Recognizing the Devil's Work Among Men
I would like to put before you a picture of two men, and ask you to tell me which, in your judgment, is the best exhibition of the work of the Devil.
The first is by no means a choice character. You will find him in the saloon; very probably he will be the proprietor of the saloon. His name is not on any church roll. He is loose in life, profane in lip, careless of decencies. He is indeed "hail-fellow-well met" with every one, but yet truly esteemed by none. He is what is usually called "disreputable" by the refined, educated or religious classes, an "honest fellow" by his associates, who find it difficult to conceive of honesty in such a world as this apart from defiant ungodliness.
We will put him on one side, and now let me bring before you a man of the highest respectability and self-complacency. He is a "church member," and prides himself, not a little, on the fact.
Indeed we may safely go still further in these days, and see in him a very pillar of the church; an elder, whose wealth alone, with its consequent standing in the business, and influence in the social world, have given him this office; perhaps we may go still higher; he may even be called "The Rev." or "The Very Rev.," or what-not; it is not the position but the character, we seek to look at. Wherever he is, every breath of flattery that blows his way he appropriates to himself as his undoubted due. He is, if a man of affairs, exceedingly fond of that utterly misquoted and misused text, that perhaps more than any other has been bedraggled in the mire of man’s covetousness, "be diligent in business." Nor does he shrink from any little sacrifice that shall secure the greater esteem of his fellow-men; like all else his benefactions are "respectable;" and, if he be very wealthy, they may appear princely.
Now which of these two is the truest example of the Devil’s work?
It will probably be admitted that the first may be accepted as an exact representation of what the Devil can do with a man, but it is difficult to see in the second any exhibition of the Devil’s work at all. Quite the contrary; he is a respectable religious member of society; perhaps with some of the lesser defects inherent amongst men; but not to be associated with the Devil at all. Let us see.
It is a most striking fact that when our
Lord Jesus was on earth, He never, in one single instance, witnessed to the publican and harlot that their deeds were evil. We may wonder why He did not, but it is quite sure He did not. And why? Surely because it was unnecessary. That kind of people knew it well then, and know it well now of themselves, without any one else telling them. But to whom does He witness that their deeds are evil and they hate Him on account of that witness (John 7:7)? In the 23rd chapter of Matthew we read the sternest words that ever fell from those blessed lips. He calls those to whom He speaks – the men of the most rigid religious correctness, men of the highest social respectability, of the greatest formal piety and religious pretension; not merely "church-members" as we should now call them but church leaders – "fools and blind, blind guides, hypocrites," until in the climax of His holy indignation, He says, "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (Matt. 23:33)
It is, then, the testimony of God’s Word, whether we are prepared to accept it or not, that it is the proud, religious, self-complacent character that is a truer expression of the Devil’s work amongst men than the openly profane and morally debased.
This is so utterly contrary, not merely to what is recognized in business circles, but to what is taught from the bulk of Christian pulpits, that it is difficult to sufficiently press the importance of giving it careful and candid consideration.
When The Lord Commends Hatred
But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. Rev. 2:6 Here I believe we have a still more specific intimation as to the evil ones, and those false apostles that the Ephesians had tried and exposed. "Those that are evil," and "those that say they are apostles and are not," and "the Nicolaitan," are all intimately related, if indeed they are not all identical, as I believe we shall see them to be.
We have thought that the life of that poor failure Samson was, in its broad outlines, a perfect type of the path of the church as here told out prophetically. He, too, had one good thing; he certainly did hate those armies of his people, the Philistines. And here, if I err not, in these "evil ones," the "false apostles," and "Nicolaitans," are the Philistines again in the domain that belongs solely to faith. People who know none of the humbling lessons and experiences of the Cross: that know nothing of the true entrance into that domain through Jordan’s swelling flood. Yet did those Philistines eventually give their names to the land, "Palestine," as these, shortly after this, claim to be "the church."
But in the day of the Ephesians they were firmly and sternly met—their deeds hated. Oh, then, is it not of the highest importance that we should know beyond doubt or question, by the light that God’s word itself gives, who are these Nicolaitans? Our faith must stand firmly fixed, not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
It is one of the most remarkable phenomena of Biblical interpretation that this word Nicolaitan could have had the meaning that has been put upon it throughout the church’s history. And yet it will not appear so strange when we recognize the craft of the enemy; for he naturally desires to hide the truth contained in the word, for Nicolaitanism is and has been one of his most effective weapons. If the Lord hates it, the devil loves it. Naturally, too, we may say that the false hierarchy of clericalism would not desire to condemn itself, so it was imperatively necessary to find some far-fetched explanation; and Rome calmly assured Christendom that there was in it no reference to herself or her clerical system, but that the Nicolaitans were an obscure sect founded by the deacon, Nicholas (Acts 6). Poor Deacon Nicholas! Well, it is rather a comfort to be told by those competent to tell us, that there is not the slightest trace in history of any such sect.…How often we look afar off for a solution of a Scripture difficulty when it is at our elbow. We fail to see it because of its very nearness and simplicity. Those who could translate the very word Nicolaitan as easily as they could every other word would have no difficulty at all.
Nor is it a new thought that the word itself gives us simply its own interpretation, as is so frequently the case in Scripture. There have always been those who so regarded it. Nikao means to get the upper hand, and Laos is, as we all know the "laity" or the "people," so that the whole word Nicolaitan would mean in English, "those who get the ascendancy over the people or laity," i.e., "clergy" as opposed to "laity," and the deeds of such the Lord Jesus Himself has ever hated and will ever hate.…Let me guard this carefully. We must not for a moment think that "ministers," or ministry, are intended here by the Nicolaitans. Nothing—and I could prove it by a large portion of Scripture, not one thing—is so dear to the Lord Jesus as the ministry of love to His own people, and never can we too highly esteem, or too carefully submit ourselves to such ministry (1 Cor. 16:16). No, no, it is not "Ministry," but "Clerisy." Not the love that would give itself up to service of the saints, and beat their feet; but the self-love that would assume a position of superiority over them. The one word speaks of service, the other of lordship.
There is another point of great practical importance in the Lord commending Ephesus for hatred. We live in a day of spurious charity (written in 1909!). If we hate anything, it is "uncharitable," and we are pressed to cover with this cloak of "charity" every wicked deed and doctrine if it comes in a specious religious garb. Love for Christ will hate without trimming or dilution, mitigation, what dishonors or wounds Him either in His own person or in His beloved people.…Shall we love, or at least show a negative, neutral attitude, to anything that raises itself against Him and works for the destruction of His people? Will He commend such a course? …Oh, let us not fear the false charges of "narrowness" and "bigotry" as long as our hearts are broad enough to take in all that is of God, let them be narrow enough to exclude and hate all that He hates.