S. The Way to Eternal Life

THE WAY TO ETERNAL LIFE SCRIPTURES: Matthew 19:16-22; Mark 10:17-22. It is not my purpose this morning to preach a sermon, but to talk to you somewhat upon your Sunday school lesson. That lesson is concerning the rich young ruler, and shows the perils of riches and the necessity of leaving all things to follow Christ. It is followed by a parable which discloses the principle upon which Christ rewards His disciples. All of the lesson flows from a simple incident: A young man came running very earnestly and propounded to Jesus this question: “Good Master, what good thing shall I do to inherit eternal life?” By comparing Matthew’s statement with Mark’s you find that the adjective “good” is applied by this young man to the person of Christ and to the thing which is to be done as a means of securing eternal life “Good Master, what good thing shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And by comparing the two accounts you will see that Jesus replies to the use of this adjective in both cases. Replying to the application of the adjective “good” to Himself, He says: “Why do you call me good? There is none good but God.” Replying to the application of the adjective to the thing to be done, He says: “Why do you ask me concerning that which is good? God is the only good.” So you see that the answer is “God” to both of the thoughts. As a person, God only is good. As a possession, a thing to be enjoyed, God only is good. I never read this but my mind goes back to the historical incident when Louis XIV was about to be buried Louis the Grand Monarch, the greatest sovereign of the French nation, Bonaparte excepted, that ever occupied the throne of France - Louis the magnificent, who had the power to attract to him the greatest literary minds, the greatest social celebrities and the greatest martial heroes, and who, by the impress of his own character, not merely pushed out the boundaries of the French empire to a vast extent, but exercised an equal sway over society and over literature. He was truly great, as men count greatness, but in his old age (for he reigned a long time) he lived to see all of his glory vanish. It began to pass away when the Duke of Marlborough at the battle of Blenheim defeated Marshal Tallard, and continued to pass away as Marlborough gained victory after victory, until France became impoverished, until Louis shriveled up, void of human respect, a painted old man. He who had been the center of all sight, the chief attraction of all the great of the earth, was dead even while he lived. His greatness was an illusion, his life artificial. Macaulay says that it excited great surprise to find by post-mortem examination that instead of his being such a very tall man he was only a little over five feet high. But, anyhow, on the occasion of his funeral the preacher commenced with this statement, “God alone is great.” So here our Saviour wished to rebuke the adjective employed by this young man and applied to Himself. The young man did not regard Jesus as divine. He did not look on Him as God. He looked on Him merely as a great teacher. To paraphrase the thought: “Looking on me as only a man, why do you prostrate yourself before me and apply to me the term ‘good’? God alone is good. If you mean to ascribe it to God, well. If you mean to apply it to me as a mere human being, not well. There is none good but God.” The thought is this that there is no perfection in human goodness. While the law requires a man to be as perfect as God is perfect, and as good as God is good, and while grace will ultimately bring that about in the case of every man who enters heaven, for without holiness no man shall see the Lord, yet it is an arrogant claim when one applies it to himself here and now, under the present earthly conditions. Supreme goodness can only be predicated on God Himself. Now the other thought, “What good thing?” The Saviour rebukes his application of the adjective “good” to a thing, to a possession: “You may have ideas of goodness as applied to things that need to be corrected. You say to me, What good thing shall I do? That is, to be so good, that I can offer it to God as an equivalent or eternal life. Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? God alone is good.” The meaning of it is this: It is the old question, which is the chief good? What is that one possession which if a man have he lacks nothing, and if he have everything else in the world except that one thing, you can say to him, “One thing thou lackest?” What is the chief good? The answer to it, as to the other, is, “God is the good.” That is to say, He has so constituted our immortal spirits, He has so endowed them with capacities, He has so conferred upon them desires, that these capacities cannot be suitably employed and these desires cannot be adequately satisfied outside of the end of them, which is God. God is the good that alone can satisfy the human heart. Allow a man to possess just as many other things as he is willing