I would ask, is it possible to use the term "destiny" in a biblical text without thinking of that which is final and fixed? The January-February issue of "The King's Herald" has just been sent to me. It is headed on the front page "Special Human Destiny Number." The various articles on this topic revolve around the idea contained by the expression "for ever and ever." In common parlance we used the words "destination" :and "destiny" in very different connections. Our destination may be merely local and daily; but destiny looks far ahead.
Now when we know, and so very little is revealed concerning the ages to come, next to nothing about the vast future, is it right to talk about our destiny as though it were rigidly and unalterably fixed? Beyond knowing that we shall be with and like our Lord Jesus Christ, in some way carrying out His wishes, just what do we concretely know about our deathless future? There may be one hundred different and glorious destinies for each of us! It would not be like God to have us invariably the same or perpetually doing the same thing. You know the shallow people who laugh at the idea of anyone for ever playing a harp in heaven. I am not musically inclined. But if ever I am permitted in the heavens to play a musical instrument I should like to learn to play a harp. But not for ever, and not incessantly. God loves variety and change.
But I must accord you every opportunity to justify your conclusions. No doubt you have much to say upon the subject, and I am ignorant of your ideas on the matter. If you are correct, no doubt you will have some good explanation of 1. Cor. 2:7. There we learn that Paul was talking God's wisdom in a secret, which (wisdom) has been concealed, which God designates before the eons for our glory. . . . (C.V.).
Now, in what sense could we say wisdom was "predestinated"? Would it be correct to speak of wisdom having a destiny? You will have observed that both the A.V. and the R.V. here forsake the term "predestinated" and use "ordained before."
I think you must have misunderstood what AEK says upon predestination. Have you not been over hasty in averring that he has left this subject alone? Why, look at Rom. 8:29 in his version. While the text reads (and has read since the earliest C.V. in 1914) "designates beforehand" his note on the passage states in the plainest of terms "Our destiny was fixed by God from the beginning, long before we could have any part in it. . ."
While I have been severe upon AEK's grammatical blunders in his Version (if, indeed, it was he who perpetrated them), I must not bring myself to condemn all or any of his teachings merely upon such grounds. Prejudice is a most miserable teacher. I think his lack of positive teaching on persevering prayer is most unscriptural, and I detest his fatalism; but I must not be taken as disagreeing with all his teachings simply because I differed very radically with him over his translations. But for the late Ethelbert Bullinger and A. E. Knoch, perhaps we should possess very little or no knowledge of how to divide the Scriptures aright.
Alexander Thomson
Further than Eternity?
An appeal is then made to scholarship, but it is painfully evident that very few scholars understand how to utilize a Concordance, or why it exists. Mr. Martin would have us seek after "recognized scholastic authorities." But exactly regarding the terms "everlasting" and "eternal" they cannot agree. Mr. Martin himself is unable to tell us what "Eternity" is. He shews his confusion by mentioning "this side of eternity." So it has sides! I wonder whether he has heard of Jerome's great joke (or did he actually believe what he wrote) at Micah 4:5 and Ex. 15:18, in his Latin Vulgate, "unto Eternity AND FURTHER." The Latin has it, in aeternum et ultra. Jerome, a recognized scholastic authority gave the show away altogether. It is quite clear that in his time, the fourth century, "eternity" was not eternal, and only meant "age-lasting."
Alexander Thomson
Alexander Thomson
THE GREAT "I AM"
"God said to Moses, I Am That I Am. And He said, say this to the people
of Israel, I Am has sent me to you…Yahweh has sent me to you! This is
My name forever. (Ex. 3: 14, 15)
"From this passage, we should observe that the name ‘I Am’ is used interchangeably with ‘Yahweh.’ The very basis of this name is derived from the Hebrew of ‘I Am.’
