There are two primary forms of special revelation: Jesus and the Bible. With these two external sources of truth and morality, we can have a quite accurate understanding of where we are at and where we are going. Jesus shows us what real humanity is meant to look like, and the Bible offers us all the insight, instruction and guidance we need to live a life that is pleasing to God, helpful to others, and good for ourselves. It is these sources that we need to look to, not our fallen hearts and fallible minds.

The hit 1952 country song by Hank Williams – Your Cheatin’ Heart – may have been a love song about what went wrong, but it is relevant for my purposes. We all have cheatin’ hearts. That is, we all have deceptive, lying and twisted hearts. We have a busted internal moral compass in other words, and we need outside help if we want true and unerring guidance and direction.
Consider life just a few decades ago. If you were in a strange place – say a city you had never been in before, or out in the countryside on strange roads, you would likely have needed help from others, or risk being hopelessly lost. Like many of you, I would have pulled into a service station and asked a local for directions.
Or we might have depended on a street directory. In Melbourne for many years we relied on having a Melways in the car. If you do not know where you are going, you need outside help in getting there. And it is not just geographical locations.
We all need moral direction as well. Little kids do not need to be taught how to be selfish. One of their first words is “mine!”. They will readily grab a toy out of the hands of someone else. So they need to be taught about things like sharing and care for others. Usually, it is the parents who bring about such moral counsel and guidance.
All this is quite familiar territory of course. Both Scripture and human experience tell us that we do NOT have some perfect internal guidance system that will never let us down, never go astray, and never mess things up. The truth is, sin is universal, and the human heart is quite unreliable when it comes to knowing right from wrong, truth from error.
Scripture calls this Original Sin. We live in a fallen world, and we all are born with a predisposition away from God and others, and toward sin and self. This is one of the most easily noticeable truths about the human species. As G. K. Chesterton once quipped, “Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.”
The Bible throughout makes this case about the universality of human sin and the unreliability of the human heart and mind to properly direct us. Just a few of many passages can be offered here. They make it clear that we are ALL led astray by sin and deception, and we are NOT to trust our own failed and corrupted internal guidance system:
Romans 3:10-12 “None is righteous, no, not one;     no one understands;no one seeks for God.All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;no one does good,not even one.”
Ecclesiastes 7:20 Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all thingsand beyond cure.Who can understand it?
Isaiah 64:6 We have all become like one who is unclean,and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.We all fade like a leaf,and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
Romans 3:10-12 (quoting from Psalm 14:1-3 and 53:1-3)“None is righteous, no, not one;     no one understands;no one seeks for God.All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;no one does good,not even one.”
But the world around us tells us the complete opposite. We are told to follow our hearts, to fully love and believe in ourselves, to only think the best of ourselves, to just go with the flow, to trust our feelings, to listen to self, and to make self the source of truth and goodness.
Read More
Related Posts:

Loy’s letter of April 2, 1935 to his cousin expressed his support for him in his testing times and his own personal outrage at the way the modernists had made their case against him. He described the action of the General Assembly as “an unqualified outrage—unconstitutional, ultra vires, un-Presbyterian, and altogether prompted by a spirit of narrow-mindedness and intolerance.” Loy believed the outcome of the case was assured from the beginning and “the cards were stacked against you.” But he also related the comments of Moderator of New York Presbytery Russell that the actions against Machen had backfired to a degree because the way he had been treated did not look good to the general public. Loy added that lots “of men who are not on your side will see that the boot has been shifted to the other foot, and that the very ones who have been raising the cry of intolerance have been guilty of that unpardonable sin themselves” to which he added that he could not “help feeling that this adverse decision is really in your favor and that it will lead to vindication in the end.”

Mary and John Jones Gresham had two children that survived to marry and have families, Mary Jones and Thomas Baxter. Mary Jones, who was also called Minnie, would live in Baltimore with her husband Arthur Webster Machen and they would enjoy the births of three sons, one of which was born in 1881 and named John Gresham Machen. At the time of his birth, Thomas and his wife Tallulah had been raising their son LeRoy in Madison, Georgia, since his birth September 21, 1871. When Thomas and Lula Gresham moved their family to Baltimore their residence was close to that of the Machens. Gresham and Loy, which was the name Machen most often used for his cousin, became more and more like brothers than just first cousins because of their many opportunities to socialize, share common interests, and experiences. The ten-year age difference between the boys put Loy in the position of being like an older brother to J. Gresham Machen.