to enumerate, and let their excellency be as high in the human scale as one is disposed to wish, there will be no dispute about quality; take as many as you please and after you take all you may wish to claim, your soul will be a pauper, for God is not its portion. One thing thou lackest - THE thing. There will come a time when you will get to the end of any limited thing. There will come a time when you will exhaust the fulness of all measures, of all finite quantity. There will come a time when all glory of earthly things will vanish, and when that time comes, defer it just as long as you please, pass from days to months, and months to years, and from years to cycles and from cycles to ten thousand times ten thousand centuries, let it be so, when you do get there, and ultimately you must, and your eye sweeps the horizon of eternity you are in absolute poverty. You have used up what you had. You have used it up without, in the least, taking away your capacity for enjoyment. You remain as hungry, as craving, as longing, as when you first commenced. Then none of these things can be called the good, the equivalent of eternal life-none of them. “You asked me” concerning that which is good. I say to you that God is the good, and if your springs of joy are not in God, then your springs of joy are summer springs. They will dry up. There will come a time when dust takes the place of sparkling and bubbling waters. Now that is the thought with which the lesson commences. Notice next that while this young man had a very low idea of personal goodness and of the good that could fill the heart of man, and consequently a very low estimate of the dignity of manhood itself, the Saviour now wants to show him that he has an equally faulty view of the law. “You ask me what you shall do to inherit eternal life. If you wouldst enter into life, keep the commandments.” The law is the measure of human conduct. “The law, you mean, as I know it?” “No, I mean as God knows it. It is not limited by your ignorance.” “Oh, then you mean as my conscience feels it?” “No, conscience is not a standard. Conscience is only a judge. The judge that sits on the bench is not the standard. The law is the standard. Conscience pronounces according to the law that is before it, whatever law that may be. If it is an inferior law, then the decisions of conscience will be inferior. The supreme standard is the divine law, and you are in no way free from the obligation of the law simply because you say, ‘My conscience does not tell me to do that.’ Ask Paul. He verily thought within himself that he was doing God’s service in persecuting the Christian religion. He had a certain standard. According to that standard his conscience, as a judge, construed and applied the law put before it, hence his conscience told that persecution was the right thing to do. But is God’s law to be lowered until it fits an unclean conscience? Is God’s law to be lowered until it fits human ignorance?” The Saviour knew that this young man was at fault in supposing that he had kept the law all his life. That was his claim. He says, “All these have I observed from my youth.” Why then did the Saviour refer him to the law? In order to disclose the real state of his heart. The law, expressed in great principles and not in special statutes, is this: “Thou shalt love God supremely and thy neighbor as thyself. Thou shalt love God with all thy affections, all of them. Thou shalt love God with all thy understanding, thy intelligence. Thou shalt love God with all thy activities, thy strength. Thou shalt love God supremely and thy neighbor equally with thyself.” Now he said that he had kept that all the way. Mark how the Saviour discovers his case to him: “You affirm that you love God with all your heart, for you say you have kept the law from your youth up. I will subject you to a test. God says that heavenly treasures are better than earthly treasures. God says that heavenly rewards are superior in excellency to earthly rewards. You say you love God with all your heart. I will test your affections. Here you have vast earthly possessions. Yonder are vast heavenly possessions. I propose an even swap to you. Let these replace those. Give up one and take the other. Sell all that you have, every bit of it, and come and follow me and you shall have reward yonder. You say you love God supremely, that your heart is obedient to the divine statute. If you have rightly judged yourself, it will be to you an absolute pleasure to exchange an earthly pleasure for a heavenly one.” Look at it this way: One man has silver, but alleges a preference for gold. He claims to estimate an ounce of gold to be sixteen of silver. As a test of the sincerity of his estimate of relative values, put down by the side of his silver an equal weight of gold, ounce for ounce, and let him take his choice. Now on your theory of sixteen to one, will you. exchange the onesixteenth for the whole number? If he says, “No, I will keep my silver,” what will it prove? It will prove that he did not tell the truth when he said he estimated the gold to be of more value than the silver. Another has gold but alleges a preference for diamonds. “Diamonds,” he says, “far exceed gold in relative value.” Test him the same way. Put clear, large, lustrous diamonds over against his gold, equal weight, ounce for ounce, and give him his choice. “Give me that weight in gold and I will give you this weight in diamonds.” “I cannot do that; I would rather have my gold.” What does it prove? It proves that he did not tell the truth when he said he estimated the diamonds to be more valuable than the gold. Apply these illustrations to this young man. He said that from youth up he had kept the law. The law said, “Thou shalt love God supremely. Thou shalt prefer God to earth. Thou shalt prefer heavenly treasure to temporal treasure. Thou shalt prefer moral and spiritual good to physical and temporal good. Now, if you have kept the law, if this is the attitude of your mind and heart, when I offer you a fair exchange, heavenly treasure for earthly treasure, you will joyfully take it.” What happened? The young man’s countenance fell. What an expression! His countenance fell. Why? He went away sorrowful. And why? True, he had great possessions, but here, according to his own theory, was offered him greater possessions in exchange, and he declined to take them. The besetting sin of that young man, as is the besetting sin of this age, was the love of money. This is absolute idolatry. I mean counting money the chief good. Evidently he so counted it. Because he was not willing to exchange it for what on his own theory was a better and a greater good. When the two came of an alternative possession, he refused the one and elected the other. Here are all the elements of a decision. Here are the two things put over against each other by contrast. Here the elector looks first upon this picture and then on that, and, looking, deliberately chooses. His choice established the fact that money was his chief good. “Why askest thou me concerning that which is the good? God is the good. You, in heart, say money is the good, and as a proof that you worship the money, when I put money and God directly before you as objects of affection, as comparative objects. of human love, you turn your back on God and you cling to the money.” So it made manifest the awful fact that he had never kept a commandment in his life, never had. He never had even approximated keeping a commandment. Now, I want to press a question on you with all the solemnity of which I am capable. I know I am in earnest about it. I know I have so deliberated upon it that I feel that I am touching eternal things here today and that today there will be a touchstone applied to human hearts. I have prayed God that you may propound this question, “What lack I?” And that when you have discovered what it is, that your decision will be different from the decision of this young man. Some things about which others have been much exercised may never even have interested me. I am utterly unable to appreciate their obstinate hold on the human mind. For instance, sacramental salvation, ritualism as a means or condition of life. It always seemed to me to be as small a thing as a man’s mind could belittle itself with. How did any one ever say, If you are baptized you will be saved? If you are not baptized you will be lost? If you commune you will be saved? If you do not commune you will be lost? Salvation never turns on things of that kind. It turns rather upon a supreme principle, your recognition and acceptance of Jesus Christ as sovereign, as good, as supreme. I do not care what else you do, if you leave that out you are lost, whether you be preacher, deacon or unofficial church member. You may have paid money every day of your life. You may have attended service; you may have observed rituals; you may have busied yourself about many things, but I do know that if you have never recognized and bowed to the sovereignty of the Lord Jesus Christ you are not saved and you lack the supreme thing. The test may come up in various ways; in your case perhaps on a different thing from that which exposed the idolatry of the young man. It may not be that love of money is your besetting sin. But no matter in what form the test does come, when it clearly reaches you, when it comes as an alternative proposition, when it sets before you in competition, heaven or earth, when your soul must take one and leave the other, then if there be on the face of the earth any one thing that you prefer to God, you fall all along the line. You lack one thing. My own mind never studied a question as great as the subject of the supremacy of God. God alone is great. God alone is the good. “He went away sorrowful because he had much possessions.” Now I want to show you how the Lord Jesus Christ brought out the thought in another way. It was not a full disclosure to show him where His chief thing was, his king-thing, the royal thing, that