Do we fully appreciate what Jesus Christ was claiming in the New Testament record when He referred to Himself as the I Am? From the eighth chapter of John, we hear the Christ declaring:
Your father, Abraham, rejoiced that he was to see My day. He saw it and
was glad. The Jews then said to Jesus, You are not yet fifty years old, and
have You seen Abraham? Jesus said to them, Truly, Truly, I say to you,
before Abraham was, I am. (John 8: 58)
Yahweh had appeared to Abraham on a number of occasions. Was Jesus claiming that He Himself was the great I Am—the God of the Old Testament Who had made Himself known to Abraham, Moses, and the prophets? Apparently, the Jews nearby who heard Jesus’ words took it in that light. For they then made a vain attempt to stone to death the Nazarene for what they thought was blasphemy!
While a recent edition of the Revised Standard Version has not capitalized the phrase, the editors have made an interesting comment in a footnote to John 8: 58. That comment says: ‘The I am is the divine name (Ex. 3: 14), a claim to pre-existence and oneness with God (10: 30-33).’
For those who might object to this line of thought, we should note that Jesus did not say, ‘Before Abraham was, I was.” But He did say, “Before Abraham was, I Am.” What else could it be other than the divine name? Indeed, is this not why His hearers tried to stone Him to death?” (“The God of Two Testaments” pgs. 16, 17)
“When the infinite and transcendent Yahweh becomes localized and visible in a theophany as in the case of visiting Abraham or speaking to Moses, it did not require there to be two Gods. But One God, Who was both transcendent invisible Spirit and an imminent visible Personal Being able to speak face to face to Moses and to speak of Abraham as His friend. One Yahweh, of Whom the heavens of heavens could not contain and yet also able to sit and eat under a shade tree as Abraham’s guest” (Rick Farwell).
Ted McDivitt (from the article 'Our Great God and Savior')
of Israel, I Am has sent me to you…Yahweh has sent me to you! This is
My name forever. (Ex. 3: 14, 15)
"From this passage, we should observe that the name ‘I Am’ is used interchangeably with ‘Yahweh.’ The very basis of this name is derived from the Hebrew of ‘I Am.’
Do we fully appreciate what Jesus Christ was claiming in the New Testament record when He referred to Himself as the I Am? From the eighth chapter of John, we hear the Christ declaring:
Your father, Abraham, rejoiced that he was to see My day. He saw it and
was glad. The Jews then said to Jesus, You are not yet fifty years old, and
have You seen Abraham? Jesus said to them, Truly, Truly, I say to you,
before Abraham was, I am. (John 8: 58)
Yahweh had appeared to Abraham on a number of occasions. Was Jesus claiming that He Himself was the great I Am—the God of the Old Testament Who had made Himself known to Abraham, Moses, and the prophets? Apparently, the Jews nearby who heard Jesus’ words took it in that light. For they then made a vain attempt to stone to death the Nazarene for what they thought was blasphemy!
While a recent edition of the Revised Standard Version has not capitalized the phrase, the editors have made an interesting comment in a footnote to John 8: 58. That comment says: ‘The I am is the divine name (Ex. 3: 14), a claim to pre-existence and oneness with God (10: 30-33).’
For those who might object to this line of thought, we should note that Jesus did not say, ‘Before Abraham was, I was.” But He did say, “Before Abraham was, I Am.” What else could it be other than the divine name? Indeed, is this not why His hearers tried to stone Him to death?” (“The God of Two Testaments” pgs. 16, 17)
“When the infinite and transcendent Yahweh becomes localized and visible in a theophany as in the case of visiting Abraham or speaking to Moses, it did not require there to be two Gods. But One God, Who was both transcendent invisible Spirit and an imminent visible Personal Being able to speak face to face to Moses and to speak of Abraham as His friend. One Yahweh, of Whom the heavens of heavens could not contain and yet also able to sit and eat under a shade tree as Abraham’s guest” (Rick Farwell).
Ted McDivitt (from the article 'Our Great God and Savior')
Why did Christ have to die?
A good friend of mine recently asked a group of us, “Why did Christ have to die?” The late Alan Burns, in his article, “The Son of God,” wrote some things that stimulated some thoughts concerning this question. In closing, I’d like to share some of these.
