Jesus, the Father’s Servant – John Colquhoun

John Colquhoun of Leith preached a fascinating sermon on Jesus as God’s chosen servant. He summarised the service of Jesus as follows: ‘Now in the character of bondservant, Christ Jesus had the following parts of service to perform: he had the curse of the broken law to bear. He had the precepts of the law to obey. He had divine justice to satisfy, the glory of all the divine attributes to restore, and the prophecies and types respecting his humiliation to fulfil.’

Some of these details are common in Christian theology. But what did Colquhoun mean when saying that Jesus had to restore the glory of all the divine attributes? He observed this:

‘In the character of a bond servant, [Jesus] had to restore the glory of the Divine attributes, which was obscured and sullied by the sins of those in whose stead he served. Hence, in the prospect of his entering upon his service, his eternal Father addressed him thus: “Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified” (Isa. 49:3). Every sin is a direct insult offered to God, and an act of downright rebellion against his supreme authority, interposed in his law. It includes a contempt of his majesty, a contradiction of his holiness, which is his chief glory, a denial of his omniscience and omnipresence, a defiance of his power, a reflection on his wisdom, a disbelief of his faithfulness, and a disparagement of his goodness. Now, seeing every act of disobedience thus obscures the lustre of the Divine glory, and since it was from eternity foreseen that the elect of God would, times without number, commit sin, and so come short of his glory; it was proposed to Christ, and settled as an article in the everlasting covenant, that he should vail his glory by assuming their nature, and, in the low and obscure condition of a bondservant, restore the glory of all the Divine attributes in their stead, in order that it might be consistent with the highest honour of all those perfections, to re-admit them to favour. Accordingly, we read that “he restored that which he took not away” (Ps. 69:4) and that when his service was almost finished, he addressed his Father thus: “I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” (John 17:4).’

Colquhoun did not limit the period of servanthood to Christ’s life on earth. He described the Saviour’s work on earth as that of a bondservant and his current and future activities in heaven as that of honorary service. This exalted role was promised to him by the Father in the everlasting covenant as a reward for fulfilling the requirements made of him as a bondservant. The details of this exalted role include these: 

‘He was to triumph over all the enemies of his people, as their Representative; he was to take possession of heaven in their name; he was to be the high Trustee of all the grace and glory which he had merited by his bond service; he was to be the sovereign Dispenser thereof to sinners; he was to judge angels and men at the end of time; and to be the only medium of communication and intercourse in heaven between God and glorified saints through eternity.’

The enemies of his people are sin, Satan, the world and death and he triumphed over them at his resurrection as the Representative of his people. Since his ascension, he has been from the place of exaltation providing his people with the blessings of the new covenant: ‘And Oh, what a distinguished honour must it be to the Lord Jesus, to have the eyes of all his saints in the Church militant fixed upon Him, for communications of grace to supply their innumerable wants ; every one, expecting his portion in due season! and how well qualified must Christ be for such an honourable office, who is most intimately acquainted with all their wants, and is possessed of the most tender sympathy, to prompt him to relieve them!’ 

After the Day of Judgement, he will as God’s honoured servant be ‘the illustrious medium of communication and intercourse between God and the saints in heaven, for ever and ever. Hence every blessing necessary to constitute the everlasting felicity of the redeemed in the heavenly world shall be conveyed to them, not only through the channel of his surety-righteousness, but by his own gracious hand.’

Colquhoun points out that Jesus is a righteous, faithful, wise, powerful, ready servant in all that he did and does. His activities as God’s servant should cause his people to humble ourselves, to realise the amazing love of God to sinners, to devote themselves to his service, to live by faith on his obedience, to be thankful to God and to oppose personal sin. 

Ten Reasons for Christ’s Incarnation

John Colquhoun (1748-1827) was a minister in Leith for almost forty-seven years. He authored several books. In an extract from a volume of sermons, he gives ten reasons as to why the Son of God became man.

The first reason that he gives is that the Son of God did so to fulfil the prophecies and types of the Old Testament. Colquhoun refers to several prophecies such as Isaiah’s announcement that the Saviour would be called Immanuel and Micah’s stating the place of the Messiah’s birth. None of those prophecies could have been fulfilled if the Son had not become a man. As far as typology is concerned, Colquhoun focuses on the practice of the kinsman redeemer and how it depicts what the Son did in order to recover the inheritance that we had lost in Eden, which he could not have done if he had not become incarnate.

The second reason why the Son became incarnate was so that he might be under the law and so capable of obeying and suffering in our place. He had agreed to become our Surety in the everlasting covenant, but he could not fulfil those responsibilities on behalf of his people until he added a human nature to his divine person. Those responsibilities were to live a perfect life and render satisfaction for their sins by his death. ‘He became man so that the sword of justice might have an opportunity of smiting him.’

The third reason why the Son became man was so that the honour of the divine law would be supported and the divine wisdom that devised the way of salvation would be ‘more illustriously displayed’ in the same nature that fell short of the glory of God.

The fourth reason for the Son becoming incarnate was to show his people the degree to which he loved them by becoming like them as much as was possible for him, apart from sin.

The fifth reason was so that the Son would overcome the devil in the nature in which he overcame Adam.

A sixth reason for the Son becoming a human was to provide a permanent union with his people that would ensure that they could never lose progress in holiness here and the prospect of perfect holiness hereafter.

The seventh reason for the Son becoming incarnate was to provide ‘a perfect pattern of holiness’ for his people. ‘His humanity, or our nature in him, was richly furnished with all those heavenly endowments and divinely adorned with all those spiritual graces’ that compose this pattern.

The eighth reason for the Son taking a human nature to himself was so ‘that in it he might be the heir of all things, and might secure the inheritance of his spiritual seed from a second forfeiture’.

The ninth reason why the Son of God became man was ‘so that he might have an experimental knowledge of his people’s infirmities’. ‘In consequence of his omniscience as a divine Person, his knowledge of the infirmities and trials of his people, even before his incarnation, was as exact and comprehensive as it was possible for it ever to be. But it was only in consequence of his incarnation and subjection to the sinless infirmities of human nature that it was rendered experimental, and that he could be properly said to sympathise with his people in such circumstances, from his own experience.’

The tenth reason why the Son assumed a ‘human nature was so that, in its exalted state at the right hand of God, it might be the pattern or model of that glory which will be conferred on the souls and bodies of his redeemed after the resurrection.’

Ten good reasons to think about.

Samuel Rutherford, the preacher

From The Scottish Pulpit by W. M. Taylor, writing about Samuel Rutherford

In the writings of his contemporaries, and those who immediately followed them, we get some interesting glimpses of the preacher and his manner. Thus Patrick Simpson says, ‘He had two quick eyes, and when he walked it was observed that he held aye his face upward and heavenward. He had a strange utterance in the pulpit; a kind of shriech (shriek or scream) that I never heard the like of. Many times I thought he would have flown out of the pulpit when he came to speak of Jesus Christ, and he never was in his right element but when he was commending him.’

An English merchant, during the Protectorate, describing some of his experiences in what was probably a business tour through Scotland, said, ‘I went to St. Andrews, where I heard a sweet, majestic-looking man (Blair), and he showed me the majesty of God; after him I heard a little fair man (Rutherfurd), and he showed me the loveliness of Christ; I then went to Irvine, where I heard a well-formed, proper old man, with a long beard (Dickson), and that man showed me all my own heart.’ That was a very remarkable and a most accurate discrimination; so accurate that, as Wodrow says, ‘the whole General Assembly could not have given a better character of the three men.’

The ideal preacher, no doubt, should combine the three in himself; yet we may not refuse the palm to him who dwelt upon the loveliness of Christ, for that in the end will lead to the discovery of the other two. Now that was Rutherfurd’s distinctive excellence in the pulpit. He might and did deal with other themes, but these he only possessed; this one, on the contrary, possessed him, and whenever he entered upon it he was carried away with it.

We read that, ‘One day when preaching in Edinburgh, after dwelling for some time on the differences of the day, he broke out with “Woe is unto us for these sad divisions that make us lose the fair scent of the Rose of Sharon”; and then he went on commending Christ, going over all his precious styles and titles about a quarter of an hour,’ upon which one of his hearers said in a loud whisper, ‘Ay, now you are right; hold you there.’

Grosart says of his practical discourses that their one merit is ‘that they are full of the exceeding great and precious promises and truths of the Gospel’, and that ‘they hold forth with wistful and passionate entreaty a crucified Saviour as the one centre for weary souls in their unrest, and the one hope for the world.’

But, after all, is not that the ‘one thing needful’ in all preaching? And it is for that especially that I would hold him up for an inspiration to you. Like him, preach the living, personal Christ, once crucified, but now risen and reigning as the Saviour and Sovereign of men. Unfold His loveliness. Proclaim His merits. Hold up Himself. Let the truth which you declare be the truth as it is in Him. Let the faith to which you urge be faith in Him. Let the loyalty which you enforce be loyalty to Him. Let the heaven which you hold before your hearers be to be with Him, and to be like Him. ‘Hold you there,’ and let your words be such as love to Him shall inspire, then you shall not lack hearers, and shall not need to lament the absence of results.

James Morison (2) -- Becomes a pastor in Kilmarnock

Following his time in Morayshire, Morison went further into the Highlands, to Tain, at the request of Presbytery of Elgin to serve its station there for two months (December 1839 and January 1840). A chapel had been built there four months previously. On arrival, he discovered that the Secession influence was minimal, with about sixty people on average attending the services. 

According to the biographer, Morison brought about a great change in the attitude of the community, with young men being forced to think seriously, some professors of religion realised that they were not possessers of it, and several infidels abandoned their unbelief and became eagers spreaders of the faith. Many came to him for personal counselling. 

Despite this enlarged interest, little is said in the biography of permanent growth of the Secession church in Tain. Perhaps these converts remained with the Church of Scotland and would have joined the Free Church in 1843.

Morison's preaching and its results inevitably led to several calls from Secession congregations. In March 1840, he preached for the first time in Clerk's Lane Church, Kilmarnock (the congregation in which he eventually became a pastor). Prior to receiving its call, he had thought of becoming a travelling evangelist because of the clear influence his preaching was having on hearers all over the country (including his own family). Generally it was his emphasis on God's universal love that enabled listeners to sense inner peace. This developing situation led him to write his first public tract in which he explained his methods for dealing with those who had spiritual perplexities caused by lack of assurance. He was aware that some of his comments would offend the more conservative ministers of his denomination.

At that time, Morison held to what his biographer calls 'Moderate Calvinism' in which he believed that the atonement of Christ was universal. He realised that this belief had implications for the meaning of the doctrine of election. After some thought, he found an answer in the order of events in God's eternal decree, in which his election of some sinners comes after his decision to provide a universal atonement for all sinners. 

His biographer does not indicate whether or not Morison asked the obvious question, 'If God planned a universal atonement, why did he not also arrange a universal election?' His attempt to harmonise a universal atonement with a limited election only creates more problems and does not provide a satisfying answer, and Morison himself later realised this was the case.

The congregation in Kilmarnock had begun in 1777 and had enjoyed notable ministries. However, the pastor who immediately preceded Morison had been forced to resign because of his inability to please two opposing groups within the congregation. One group was nominal and the other was evangelical. Their building could hold 1,000 listeners. 

A listener of Morison's first sermon prior to receiving the call stated that the address gave him 'a marvellous and blissful relief from the doubts which filled my mind by the Calvinistic notions I had received from the Shorter Catechism and the preaching I heard on Sundays'. This individual became a close friend of Morison's. Evidently, even as a probationer seeking a call, Morison made no attempt to hide his differences with Scottish Calvinism.

When the call was signed, it was clear that the congregation was divided, with a substantial group opposed to Morison. Yet the eagerness with which his supporters desired his ministry led him to accept the call. Before he could be inducted, he faced presbytery trials on September 1st, 1840. The demands of the trial were great, but they also revealed Morison's abilities. 

He had to give a lecture on 1 Peter 1:6-9, exegete Philippians 2:5-11, and preach on 1 Timothy 1:5. In addition, he was examined on the Hebrew text of Psalms 141-150, on the Greek New Testament, and on Church History of Britain and Ireland under Cromwell. He also had to deal with the issue of whether or not a sinner can do anything acceptable to God without the influence of the Holy Spirit. 

Despite his insistence that Christ's death was universal, his trials were unanimously sustained, although he noticed that almost all of the members were initially prejudiced against his views. Perhaps his views were allowed because he said that he held to the opinions of John Brown, a theological professor in the denomination's college.

Morison then had to be ordained. On October 1st, the Presbytery met for the ordination and it quickly became clear that several members were concerned about some of his comments in the tract he had published. His explanation was accepted, although he advised to be more careful in what he said, and also to suppress the circulation of the tract. This Morison agreed to do and the ordination took place.

James Morison (1)

I am reading the biography of Principal James Morison, who was a celebrated character in nineteenth century Scottish theology. Brought up within a Calvinistic denomination, he rejected several of its doctrines. Later he was charged with heresy and founded a new denomination as a consequence. Below are some thoughts that come to mind as I make my way through his book.

James Morison is not a well-known figure in Scottish theology today, but for most of the nineteenth century he was a very influential figure because of his theological ideas and his denominational initiatives. If he is known today, it is because several of his commentaries have been reprinted, although it is likely that most who purchase them have little idea as to who he was.

Morison was born in Bathgate in where his father was the minister of the United Secession Church, the body that traced its origins to the secession from the Church of Scotland led by Ebenezer Erskine. When he finished his schooling, he went to Edinburgh University where he proved himself to be a fine student, although as was common in those days he engaged in far too much studying and brought ill health upon himself.

There is no doubt that Morison possessed great intellectual ability, a fact acknowledged both by his University and his theological teachers. The United Secession Church’s faculty included men like George Lawson (author of The History of Joseph), Robert Balmer and John Brown (author of commentaries on Romans, Galatians, Hebrews and Peter, as well as books on Isaiah 53 and much else); the latter two were later to be accused in church courts of believing in an universal atonement, an issue for which Morison himself came into trouble.

During his theological college days, Morison wrote a paper in which he denied the eternal sonship of Christ (while maintaining his deity), and the author of this biography gives evidence that George Lawson approved of this idea. It is surprising how a theological student was licensed in a Scottish Presbyterian denomination after defending such a notion, yet Morison was. But perhaps it is not surprising if Lawson and others were willing to defend him.

Morison was sent to Morayshire, on the verge of the Highlands, to act as a missionary for the summer. During his few weeks in this locality he became convinced of the universal nature of the atonement and stressed it in his preaching, even although he knew it was not in line with the Westminster Confession. He preached a universal atonement and great crowds flocked to hear him, although he was still only a novice in preaching.

It may be that Morison’s preaching in this part of the world prepared for the ultimate disappearance of evangelical Presbyterianism in that area because a couple of decades later several Free Church leaders left the denomination, embraced universal atonement, and formed Plymouth Brethren assemblies.

Morison was driven to clarify the extent of the atonement because he noted that his listeners were troubled by lack of assurance, and his preaching a universal atonement seemed to sort out this pastoral matter. Of course, the issue of assurance cannot really be sorted out by convincing a person that Jesus has died for him because he died for everyone. The only ‘assurance’ that deals with is the concern of someone who is troubled as to whether or not Christ died for him. It does not deal with lack of assurance that is based on whether a sinner has true faith in Christ, or whether he possesses a merely temporary faith.

At that time in the late 1830s, revival fires were stirring in various parts of Scotland and Morison wondered if the growth he experienced in those listening to his preaching was part of this revival. The book that he chose to help him was Charles Finney’s Lectures on Revivals, and he heartily approved of Finney’s methods, recommending them to his father, the minister in Bathgate.

So before he has become a pastor, Morison has adopted several theological views that were at variance with Scottish Presbyterian doctrine and practice up till that time: (a) he denied the eternal sonship of Jesus, (b) he stressed that the atonement of Christ was not for specific individuals but was for all people, and (c) he advocated evangelistic methods that had caused spiritual confusion in America in the Second Great Awakening through the methods of Charles Finney.