The purpose of this article is to consider the relationship of J. Gresham Machen and LeRoy Gresham following their years growing up together in Baltimore. This will be accomplished using a selection of letters written between April 1921 and April 1935. The letters will show that the two cousins continued to be both friends and confidants regarding issues of common interest including the situation with the Presbyterians as it developed in the 1920s in both the PCUSA and the PCUS.
LeRoy Gresham
LeRoy Gresham’s education included study in Lawrenceville Academy in New Jersey before he travelled the few miles down the road to Princeton University to earn both a B.A. and a M.A. Returning to Baltimore, Loy studied for one year at Johns Hopkins University and then went to the University of Maryland for his legal studies earning the LL.D. Initially, he followed in his father’s footsteps by practicing law in Baltimore beginning in 1896 but then after six years of work he realized that God was calling him to the pastoral ministry. Loy was just over thirty years of age when he began seminary studies. Unlike Machen’s choice for seminary, Loy selected Union Theological Seminary, Virginia, where he earned the B.D. {4} in 1906. He was licensed that May by Potomac Presbytery of the PCUS, and then he was ordained by Orange Presbytery in November of the same year. Rev. Gresham’s first call was a brief one of three years to a church in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. His next call would be his last because he would serve the church in Salem, Virginia, beginning in 1909 and remain there until his retirement in 1946. LeRoy was honored with the DD by both King College in Bristol and Washington and Lee in Lexington, Virginia. Loy had married Jessie Rhett in 1903, and they had two sons, Francis, who was the youngest, and Thomas Baxter.
Machen Recommends LeRoy for a New Call and Preaches at Hollins College[2]
At one point in LeRoy Gresham’s ministry in Salem, Machen mentioned Loy in a letter to Rev. Stuart “Bill” Hutchison as a possible candidate for his soon to be vacant pulpit with the hopes that he would recommend Loy to the pulpit committee. The opportunity that Machen believed could be a suitable change for Loy was just across the state in the First Presbyterian Church of Norfolk. Bill Hutchison had been the minister of the PCUS church for about ten years, and his new call was to the East Liberty Church, PCUSA in Pittsburgh. If Loy was to move to Norfolk, the change would take him from a congregation of over three-hundred members to one of nearly a thousand. Dr. Machen believed that the Norfolk pulpit would be a good fit for Cousin Loy, so he presented his case to Bill regarding his qualifications.
I have come frequently into contact with his work at Salem, and every contact with it has been an inspiration and a benediction. Though on a smaller scale, it is more like your work at Norfolk than almost anything else I have seen. That is to say, it is the work of a genuine minister of the gospel, who is in full possession of the necessary intellectual and other gifts. I do not believe that a more absolutely unselfish, consecrated man ever entered the ministry than my cousin. To win one soul he will pour forth unstintedly all the treasures of mind and heart that God has given him. And that kind of painstaking work has produced a congregation which it is a joy to see.
Machen went on to comment to Bill that the Salem congregation believed Loy was content with his call and would not leave the church for any reason. He added that Loy believed “his great duty is to his own congregation, and that, especially since his work there is so highly blessed of God, he has absolutely no time to spend upon any attempt to seek a larger field.” Despite the confidence of the congregation regarding Loy’s happiness as their pastor, Machen thought there was a possibility his cousin would leave Salem for another call when he believed God was calling him to do so. He commented, “I am sure that Loy will not decline the real call when it comes.” The letter shows Machen’s exuberance as he spoke up for his cousin because he wanted the best for him, and it looked like First Presbyterian Church in Norfolk was a call suited for his gifts.
As the letter draws to its close, Machen mentioned that it was his hope to have a week of hiking in the Natural Bridge area of Virginia with Loy before he preached the baccalaureate sermon at Hollins College for Women in Roanoke the evening of Sunday, June 5. Though the {5} sermon is untitled, Machen’s text was 2 Corinthians 4:18, “While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.” According to the summary by the writer for Hollins Magazine, Machen’s emphasis was on the need for a deep faith that provides a solid and long-lasting foundation for Christian living. Machen also referred to the familiar text from Matthew 6:33, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.” He encouraged the new graduates to pursue the Kingdom first and establish a sure foundation for practical Christianity. Hollins Magazine commented further.