“The birth and the death of Christ are each the necessary complement of the other. Without either the work of salvation would be incomplete, for if the birth of Messiah was necessary to His identification with the humanity He would redeem, His death was equally necessary to the perfect judgment of the sin He would condemn. In His wonderful birth He brought the divine into the sphere of the human; in His equally marvelous death and subsequent resurrection, He brought the human into the sphere of the divine. In other words: In birth He brought God to man; in death He brought man to God” (“The Son of God,” pg. 2).
I could be mistaken here, but the way I see it, the One Who was responsible for sin’s entrance into the creation is the One Who had to identify Himself with humanity since it was through the human that sin came into the world (Rom. 5: 12). It was this One then, Who was manifested in flesh, Who was able to condemn sin in the flesh. He was able to do this because He was not infirm in flesh. This is why Jesus Christ had to die for sin. God sending the Son of Himself (Rom. 8: 3), God manifested in flesh, in His life and subsequent death, He, not another, condemned sin in the flesh.
This is why Luke quoted the prophet Isaiah:
“And all flesh shall see the salvation of God” (Luke 3: 6).
The word salvation in this verse is the concrete form sOtErion, and not the more common sOteria which is abstract. The Greek word sOtErion has the meaning of saving work. “The Lord Jesus is God made visible and concrete. He is God’s Saving Work that all flesh shall one day see. Matt. 5: 8—‘Happy are the clean in heart, for they shall see God’” (Rick Farwell).
The same concrete form of salvation is used by Luke in 2: 30. The Lord Jesus, even as a little boy of just under six weeks of age, is already declared to be God’s Saving Work! For indeed, the name Jesus means “Yahweh Savior” (Acts 4: 12; Rom. 10: 13).
“The glory of creation belongs to Christ. He is the Alpha of the universe. The great Architect, on whose design the worlds were formed. The mighty Mechanic, whose mind may be seen displayed in the vast, yet silent, machinery of natural law. The chief Artist, whose palette has furnished the light and shadows of scenic beauty.
John the Beloved thus states the relation sustained by Christ to all Creation:
POSITIVE—‘All things were made by Him,’
NEGATIVE—‘Without Him was nothing made that has been made’ (Jn. 1: 3).
But while this fact is widely recognized, another, equally important, is not as much recognized as it should be. It is a wondrous fact that the relations of Christ to creation is all-inclusive; but dazzling glory shines from the further truth that Messiah’s redemptive activities have not been, and will not be, less extensive than was the exercise of His creative powers.
The Apostle Paul develops the truth revealed by John. John, led by the Spirit, brings us back to the beginning of things. Paul, equally inspired, carries us forward to their consummation. In Col. 1: 16-20 the apostle thus groups the commencement and the consummation of the universe:
‘BY HIM.’ ‘ALL THINGS’—their origin.
‘FOR HIM.’ ‘ALL THINGS’—their destiny” (“The Son of God,” pgs. 2-4).
Having noted the primal purpose of Deity, we are prepared to view sin as deflection from that purpose on the part of the creature…What our Lord did upon the Tree was to provide the ground in which God could unite the bonds which sin had severed, and bring the universe to a harmonious unity, unlike it has never known before.
“The work of redemption may be viewed in two aspects—objective and subjective. Objective redemption was affected by Christ on the Cross. Subjective redemption—redemption in its application—is yet to be completed by Christ in the Glory. It may therefore be seen that what Messiah did on the Cross is prophetic of what He is yet to do on the Throne. We may even catch a glimpse of that future ministry in the vision of the new Creation, where the river of life flows from the Throne of the Lamb—the Sacrifice in the place of acceptation and rule. His ministry on the Throne will be but the development of His work upon the Tree.
"We must now pass on to consider, briefly, the place which Messiah now occupies as the result of His achievements. Let it suffice to say that as the ages to come will reveal fresh and deeper glories in the Person of our Lord, so will they also unveil new aspects of His Work, of which His earthly ministry, including even the marvels and mysteries of the Cross, are said to be but the beginning (Acts 1: 1)” (“The Son of God,” by Alan Burns, pgs. 5, 6).