which took precedence of everything else. There is quite another view to be seen. Let us suppose that this young man had said: “Here is the title to everything I have. I will turn it all over to you now. Let it be sold and distributed among the poor, since you require it. My money, yes, take it all of it but my personal service, no.” “Sell it all?” “Yes.” “Give it to the poor?” “Yes.” “Follow you? No.” Right here, it would seem, is an important point. I shall never forget a conversation I had with an old friend in a certain city when canvassing for the redemption of Baylor University. He accorded me a brief interview, but desired to end the whole thing in a minute. “I know what you want, I approve your work, here is a check for $50.” “Excuse me,” I replied, “you misunderstand. The check is very far from all I want.” “Well,” he said, “what is it?” “I mean to say that if my mission is what you conceive (and if it is not, you ought not to give any money to it) you owe to it some personal service as well as your money, and more than the $50 the cause needs your influence. Now you cannot discharge that duty by a financial contribution.” His good sense grasped the situation in a moment, and his kindness and loyalty accorded promptly, gracefully and lovingly, just what I wanted, and just what was become in him to do for such a cause. He fixed a convenient hour, heard me patiently and thoroughly, became deeply interested, increased his own contribution, furnished me much valuable information, gave some good advice, of which he was quite capable, wrote some letters of introduction, went with me to other places and every way made the cause his own for such time as he could spare. When I left him I thanked him, not for courtesies to me, but I thanked him for Christ’s sake. His face glowed with the pleasure of personal service. It is not difficult to find business men who readily contribute to worthy objects, and are even willing to let the deacons say how much they ought to give, but who are unwilling to bring their personal service to bear in the cause of Christ; who are willing to have an evangelist come and hold a protracted meeting and never frown as they sign the check to pay him, but who will not personally labor in the meeting, pray in the meeting and work in the meeting for the salvation of souls. What, then, do such facts disclose: Put the disclosure in words: “Lord, I recognize your sovereignty over my money; you may check on me when you will; I will honor your check, but I do not recognize your sovereignty over myself.” We have here some of this class. Oh, how I have longed to see them come to prayer meeting just occasionally! How I have longed to see them show a personal interest in the Sunday school! How I have longed to see them show a disposition to give personal help to the deacons in their work, to give personal help to the pastor in seeking to build up this church! I witnessed this scene once, and could give you the names. I was sitting in the office of a wholesale house in a certain city which did an immense business, far, wide-reaching business. The proprietor was a liberal man, too, as the world goeth. While there, word was brought to a gentleman present, whose office was just across the street, notifying him that a man, according to his appointment and at the time designated, was over at his office waiting for him. He uttered an impatient exclamation which I will not repeat and added: “I have an appointment with him. He wants me to give money to him. I suppose I must go.” The wholesale proprietor laughed: “Don’t you know the way out of that? Why, just send your check over to him. Sign it here and send it over. Of course, you ought to give it. We have to do these things; that is right, but I would not be bored with an interview.” There was a cold-blooded insolence of tone and manner no words can describe. It made me shudder at the brutality to which money-getting degrades men. I could not be silent. Knowing all the facts in the case, that the waiting one represented not himself but the Lord Jesus Christ, whom both these men professed to serve and honor, that he was a most honorable gentleman, unselfishly devoted to the cause of Christ and humanity, that this cause was entitled to a hearing upon the part of those who claimed to be Christians, I said: “Did you accord this interview, designating time and place?” “I did.” “Do you concede the worthiness of the cause and its claims on you?” “Oh, yes!” “Do you understand that the waiting gentleman desires any favor for himself?” “Oh, no!” “Whom then does he represent?” “Oh, well, he represents our church.” “Do you mean your church, or Christ?” “Of course, our church does Christ’s work.” “Will you answer me plainly one question do you regard him as representing Christ in this matter?” “Well, yes.” “Then you have-insolently refused an interview with Christ. You have brutally affronted His representative. How do you interpret this Scripture: ‘And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when you depart out of that house, or city, shake off the dust of your feet’ (Matthew 10:14). ‘He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet, shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward’ (Matthew 10:40-42)? Now apply it. You say this is a good thing, but deny it a hearing, deny that it is entitled to enough of your time for you to investigate it, or to be even civil to its representative.” “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart.” Now listen to a statement from Paul. He tells of a model offering. The Philippian church was a very poor church financially. They were not only financially poor, but they were under a very great stress of persecution. Well, these people thoughtfully considered the subject that Paul presented to them, a subject that related to God, and considering it and praying about it they made an offering which Paul marks as a model offering, by saying: “Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia; how that in a great trial of affliction the abundance abounded unto the riches of their liberality. For to their power I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves; praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints. And this they did, not as we hoped, but first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God” (2 Corinthians 8:1-5). Go read that Scripture. They first gave themselves. Not only my money, but myself, Lord. Mark that they gave themselves not only unto the Lord, but unto His representative, and both “by the will of God.” Then what is involved in being a Christian? This, much is involved, that there be an absolute surrender to Jesus Christ. I mean that you recognize Him as Lord of person and of time and of property, of everything. And if He is God, He is entitled to it. If He is not God, He is a usurper and an impostor to demand anything at your hands. This is where we fail. We do play at things. People play at being Christians. They are always knowing and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. They are always splitting hairs and caviling and discussing this little boundary, when the heart of the question is one question: Do you yield yourself and all that you have to the Lord Jesus Christ? I do not care on what comes the issue; it may come upon a yard of ribbon. It may come upon a silver thimble. It may come upon the most infinitesimally small thing in which the human mind can take interest, but if the point on which the controversy arises be as narrow in its boundaries as the point of a cambric needle, and on that thing, however small, a soul says, “God, here you are not supreme,” that is a lost soul. That is the whole of the question. and it is all involved. I know that it is personally distasteful for me to refer so much to myself, but when one discusses a personal experience he speaks within his knowledge. Now, if I have any consciousness, if I have any just recognition of the processes of my own thought, if I am able faithfully to chronicle the principal facts of my own past, I do know that this was the supreme question that addressed itself to my mind for settlement when I was converted. After you settle that, you never find any hard question. There are none others that can approximate it. Whether you do this or that particular thing amounts to but little when the supreme - question is settled, the one that has the heart of the whole matter in it. I think I understood what the old preacher meant when he said: “With my view of my allegiance to Jesus Christ, if I could get the evidence upon my mind that Jesus Christ commanded me to go out yonder in that graveyard and stand over the dust of the dead and say, ‘Live!’ I would go out there and say it expecting to see them come up from their graves.” He just meant this: The only thing that I have ever to settle is, What does He want me to do? Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? That is all I want to know. There is where the question comes in. It is not as to the way, but what is the thing to do? Now, Paul settled that supreme question when Jesus says, “Saul, why persecuteth thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goads.” You may think you are only persecuting the people. I tell you that you are persecuting the Son of God when you are unjust to His cause. But what replied Paul? “What shall I do, Lord! I recognize your sovereignty, I see you are Lord. I see that you are the only Lord. You are the one king. You are sovereign. Now what will you have me to do?” “Go to Damascus.” “I will go.” “Go to a certain street called Straight.” “I will.” “There wait for a man to come called Ananias.” “I will.” “Then do what he tells you to do, for I will send a message by him.” “I will do it.” “I will show you that I have marked out for you to be a great sufferer.” “Send it, Lord, send it. I will rejoice in it. I accept it.” “I will show you that you must suffer a great many things for my sake.” “Send them; let them come.” “You must leave home. It