesiastical troubler, the man who is forever exciting contention in his own church, is to name him; separate him even from the crowd he comes from; exhibit his personality to public view; drag his opinions into the light of day, and bring an end to all his dirty work done in the dark.Perhaps the meanest side of newspaper mongering is at this point. The editorial “we” has been to the newspaper editor and reporter the cover of darkness from which to fire his gun or strike with his dagger. You can hold “certain men” in contempt, but what do they care when you do not even know their names?The contention was about matters of mere ceremony. “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1), Paul did not oppose circumcision per se.

As a Jewish rite, he practised and approved it. Timothy’s mother was a Jewess and nationality was supposed to follow the mother’s side, and on that account Paul circumcised Timothy at Lystra, that the Jews might not feel that their ceremonies were being wantonly disregarded.But as a condition of salvation, Paul utterly repudiated it and positively refused to approve the demand that it be so regarded.

In each instance he proceeded Biblically. The circumcision was a command for the Jew (Leviticus 12:3). Not one prophecy referring to the salvation of the Gentiles ordered circumcision as a condition of the same. To make the Apostle’s position in this matter apply to Christian “baptism” and weave out of it an argument against that Bible rite, as at least one famous author has done, is as illogical as unbiblical. To say, “The question of baptism does not turn upon Greek terminations and Greek conjugations,” is the same as declaring that language is no longer a vehicle of thought, and that if the commands of God happen to be voiced in Greek they are not binding. The remark, “We can add nothing to faith without insulting Christ,” is in itself an insult, for to faith Christ added His own baptism.

In fact, there isn’t a baptism recorded in the New Testament or commanded by the same that does not follow faith and give symbolical expression to it. That is why the Apostle Paul, writing to the Romans (Romans 6:4-5), says, “Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life, for if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection”, and as any casual reader can see, the text actually reads, “We shall be also of resurrection”.

In other words, our resurrection life is, by baptism, illustrated, and instead of returning to the flesh, this is the highest form of spiritual expression.The truth is, any man who gives an unprejudiced study to the subject of baptism, knows that it is not an ordinance of the flesh, as Peter writes,“God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water; the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ; who is gone into Heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto Him” (1 Peter 3:20-22). The one people who in all their church history have consistently and consecutively opposed salvation by any ceremony, baptism included, are the Baptists. In all history there is not a single instance where intelligent, orthodox Baptists have maintained that any ceremony was essential to salvation. They are obedient to baptism because it is a plain Bible command. They see in it the great symbol expressed by Paul, of “death” to sin, “burial with Christ”, and “resurrection to walk in newness of life”. They put it after the exercise of faith because the Bible does the same; and to the unbelieving, in the nature of the case, it could have no significance or spiritual efficacy.The departure from this Bible custom has resuited in the introduction into the church of wholesale unregeneracy in state religions; in compulsory baptism, enforced confessions, and scores of other undesirable effects.Every state church in existence, the Greek excepted, with its unfortunate coalitions and spiritual depreciations, practises the man-made substitute of infant sprinkling, and every apostle of the same who attempts to defend it by appealing to this deliverance of Paul concerning circumcision, is doing the great Apostle an intellectual and moral injustice.The Jewish rite of infant circumcision cannot be carried over and converted at will into infant baptism. They are separate ordinances, having wholly distinct objectives, and the Judaizers are those who attempt by verbal camouflage to convert the one into the other.

No! Paul, Peter, James, John— these men of God by inspiration were saved from all such reasonings.The soul has access to God in Christ, and no ceremony stands between it and salvation. That is the Pauline philosophy, or, better yet, the God-given inspiration.One of the strange facts of ecclesiastical history is that men are far more concerned regarding established customs than they are of Divine inspiration. They will contend more earnestly for a ceremony than they will for “the faith once for all delivered.”The contention was accentuated by dissension.“When therefore, Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders about this question, and when they were come to Jerusalem, * * there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses” (Acts 15:2; Acts 15:4-5). Desultory debate never settles any question, but it has great power of division. If strife is desired it is easy to start it. Put opposing views before novices and leave them to fight it out among themselves. Such was the action of “certain men” here, and those “certain men” have their successors. Most interesting is it to watch the opposing way of apostles; the way of a council as between competents; the way of a divergence that expresses unity rather than diversity in the same; the way of authority in expression as backed up by a whole church, rather than disputation as started by “certain men”. Apostles have little time to lose in mere contention, but they can well afford to give thought, time and travel to decisive councils.Paul was willing to go to Jerusalem, but as some one has suggested, he didn’t even waste time on the journey, but preached as he went.

Passing through Phenice and Samaria, they made the entire way an evangelistic tour. Like his Lord, his hurry was never so great as to overlook the possibility of a wayside miracle.

With the “certain men”, contention was life. With the true Apostles, life was labor, life was love, life was the Gospel!THE COUNCILJerusalem is reached; the council is in session! The steps taken are as interesting as they are profoundly instructive. Let us note them!The Apostles bore their testimony, in turn. Four of them talked, and while they were speaking in their own tongues and in the language of their hearers, they readily obeyed the Pauline prescription for the professed “tongues” people; namely, “They spake by course.” No confusion characterized this council. In answer to the “certain men”, Peter was first, but he was not impetuous.

He waited until there had been much disputing and the very phrase employed, “Peter rose up and said unto them”, has in it calmness, composure, and consciousness of right. “Men and brethren, we know how a good while ago God made choice among us that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe” (Acts 15:7). That is Peter’s reference to his experience with Cornelius and to God’s revelation to him of the acceptance of a Gentile who worshiped God in spirit and in truth.

He rested his argument as utterly conclusive when he reminded them that “the Holy Ghost was given” to Cornelius and his house, and that God had put “no difference” between the Gentile and Jew, “justifying their hearts by faith”. His conclusion, “Now, therefore, why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear”? reminds us of the words of the Lord Jesus addressed to these Jews, “Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30). Salvation “through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ”, as compared with salvation by works and ceremonies, is indeed a light yoke as compared with an unbearable one.Then Paul and Barnabas were heard, all the multitude keeping silence and giving audience while they declared what miracles and wonders had been wrought among the Gentiles by them. If one wants to find the probable content of this speech, all he needs to do is to turn back into the pages of the Acts over which we have passed.

Wonders they were, from the day of Paul’s conversion; wonders in Jerusalem; wonders at Tarsus; wonders at Antioch; wonders among the Gentiles; wonders at Iconium, at Lystra! If you would know what miracles were wrought by the preaching of these men, go into North Minneapolis to-morrow and undertake turning a Jew from Judaism to Jesus!Then in turn came James, saying, “Men and brethren, hearken to me”.

James, the ascetic, who drank neither wine nor fermented liquor; who tasted no animal food; upon whose head a razor was not permitted to come; who never wore woolen, but linen garments instead; James, who is reputed to have entered the Temple alone, commonly, and to be seen by temple visitors upon bended knees and heard by the bystanders, interceding for the forgiveness of his people, and whose habitual prayers had made his knees as hard as a camel’s. Of all the company, he was the strictest legalist; and of all the Apostles, he was the one most venerated and revered; cousin of our Lord; chosen with that first quartette; of the elect company, enjoying the privileges of conferences, sittings and prayers with Christ Himself. All men will attend when he talks! Like the true Apostle, he has an inspired message, and like the saint, his first sentence distracts attention from himself—“Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His Name”, and now like every faithful preacher, makes an appeal to the Word of the living God. He had no doubt that Peter’s vision was real; he had no doubt that Peter’s revelation was from Heaven, but even that he would confirm by what “was written” (Amos 9:11-12).That is the preacher for me—the man who will give attention to the opinions and experiences of spiritual brethren, but whose final appeal is to nothing short of the sacred Scriptures themselves! An authority is more essential in religion than in any other sphere of life, and without authority any sphere is converted quickly into anarchy and becomes confusion.

But that is particularly true of the sphere of the soul.A recent paper announced the retirement from the ministry of another man widely known in my denomination and native to our state. Why?

The critics have destroyed his confidence in the authority of the Bible and he is manly enough, having lost his message, to cease from his mission. “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them”.The Apostles were agreed in their positions. Herein is the proof of the unity of the Spirit. It would be difficult to find four men, who by birth, early environment, temperament and educational opportunities are more diverse. Paul was the scholar, Peter, the unlearned fisherman, Barnabas, the promising student, James, the grave saint. Paul was a man of poise, Peter, the impetuous, Barnabas, the novice and James, the calm ascetic. And yet their words harmonize, their views accord.

What a contrast with some of the councils characterizing, for instance, the problems of the papal church! The ruling spirit in the third of the Ecumenical Councils held at Ephesus in 431 A.

D., called to deal with the Nestorian heresy, was Cyril of Alexandria. Dean Milman speaks of his “arrogance”, “ambition”, “intrigue”, “rapacity”, “barbarity”, “persecution” and “blood shed”. He was the enemy of Chrysostom, “the golden-mouthed”—a man who was compelled at one time to depose not fewer than thirteen bishops for simony and licentiousness, and yet, as Sir Robert Anderson said, “The papal establishment would have us believe that this council was controlled by the Holy Ghost. History testifies that it was controlled by a hired mob, and that, at last, the emperor, unable to restrain the disorder which prevailed, dismissed the bishops with a scathing rebuke, ‘Return to your provinces, and may your private virtues repair the mischief and scandal of your public meeting.’”That is the difference between a man-made council and a Spirit-guided one. The first is confusion; the second is order. The first is debate; the second is decision.

The first is bitterness; the second is benediction.The church approved the apostolic opinion. “Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders, with the whole church” (Acts 15:22). Herein is a model business meeting.

The Apostles were foremost in opinion. To their word the entire assembly gave most respectful audience. The elders of the church joined them, however, in formulating the action decided to be final, and that action was given accentuation and power by the vote of the whole church. Somehow the Pharisee-members have seen the futility of their plea and been brought to silence both in speech and vote, or else, being looked upon as practical opponents on trial by the church, have been disfranchised by their attitude, for the language makes certain the unanimity of the final decision. That was far easier in the first church of Jerusalem than it would have been in the little church at Iconium. Disturbers of the peace of the church of God can succeed in their very dubious, if not dark, ways with a small company of saints, better than they can with a church of hundreds and thousands.

The large churches of the country retain pastors for a long time, not because they pay more salary, but because they experience fewer opponents. There are little churches over the land that are dead—utterly destroyed by the cantankerous conduct of one “certain man”, and sometimes that man is a woman.

When one of those quits his fellowship and proposes to unite with a large church, some people, knowing his unsavory reputation on a former field, are afraid to receive him. I never hesitate! I know what will happen to him when he undertakes to oppose a thousand people. The stampede of one vote will teach him to get out of the way when the Lord’s flock moves in a definite direction.THE This is recorded in Acts 15:22-35, and reveals the following: The council reached a unanimous conclusion; the church communicated that conclusion by chosen delegates, and the cause at Antioch was confirmed and advanced.The council reached a unanimous conclusion. “Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders, with the whole church”. That is a great victory. It was won because the business was gone about properly.

Peter didn’t stand up and say, “Am I not an Apostle? Did not the Lord deliver to me the keys of the kingdom?

Did He not say to me that whose sins I remit are remitted, and whose I loose are loosed? Wasn’t I among the first of His chosen Apostles? Haven’t I been His chief spokesman on all great occasions? Who dare now oppose my practice, or debate my opinion?” That sort of talk would have lost the righteous cause; it always does.Paul didn’t say, “Wasn’t I a member of the Sanhedrin? Didn’t I have every prospect of becoming president of that august council? Didn’t I make more sacrifices to become a Christian than anybody else has made? Am I not the best educated of all the disciples? What right have you little Bible School pupils, in your first year, to oppose my theological training at the feet of Gamaliel?

What is your opinion worth anyhow? Immature, nonintellectual, uneducated!” That sort of argument would have lost the battle for him.James didn’t say, “Am I not the holiest among you? Have I not abstained from meats and drinks, refused woolen clothes and worn linen garments to typify both my loyalty and my sanctity? Have I not been longer with the Lord than any of you? Am I not His own blood relative? Did we not grow up together?

Does any man essay to know his opinions better than I?” That argument would have been costly to the cause.Great men, in proportion to their greatness, are unconscious of it, and Spirit-guided men are seldom self-assertive ones. Apostles they may be, by Divine appointment, but on that very account they are willing to hear what the elders have to say, and willing to listen to the voice of the church itself.

The opinions of plain laymen are appreciated by them, and such men are suited to leading councils to a unanimous conclusion.The church communicated that conclusion by chosen delegates. “Chosen men of their own company went to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren, and they wrote letters by them after this manner; The Apostles and Elders and Brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Cilicia” (Acts 15:22-23). That is a suggestive order—the Apostles, Elders and Brethren— that is the proper order. The Apostles should be men of initiative; the Elders should be men of council; the church should be the final appeal. “Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words”. Mark the phrase, “certain which went out from us”. This may indicate that these men had disfellowshipped them by withdrawing. “Have troubled you with words”—can any one doubt that that phrase was deliberately elected? It was not with opinions; it was “with words”, “subverting the truth”; and finally the souls of men believing them.

And now the church pays tribute to Paul and Barnabas, that they had not appointed themselves. “It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul; men that have hazarded their lives for the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 15:25-26). The compliment is correct, but how much more forceful when spoken by the church, than if even referred to by the Apostles? “We have sent therefore Judas and Silas”—men who have not hazarded their lives—men who have: not been in the formal controversy and consequently have no special predilections, but who will also tell you the same things, “for it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burdens than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well” (Acts 15:28-29).That is the acme of argument.

Even an apostle might be mistaken. All the elders might reach a wrong conclusion. The vote of the church might be an error, but when the Holy Ghost has come and set to any decision or action the seal of His approval, debate about it is at an end. What a communication!Then the result is recorded.“So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: “Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation. “And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. “And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the Apostles. “Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still. “Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the Word of the Lord, with many others also” (Acts 15:30-35). The cause at Antioch was confirmed and advanced. Argument gives place to agreement. Bitterness passes and blessing ensues. Diversity consummates in unanimity. Shadows flee away and for the church the sun shines. This is not strange!

Nature knows a kindred procedure. Who has not seen the black clouds rise up from the Western sky, spread the heavens over, blot out the sun, while the lightning flashes make the face of nature livid, and the thunders’ roar rock the mountains themselves? An hour and it is over and the same sky seems the clearer for the cloud that swept over it, and the earth is the greener and brighter because of the shadows that hung above it and the tears that have fallen upon it. In truth, that is all a prophecy, and prophecy is the mould of history.The best experiences through which the church has passed were born of battle and of blackness, yea, even of despair. And finally, when “Jacob’s trouble” comes and the Great Tribulation is on, and men’s hearts fail them for fear of those things that have come upon the earth, and all hope is lost, we will be nearer the realization of “that blessed hope” than ever before, for when that awful storm shall have passed, the Son will shine forth in His beauty; the earth will be robed in garments of righteousness; this present evil age will have given place to the long looked for millennium; sorrow and suffering will have passed away, and the sound of victory will be upon the lips of angels and men.That is the day when the Christ of the church shall have come to His conquest!

Acts 15:36-41

THE THIRD JOHN—JOHN MARK Acts 15:36-41. WE have seldom remembered that the New Testament reveals to us another John, beside the Baptist and the Apostle. The briefer history of John Mark is obscured by the brilliance of his spiritual brothers to whom we have seen the respective compliments paid of calling one “a burning and shining light” and the other “that disciple whom Jesus loved”.But it is a question, whether, after all, the largest profit is always brought from the study of the greatest names. It has long been the custom of uninspired speakers to hold before their auditors great names, saying, “See that great one! Act as this great one acted, if you yourself would be great!” In religion we are stimulated to spiritual endeavor by illustrations brought from the deeds of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses, James and John, Peter and Paul; in matters of philosophy, by pointing us to teachers of Laconic caliber; in questions of State, by reviving the memory of Pitt, Fox, Gladstone, Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln; while in letters, Milton, Dante and Shakespeare are emblazoned by the orators as our ideals, and we have been wont to repeat with fervor that most familiar stanza:“Lives of great men all remind us, We can make our lives sublime, And, departing, leave behind us Footprints on the sands of time.” But have we not noted that the great Teacher who came to us from God, and who revealed to men the most uplifting truths the world has ever heard, never employed this method of speech by which to stimulate and inspire His auditors. He used the names of plainer folks, and employed the history of lowly spirits. To teach men the Divine grace of sacrifice, He did not refer to Abraham’s renunciation of wealth at God’s call, nor even to his purpose to slay his only son at the Divine demand, but to the act of a nameless widow upon whom He looked while she cast into the Lord’s treasury two mites— her all. To illustrate the great Father’s love for lost souls, He did not recall the cry of the King, “O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would God I had died for thee”, but rather the case of a nameless father who led an obscure life on a farm, and who had welcomed to his home a son whose prodigal habits had given him the bitterest sorrow, and imposed upon his home the keenest disgrace. To teach men devotion, He did not picture Solomon at prayer in the new temple, but pointed to Mary, sitting humbly at His feet, and said, “There is your example.” To impress upon His disciples the need of simplicity of life, affection of heart, and guilelessness of character, He did not say, “Remember the illustrious Joseph”, but instead He took a little child and set him in the midst.

When David wanted to excite his own soul, and the souls of his fellows into adoration of God, he pointed toward the burning glories above and said, “Look yonder, the heavens declare the glory of God; the firmament sheweth His handiwork”. When Christ wanted to impress a similar truth, He looked down at His feet, and seeing the meekest flower of the field growing there, He said, “Consider the lilies of the field”!

If, then, apology were needed for giving half an hour to so obscure a name as this of our text, we might answer, “He is more illustrious than most of the names from which Christ brought His best lessons, and most striking truths.”First of all, John Mark was an evangelist by profession. That office in the new church was by Divine appointment. When Paul and Barnabas were ordained, it was to the special work of evangelists. At the same time Philip was known by the same title, “the evangelist”. When Paul was writing to the Ephesians on a unity of spirit as compatible with a diversity of offices, he said of Christ’s appointments, “He gave some apostles, and some prophets and some evangelists”. There is a widespread feeling to the effect that evangelists are unnecessary to the work of Christ, and that the office were better abolished.

This feeling has come in part from the unwise and often non-spiritual methods of men who pose as members of that profession. While designing evangelists are not to be endorsed, yet the office of evangelist is not to be abolished.

What God has set must stand, and as long as the world has in it unsaved men, and neglected places and classes, there will be occasion for preachers of the Barnabas, Philip and John Mark sort—men whose business it is to evangelize; not to be pastors, feeders of the flock, but moving heralders of the glad good news.John Bunyan in “The Pilgrim’s Progress” has well defined the work of this office. You will remember that when Christian first discovered his lost condition and stood crying in the bewildered sense of sin, “What shall I do to be saved?” he saw a man named Evangelist coming to him, and saying, “Wherefore dost thou cry?” It was that same man that gave him a parchment roll, and pointed him to the wicket gate and the shining light, and set his feet toward the Sacred City. Many others helped him in that way, but it was Evangelist who started him right, and so helped him to escape the impending doom. When we reflect that so important a work as that is the real end of this office, we are no longer surprised that when God was appointing the agencies meant to convert men to His Son, He set apart some men to the duty of evangelism. Paul said of the pastorate, “He that desireth the office of a bishop desireth a good work”, but I doubt if it is either more blessed or more honorable to help men on the way to Heaven who are already started, than it is to start those who are standing either contentedly or wretchedly in sin. To such work John Mark gave his life.

It is an office that angels must covet; surely it is not to be despised by man.No office in the Church of Christ has enrolled more honorable names than that of Evangelist. We have already seen that among the disciples of Christ beside John Mark, Barnabas, Philip and Paul did its work, while the major part of every Apostle’s life was spent in a similar service.

Martin Luther, a clerical college professor, brought on what we term the Protestant Reformation, but while he and Wyclif and Huss and Calvin stirred the religious world to a sense of lost truth and a disordered church, it was such men as George Whitefield, the Wesleys, Rowland Hill and others, who in the eighteenth century moved from village to village, from city to city, and from continent to continent, evangelizing as they went, that popularized Protestantism and set it on the way to triumph over the errors of Rome and the infidelity of the world.How much the cause of the Redeemer would lose if this office should be abolished! England would be robbed indeed if Booth had never spoken to and for her submerged tenth, if John McNeill had been silenced from addressing the crowds gathered from all classes, if Henry Drummond had been denied the right to gather into groups the best bred of all the British youth. America, how she would have mourned had some pestilential breath swept her soil a half-century ago, silencing a Munhall, a Moody, a Chapman and a Sunday! Unbelievers and infidels often tell us our religion is moving and destined like other faiths, to die at last of inherent weakness. We wonder whence such opinions come, and how some men manage to hold them and seek to propagate them, when we study this problem of evangelization and see what lone men are doing.A letter just received tells of Uldine Utley, Gypsy Smith, Campbell Morgan and George McNaley, all in Chicago now. What favor could God visit upon Chicago above the work of such evangelists?

We believe it is without parallel that a religious demonstration in a large city should throw the mildest political exhibition into the shade, and yet the mayoralty excitement is over, but the tide of religious interest is still rising! There are stars in yon firmament that shine with a feeble and confused light, but shall we strike out the whole constellation of glories and lose Jupiter, Venus, and Mars, because others bring less light?

There are stars of mighty magnitude among our evangelists. If we are to believe that text which says, “They that turn many to righteousness shall shine as the stars”, then in Heaven the glory of some of the evangelists who have wrought in the Gospel shall only be eclipsed by the splendor of the Son of Righteousness. Young men, thinking of the open avenues of life, if evangelism shall seem inviting to your feet, you will set yourselves in a way where there are mighty opportunities to serve your fellows and honor your Lord.John Mark’s character had its deficiencies, and his history discovers some faults. He was a man whose spirit was fervent, but whose flesh was weak. Twice in life, at least, this fact was evinced by his conduct. On the night of the Master’s apprehension and arrest, when the more intimate disciples all forsook Him and fled, there might have been seen stealing through the darkness a young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body, watching with eager, loving eyes the innocent victim of that hour.

His affection was such that he came too close to the crowd that bore his Master on, and one saw him and laid hold on him, and in fear he left the linen cloth and fled. There is reason to think that for fear he never returned to witness the end.

That young man was John Mark, and that action was an illustration of his character, ardent yet fearful. He showed the same spirit when at Pamphylia his courage failed, and he forsook Paul and Barnabas, and for the time gave up the work, and lost the confidence of the great Apostle.Who of us are not deficient and fearful? The Pauls who can suffer the most the enemy can inflict, and yet face him next day with a fearless heart are precious few. The Barnabases whose song is heard with Saul’s, while yet their feet are in stocks, are not so common as the Peters who dissemble at sight of danger, and disgracefully retreat when the danger grows. “Charity covers a multitude of faults”, so it is said, and sincerity has this one trait that redeems, it never fails but it carries down with it faith enough to try again. When Judas sold Christ, he parted with the last ounce of heart and hope, and made Satan owner of all. When hope is gone, hell yawns to receive its own.

When Peter denied Christ, he was sadly sorrowful, but in the darkest hour, sincerity of heart saved him from despair. He could even then comfort himself somewhat with the very words which he afterward used to convince Christ, “Thou knowest that I love thee”.John Mark could do the same.

We need not try to defend his weakness as shown in his cowardly retreats. We are foolish if we do not learn from him not to lose heart and quit better endeavor because we have once done wrong. Some men need only to fail in business once in order to reach the conclusion, “I can never succeed.” Some men profess Christ and then backslide, and the devil presently persuades them it is all folly to try, and tells them they can’t do right, and all effort that way would be wasted. Some men aspire to be public speakers, but in an early endeavor break down and fail, and too soon conclude, “I can’t, I can’t.” Thank God, Mark was too sincere for that. He knew he had failed. He made no sort of defense of the cowardly act, but he said to his uncle Barnabas, “I want to go and try again, and I will go if you will let me.” That is manly!

That shows sincerity of purpose, and proves that the coward may yet become courageous through his remnant of faith in God. The bee gathers honey from the most unsightly flowers, and man, if he will, can get advantage from the most discouraging events.

Have you not seen men make the financial bankruptcy into which they happened to fall at one time, contribute to the wealth they afterward gained? The greatest of modern English orators was hissed out of Parliament after his maiden speech. He went, spitting back at his critics this sentence: “I know I have failed, but I will come again, and you will hear me.” Robert Hall failed when first he tried to preach; Moody failed, but neither lost heart, and every successive failure they converted into a step to success. Oh, brother, sister, is there the record of a failure in your life, and have you said, seeing it, “I can’t rise?” Yes, you can. God lives, and with His hand to help, there is no load of life too heavy for your remaining strength.But some one says, “My failure is more than that of finance, or backsliding, or breaking down. I failed to go into the Kingdom when its open door invited, and now I am old; life is wasted and I fear Heaven as well is lost.” No, not if like Mark you are willing to offer your heart and hand to God now.

Mr. Beecher said beautifully enough, “When one of my Norway spruces died from the rude handling of winter, instead of rooting it up and throwing it away, I let the ampelopsis take possession of it, and it grew up rapidly through all the branches of the tree, and covered its top with leaves.

In the autumn these leaves, which had been green before, were all changed to a brilliant crimson, and the tree in its own life was not half so beautiful as it was when covered with this vine, clad with all the glories of the setting sun.” Are you like an old tree that is dead, and has dropped all its foliage and stands with its trunk and branches bare? Let faith and love cover you and you will be more comely and more useful, standing more garnitured than you were, clad in all your former strength. If you have failed for this life, don’t fail for the other one too. There is much that may yet be done if now you offer self to God, and believe that God cares for you! Remember, our failures hurt, but only our want of faith can despoil utterly, and destroy. When the New Hampshire troops took Louisburg, the Gibraltar of America, the motto inscribed on their banners was, “Never despair with Christ for leader.” It is a good motto for life and will stand beside that more common saying as its commentary, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.” John Mark did that, and John Mark did not fail again.What we preach for our own hearts, we ought to practice toward other lives.

If it is right that I should try again after one failure, it is equally right that I should give my friend a second trial after having seen him fail. In that dispute between Paul and Barnabas, respecting Mark’s desire to be taken into confidence again, Paul was narrow, and Barnabas was charitable.

It is a common thing to hear men say of some fellow man, “He disappointed me once, he shall never have the chance again.” That is what Paul said, but Paul was imperfect, and in that speech the poor, unforgiving humanity shines through his better self in ugly visage. We all always discover our hardness when of others we say, “He deceived me once; I will never trust him again.” The young man in the bank has overdrawn his salary a few dollars. You are ready to show him the door and publish his disgrace to the world. But wait! If you do that for this first offense, it may be a question whether his account with God will not be straighter than yours. Here is your son who has deceived you into thinking he was in the home of a friend.

You find he was in a saloon, a gambling house instead, and has come away penniless. You are about to say, “Not another red cent from me.

You deceived me once; you will never do it again.” Don’t do that! Tell him the fault, and entreat him not to be guilty again, but do not let one offense kill all the faith in his good. Give him another chance. Youth is subject to folly, and if God had no more mercy on us than we have on one another, the brightest and best men the centuries have seen would have been lost to history by some early blunder. “To err is human”—so human that not a one of us escapes the experience; “to forgive Divine”—so Divine that few are large souled enough to accomplish it. When Paul made mistakes, we weaker mortals ought carefully to guard ourselves.The chance given, Mark employed it to the noblest ends. You say, “How do you know that?

We have no history of his after work!” Oh, yes we have; his history is his Gospel. If you want to see the inner, truer self of John, read John’s Gospel.

If you would understand Matthew more perfectly, study his record of those Divine events, and in Mark’s Gospel, one gets a glimpse of the evangelist. He believed in a Gospel to Gentiles; to them he preached, and to them he wrote. Other men might question the Gentile’s right to the Word of Life if they would, but while they disputed about it, Mark was feeding the Gentile’s hungry soul, and starting a song of Gospel gladness in which every nation and people would yet have a part. By his Gospel he will preach till the promise is fulfilled to Christ: “I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession”.There is other history of John Mark. Peter in his first Epistle mentions Mark as his son. He seems proud to send his salutation to the church at Babylon.

Paul in writing to the Colossians adds the greeting of Mark, and commends him to the favor of that church. In his Epistle to Philemon he calls Mark his “fellow-laborer”.

In writing to Timothy, he asks that he bring Mark to him, saying, “For he is profitable to me in the ministry”. That is history enough. It only takes a line to tell volumes sometimes. Only mention the battle of Thermopylae, and the mind recalls the spirit of Leonidas and the history of his brave resistance with his picked three hundred. Only mention Horatius, and some important history runs through your mind. You recall the day when the Tuscan army stood on the banks of the Tiber and threatened to cross and destroy the City of the Seven Hills; the day when Horatius stood at the bridge, and with one helper on either side held the pass against the hordes till night came, and Rome was saved.

But when you mention John Mark, remember that though less famed than these, he did a battle that far outshines them both. As an Evangelist, he met and vanquished often the hosts of hell; as the author of one Gospel, he built a bridge across the black Tiber of death and opened up a way to the city of eternal hills; as a soldier of the cross, we have reason to believe he died doing battle for humanity and God.

Such a life is not to be despised. He lives well whose history grows toward the end.If those who have thought about this least illustrious John of the New Testament will seek to avoid his mistakes and strive to emulate his virtues, then the humblest of us may prove the wisdom of Miss Mullock’s words, when she says, “Out of the warp and woof of common daily experience can be woven a noble and useful life, as any life must be which is a psalm of cheerful labor and obedience, set always to one grand note.”