Mr. Machen’s words served as a reminder to us that although we may aspire to be of much practical service to the world, our deeds will be futile unless they have beneath them a deep spiritual raison d’ếtre. We need first of all to be sincere believers in Christianity, and “it will follow as the night follows day” that our words and actions will have an unfailing power for good in the world.[3]
The baccalaureate sermon presented the simple message that Machen so often emphasized—the practical aspects of Christianity must be built upon a solid foundation of doctrine, which in this case he corresponded with seeking first the Kingdom of God. If the practical is sought without first having a solid foundation, then only a superficial and self-serving obedience will follow.
Christianity and Liberalism, New Testament Greek for Beginners, and the PCUS[4]
The year 1923 was a particularly important one for Machen’s academic career because two of what would become best-selling books, Christianity and Liberalism, and shortly thereafter, New Testament Greek for Beginners were published.[5] In a letter of May 2, 1923, Loy thanked Gresham for the recently received copy of his just released Greek grammar about which he observed, “it looks like an excellent little book” and “the preface is most interesting,” but he did not think he could assess it thoroughly until he had the opportunity to use it, hopefully, with his youngest son, Francis. Little did Loy or Machen know that the Greek textbook would be long appreciated and esteemed after their time. It remained in print with Macmillan for years, after which it was published by other companies with an updated edition in 2003.
Loy mentioned that he had “one or two interesting side-lights” on Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism. The local newspaper, Roanoke World-News, had published in its literary column a review of the book written by a member of Loy’s congregation whom he identified as Dr. Painter. Loy said the man was a former Lutheran minister, who was a widely read man, had a keen sense of humor, and was “altogether a most agreeable man personally.” But Loy speculated that the reason Dr. Painter was no longer a minister was because he fell out with the Lutherans, which Loy believed was due to his being “the only man in the ministry that I ever heard of that was president of a cigarette-machine company; and I am inclined to think that his business had something to do with his not getting along with the Lutherans.”
Dr. Painter was retired Professor of Modern Languages and Literature F. V. N. Painter of Roanoke College.[6] He was an accomplished scholar having written a number of books including A History of English Literature, Introduction to English {6} Literature, Introduction to American Literature, and several others. He was ordained into the Lutheran ministry and began teaching in 1878. In order to have more time for writing, and apparently as Loy mentioned, to try his hand at manufacturing by becoming president of the Bonsack Company, he retired from the college in 1906. The Bonsack Company had been founded by James Bonsack to manufacture the cigarette-rolling machine he had patented.[7]
Painter’s two-book review is titled, “Orthodoxy and Modernism,” with Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism representing orthodoxy and Percy Stickney Grant’s The Religion of Main Street representing the modernist perspective.[8] The review provides a brief account of Machen’s chief points as contrasted with those of Grant’s book. Machen is described as one of the “stand-patters,” while Grant is presented as a member of the “radicals.” Machen’s teaching regarding the plenary inspiration of Scripture, doctrines such as original sin, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, and substitutionary atonement were not in accord with the modern, progressive, and liberal needs of the era. Grant’s progressive and liberal views are said to fit the needs of the scientific age and he believed traditional, creedal doctrine to be “archaic if not false.” Grant commented further that “‘in Adam’s fall we sinned all’ was the old theology” and its associated emphasis on sin “crushed humanity.” Painter ended his nine-hundred-word review saying, “After carefully reading these two theological polemics, this reviewer turned with relief and refreshment to the 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians, in which Paul touched the stars, “And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.”
As a promoter of Machen’s work, Loy was crafty in his method. While a woman Bible teacher from Union Seminary Training School in Richmond was participating in the Presbyterial Auxiliary meeting, she visited the Greshams and found a copy of Christianity and Liberalism strategically placed in the house for her sure sighting. She picked up what Loy described as “bait” and commented that she was delighted with the book. Loy responded by giving her one of his extra copies, thanked her for her interest, and encouraged her to continue reading his cousin’s work.
