Testimony versus reasoning.
The subject is suggested by the persistence of Rhoda and the incredulity of the disciples. Upon the evidence of her senses Rhoda constantly affirmed that it was St. Peter who stood at the gate. The disciples vigorously argued that it could not be he, and tried to reason away her testimony, St. Peter was in prison, and it was simply impossible that he could be knocking at the gate. So much is made in our time of the demand for facts and evidence and verification of all statements, and it is so often assumed that reasoning can destroy testimony, or that testimony, as we have it on the Christian theme, is insufficient to support our elaborate reasoning, that the trustworthiness of each, and the relations in which each stands to the other, may be profitably considered.
I. THE IMPORTANCE OF TESTIMONY. Our senses are the appointed media for our communication with the outer world, and they are both the first and constant sources of our knowledge. We learn to trust them. We readily receive the testimony of others as to what they have seen and heard, and, with limitations, as to what they have felt. There is, then,
II. HUMAN TESTIMONY MUST ALWAYS BE UNCERTAIN. This should be fully admitted. It is uncertain, because
III. HUMAN REASONING IS NECESSARILY UNCERTAIN. As in the case of the disciples who reasoned against Rhoda. The uncertainty comes out of:
1. Prejudice and bias (see the idola of Bacon).
2. Insufficient facts; some of the worst reasoning is explained by incomplete knowledge of the facts on which the reasoning is based.
3. False methods (see the fallacies explained in books on logic).
IV. THE TRUTH MAY BE REACHED BY WISE REASONING UPON SUFFICIENT TESTIMONY. To receive testimony alone may be mere credulity. To receive upon argument alone may be to yield to mere human force, to the power of superior intellect. Bat with due inquiry into basis-facts, and careful reasoning upon the facts, we may arrive at satisfying apprehensions of the truth. Apply to the acceptance of Christianity, with its difficulty of the miraculous. The four Gospels are a fourfold testimony to the great Christian facts. We must build our reasoning on the facts; just as those disciples should have received Rhoda's fact, and followed it up with their reasoning, and not made their reasoning oppose the facts.—R.T.
The sin of accepting Divine honors.
The explanation of this incident is given in the exegetical portion of this Commentary. Several points of interest come out upon comparison of the Scripture narrative with that given by Josephus. The Jewish historian is fuller on the adulation offered to Herod than is St. Luke. He notices the remarkable silver garment which Herod wore on the occasion, and the effect it produced on the people, adding that "presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place and another from another, though not for his good, that he was a god. And they added, "Be thou merciful to us, for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature. Upon this the king did neither rebuke them nor reject their impious flattery." St. Luke distinctly makes the same charge, stating that he was smitten because he gave not God the glory. He permitted himself to listen to and accept the flattery, and failed to see that in so doing he openly and publicly insulted the Divine majesty. This God never will permit. He is jealous—in the high sense of that term—of his sole and sovereign rights, and immediately punishes all who dare to claim the honor, which is due alone to him. Flattery of the creature may never rise to this height. Man can commit no sin so heinous as that of assuming Divine honors and rights. The most striking illustration is that of Nebuchadnezzar, whose pride swelled to a claim of Divine power and honor, and was, immediately upon his boastful utterance, smitten of God with a most humiliating disease. It is said that Antiochus the Great, because he sinned in a similar high-handed way, was brought low by a disease like that which afflicted Herod. We may consider some of the reasons why there is such jealousy of the Divine rights, and why Jehovah's honor he will never give to another.
I. THE SOLE CLAIM OF GOD IS ESSENTIAL TO OUR RIGHT RELATIONS WITH HIM. We are required to love God with all our heart, and mind, and soul, and strength. We cannot unless he be indeed the one add only God. We are to recognize our relations with him as Greater, and to admit the claims which this relationship brings. But we cannot conceive of two Creators; he hath made us, and he alone. Our life is to be under his present gracious lead; in all our ways we are to acknowledge him, and to feel that he directs our paths; but only confusion can come into our thought and life if our daily allegiance is to be in any sense divided. Sin only gains its heinousness in our sight when it is thought of as committed against the one supreme will, and redemption has no point if it be not our recovery to the harmony of that one will. Illustrations may be taken from the confusion created by dualistic and polytheistic systems. Men never could be quite sure that they had propitiated the right god, and a constant anxiety wore away the hearts of even the sincerely pious.
II. THE SOLE CLAIM OF GOD IS THE FOUNDATION OF MORALS. The connection between the two tables of the Law needs to be carefully considered. "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" is an injunction without force save as it follows on the great command to "love God with all our heart." The life of morality is love to the one living God. The spirit of sonship is the inspiration of brotherhood. If a man truly loves God he will love his brother also. Illustrate from the uncertainty of all moral systems associated with polytheism. Some of the gods became even the patrons of impurity and immorality. Oar one God being the "ideal of goodness," his service must be wholly pure.
III. THE CLAIM OF MAN TO DIVINE HONORS REVEALS HIS UTMOST DEGRADATION. The claim has been made again and again, but only by men utterly abandoned, mastered by pride and self-conceit, and only after the crushing down of all reverence. Self-will may go great lengths and keep within human limits; it becomes Satanic when it dares to rival God and claim for itself Divine rights. When such heart-baseness is declared, the man must come under the immediate and awful judgments of God, even as Herod did.—R.T.