Preaching Sugar Instead of Salt
I am continuing in chapter five of Arthur Pink's "An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount," which is entitled "The Ministerial Office" and is an exposition of the following passage:
"Ye are the salt of the earth but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:13-16)
After beginning the chapter by giving his view of whom the passage applies to (ministers of the gospel) and explaining why he holds to this view, Pink then begins to get into the meat of the teaching by commenting on the metaphorical use of salt and light:
"The two emblems which Christ here employed are very striking, and their order significant. He resembles His ministers to 'salt' to humble them, for salt is cheap, common, and insignificant; to 'light' to encourage them, for light is illuminating, conspicuous, elevated."
Pink believes that Mat. 5:13 begins a second section of the Lord's sermon in which the office of the apostles is specifically treated, and therein all who minister the word of God are addressed according to the measure of their ability. But while he makes a division here, he also acknowledges a clear relation between this passage and the previous verses in which those who bear certain traits are repeatedly said to be "blessed." Pink states, and I agree, that only those whose characters correspond to the description in verses 1-11 are called by Christ to witness publicly for Him. He believes that "the design of these verses, [Mat. 5:13-16] then, is to stir up Christ's servants to diligence and fidelity in declaring the will of God unto saint and sinner alike." I am in agreement with this statement but I think that the verses have a broader application and are meant to stir up all of Christ's servants (all Christians) to do the will of God in whatsoever capacity they can. Certainly every Christian can be salt and light to the world in his words and actions, and I see no legitimate reason to limit the doctrine here to only those who preach and teach.
After reviewing and further expounding upon both the differences and the relations between the two sections that are divided before and after Mat. 5:12 (so he believes), Pink then goes on to expound upon what he believes to be the various meanings expressed in the word salt as it is here used symbolically. He believes that both ministers of the gospel and their hearers can learn their respective duties by understanding the properties of salt and what it is meant to represent in this passage.
The properties of salt as applied to raw flesh or fresh meats are primarily the following, as Pink explains it: "first, it will fret and bite, being of a hot and dry nature; second, it makes meat savory to our taste; third, it preserves meat from putrefaction by drawing out of it superfluous moisture."
He also points out that salt is a purifying agent and a necessary element of life. "It is God's great antiseptic in a sphere of decay. It is wrought into the very rocks and soil of earth so that the waters filtering through them become purified thereby. It is a necessary element of the blood, which is the life of our bodies." I suppose that is true on both counts. I know from personal experience in water filtration that large amounts of salt are often used in the process. And I've heard it said before that salt is a necessary element of blood.
He continues:
"How well suited is it then as a figure of the Truth, by which means the soul is sanctified, for as salt arrests natural corruption, so the Word of God militates against moral corruption. This figure, then, furnishes clear direction to every minister of God as to his manner of preaching. Since the Word alone be the savory salt whereby souls are seasoned for the Lord, then it ought to be dispensed purely and sincerely."
I doubt that any preacher would disagree with that. But in the next sentence and the following paragraph, Pink says some things which I believe are very condemning to many of those who claim to be ministers of the gospel in our day:
"If salt be mixed with dust and rubbish it loses its pungency and efficacy, and if the Word be mingled with levity or exciting anecdotes its power is nullified."
"This figure plainly warns the minister of his pressing need of fortitude. It is 'salt' and not sugar candy he is to employ: something which the ungodly will be more inclined to spit out than swallow with a smile, something which is calculated to bring water to the eyes rather than laughter to the lips.
Is he not describing today's preaching here? Is it not the case today that to find preaching not mixed with levity and exciting anecdotes is a rarity? Is it not sugar candy that is being dished out in today's so-called Christian congregations instead of salt? And is it not true that the great majority of today's preaching is something which the multitudes swallow with a smile and which often brings laughter to their lips? As I see it, everything that Pink is condemning here is rampant in Evangelicalism.
Pink continues:
The minister, then, must not expect faithful preaching to be acceptable and popular. It is contrary to nature for those whose consciences are pricked to be pleased with those who wound them. Christ's servants must be prepared for their hearers to fret and set themselves against what searches out their corruptions. Such displeasure and opposition is a testimony that their ministry is 'salt,' that it has bitten into the depravity of their people. Instead of being discouraged and dismayed they are to persevere, endeavouring to season their congregation more and more with the pure salt of God's Word."
Now, these words must be said to be equally condemning. For if faithful preaching should not be expected to be acceptable and popular, but rather should engender displeasure and opposition, then what does this say about today's so-called gospel? Where is there preaching that wounds the consciences of its hearers, searches out their corruptions, bites into their depravity, and makes them fret and set themselves against it? I have not heard it.