Machen responded to Loy’s letter within a few days and after informing him that he would be too busy to visit Salem until the next year, he encouraged Loy regarding his selection to attend the PCUS General Assembly for his presbytery, but he also expressed concern about what he saw as troubling signs in the PCUS. Machen told his cousin that the “Southern Church puzzles and disturbs me.” In particular, he had noticed recently that Dr. Leighton Stewart, whom he described as “a liberal propagandist in China,” had recently been examined extensively and admitted into the Presbytery of East Hanover in Richmond. He also found unsettling the collective review of books in the spring issue of The Union Seminary Review that included Harry Emerson Fosdick’s, Christianity and Progress, 1922, and Charles A. Ellwood’s, The Reconstruction of Religion: A Sociological View, 1922.[9] The reviewer, John Calvin Siler, a Union alumnus and a pastor in Shenandoah Junction, West Virginia, concluded the review saying, “We must read these books not as theological treatises, but as books on practical religion. These books have no special message on doctrine, but they have a burning message on practice.” The separation of doctrine from practice was one of Machen’s chief concerns with the PCUSA, and seeing the same thinking in the denomination of his youth bothered him greatly. He added, “It looks to me sometimes as though the Southern Church were going to give Christianity up without even being conscious that anything particularly worth while is being lost.” However, he believed there were some “splendid men” who were concerned about the issues taking place in the PCUS such as R.C. Reed of Columbia Seminary.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by C.H. Spurgeon |
Wednesday, October 19, 2022
Though Lot himself was a righteous man and escaped from the doom of the wicked city, yet I cannot help tracing the death of Lot’s wife in some degree to her husband. When a man walks with God and imitates God he gets to be a great character—that is Abraham. When a man walks with a holy man and imitates him he may rise to be a good character, but he will be a weak one—that is Lot But when one walks with Lot, the weak character, and only copies him, the result will be a failure—that is Lot’s wife.

Remember Lot’s wife.— Luke xvii. 32.
It was the purpose of God always to maintain a testimony for truth and righteousness in the midst of this ungodly world. For this end of old he set apart for himself a chosen family with whom he had fellowship. Abraham was the man whom God chose, that in him and in his household the witness might be preserved. This chosen family was called out and separated from its ancestors, and led apart to dwell as wayfaring men in the laud of Canaan. They were not to go into the cities and mingle with other races, but to dwell in tents as a separate tribe, lest their character should become polluted and their testimony should be silenced. It was the Lord’s intent that the people should dwell alone and not be numbered among the nations. Abraham, being called, obeyed, and went forth, not knowing whither he went. His separated life gave great exercise to his faith, and so strengthened it that it became a calm, unstaggering assurance; and this enabled him to enjoy a quiet, sublime, and happy career, dependent only upon God, and altogether above as well as apart from. man. With him was his nephew Lot, who also left Haran at the divine call, and shared with the patriarch his wanderings in Canaan and in Egypt. He was not a man of so noble a soul, but was greatly influenced by the stronger mind of his uncle Abraham. He was sincere, no doubt, and is justly called righteous Lot, but he was fitter to be a follower than a leader. He also sojourned in tents, and led the separated life, until it became necessary for him to become an independent chieftain, because the flocks and herds of the two families had so greatly multiplied that they could not well be kept together. Then came out the weak side of Lot’s character. He did not give Abraham the choice in selecting a sheep walk, but like all weak natures he selfishly consulted his own advantage, and determined to go in the direction of the cities of the plain of Jordan, where well watered pastures abounded. This led to his dwelling near the cities of the plain, where crime had reached its utmost point of horrible degradation. We read that “he pitched his tent toward Sodom”; he found it convenient to be near a settled people, and to enter into friendly relations with them, though he must have known what the men of Sodom were, for the cry of them had gone forth far and wide. Thus he began to leave the separated path. After a while he went further, for one step leads to another. He was a lover of ease, and therefore he gave up the tent life, with its many inconveniences, and went to live with the townsmen of Sodom: a thing to be wondered at as well as deplored. He did not cease to be a good man, but he did cease to be a faithful witness for his God; and Abraham seems to have given him up altogether from that day, for we find that noble patriarch enquiring of the Lord concerning his heir, saying, “Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?” And the Lord said, “This shall not be thine heir.” Now, this enquiry would have been needless had Lot been still reckoned to belong to the chosen seed, for naturally Lot was the heir of Abraham, but he forfeited that position and gave up his portion in the inheritance of the elect house by quitting the separated life. Lot, although he dwelt in Sodom was not happy there, neither did he become so corrupt as to take pleasure in the wickedness of the people. Peter says that God delivered just Lot vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked. He tried to bear his protest in the place, and signally failed, as all must do who imitate him. His witness for purity would have been far more powerful if he had kept apart from them, for this is the protest which God demands of us when he says, “Come ye out from among them, be ye separate.”