will nearly break your heart. You would a great deal rather preach to your home people.” “I will go.” “I will send you far hence.” “I will go.” Notice he never fought the real battle but once, and notice that the battle did not consist in simply saying, Will you go to Damascus, or will you go to the street called Straight? It didn’t consist in that. Those were details, all settled in the main question, in the sovereignty of Jesus Christ over him, to send him here, there, or anywhere. Well, let us take one other case and then I am done. “Gaius,” “Here, Lord! Lord, are you going to make me a missionary?” “No.” “Why, you let Paul go.” “It is not for you to determine whether you go or whether you stay. I appoint you to stay, not to go. You serve me here.” “How?” “Well, I will pour wealth on you.” “You don’t mean that I have to sell all that I have?” “Not at all; you do what I tell you to do. I will pour wealth on you. As fast as your soul prospers, I will make your money prosper.” “Well, Lord, haven’t you got any sickness for met” “No, I am not going to send affliction on you. I am willing for you to be well in body as long as you are well in soul.” “Well, what am I to do then?” “You are to be a fellow helper to the truth. You receive those whom I send. You greet those whom I send.. You contribute to those whom I send.” God says, “I am sovereign. I say to Gaius, ‘Be rich.’ I say to Paul, ‘Go.’ I say to Gaius, ‘Stay.’” So you see it does not consist in whether you will do this or that particular thing, but whatever thing, leave it to Him. Paul says to Silas: “Let us go over into Asia and preach.” The Spirit says, “You cannot go.” “All right, I won’t set my face that way. Let us go over then into Bithynia to preach.” The Spirit says, “No, you cannot go there.” “All right, I won’t try to go there. Lord, you are sovereign. You select my field; I don’t want to select it. I belong to you. Not only when you want me to work, and not only what you want me to do, but where you want me to work.” The sovereignty extends to the place as well as to the time. Now that is the thought that I wanted to get before you today, the sovereignty of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the King of kings and the Lord of lords. Let His mind be in you, the mind that was in the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. “I came not to be ministered unto but to minister.” He came to serve and to do the Father’s will. So, adapt yourself to God’s methods as well as to His work. Take one illustration: God might have made the Bible ready bound, given it in the English tongue, pictures in it, gilt edge, marginal notes and all, and handed it right down from heaven just that way, but it would have been a very mechanical way of handing it down. It would have been a way that imposture could have imitated and did imitate in the Mormon Bible. So he did not pursue any such way. He gave His revelation in His own way, and by giving it as He did He called out, He engaged, He employed the thought of ten thousand Christians in ascertaining the true text, in collating the passages, in sifting, in holding up before us at last the reliable Word of God. Tischendorf felt that God called him not to go as a missionary and not to stay at home, but he wanted the truest text of God’s Word that could be found. That meant to travel and spend money. That meant hardship and poverty. “Let it come. My soul is on my work and I don’t care how much I suffer and I don’t care how much I labor. Paris, Rome, Egypt, Arabia, anywhere:” At one time, begging those stern guardians of the Vatican manuscript to just let him look at it, let him copy as much as he could copy on his finger nail; another time on Matthew Sinai dealing with the stupidity of ignorance, making three trips there at great personal cost, in order to be able to bring away the famous Sinaitic text of the Bible. See another yonder in that old convent in the desert of Africa, where for a consideration he is let down through a trap door into a room that had been filled with old parchments of bygone ages, and gathered them up and exhibited his inestimable treasures to the courts of Europe and to the world. He had his work. The same thing was in the heart of Wyclif when he said, “My mission is to see to it that every plow boy shall have the Bible in the Anglo-Saxon tongue to read as he plows.” And he brought it about. So then, divergent as may be the paths, different in themselves as may be these avenues to work, the one and the only question to be considered is, “Do you let God decide, do you make Him sovereign? Lord, art thou my Lord?” That is what Lord means. It means sovereign, potentate, king. I press that question now on you. As you go out of this house ask yourself: “Do I recognize Jesus Christ as Lord of myself, Lord of my time, Lord of my money, Lord of all?” And you might just as well write on and engage your room in hell if you deny the jurisdiction of Jesus Christ over your money, over your time, over everything.