"Ye are the salt of the earth but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:13-16)
After beginning the chapter by giving his view of whom the passage applies to (ministers of the gospel) and explaining why he holds to this view, Pink then begins to get into the meat of the teaching by commenting on the metaphorical use of salt and light:
"The two emblems which Christ here employed are very striking, and their order significant. He resembles His ministers to 'salt' to humble them, for salt is cheap, common, and insignificant; to 'light' to encourage them, for light is illuminating, conspicuous, elevated."
Pink believes that Mat. 5:13 begins a second section of the Lord's sermon in which the office of the apostles is specifically treated, and therein all who minister the word of God are addressed according to the measure of their ability. But while he makes a division here, he also acknowledges a clear relation between this passage and the previous verses in which those who bear certain traits are repeatedly said to be "blessed." Pink states, and I agree, that only those whose characters correspond to the description in verses 1-11 are called by Christ to witness publicly for Him. He believes that "the design of these verses, [Mat. 5:13-16] then, is to stir up Christ's servants to diligence and fidelity in declaring the will of God unto saint and sinner alike." I am in agreement with this statement but I think that the verses have a broader application and are meant to stir up all of Christ's servants (all Christians) to do the will of God in whatsoever capacity they can. Certainly every Christian can be salt and light to the world in his words and actions, and I see no legitimate reason to limit the doctrine here to only those who preach and teach.
After reviewing and further expounding upon both the differences and the relations between the two sections that are divided before and after Mat. 5:12 (so he believes), Pink then goes on to expound upon what he believes to be the various meanings expressed in the word salt as it is here used symbolically. He believes that both ministers of the gospel and their hearers can learn their respective duties by understanding the properties of salt and what it is meant to represent in this passage.
The properties of salt as applied to raw flesh or fresh meats are primarily the following, as Pink explains it: "first, it will fret and bite, being of a hot and dry nature; second, it makes meat savory to our taste; third, it preserves meat from putrefaction by drawing out of it superfluous moisture."
He also points out that salt is a purifying agent and a necessary element of life. "It is God's great antiseptic in a sphere of decay. It is wrought into the very rocks and soil of earth so that the waters filtering through them become purified thereby. It is a necessary element of the blood, which is the life of our bodies." I suppose that is true on both counts. I know from personal experience in water filtration that large amounts of salt are often used in the process. And I've heard it said before that salt is a necessary element of blood.
He continues:
"How well suited is it then as a figure of the Truth, by which means the soul is sanctified, for as salt arrests natural corruption, so the Word of God militates against moral corruption. This figure, then, furnishes clear direction to every minister of God as to his manner of preaching. Since the Word alone be the savory salt whereby souls are seasoned for the Lord, then it ought to be dispensed purely and sincerely."
I doubt that any preacher would disagree with that. But in the next sentence and the following paragraph, Pink says some things which I believe are very condemning to many of those who claim to be ministers of the gospel in our day:
"If salt be mixed with dust and rubbish it loses its pungency and efficacy, and if the Word be mingled with levity or exciting anecdotes its power is nullified."
"This figure plainly warns the minister of his pressing need of fortitude. It is 'salt' and not sugar candy he is to employ: something which the ungodly will be more inclined to spit out than swallow with a smile, something which is calculated to bring water to the eyes rather than laughter to the lips.
Is he not describing today's preaching here? Is it not the case today that to find preaching not mixed with levity and exciting anecdotes is a rarity? Is it not sugar candy that is being dished out in today's so-called Christian congregations instead of salt? And is it not true that the great majority of today's preaching is something which the multitudes swallow with a smile and which often brings laughter to their lips? As I see it, everything that Pink is condemning here is rampant in Evangelicalism.
Pink continues:
The minister, then, must not expect faithful preaching to be acceptable and popular. It is contrary to nature for those whose consciences are pricked to be pleased with those who wound them. Christ's servants must be prepared for their hearers to fret and set themselves against what searches out their corruptions. Such displeasure and opposition is a testimony that their ministry is 'salt,' that it has bitten into the depravity of their people. Instead of being discouraged and dismayed they are to persevere, endeavouring to season their congregation more and more with the pure salt of God's Word."
Now, these words must be said to be equally condemning. For if faithful preaching should not be expected to be acceptable and popular, but rather should engender displeasure and opposition, then what does this say about today's so-called gospel? Where is there preaching that wounds the consciences of its hearers, searches out their corruptions, bites into their depravity, and makes them fret and set themselves against it? I have not heard it.
posted by Stuart DiNenno at 11/26/2004 12:06:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home