In the midst of the world which lieth in the wicked one Lot lived on, not without greatly degenerating in spirit, until the kings came and carried him away captive. Then by the intervention of Abraham he was delivered from the captivity which threatened him, and brought back again. This was a solemn warning, and you would have thought that Lot would have said, “I will go back to Abraham’s way of living, I will again become a sojourner with God. Sodom’s walls without God are far less safe than a frail tent when God is a wall of fire around it.” His vexation with the conversation of the lewd townsmen ought to have made him long for the sweet air of the wild country; but not so, he again settles down in Sodom, and forgets the holy congregation which clustered around the tent of Abraham. Being still a man of God, he could not be allowed to die in such society: it was not to be endured that “just Lot” should lay his bones in the graveyard of filthy Sodom. If God would save a man he must fetch him out from the world; he cannot remain part and parcel of an ungodly world and yet be God’s elect one, for this is the Lord’s own word to the enemy at the gates of Eden— “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed.” Did he not also say to Pharaoh, “I will put a division between my people and thy people”? The Lord will sooner burn all Sodom down than Lot shall continue to be associated with its crimes, and dragged down by its evil spirit. And so it came to pass that Lot was forced out; he was placed in such a strait that he must either run for his life or perish in the general burning. Happy had it been for him if he had lived all the while in the holy seclusion of Abraham; he would not then have lost the inheritance for his Beed, nor have passed away under a dark, defiling cloud, nor have missed his place among the heroes of faith, of whom Paul writes in the famous chapter of the Hebrews: “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.”
Here I must pause, or you will think that I have misread my text, and that I am preaching from the words— “Remember Lot”; and indeed, I might profitably do so, for there is much of warning in the history of Lot himself. If Christian men are so unwise as to conform themselves to the world, even if they keep up the Christian character in a measure, they will gain nothing by worldly association but being vexed with the conversation of the ungodly, and they will be great losers in their own souls: their character will be tarnished, their whole tone of feeling will be lowered, and they themselves will be wretchedly weak and unhappy. Conformity to the world is sure to end badly sooner or later: to the man himself it is injurious, and to his family ruinous.
But the text saith, “Remember Lot’s wife,” and therefore I must let the husband go, and call your attention to her who, in this case, is “his worse half.” When the time for separation arrived Lot’s wife could not tear herself away from the world. She had always been in it, and had loved it, and delighted in it; and, though associated with a gracious man, when the time came for decision she betrayed her true character. Flight without so much as looking back was demanded of her, but this was too much; she did look back, and thus proved that she had sufficient presumption in her heart to defy Cod’s command, and risk her all, to give a lingering love-glance at the condemned and guilty world. By that glance she perished. That is the subject of our discourse. The love of the world is death. Those who cling to sin must perish, be they who they may.
Do not omit to notice the connection of the text, for therein our Lord bids us hold the world with a loose hand, and be ever ready to leave it all. When we are called to it we are to be ready to go forth without a particle in our hands. “In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.” Life itself they were not to hold dear, but to be ready to lay it down for his sake; for he said, “Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.” To be divided from the world, its possessions, its maxims, its motives, is the mark of a disciple of Christ, and, in order to keep up the feeling of separateness among his followers, our Lord bade them “Remember Lot’s wife.” She is to be a caution to us all, for God will deal with us as with her if we sin as she did. “The thing which has been is the thing which shall be:” if our hearts are glued to the world we shall perish with the world; if our desires and delights look that way, and if we find our comfort in it, we shall have to see our all consumed, and shall be ourselves consumed with it in the day of the Lord’s anger. Separation is the only way of escape: we must flee from the world or perish with it. “Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst if her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord.”
