Note 15 — Chapter XVII

I would here offer a remark as to the word "perfect." When Abraham was called upon to be "perfect," it did not mean perfect to himself; for this he never was, and never could be. It simply meant that he should be perfect as regards the object before his heart,—that his hopes and expectations were to be perfectly and undividedly centred in the "Almighty God."

In looking through the New Testament, we find the word "perfect" used in at least four distinct senses. In Matt. v. 48, we read, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Here we learn from the context that the word "perfect" refers to the principle of our walk. At verse 44, we read, "love your enemies, ... that ye may be the sons of your Father which is in heaven; for he maketh the sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and sendeth rain upon the just and the unjust." Hence to be "perfect" in the sense of Matt. v. 48 is to act on a principle of grace toward all, even toward those who are injurious and hostile. A Christian going to law, and asserting or contending for his rights, is not "perfect as his Father;" for his Father is dealing in grace, whereas he is dealing in righteousness.

The question here is not as to the right or wrong of going to law with worldly people (as to brethren, 1 Cor. vi. is conclusive). All I contend for is, that a Christian so doing is acting in a character the direct opposite to that of his Father; for assuredly he is not going to law with the world. He is not now on a judgment-seat, but on a mercy-seat—a throne of grace. He showers his blessings upon those who, were he to go to law with them, should be in hell. Wherefore it is plain that a Christian, when he brings a man before the judgment-seat, is not "perfect as his Father which is in heaven is perfect."

At the close of Matt. xviii. we have a parable which teaches us that a man who asserts his rights is ignorant of the true character and proper effect of grace. The servant was not unrighteous in demanding what was due to him; but he was ungracious. He was totally unlike his master. He had been forgiven ten thousand talents, and yet he could seize his fellow by the throat for a paltry hundred pence. What was the consequence? He was delivered to the tormentors. He lost the happy sense of grace, and was left to reap the bitter fruits of having asserted his rights, while being himself a subject of grace. And, observe further, he was called "a wicked servant," not because of having owed "ten thousand talents," but because of not having forgiven the "hundred pence." The master had ample grace to settle the former, but he had not grace to settle the latter. This parable has a solemn voice for all Christians going to law; for although in the application of it, it is said, "so shall my heavenly Father do to you, if you from your heart, forgive not every one his brother their trespasses," yet is the principle of general application, that a man acting in righteousness will lose the sense of grace.

In Hebrews ix. we have another sense of the term "perfect." Here, too, the context settles the import of the word. It is "perfect, as pertaining to the conscience." This is a deeply important use of the term. The worshipper under the law never could have a perfect conscience, for the simplest reason possible, because he never had a perfect sacrifice. The blood of a bullock and a goat did well enough for a time, but it could not do forever, and therefore could not give a perfect conscience. Now, however, the weakest believer in Jesus is privileged to have a perfect conscience. Why? Is it because he is a better man than the worshipper under the law? Nay; but because he has gotten a better sacrifice. If Christ's sacrifice is perfect forever, the believer's conscience is perfect forever. The two things necessarily go together. For the Christian not to have a perfect conscience is a dishonor to the sacrifice of Christ. It is tantamount to saying that his sacrifice is only temporary, and not eternal in its effect; and what is this but to bring it down to the level of the sacrifices under the Mosaic economy.

It is very needful to distinguish between perfection in the flesh and perfection as to conscience. To pretend to the former, is to exalt self; to refuse the latter, is to dishonor Christ. The babe in Christ should have a perfect conscience; whereas St. Paul had not, nor could have, perfect flesh. The flesh is not presented in the word as a thing which is to be perfected, but as a thing which has been crucified. This makes a wide difference. The Christian has sin in him, but not on him. Why? Because Christ who had no sin in him, ever, had sin on him when he was nailed to the cross.

Finally, in Phil. iii. we have two other senses of the word "perfect." The apostle says, "not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect;" and yet a little farther on he says, "Let as many as be perfect be thus minded." The former refers to the apostle's full and everlasting conformity to Christ in glory. The latter refers to our having Christ as the all-engrossing object before the heart's affections.