'Thy servant David...'; 'Thy Holy Servant Jesus...'; 'Thy
servants...'--ACTS iv. 26, 27, 29.
I do not often take fragments of Scripture for texts; but though these
are fragments, their juxtaposition results in by no means fragmentary
thoughts. There is obvious intention in the recurrence of the
expression so frequently in so few verses, and to the elucidation of
that intention my remarks will be directed. The words are parts of the
Church's prayer on the occasion of its first collision with the civil
power. The incident is recorded at full length because it is the
_first_ of a long and bloody series, in order that succeeding
generations might learn their true weapon and their sure defence.
Prayer is the right answer to the world's hostility, and they who only
ask for courage to stand by their confession will never ask in vain.
But it is no part of my intention to deal either with the incident or
with this noble prayer.
A word or two of explanation may be necessary as to the language of our
texts. You will observe that, in the second of them, I have followed
the Revised Version, which, instead of 'Thy holy child,' as in the
Authorised Version, reads 'Thy holy Servant.' The alteration is clearly
correct. The word, indeed, literally means 'a child,' but, like our own
English 'boy,' or even 'man,' or 'maid,' it is used to express the
relation of servant, when the desire is to cover over the harsher
features of servitude, and to represent the servant as a part of the
family. Thus the kindly centurion, who besought Jesus to come and heal
his servant, speaks of him as his 'boy.' And that the word is here used
in this secondary sense of 'servant' is unmistakable. For there is no
discernible reason why, if stress were meant to be laid on Christ as
being the Son of God, the recognised expression for that relationship
should not have been employed. Again, the Greek translation of the Old
Testament, with which the Apostles were familiar, employs the very
phrase that is here used as its translation of the well-known Old
Testament designation of the Messiah, 'the Servant of the Lord' and the
words here are really a quotation from the great prophecies of the
second part of the Book of Isaiah. Further, the same word is employed
in reference to King David and in reference to Jesus Christ. In regard
to the former, it is evident that it must have the meaning of
'servant'; and it would be too harsh to suppose that in the compass of
so few verses the same expression should be used, at one time in the
one signification, and at another in the other. So, then, David and
Jesus are in some sense classified here together as both servants of
God. That is the first point that I desire to make.
Then, in regard to the third of my texts, the expression is not the
same there as in the other two. The disciples do not venture to take
the loftier designation. Rather they prefer the humble one, 'slaves,'
bondmen, the familiar expression found all through the New Testament as
almost a synonym to Christians.
So, then, we have here three figures: the Psalmist-king, the Messiah,
the disciples; Christ in the midst, on the one hand a servant with whom
He deigns to be classed, on the other hand the slaves who, through Him,
have become sons. And I think I shall best bring out the intended
lessons of these clauses in their connection if I ask you to note these
two contrasts, the servants and the Servant; the Servant and the
slaves. 'David Thy servant'; 'Thy holy Servant Jesus'; us 'Thy
servants.'