I. “Remember Lot’s wife”: and our first call shall be— REMEMBER THAT SHE WAS LOT’S WIFE. She was the wife of a man who, with all his faults, was a righteous man. She was united to him in the closest possible bonds, and yet she perished. She had dwelt in tents with holy Abraham, and seemed to be a sharer in all the privileges of the separated people, and yet she perished. She was dear to one who had been dear to the father of the faithful, and yet for all that she perished in her sin. This note of warning we would strike very loudly, for, commonplace as the truth is, it needs often to be repeated that ties of blood are no guarantees of grace. You may be the wife of the saintliest man of God and yet be a daughter of Belial; or you may be the husband of one of the King’s daughters and yet be yourself a castaway. You may be the child of a prophet and yet the curse of the prophet’s God may light upon you; or you may be the father of a most gracious family and yet still be an alien to the commonwealth of Israel. No earthly relationship can possibly help us if we are personally destitute of the spiritual life. Our first birth does not avail us in the kingdom of God, for that which is born of the flesh at its very best is flesh, and is prone to sin, and will certainly perish. We must be born again, for only the new birth, which is of the Spirit and from above, will bring us into covenant bonds. O ye children of godly parents, I beseech you look to yourselves that ye be not driven down to hell from your mother’s side. O ye relatives of those who are the favourites of heaven, I beseech you look to yourselves that ye die not within sight of heaven, in spite of all your advantages. In this matter remember Lot’s wife.
Being Lot’s wife, remember that she had since her marriage shared with Lot in his journeys and adventures and trials. We cannot tell exactly when she became Lot’s wife, but we incline to the belief that it was after he had left Haran, for when Abraham left Haran we read that he took “Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son,” but we do not read of Lot’s wife. The name of Abraham’s wife is given, but of Lot’s wife there is no mention whatever. Again, we read, “Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the south.” “And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents,” but nothing is said about his having a wife. She must have been a person of very small consideration, for even when it is certain that Lot was married, when he was taken captive and afterwards rescued by Abraham, all we find is this: “And Abraham brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.” We suppose that Lot’s wife is included under the word “the women.” Now the Holy Spirit never puts a slight upon good women: in connection with their husbands they are generally mentioned with honour, and in this book of Genesis it is specially so. Sarah and Rebekah and Rachel have each an honourable memorial, and as no mention is made of Lot’s wife we may infer that she was not worthy to be mentioned. She could hardly have been an inhabitant of Sodom, as the Jewish traditions assert, unless she was a widow, as they say, and the daughters mentioned were hers by a previous marriage, for at the destruction of Sodom Lot had marriageable daughters, and it would not seem that Lot had then been separated from Abraham for many years. True, the women of Sodom may have been given in marriage at an earlier age than was usual with the Abrahamic stock, and, if so, Lot’s wife may have been a native of Sodom, for it is possible that he dwelt there for twenty years. More probably, however, either in Canaan or in Egypt, Lot married a Canaanite or an Egyptian woman, a person utterly unworthy to be taken into the holy household, and therefore the marriage is not recorded. It was the custom of that elect and separated family, as you know, to send back to Padan-aram, to fetch from thence some daughter of the same house, that the pure stock might be preserved, and that there might be no connection with the heathen. It was Abraham’s desire for Isaac, and he charged his steward to carry it out, saying, “And I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the whole earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell: but thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac.” This also was Isaac’s desire for Jacob, for we read, “And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan. Arise, go to Padan-aram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother’s father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother’s brother.” It seems to me that Lot had married a heathen woman, and so her name is omitted. Whether it be so or no, it is certain that she had shared with Lot in the capture of the City of Sodom; she had seen the ruthless sword slay the inhabitants, and she herself with her husband had been among the captives, and she had been delivered by the good sword of Abraham. So that she had been a partaker of her husband’s trials and deliverances and yet she was lost. It will be a sad, sad thing if there should come an eternal severance between those united by marriage bonds: that we should live together, and work together, and suffer together, and should be delivered by the providence of God many a time together, and should see our children grow up together, and yet should be tom asunder at the last never to meet again: this is a prospect which we dare not think upon. Tremble, you whose love is not in Christ, for your union will have an end. What saith the Saviour? “I tell you, in that night there shall be two in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.” It matters not how close the association, the unbeliever must be divided from the living child of God. If you cling to the world and cast your eye back upon it you must perish in your sin, notwithstanding that you have eaten and drunk with the people of God, and have been as near to them in relationship as wife to husband, or child to parent. This makes the remembrance of Lot’s wife a very solemn thing to those who are allied by ties of kindred to the people of God.
Read More
Related Posts: