The two masters
“No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other: or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Mat_6:24).
In one point of view, this sounds very strangely; for nothing is more certain than that we can serve two masters. Every child that is dutifully reared serves two masters—its father and its mother; and it is quite possible for one to be a servant of a whole family of masters.
But in order that this may take place, it is indispensably necessary that the masters should be alike in feeling, and identical in interest.
But if masters are antagonistic the one to the other, if their interests are not only different but conflicting, if to serve one of necessity puts you in opposition to the other, then it is impossible to serve two. And the more you look at it the plainer it becomes.
Suppose one man represents perfect honour, and another represents perfect meanness, and you undertake to serve both of them, what sort of success will you have?
Suppose one man be called Truth, and another be called Falsehood, and you attempt to serve both of them, is it not plain that you will either hate the one and love the other, or else hold to the one and despise the other?
You cannot serve both at the same time. No man can serve purity and lust at the same time. No man can serve good nature and anger at the same time. Are God and mammon, then, antagonistic? And what are the ways in which man is looked at from the two spheres—the Divine and the earthly?
Mammon regards man as a creature of time and this world, and thinks of him, plans for him, educates him, and uses him, am it, like the beast of the field, he only had existence here, and as if his existence was only related to the comforts that belong to this state of being.
But God looks upon man as a creature of eternal duration, passing through this world. The chief end and interest of men are also viewed antagonistically. In short, man in his immediate and visible good, is that which mammon regards.
On the other hand, God regards not indifferently the interests of our body; but more He regards the interests of our being.
Mammon builds men in the finer traits which they possess in common with animals.
God would build men in those traits which they have in common with Him.
One builds for this world exclusively.
The other builds for this world and the next. There is nothing more certain than that a man’s character depends upon his ruling purpose.
Let us look at it. A man may be a thoroughly worldly man—that is, all his ruling aims, and desires, and expectations, may make him worldly; and yet he may be observant of external religious services.
A man is not to be supposed to be less a worldly man because when the Sabbath day comes round he knows it. He maybe, also, a believer in the gospel, and in the most evangelical and orthodox type of doctrine—as an idea.
It is quite possible for a man to be supremely worldly, and yet to have strong religious feelings. There is nothing more common than instances which go to show that we like as a sentiment things that we do not like as an ethical rule. Nay, it is possible for a man to go further, and yet be a thoroughly worldly man. And here it is that the distinction comes in. Although a man may be a servant of mammon, and may serve him with heart and soul; yet, externally, there may be a great many appearances that look as though he was serving God. And men really seem to think that they can serve God and mammon.
1. There is reason to believe that the morality of multitudes of men, though they are good in some degree, leaves out that which alone can make it a ground of complacence and trust. A man may be a moral man, and leave out the whole of the life to come. The Greeks were moral men, many of them.
The Romans were moral men, many of them.
2. There is reason to fear that the religion of multitudes of professors of religion is but a form of church-morality. You may tell me that this is a misjudgment. I hope it is. But what sort of lives are we living, when it is possible to misinterpret them? What if I should have occasion to say the same things about your allegiance to the government that I have said about your religion?
There is not a man of any note in the community about whose allegiance you have any doubt. If I point to one man, you say, “He is not true to his country.” If I point to another man, you say, “He is loyal”; and you state facts to prove it. You say,
“When his personal interest came in collision with the interest of the country, and one or the other had to be given up, he gave up his personal interest.” But when God’s claims come in collision with your personal interests, God’s claims go down, and your personal interests go up. Now, there ought to be no cause for doubt that you are Christians. A man is bound to live towards his country so that there shall be no mistake about his patriotism. And God says, “You are bound to live towards Me so that in some way men shall see that you are My children.” You are bound to live in everything as you do in some things. You are attempting, partly through ignorance, partly by reason of carelessness, and partly on account of too low an estimate of the sacredness of your religious obligations,
to serve God with your right hand, and mammon with your left;
and men see it, and they doubt you; and that is not the worst of it—they doubt God,
they doubt Christ, they doubt the reality of religion.
And to be the occasion of doubt concerning matters of such grave importance, is culpable. No man, therefore, has a right to allow any mistake to exist in the matter of his Christian character. There is need, Christian brethren, of severe tests in this particular. You need to settle these questions:
“Where is my allegiance? Am I with God, and for God supremely?” (H. W. Beecher.)
The two contrary masters, or the inconsistency of the service of God and the world
For the opening and prosecuting of which words, consider—
1. What these two masters are.
2. What it is to serve them.
3. How none can serve them both.
4. Why none can serve them both.
5. The use and application.
For the first of these, these two masters are God and the world, but with much difference, as we may see severally.
God is a Lord and Master absolutely, properly, and by good right in Himself; being in His own nature most holy, most mighty, most infinite in glory and sovereignty over all His creatures. Again, He is a Lord and Master in relation to us: and not only by right of creation and preservation as we are men and creatures, but also by right of redemption and sanctification, as new men and new creatures.
