Editor’s note: Mike Svigel was one of my interns at Dallas Seminary. As such, he was required to present a paper at a regional academic religious society meeting. This was not that paper. ¹

Daniel B. Wallace*

The time has come for evangelicals to experience yet another great awakening! Though we have long overlooked a crucial means of grace,² we have done so doctrinally, not practically.³ This all-but-ignored means of grace is about to have its day (or at least its early morning and late night)! Some could even say a new age is dawning.⁴ Surely, the age of the Spirit is about to be given a dramatic boost and the Church is certain to receive a timely wake-up-call as we grow to accept coffee as a means of grace.

This present work will survey many of the major biblical passages that discuss coffee as a means of grace, as well as a few corroborative arguments from experience⁵ and even historical theology.⁶ Of course, further study needs to be done on coffee as a means of grace, perhaps in future theses or dissertations by more progressive theologians.⁷ And although a number of passages could be piled one on top of the other to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that coffee is to be recognized as a legitimate means of grace,⁸ this paper will focus on a few key Scriptures first from the Old Testament and then from the New.⁹

Coffee As A Means Of Grace In The Old Testament

The first passages to be examined are found in Isaiah 51 and 52. Due to their close proximity to the omni-portant Isaiah 53 (to which most Christians’ Bibles open automatically when set on their bindings), we are forced by structural and contextual considerations alone to regard these prequel chapters as profoundly important. Thus, beginning at Isaiah 51:9 and repeated in 51:17 and 52:1 are the words “Awake! Awake!” In 51:9 it is added, “Put on strength!”

What is interesting is the development in 51:17. The text reads: “Awake, awake! Stand up, O Jerusalem, You who have drunk at the hand of the Lord, the cup … of trembling, and drained it out.” Here there are significant points to be made. God first calls His people to “Awake!” Surely this is a call to alertness. That He repeats the command three times in two chapters means He is dreadfully serious about this imperative. It is simply not God’s will that His people be tired and groggy!

Secondly, God seems to point out the means by which His people are to awaken. “You who have drunk at the hand of the Lord.” By drinking something the people are to be awakened. This beverage comes from God, and therefore must be received with thanksgiving. Since the Greek term for thanksgiving is ejucaristiva (eucharistia) and since “eucharist” is a sacramental term in theology, the beverage referred to in this passage is obviously regarded as a sacrament.

Finally, a very important clue in the text points to which specific beverage is being referred to. It is “the cup … of trembling.” All people know which type of popular beverage causes one to tremble after consumption. Only caffeinated beverages have this effect.

In sum, God’s will is for people to be awake and alert, not groggy and tired. The means which He provides for bringing about His will in the lives of His people seems to be the beverage that causes trembling. That is, coffee is seen here as the means of grace for accomplishing His divine will.

Later on in Isaiah 51:22-23, the effects of failing to acknowledge and utilize God’s gracious gift of coffee is clearly seen. This perhaps best describes the present condition of the church that does not incorporate coffee as a means of grace in regular worship. The Lord says, “See, I have taken out of your hand the cup of trembling … you shall no longer drink it.” This is an act of judgment against His people for not acknowledging His gracious provision (if you don’t use it, you’ll lose it!). He then says, “But I will put it into the hand of those who afflict you, who have said to you, ‘Lie down, that we may walk over you.’ Awake, awake!” The result of giving up the means of grace God has provided is that the ungodly utilize it to their profit and Christians, in turn, are taken advantage of.¹⁰ Surely, we must take God’s warning seriously!

From this point, a long list of Old Testament passages relevant to our topic could be exegeted with varying degrees of skill and persuasiveness. But this would take time and space which is not afforded here. It should be sufficient to simply “pearl-string” in rabbinical fashion a number of Old Testament verses, phrases, clauses, and words that seem appropriate to the issue at hand. There is no need for the reader to look up these references¹¹ since they are merely corroborative in that my case has already been proven by the detailed exegesis of the above passage from Isaiah. However, when considering the further validity of coffee as a means of grace, one must not neglect the elusive (and illusory) passages in the Pentateuch, histories, and minor prophets.¹² Also, when we reach the wisdom literature, we find a wealth of relevant passages, some of which follow:

My voice You shall hear in the morning, O Lord; In the morning I will direct it to you. (Ps 5:3)

He who keeps you will not slumber. Behold, He who keeps Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep. (Ps 121:3b-4)

O My God, I cry in the daytime … And in the night season. (Ps 22:2)

You prepare a table before me … My cup runs over. (Ps 23:5)

Consider and hear me, O Lord my God; Enlighten my eyes, lest I sleep (Ps 13:3)

How long will you slumber, O sluggard? When will you rise from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep—so shall your poverty come on you like a robber. (Prov 6:10)

Of course, these passages could be multiplied until our cup runs over, but this taste should suffice to stimulate some thought on the subject and to demonstrate that the doctrine of coffee as a means of grace rests on strong Old Testament grounds. We can now filter our present theology through this new grid and, to avoid being burned, we can let the concept percolate in the back of our minds as we consider other streams of evidence. In the next section, we will examine coffee as a means of grace in the New Testament, which, in the progress of revelation, is the doctrinal cream of the cup and will certainly stir up critical thinking on this important issue.

Coffee As A Means Of Grace In The New Testament

The New Testament represents the cream and sugar of coffology. We will examine explicit references and allusions to coffee in the Gospels, Acts, the Pauline Epistles, and finally the Book of Revelation.

The Gospels and Coffee. Most New Testament scholars and coffee connoisseurs are unaware that there are a handful of places where the actual word “coffee” appears in the text of the New Testament. Most overlook these passages because the word appears only in the original Greek. Scholars with knowledge of Greek also pass over them because of their blinding presuppositions and reliance on faulty lexicons.

The Greek word kovfino" (kofinos) is defined in one brief dictionary as “basket (perhaps smaller than the stuvri").”¹³ One place in the New Testament where we find this word is in the pericope of the feeding of the five thousand in Matthew 14:20. The passage is translated by the NKJV as: “So they all ate and were filled, and they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments that remained.” The word kovfino" (kofinos) is here translated “baskets.” There are several reasons why this is an inaccurate translation.

First, the normal word for “basket” is stuvri" (sturis). In fact, within the account of the feeding of the four thousand at Matthew 15:37, the statement “So they all ate and were filled, and they took up seven large baskets” uses the word stuvri" (sturis), not kovfino" (kofinos) as is found in Matthew 14:20. Why would Matthew use a totally different word unless he was referring to a totally different object? Placing the two Greek words side by side reveals to even the non-Greek scholar that they don’t even look the same:

stuvri" kovfino"

Reading the words out loud also reveals the auditory distinctiveness between the two terms: “coffee-nos” versus “stu-ris.” How could two words that appear and sound completely different be referring to the same “basket?”.

Secondly, one must admit that the Greek word kovfino" (kofinos) sounds a lot like our English word “coffee.” This is because our English word, descended through the German “Kaffee,” originates from the Greek kovfino" (kofinos).¹⁴ This phenomenon of English words that sound like Greek words is not rare. From the word kardiva (kardia) we get “cardiology.” From a[nqrwpo" (anthropos) we get “anthropology.” From mwrov" (moros) we get “moron.” Thus, English borrowing from Greek is a common occurrence. In fact, the average American likely uses between five (5) and five hundred (500) Greek-derived words every day without even knowing it!¹⁵ Thus, the development of our English word “coffee” from the Greek word kovfino" (kofinos) provides convincing proof that the hot, black beverage is in view in Matthew 14:20.

Third, the entire context of Matthew 14:20 argues strongly that coffee, not baskets, is meant by the use of the term kovfino" (kofinos). In verse 19, the crowd enjoys a rather large meal of fish and bread. Verse 20 describes what they did after they ate: “They took up twelve coffees.” The NKJV and others translate this verse in the following way: “So they all ate and were filled, and they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments that remained.” However, the Greek text looks like this: kaiV e[fagon pavnte" kaiV ejcortavsqhsan, kaiV h an toV perisseu'on tw'n klasmavtwn dwvdeka kofivnou" plhvrei" (kai efagon pantes kai echortasthesan, kai eran to perisseuon ton klasmaton dodeka kofinous plereis). This can be literally translated, “And they all ate and were filled, and took up the remains of the fragments twelve coffees full.” This phrase can be rendered more smoothly in the following way: “And they all ate and were filled, and took up the remains from among the fragments—twelve full [cups] of coffee.” The “remains” refers not to the remains of the bread and fish, but the part of the meal that remains after the main course, that is, “the twelve full coffees.” Everybody knows that it is traditional to drink a nice hot cup of coffee after a big meal, especially when trying to promote fellowship. That these twelve coffees were limited to the twelve disciples is important in that it was a significant part of their sanctification. Why was Jesus himself excluded from partaking of the coffee? Because Jesus does not need grace. He is the spiritual source of that grace, just as he was the source of the bread and fish. The five thousand were excluded for a different reason. While they were allowed to drink of the common evangelistic elements of bread and fish, the sacramental coffee was reserved only for the confirmed believers, that is, the proto-Church. This again demonstrates that coffee ought to be regarded sacramentally.

Therefore, we can see from the three arguments above that the word “coffee” does, in fact, appear in the text of Scripture in plain language and it does so as a means of grace.

Acts and Coffee. In the book of Acts, the references to coffee as a means of grace are a bit more subtle. However, a few examples can be spotted by the alert student of Scripture. First, the reader is urged to note the language used in reference to the giving of the Spirit after Pentecost. In Acts 2:17, 18, Peter interprets the coming of the Spirit in the following way: “And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh… . I will pour out My Spirit in those days.” The verb “pour out” is the same used in Revelation 16:1 in reference to the wrath being “poured out” from the bowls of the seven angels. It is a reference to the dumping of a liquid. Certainly, the image of a drink being poured comes to mind. But notice carefully that it does not say that the Spirit will be poured out, but ejkcew' ajpoV tou' pneuvmatov" mou (ekcheo apo tou pneumatos mou), that is, “I will pour out from the Spirit of me.” What exactly is the thing poured out from the Spirit? It is not the Spirit himself, but he is the agent that does the pouring. This type of language reeks of sacramentalism. Certainly, whatever is “poured out” is seen as a means of grace. This same imagery is found in Acts 10:45, “The gift from the Holy Spirit had been poured out unto the Gentiles also” (my translation). Like baptism picturing the death, burial, and resurrection; and like communion picturing continued fellowship and partaking of the spiritual life of Christ, the pouring of and drinking from the cup of coffee pictures the spiritual reality of the pouring out from the Holy Spirit—it is, then, in itself, the means by which the Spirit sustains and energizes the Christian life.

The Pauline Epistles and Coffee. Probably the most important Pauline passage on coffee as a means of grace is found in 1 Corinthians 12:13. Most versions read: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks; whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.” There are two individual sacraments being discussed here. The first is clearly “baptism.” The second involves a drink that is closely associated with the Spirit. There is little doubt that Paul had the references to Acts 2:17-18 and 10:45 in mind (where “Jew and Gentile” are both seen as receiving that thing poured out by the Spirit).¹⁶

A very significant variant exists at this point as well. Rather than “Spirit” here, manuscripts 630, 1505, 1881, the Syriac version, and Clement all read “drink,” povma (poma). So, some manuscripts read “… and have all been made to drink one drink.” Although “Spirit” is most certainly original, the fact that later scribes changed “Spirit” to “drink” indicates that they understood the means by which the believers partook of this grace to be a beverage. What beverage is this? Our study so far has built up evidence that points to only one legitimate option: coffee.

The Apocalypse and Coffee. In Revelation we find the puzzling statement: “You are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth” (Rev 3:15-16). Although many suggest that the text is making reference to some sort of city plumbing system with aqueducts and underground pipes that allegedly existed in Laodicea at the time, this is highly unlikely.¹⁷ Most who read this book when it was originally written had never visited Laodicea, and for 2000 years since its original writing, most of the readers would not have known of this sewage system. Certainly, the transcendent, eternal, unchangeable God of the universe would never stoop to use such localized, limited, and archaic illustrations to which only a handful of readers in all of history could relate! Instead, the text must be referring to a more universal cultural form.

That this form is the caffeinated beverage (coffee, tea, soda, etc.) is probable for the following reasons. First, people love iced tea and hot tea alike. People also drink iced coffee and hot coffee. However, nobody likes lukewarm coffee or lukewarm tea! This image of desiring either hot or cold rather than lukewarm best fits coffee or tea as the referent.

Second, notice that “water” is not mentioned here. If Jesus wanted to refer to water, why didn’t he say so? The reason he doesn’t mention “coffee” specifically is that many caffeinated beverages would fall under this general description, and he didn’t want to limit this means of grace to simply one or the other.

Finally, since he is addressing the Laodiceans as thinking they were “rich,” and “wealthy,” and in need of nothing (3:17), is it really probable that they were only drinking hot and cold water? Who but poor people drink cold or hot water? Maybe cold bottled water, but plain hot water? Certainly, some beverage other than water must be in view, for wealthy, upper-class individuals would not limit themselves to simply water, especially the snobs living in Laodicea. The best option that fits the evidence is that coffee or tea or some other caffeinated beverage is in view.

We have seen that the concept of coffee as a means of grace is demonstrated clearly in both the Old and New Testaments. Coffee is associated with godly living and with the Holy Spirit. Although a much larger survey of passages could be possible, for the purpose of this paper these lines of biblical evidence should suffice for all but the most stubbornly orthodox readers.

Positive Spiritual Effects Of Coffee

This section will examine some of the spiritual effects of drinking coffee. Many more could be added, but the following will demonstrate that not only is the doctrine of coffee as a means of grace biblical, it is also historical and practical.

Drinking Coffee Prepares the Flesh for Suffering. According to the New Testament, suffering is an honor, a virtue, and a means of sanctification. We are to endure it with joy. Drinking coffee helps our sinful flesh to prepare for joyful suffering. It upsets the stomach and has a diarrheic effect on the digestive system. It can irritate ulcers and causes a jittery nervousness. Withdrawal from long coffee binges causes dreadful headaches that no amount of medication can relieve. Besides this, any honest coffee drinker will admit that coffee is a horrid beverage. If the brew is too weak, it tastes like dirty water; if it is too strong, it tastes like motor oil. To temper the inherent and unavoidable nastiness, one must add cream, milk, sugar, blue stuff, pink stuff, clumps, lumps, drops, syrups, froth, or foam. The whole ordeal can cause mental or emotional anguish to the indecisive and possibly separation anxiety when a failed mix of coffee and condiments must be poured down the drain.

In short, coffee drinking is suffering.

However, it is also joy. It stimulates the body and the mind. It acts as an anti-depressant and creates a bond of fellowship and community among consumers. A hot, steamy cup warms the heart on a frosty day; a cold, icy glass cools the soul when it’s hot. It wakes us up and keeps us alert. It gives us something to hold firmly in our hands and sip soothingly with our lips for peace and security in uncomfortable and stressful times.

Drinking Coffee Prepares the Body for Prayer. We are told to pray without ceasing; to offer up prayers of every kind to God. However, there is always an obstacle that seems to separate us from true, heart-felt prayer to God: the weak flesh. On the night he was betrayed, our Lord instructed his disciples to be alert and to pray, lest they fall into temptation (Matt 26:40-45; Luke 22:45-46). Unfortunately, on three occasions he returned to find his disciples asleep!

Until I accepted coffee as a means of grace, I struggled both internally and externally with the entire concept of waking up early in the morning to seek the Lord in prayer. Internally, I could never believe the tales of people who said they woke up at 4:00 a.m. and prayed for hours. I thought, “How could anybody get up that early and then stay awake that long?!” Externally, whenever I attempted to follow this model, I ended up asleep using my folded hands as a pillow. No, certainly there had to be an answer to this difficult question.

When one factors in coffee as a means of waking up the believer and then keeping him or her alert, all of the practical problems with rising early and seeking the Lord are solved. Coffee has a very positive effect on the prayer life of the believer. In some cases, it is indispensable.

Drinking Coffee Contributes to the Edification of the Church. A story was once told to me about Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary. The story goes that early in his career Dr. Chafer was morally opposed to the consumption of coffee, believing its effects were detrimental to the spiritual life of the believer. He avoided all forms of caffeine.

However, as he began to work on his magnum opus, his multi-volume Systematic Theology, he began to tamper with the beverage: a sip here, a taste there. Surely, the experience tried his conscience, but slowly the Spirit led him out from under his self-imposed spiritual bondage to a legalistic view of coffee consumption. In no time, Dr. Chafer was drinking coffee every day. It is said that without his coffee throughout the day, Dr. Chafer could never have completed his Systematic Theology and the Church would have never benefited from his work.¹⁸

Coffee In The Life Of The Church

Although no hymns have been written about the glories of coffee, the Lutheran composer, Johann Sebastian Bach, came extremely close with the following praise of coffee found in an Aria of Lieschen in his famous “Kaffeekantate.”

Ei! wie schmeckt der Kaffee süe,

Lieblicher als tausend Küsse,

Milder als Muskatenwein.

Kaffee, Kaffee mu ich haben,

Und wenn jemand mich will laben,

Ach, so schenkt mir Kaffee ein!¹⁹

(Svigel’s [loose] translation):

Oh, the coffee’s so delicious!

Better than a thousand kisses!

Milder than a frothy beer!

Coffee, coffee, make it snappy,

If you want to make me happy,

Give me coffee now, my dear!

Of course, Bach’s Cantata never made it from the coffee houses and into the churches, thus extending the ancient breach between the secular and sacred uses of the praise-worthy beverage by at least two centuries.²⁰

In recent years several steps have been taken to re-incorporate coffee into Christian worship. While almost every evangelical church serves coffee prior to adult Sunday School classes, one Bible Church in Texas has a CC’s Coffee shop right in the main church facility!²¹ To my knowledge, however, no evangelical church has had the courage to actually place a pot of coffee on the altar. Yet in many churches one can find a cup of coffee on or behind the pulpit for use during the delivery of the sermon. And since Protestants have placed the preaching of the sermon at the center of Christian worship, there is a sense in which coffee already challenges the Eucharist as the energizing power of evangelical worship.

Besides the advancement of coffee into the local churches, there are also several parachurch ministries centered around coffee in the form of “Christian Coffee Houses.”²² In fact (though this should be no surprise to anyone), there is even a Northern California Christian Coffeehouse Coalition,²³ perhaps established in part to balance the right-wing lunacy of the Christian Coalition with an equally corny band of West Coast Christian leftists.

Thus, we can see from these very few—though potent—examples that although the notion of coffee as a means of grace is officially and doctrinally rejected by the evangelical church, as a practical matter it has been very much embraced.

Conclusion

This paper has demonstrated that not only is coffee clearly a means of grace according to both the Old and New Testaments, but the utilization of coffee as God intended has practical benefits not only in this life, but also in the life to come. Certainly, one would be hard-pressed to disprove all of the arguments presented in this paper.

This thesis is presented to the evangelical community at large for thoughtful debate. If, after examining my arguments in detail, you wish to dialogue with me concerning the reasoning or conclusions in this paper, please feel free to contact me. Perhaps we can discuss your ideas over a fresh, hot cup of coffee.

¹ This paper, which belongs to the genre of theological humor, was originally presented to the Southwest Regional Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, March 21, 2003, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas. As such, it marks the beginning and end of Michael J. Svigel’s career as a respectable theologian.

² Although some may prefer the term “means of sanctification” or “sacrament,” this paper will consistently use the term “means of grace” to indicate those various means that God has given to the Church to affect sanctification. Other more popular means of grace are: baptism, the Lord’s Supper, prayer, the Word of God, and possibly Christian rock concerts and those Left Behind books.

³ This will be explicated below.

⁴ If you happen to be of a more dispensational persuasion, you may even call it a new dispensation. The recent cut-back on dispensations from seven to three or four leaves plenty of space on charts to add a new one.

⁵ While many evangelicals regard experience as the caboose of theological formulation, in the case of this paper experience plays the role of the engine or at least the coal car.

⁶ “Historical Theology” is the study of how everybody misinterpreted the Bible until we came along.

⁷ Or by those who are not bound by any doctrinal statements, since this view tends to be perceived as heterodox.

⁸ As we all know, the best way to prove a doctrine is to string together as large a number of improbable interpretations as possible.

⁹ The arguments here may be equally appropriate for both Judaizers and Marcionites alike (or their modern day counterparts, Old Testament or New Testament scholars).

¹⁰ A cryptic reference to Starbucks Coffee may be in view here. Not only do they use a pagan symbol as their trademark, they also charge a damnable amount of money for their coffee.

11 And it is perhaps better if you don’t.

¹² Many of these are so obvious that they need not be cited here. For the sake of conserving space and preventing embarrassment, the reader is left to him or herself to look up these verses. For a complete list see Martin Luther, Kaffeetrinken und Theologie (Wiener: Tassen-Druck, 1553), 21-76.

¹³ Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993), 103.

¹⁴ Cf. Richard C. Darlsburrough, “The Etymology of Everyday Thirst-quenchers: A New Analysis,” Journal of Culinary Linguistics (1982):24.

¹⁵ Maxwell R. Feinebruegger, “It’s Greek to Me! Studies in the Use of English Words with Greek Etymologies in Vernacular Speech,” Linguistics of Life (1975): 25-29. Also see the blockbuster Hollywood film, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, for several other examples of English words derived from Greek.

16 Since Acts comes two books before 1 Corinthians in the Bible, Paul would have had only to flip back a few pages from where he was writing.

¹⁷ See Plumbing: The Arteries of Civilization, Modern Marvels Series (video recording, The History Channel).

18 Whether this anecdote is true or not makes no difference, since its truth transcends its historicity. Instead, it serves as an excellent example—a good myth, if you will—of the spiritual benefits of coffee.

19 English and German text of Bach’s “Coffee Cantata,” a.k.a. “Schweigt stille, plaudert nicht,” is available online at http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/lutheranism/90337. NB: This is a real Bach Cantata with the Libretto written by Christian Friedrich Henrici, composed between 1732 and 1734 for performance by Bach’s Collegium at Zimmerman’s Coffee House, Leipzig. Cf. also http://www.jsbach.org/ bwv211.html.

20 Just another failure of the German Reformation.

21 Cf. http://www.ibcthepoint.com/lifegroups.htm.

22 These include, inter alia, Cup o’ Joy Christian Coffee House in Green Bay, WI (http://www. cupojoy.com); Solomon’s Porch Christian Coffee House in Edgewater, MD (http://www.newhopechapel. org/solomonsporch); Copey’s Christian Coffee House in Easton, PA (http://copeys.port5.com); Paradise Found Christian Coffee House of Santa Rosa, CA (http://www.churchofsonomacounty.org/santa_rosa/ Paradise_Found_Christian_Coffee_House.htm); and The Catacombs Christian Coffee House in Carmel, IN (http://www.catacombscoffee.com). Also, a rather lengthy listing of Christian Coffee Houses by state can be found at http://www.bcpl.net/~musicman/ coffee.htm.

23 http://www.garg.com/coffee/faq.html.

• The Training of the Twelve - A.B. Bruce
  Used by permssion and the cooperation of www.paceinc.org
• Enjoy Your Bible - E.W. Bullinger

More coming Soon!

“Man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of Jehovah doth man live.” Deut. viii. 3.

THUS is it asserted that the WORD and the WORDS of Jehovah constitute the food of the New nature.

As in the natural sphere so in the spiritual, the desire (or appetite) for the food which is the proper support of each respectively, is the sign of natural and spiritual health.

Attention to diet is becoming more and more recognized as essential to nutrition and growth.

A low condition of bodily health is produced by inattention to the laws of nature as to suitable diet. As this leads to the “drug habit,” or to the immoderate use of stimulants in the natural sphere, so it is in the spiritual sphere. A low condition of spiritual health is produced by improper feeding or the neglect of necessary food, which is the Word of God; and the end is a resort to all the many modern fashions and novel methods and widely advertised nostrums in the Religious world in the attempt to remedy the inevitable results.

The Root of all the evils which abound in the spiritual sphere at the present day lies in the fact that the Word and the words of God are not fed upon, digested, and assimilated, as they ought to be.

If we ask the question, Why is this the case? the answer is, The Bible is not enjoyed because the Bible is not understood. The methods and rules by which alone such an understanding may be gained are not known or followed; hence the Bible is a neglected book.

The question Philip addressed to the Eunuch (Acts viii. 30, 31) is still greatly needed:

Understandest thou what thou readest?

And the Eunuch’s answer is only too true today:

How can I, except some man should guide me?

The following pages are written with the object of furnishing this “guide.” Certain canons or principles are laid down, and each is illustrated by applying them to certain passages by way of examples. These are intended to be taken only as examples; and the principles involved are intended to be used for the elucidation of other passages in the course of Bible study.

The Word of God is inexhaustible. It is, therefore, neither useful, nor indeed practicable to extend these examples beyond certain limits.

By the aid of these twelve simple canons or rules, other passages and subjects may be taken up and pursued both with pleasure and profit-subjects which are even yet matters of controversy and of conflict.

We have to remember that the Bible is not a book of pure Science on the one hand, nor is it a book of Theology on the other. Yet all its science is not only true, but its statements are the foundation of all true science.

And, it is Theology itself; for it contains all that we can ever know about God.

The cloud that now rests over its intelligent study arises from the fact that it is with us today as with the Jews of old “The Word of God has been made of none effect by the traditions of men” (Matt. xv. 1-9).

Hence it is that on some of the most important questions, especially such as Biblical Psychology, we are, still, in what the great Lord Bacon calls “a desert.” He alludes to those “deserts” in history, where discovery or research comes to a stand-still, and we get schoolmen instead of philosophers; and clerics instead of discoverers.

The Reformation came as an oasis after one of these deserts. Men were sent from the stagnant pools of tradition to the fountain-head of truth. But within two or three generations the Church entered the desert again; Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms took the place of the open Bible; the inductive method of Bible study was abandoned, and to day it is scarcely understood.

One party abides by “Catholic consent” or the “Voice of the Church.” Other parties in the same way abide by the dicta of some who had stronger minds. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Darby, and Newton would be surprised today to find that those who question what they believed are treated as guilty of presumption, and of a sin to be visited with excommunication!

These good men little thought that the inferences which they drew from the Bible would be raised to a position of almost equality with the Bible itself.

The result of all this is too painfully evident. Controversies, bitterness, strifes have been engendered. These have taken the place of simple Bible study. If studied at all it has been too much with the view of finding support for one or other of the two sides of these controversies, instead of with the object of discovering what God has really revealed and written for our learning.

Failing to understand the Scriptures we cease to feed on them; then as a natural consequence, and in inverse proportion, we lean on and submit to “the doctrines of men,” and finally reach a theological desert.

Bishop Butler has pointed out the way back to the land of plenty and of delight. He has shown that the only way to study the Word of God is the way in which physical science is studied. He says:¹ “As it is owned, the whole scheme of Scripture is not yet understood, so if it ever comes to be understood before the restitution of all things, and without miraculous interpositions, it must be in the same way as natural knowledge is come at, by the continuance and progress of learning and liberty, and by particular persons attending to, comparing, and pursuing intimations scattered up and down it, and which are overlooked and disregarded by the generality of the world.”

On this another writer² has remarked, “Thus, the way of discovery still lies open to us in Divine things if we have only the moral courage to go to the fountain-head of truth, instead of filling our vessel out of this or that doctor’s compendium of truth . . . Were Bishop Butler’s method of inductive research into Scripture more common than it is we should not have stood still so long, as if spell-bound by the shadow of a few great names. ‘It is not at all incredible,’ Bishop Butler adds, ‘that a book which has been so long in the possession of mankind should contain many truths as yet undiscovered.’ Such a saying is worthy of Butler. It is only a philosopher who can allow for time and prescription. The majority of mankind think that they think; they acquiesce, and suppose that they argue ; they flatter themselves that they are holding their own, when they have actually grown up to manhood, with scarcely a conviction that they can call their own. So it always was, and so it will ever be. The Divine things of the Word are no exception, but rather an instance. The more difficult the subject, and the more serious the consequences of error, the more averse the majority are to what is called ‘unsettling men’s minds’; as if truth could be held on any other tenure than the knight’s fee of holding its own against all comers. Protestantism has brought us no relief against this torpid state of mind, for, as the error is as deep as the nature of man, we cannot expect any deliverance from it so long as the nature of man continues the same, and his natural love of truth almost as depraved as his natural love of holiness.”

But the way of discovery, as Bishop Butler has pointed out, still lies open before us; and it is our object in this work to enter on that way, and study the Bible from within and not merely from without.

We believe that only thus we shall be furnishing just that help which Bible students need.

It may be the work of others to explore Geography, History, Natural History, Chronology; the antiquities of Assyria, Palestine, Egypt, and Babylon; all these are legitimate subjects of systematic research, which cannot but help us in understanding more of the Word of God.

But our object is to “Open the book”; to let it speak; to hear its voice; to study it from within itself; and have regard to other objects and subjects, only from what it teaches about them.

The method of the “Higher” criticism is to discredit a Book, or a passage on internal evidence. Our method is to establish and accredit Holy Scripture on internal evidence also, and thus to derive and provide, from its own pharmacopoeia, an antidote to that subtle and malignant poison.

This method of study will reveal more convincing and “infallible proof” of inspiration than can be adduced from all the reasonings and arguments of men.

Like Ezra of old, our desire is to

“OPEN THE BOOK”

and let it speak for itself, with the full conviction that if this can be done it can speak more loudly, and more effectively for itself, than any man can speak on its behalf

May the Lord deign to use these pages, and make them to be that “guide” to a better understanding and a greater enjoyment of His own Word.

John 1:29-51.

The section of the Gospel history above indicated, possesses the interest peculiar to the beginnings of all things that have grown to greatness. Here are exhibited to our view the infant church in its cradle, the petty sources of the River of Life, the earliest blossoms of Christian faith, the humble origin of the mighty empire of the Lord Jesus Christ.

All beginnings are more or less obscure in appearance, but none were ever more obscure than those of Christianity. What an insignificant event in the history of the church, not to say of the world, this first meeting of Jesus of Nazareth with five humble men, Andrew, Peter, Philip, Nathanael, and another unnamed! It actually seems almost too trivial to find a place even in the evangelic narrative. For we have here to do not with any formal solemn call to the great office of the apostleship, or even with the commencement of an uninterrupted discipleship, but at the utmost with the beginnings of an acquaintance with and of faith in Jesus on the part of certain individuals who subsequently became constant attendants on His person, and ultimately apostles of His religion. Accordingly we find no mention made in the three first Gospels of the events here recorded.

Far from being surprised at the silence of the synoptical evangelists, one is rather tempted to wonder how it came to pass that John, the author of the fourth Gospel, after the lapse of so many years, thought it worth while to relate incidents so minute, especially in such close proximity to the sublime sentences with which his Gospel begins. But we are kept from such incredulous wonder by the reflection, that facts objectively insignificant may be very important to the feelings of those whom they personally concern. What if John were himself one of the five who on the present occasion became acquainted with Jesus? That would make a wide difference between him and the other evangelists, who could know of the incidents here related, if they knew of them at all, only at second hand. In the case supposed, it would not be surprising that to his latest hour John remembered with emotion the first time he saw the Incarnate Word, and deemed the minutest memorials of that time unspeakably precious. First meetings are sacred as well as last ones, especially such as are followed by a momentous history, and accompanied, as is apt to be the case, with omens prophetic of the future.¹ Such omens were not wanting in connection with the first meeting between Jesus and the five disciples. Did not the Baptist then first give to Jesus the name “Lamb of God,” so exactly descriptive of His earthly mission and destiny? Was not Nathanael’s doubting question, “ Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? “ an ominous indication of a conflict with unbelief awaiting the Messiah? And what a happy omen of an opening era of wonders to be wrought by divine grace and power was contained in the promise of Jesus to the pious, though at first doubting, Israelite : “Henceforth ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man”!

That John, the writer of the fourth Gospel, really was the fifth unnamed disciple, may be regarded as certain. It is his way throughout his Gospel, when alluding to himself, to use a periphrasis, or to leave, as here, a blank where his name should be. One of the two disciples who heard the Baptist call Jesus the Lamb of God was the evangelist himself, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, being the other.² impressions produced on our minds by these little anecdotes of the infancy of the Gospel must be feeble, indeed, as compared with the emotions awakened by the memory of them in the breast of the aged apostle by whom they are recorded. It would not, however, be creditable either to our intelligence or to our piety if we could peruse this page of the evangelic history unmoved, as if it were utterly devoid of interest. We should address ourselves to the study of the simple story with somewhat of the feeling with which men make pilgrimages to sacred places; for indeed the ground is holy.

The scene of the occurrences in which we are concerned was in the region of Pera, on the banks of the Jordan, at the lower part of its course. The persons who make their appearance on the scene were all natives of Galilee, and their presence here is due to the fame of the remarkable man whose office it was to be the forerunner of the Christ. John, surnamed the Baptist, who had spent his youth in the desert as a hermit, living on locusts and wild honey, and clad in a garment of camel’s hair, had come forth from his retreat, and appeared among men as a prophet of God. The burden of his prophecy was, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” In a short time many were attracted from all quarters to see and hear him. Of those who flocked to his preaching, the greater number went as they came; but not a few were deeply impressed, and, confessing their sins, underwent the rite of baptism in the waters of the Jordan. Of those who were baptized, a select number formed themselves into a circle of disciples around the person of the Baptist, among whom were at least two, and most probably the whole, of the five men mentioned by the evangelist. Previous converse with the Baptist had awakened in these disciples a desire to see Jesus, and prepared them for believing in Him. In his communications to the people around him John made frequent allusions to One who should come after himself. He spoke of this coming One in language fitted to awaken great expectations. He called himself, with reference to the coming One, a mere voice in the wilderness, crying, “Prepare ye the way of the Lord.” At another time he said, “I baptize with water; but there standeth One among you whom ye know not: He it is who, coming after me, is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.” This great One was none other than the Messiah, the Son of God, the King of Israel.

Such discourses were likely to result, and by the man of God who uttered them they were intended to result, in the disciples of the Baptist leaving him and going over to Jesus. And we see here the process of transition actually commencing. We do not affirm that the persons here named finally quitted the Baptist’s company at this time, to become henceforth regular followers of Jesus. But an acquaintance now begins which will end in that. The bride is introduced to the Bridegroom, and the marriage will come in due season; not to the chagrin but to the joy of the Bridegroom’s friend.³ easily and artlessly does the mystic bride, as represented by these five disciples, become acquainted with her heavenly Bridegroom! The account of their meeting is idyllic in its simplicity, and would only be spoiled by a commentary. There is no need of formal introduction: they all introduce each other. Even John and Andrew were not formally introduced to Jesus by the Baptist; they rather introduced themselves. The exclamation of the desert prophet on seeing Jesus, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world!” repeated next day in an abbreviated form, was the involuntary utterance of one absorbed in his own thoughts, rather than the deliberate speech of one who was directing his disciples to leave himself and go over to Him of whom he spake. The two disciples, on the other hand, in going away after the personage whose presence had been so impressively announced, were not obeying an order given by their old master, but were simply following the dictates of feelings which had been awakened in their breasts by all they had heard him say of Jesus, both on the present and on former occasions. They needed no injunction to seek the acquaintance of one in whom they felt so keenly interested: all they needed was to know that this was He. They were as anxious to see the Messianic King as the world is to see the face of a secular prince.

It is natural that we should scan the evangelical narrative for indications of character with reference to those who, in the way so quaintly described, for the first time met Jesus. Little is said of the five disciples, but there is enough to show that they were all pious men. What they found in their new friend indicates what they wanted to find. They evidently belonged to the select band who waited for the consolation of Israel, and anxiously looked for Him who should fulfil God’s promises and realize the hopes of all devout souls. Besides this general indication of character supplied in their common confession of faith, a few facts are stated respecting these first believers in Jesus tending to make us a little better acquainted with them. Two of them certainly, all of them probably, had been disciples of the Baptist. This fact is decisive as to their moral earnestness. From such a quarter none but spiritually earnest men were likely to come. For if the followers of John were at all like himself, they were men who hungered and thirsted after real righteousness, being sick of the righteousness then in vogue; they said Amen in their hearts to the preacher’s withering exposure of the hollowness of current religious profession and of the worthlessness of fashionable good works, and sighed for a sanctity other than that of pharisaic superstition and ostentation; their conscience acknowledged the truth of the prophetic oracle, “We are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf, and our iniquities like the wind have taken us away;” and they prayed fervently for the reviving of true religion, for the coming of the divine kingdom, for the advent of the Messianic King with fan in His hand to separate chaff from wheat, and to put right all things which were wrong. Such, without doubt, were the sentiments of those who had the honor to be the first disciples of Christ.

Simon, best known of all the twelve under the name of Peter, is introduced to us here, through the prophetic insight of Jesus, on the good side of his character as the man of rock. When this disciple was brought by his brother Andrew into the presence of his future Master, Jesus, we are told, “beheld him and said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas”—Cephas meaning in Syriac, as the evangelist explains, the same which Petros signifies in Greek. The penetrating glance of Christ discerned in this disciple latent capacities of faith and devotion, the rudiments of ultimate strength and power.

What manner of man Philip was the evangelist does not directly tell us, but merely whence he came. From the present passage, and from other notices in the Gospels, the conclusion has been drawn that he was characteristically deliberate, slow in arriving at decision; and for proof of this view, reference has been made to the “phlegmatic circumstantiality”⁴ with which he described to Nathanael the person of Him with whom he had just become acquainted.⁵ But these words of Philip, and all that we elsewhere read of him, rather suggest to us the idea of the earnest inquirer after truth, who has thoroughly searched the Scriptures and made himself acquainted with the Messiah of promise and prophecy, and to whom the knowledge of God is the summum bonum. In the solicitude manifested by this disciple to win his friend Nathanael over to the same faith we recognize that generous sympathetic spirit, characteristic of earnest inquirers, which afterwards revealed itself in him when he became the bearer of the request of devout Greeks for permission to see Jesus.⁶ notices concerning Nathanael, Philip’s acquaintance, are more detailed and more interesting than in the case of any other of the five; and it is not a little surprising that we should be told so much in this place about one concerning whom we otherwise know almost nothing. It is even not quite certain that he belonged to the circle of the twelve, though the probability is, that he is to be identified with the Bartholomew of the synoptical catalogues—his full name in that case being Nathanael the son of Tolmai. It is strongly in favor of this supposition that the name Bartholomew comes immediately after Philip in the lists of the apostles.⁷ Be this as it may, we know on the best authority that Nathanael was a man of great moral excellence. No sooner had Jesus seen him than He exclaimed, “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!” The words suggest the idea of one whose heart was pure; in whom was no doublemindedness, impure motive, pride, or unholy passion: a man of gentle, meditative spirit, in whose mind heaven lay reflected like the blue sky in a still lake on a calm summer day. He was a man much addicted to habits of devotion: he had been engaged in spiritual exercises under cover of a fig-tree just before he met with Jesus. So we are justified in concluding, from the deep impression made on his mind by the words of Jesus, “Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee.” Nathanael appears to have understood these words as meaning, “I saw into thy heart, and knew how thou wast occupied, and therefore I pronounced thee an Israelite indeed.” He accepted the statement made to him by Jesus as an evidence of preternatural knowledge, and therefore he forthwith made the confession, “Rabbi! Thou art the Son of God; Thou art the King of Israel”—the King of that sacred commonwealth whereof you say I am a citizen.

It is remarkable that this man, so highly endowed with the moral dispositions necessary for seeing God, should have been the only one of all the five disciples who manifested any hesitancy about receiving Jesus as the Christ. When Philip told him that he had found the Messiah in Jesus of Nazareth, he asked incredulously, “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” One hardly expects such prejudice in one so meek and amiable; and yet, on reflection, we perceive it to be quite characteristic. Nathanael’s prejudice against Nazareth sprung not from pride, as in the case of the people of Judea who despised the Galileans in general, but from humility. He was a Galilean himself, and as much an object of Jewish contempt as were the Nazarenes. His inward thought was, “Surely the Messiah can never come from among a poor despised people such as we are—from Nazareth or any other Galilean town or village!”⁸ He timidly allowed his mind to be biased by a current opinion originating in feelings with which he had no sympathy; a fault common to men whose piety, though pure and sincere, defers too much to human authority, and who thus become the slaves of sentiments utterly unworthy of them.

While Nathanael was not free from prejudices, he showed his guilelessness in being willing to have them removed. He came and saw. This openness to conviction is the mark of moral integrity. The guileless man dogmatizes not, but investigates, and therefore always comes right in the end. The man of bad, dishonest heart, on the contrary, does not come and see. Deeming it his interest to remain in his present mind, he studiously avoids looking at aught which does not tend to confirm his foregone conclusions. He may, indeed, profess a desire for inquiry, like certain Israelites of whom we read in this same Gospel, of another stamp than Nathanael, but sharing with him the prejudice against Galilee. “Search and look,” said these Israelites not without guile, in reply to the ingenuous question of the honest but timid Nicodemus: “Doth our law judge any man before it hear him, and know what he doeth?” “Search and look,” said they, appealing to observation and inviting inquiry; but they added: “For out of Galilee ariseth no prophet”⁹ —a dictum which at once prohibited inquiry in effect, and intimated that it was unnecessary. “Search and look; but we tell you beforehand you cannot arrive at any other conclusion than ours; nay, we warn you, you had better not.”

Such were the characters of the men who first believed in Jesus. What, now, was the amount and value of their belief? On first view the faith of the five disciples, leaving out of account the brief hesitation of Nathanael, seems unnaturally sudden and mature. They believe in Jesus on a moment’s notice, and they express their faith in terms which seem appropriate only to advanced Christian intelligence. In the present section of John’s Gospel we find Jesus called not merely the Christ, the Messiah, the King of Israel, but the Son of God and the Lamb of God—names expressive to us of the cardinal doctrines of Christianity, the Incarnation and the Atonement.

The haste and maturity which seem to characterize the faith of the five disciples are only superficial appearances. As to the former: these men believed that Messiah was to come some time; and they wished much it might be then, for they felt He was greatly needed. They were men who waited for the consolation of Israel, and they were prepared at any moment to witness the advent of the Comforter. Then the Baptist had told them that the Christ was come, and that He was to be found in the person of Him whom he had baptized, and whose baptism had been accompanied with such remarkable signs from heaven; and what the Baptist said they implicitly believed. Finally, the impression produced on their minds by the bearing of Jesus when they met, tended to confirm John’s testimony, being altogether worthy of the Christ.

The appearance of maturity in the faith of the five brethren is equally superficial. As to the name Lamb of God, it was given to Jesus by John, not by them. It was, so to speak, the baptismal name which the preacher of repentance had learned by reflection, or by special revelation, to give to the Christ. What the name signified even he but dimly comprehended, the very repetition of it showing him to be but a learner striving to get up his lesson; and we know that what John understood only in part, the men whom he introduced to the acquaintance of Jesus, now and for long after, understood not at all.¹⁰ title Son of God was given to Jesus by one of the five disciples as well as by the Baptist, a title which even the apostles in after years found sufficient to express their mature belief respecting the Person of their Lord. But it does not follow that the name was used by them at the beginning with the same fulness of meaning as at the end. It was a name which could be used in a sense coming far short of that which it is capable of conveying, and which it did convey in apostolic preaching—merely as one of the Old Testament titles of Messiah, a synonyme for Christ. It was doubtless in this rudimentary sense that Nathanael applied the designation to Him, whom he also called the King of Israel.

The faith of these brethren was, therefore, just such as we should expect in beginners. In substance it amounted to this, that they recognized in Jesus the Divine Prophet, King, Son of Old Testament prophecy; and its value lay not in its maturity, or accuracy, but in this, that however imperfect, it brought them into contact and close fellowship with Him, in whose company they were to see greater things than when they first believed, one truth after another assuming its place in the firmament of their minds, like the stars appearing in the evening sky as daylight fades away.

¹ Omina principus inesse solent.—Ovid. Fast. i. 178.

² verse 41.

³ John iii. 29.

⁴ Luthardt, Das Johan. Evang. i. 102.

⁵ ver 45.

⁶ John xii. 22.

⁷ Ewald lays stress on this in proof of the identity of the two, Geschichte Christus, p.327. In Acts i.13 Thomas comes between Philip and Bartholomew.

⁸ Stanley thinks Nathanael meant to single out Nazareth from the rest of Galilee as of specially bad notoriety. In that case the argument would be fortiori : Can any good come out of Galilee, and specially from Nazareth, infamous even there?—Sinai and Palestine, p. 366.

⁹ John vii. 52 The Revised Version has: “Search and see that out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.”

¹⁰ The use of such a title by John at such an early period does certainly give one a surprise. And yet is it not more surprising to find such a passage as the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, on any interpretation of it, in an Old Testament book? And being there, why wonder that this title was in John’s mouth? That John understood the full import of his own words we are not bound, or even entitled, to believe. Why should not the utterance be as much a mystery for him as, according to the Apostle Peter, similar utterances by older prophets were to them?