1. He hath made a covenant with us, first of works, and then of grace.
2. He hath appointed our work.
3. He hath as a Master appointed us liberal wages, even a merciful reward of eternal life.
Thus is God a Lord and Master. Now, on the other side, the world is called a master or lord, not by any right in itself, of over us, but—
1. By usurpation.
2. By man’s corruption, and defection from the true God.
3. By the world’s general estimation, and acceptation of the wealth and mammon, as a lord and great commander; which appeareth—
(1) By subjecting themselves to the basest services of wealth for wealth.
(2) By affecting wealth as the chief good.
(3) By depending (as servants on their masters) on their wealth.
Concerning the service of these masters, we must mark, that our Saviour saith not, A man cannot serve God that hath riches, but, He cannot serve God and riches. For he that cannot distinguish between having the world, and serving the world, cannot understand this text and conclusion of Jesus Christ. Our Lord well knew it was lawful both to have, and to seek, and to use the world holily and humbly. But how may we conceive that one cannot be servant to two masters, or to these two? In these conditions:
1. Not at the same time.
2. Not in their proper commands; for as they are contrary lords, so they command contrary things, and draw to contrary courses. One calls to works of mercy, charity, compassion, liberality, and the like; the other to cruelty, and unmercifulness, to shut our eyes from beholding our own flesh, to shut our ear from the cry of the poor, to shut our purse and hand from the charitable relief of Christ’s poor members. And how can one man obey both these in their contrary commands?
3. No man can serve two masters in sovereignty, unless they be subordinate one to the other, and so their commands concur in order one to another, and cross not one another.
The reasons whereof are these:
1. A servant is the possession of his master; and one possession can have but one owner and possessor at once.
2. The servant of the world sets up his wealth as an idol in his heart; by which the worldling forsakes the true God, and turns to most gross idolatry. So of the second reason.
3. The apostle (Rom_6:16) asks thus, “Know ye not, that to whomsoever ye give yourselves as servants to obey, his servants ye are whom ye do obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” But the distinction implies that they cannot obey both together.
4. No man can serve these two masters, because a man cannot divide his heart between God and the world; and if he could, God will have no part of a divided heart, as Elijah said in that case (1Ki_18:20).
How may I know what master I serve?
coming up next!
“No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other: or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Mat_6:24).
In one point of view, this sounds very strangely; for nothing is more certain than that we can serve two masters. Every child that is dutifully reared serves two masters—its father and its mother; and it is quite possible for one to be a servant of a whole family of masters.
But in order that this may take place, it is indispensably necessary that the masters should be alike in feeling, and identical in interest.
But if masters are antagonistic the one to the other, if their interests are not only different but conflicting, if to serve one of necessity puts you in opposition to the other, then it is impossible to serve two. And the more you look at it the plainer it becomes.
Suppose one man represents perfect honour, and another represents perfect meanness, and you undertake to serve both of them, what sort of success will you have?
Suppose one man be called Truth, and another be called Falsehood, and you attempt to serve both of them, is it not plain that you will either hate the one and love the other, or else hold to the one and despise the other?
You cannot serve both at the same time. No man can serve purity and lust at the same time. No man can serve good nature and anger at the same time. Are God and mammon, then, antagonistic? And what are the ways in which man is looked at from the two spheres—the Divine and the earthly?
Mammon regards man as a creature of time and this world, and thinks of him, plans for him, educates him, and uses him, am it, like the beast of the field, he only had existence here, and as if his existence was only related to the comforts that belong to this state of being.
But God looks upon man as a creature of eternal duration, passing through this world. The chief end and interest of men are also viewed antagonistically. In short, man in his immediate and visible good, is that which mammon regards.
On the other hand, God regards not indifferently the interests of our body; but more He regards the interests of our being.
Mammon builds men in the finer traits which they possess in common with animals.
God would build men in those traits which they have in common with Him.
One builds for this world exclusively.
The other builds for this world and the next. There is nothing more certain than that a man’s character depends upon his ruling purpose.
Let us look at it. A man may be a thoroughly worldly man—that is, all his ruling aims, and desires, and expectations, may make him worldly; and yet he may be observant of external religious services.
A man is not to be supposed to be less a worldly man because when the Sabbath day comes round he knows it. He maybe, also, a believer in the gospel, and in the most evangelical and orthodox type of doctrine—as an idea.
It is quite possible for a man to be supremely worldly, and yet to have strong religious feelings. There is nothing more common than instances which go to show that we like as a sentiment things that we do not like as an ethical rule. Nay, it is possible for a man to go further, and yet be a thoroughly worldly man. And here it is that the distinction comes in. Although a man may be a servant of mammon, and may serve him with heart and soul; yet, externally, there may be a great many appearances that look as though he was serving God. And men really seem to think that they can serve God and mammon.
1. There is reason to believe that the morality of multitudes of men, though they are good in some degree, leaves out that which alone can make it a ground of complacence and trust. A man may be a moral man, and leave out the whole of the life to come. The Greeks were moral men, many of them.
The Romans were moral men, many of them.
2. There is reason to fear that the religion of multitudes of professors of religion is but a form of church-morality. You may tell me that this is a misjudgment. I hope it is. But what sort of lives are we living, when it is possible to misinterpret them? What if I should have occasion to say the same things about your allegiance to the government that I have said about your religion?
There is not a man of any note in the community about whose allegiance you have any doubt. If I point to one man, you say, “He is not true to his country.” If I point to another man, you say, “He is loyal”; and you state facts to prove it. You say,
“When his personal interest came in collision with the interest of the country, and one or the other had to be given up, he gave up his personal interest.” But when God’s claims come in collision with your personal interests, God’s claims go down, and your personal interests go up. Now, there ought to be no cause for doubt that you are Christians. A man is bound to live towards his country so that there shall be no mistake about his patriotism. And God says, “You are bound to live towards Me so that in some way men shall see that you are My children.” You are bound to live in everything as you do in some things. You are attempting, partly through ignorance, partly by reason of carelessness, and partly on account of too low an estimate of the sacredness of your religious obligations,
to serve God with your right hand, and mammon with your left;
and men see it, and they doubt you; and that is not the worst of it—they doubt God,
they doubt Christ, they doubt the reality of religion.
And to be the occasion of doubt concerning matters of such grave importance, is culpable. No man, therefore, has a right to allow any mistake to exist in the matter of his Christian character. There is need, Christian brethren, of severe tests in this particular. You need to settle these questions:
“Where is my allegiance? Am I with God, and for God supremely?” (H. W. Beecher.)
The two contrary masters, or the inconsistency of the service of God and the world
For the opening and prosecuting of which words, consider—
1. What these two masters are.
2. What it is to serve them.
3. How none can serve them both.
4. Why none can serve them both.
5. The use and application.
For the first of these, these two masters are God and the world, but with much difference, as we may see severally.
God is a Lord and Master absolutely, properly, and by good right in Himself; being in His own nature most holy, most mighty, most infinite in glory and sovereignty over all His creatures. Again, He is a Lord and Master in relation to us: and not only by right of creation and preservation as we are men and creatures, but also by right of redemption and sanctification, as new men and new creatures.
1. He hath made a covenant with us, first of works, and then of grace.
2. He hath appointed our work.
3. He hath as a Master appointed us liberal wages, even a merciful reward of eternal life.
Thus is God a Lord and Master. Now, on the other side, the world is called a master or lord, not by any right in itself, of over us, but—
1. By usurpation.
2. By man’s corruption, and defection from the true God.
3. By the world’s general estimation, and acceptation of the wealth and mammon, as a lord and great commander; which appeareth—
(1) By subjecting themselves to the basest services of wealth for wealth.
(2) By affecting wealth as the chief good.
(3) By depending (as servants on their masters) on their wealth.
Concerning the service of these masters, we must mark, that our Saviour saith not, A man cannot serve God that hath riches, but, He cannot serve God and riches. For he that cannot distinguish between having the world, and serving the world, cannot understand this text and conclusion of Jesus Christ. Our Lord well knew it was lawful both to have, and to seek, and to use the world holily and humbly. But how may we conceive that one cannot be servant to two masters, or to these two? In these conditions:
1. Not at the same time.
2. Not in their proper commands; for as they are contrary lords, so they command contrary things, and draw to contrary courses. One calls to works of mercy, charity, compassion, liberality, and the like; the other to cruelty, and unmercifulness, to shut our eyes from beholding our own flesh, to shut our ear from the cry of the poor, to shut our purse and hand from the charitable relief of Christ’s poor members. And how can one man obey both these in their contrary commands?
3. No man can serve two masters in sovereignty, unless they be subordinate one to the other, and so their commands concur in order one to another, and cross not one another.
The reasons whereof are these:
1. A servant is the possession of his master; and one possession can have but one owner and possessor at once.
2. The servant of the world sets up his wealth as an idol in his heart; by which the worldling forsakes the true God, and turns to most gross idolatry. So of the second reason.
3. The apostle (Rom_6:16) asks thus, “Know ye not, that to whomsoever ye give yourselves as servants to obey, his servants ye are whom ye do obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” But the distinction implies that they cannot obey both together.
4. No man can serve these two masters, because a man cannot divide his heart between God and the world; and if he could, God will have no part of a divided heart, as Elijah said in that case (1Ki_18:20).
How may I know what master I serve?
coming up next!
No comments:
Post a Comment