I am grateful for all those who have labored in the Word, whose articles God has used to help someone like me who is searching for a deeper realization of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Ted McDivitt (from his article 'Our Great God and Savior')
“The birth and the death of Christ are each the necessary complement of the other. Without either the work of salvation would be incomplete, for if the birth of Messiah was necessary to His identification with the humanity He would redeem, His death was equally necessary to the perfect judgment of the sin He would condemn. In His wonderful birth He brought the divine into the sphere of the human; in His equally marvelous death and subsequent resurrection, He brought the human into the sphere of the divine. In other words: In birth He brought God to man; in death He brought man to God” (“The Son of God,” pg. 2).
I could be mistaken here, but the way I see it, the One Who was responsible for sin’s entrance into the creation is the One Who had to identify Himself with humanity since it was through the human that sin came into the world (Rom. 5: 12). It was this One then, Who was manifested in flesh, Who was able to condemn sin in the flesh. He was able to do this because He was not infirm in flesh. This is why Jesus Christ had to die for sin. God sending the Son of Himself (Rom. 8: 3), God manifested in flesh, in His life and subsequent death, He, not another, condemned sin in the flesh.
This is why Luke quoted the prophet Isaiah:
“And all flesh shall see the salvation of God” (Luke 3: 6).
The word salvation in this verse is the concrete form sOtErion, and not the more common sOteria which is abstract. The Greek word sOtErion has the meaning of saving work. “The Lord Jesus is God made visible and concrete. He is God’s Saving Work that all flesh shall one day see. Matt. 5: 8—‘Happy are the clean in heart, for they shall see God’” (Rick Farwell).
The same concrete form of salvation is used by Luke in 2: 30. The Lord Jesus, even as a little boy of just under six weeks of age, is already declared to be God’s Saving Work! For indeed, the name Jesus means “Yahweh Savior” (Acts 4: 12; Rom. 10: 13).
“The glory of creation belongs to Christ. He is the Alpha of the universe. The great Architect, on whose design the worlds were formed. The mighty Mechanic, whose mind may be seen displayed in the vast, yet silent, machinery of natural law. The chief Artist, whose palette has furnished the light and shadows of scenic beauty.
John the Beloved thus states the relation sustained by Christ to all Creation:
POSITIVE—‘All things were made by Him,’
NEGATIVE—‘Without Him was nothing made that has been made’ (Jn. 1: 3).
But while this fact is widely recognized, another, equally important, is not as much recognized as it should be. It is a wondrous fact that the relations of Christ to creation is all-inclusive; but dazzling glory shines from the further truth that Messiah’s redemptive activities have not been, and will not be, less extensive than was the exercise of His creative powers.
The Apostle Paul develops the truth revealed by John. John, led by the Spirit, brings us back to the beginning of things. Paul, equally inspired, carries us forward to their consummation. In Col. 1: 16-20 the apostle thus groups the commencement and the consummation of the universe:
‘BY HIM.’ ‘ALL THINGS’—their origin.
‘FOR HIM.’ ‘ALL THINGS’—their destiny” (“The Son of God,” pgs. 2-4).
Having noted the primal purpose of Deity, we are prepared to view sin as deflection from that purpose on the part of the creature…What our Lord did upon the Tree was to provide the ground in which God could unite the bonds which sin had severed, and bring the universe to a harmonious unity, unlike it has never known before.
“The work of redemption may be viewed in two aspects—objective and subjective. Objective redemption was affected by Christ on the Cross. Subjective redemption—redemption in its application—is yet to be completed by Christ in the Glory. It may therefore be seen that what Messiah did on the Cross is prophetic of what He is yet to do on the Throne. We may even catch a glimpse of that future ministry in the vision of the new Creation, where the river of life flows from the Throne of the Lamb—the Sacrifice in the place of acceptation and rule. His ministry on the Throne will be but the development of His work upon the Tree.
"We must now pass on to consider, briefly, the place which Messiah now occupies as the result of His achievements. Let it suffice to say that as the ages to come will reveal fresh and deeper glories in the Person of our Lord, so will they also unveil new aspects of His Work, of which His earthly ministry, including even the marvels and mysteries of the Cross, are said to be but the beginning (Acts 1: 1)” (“The Son of God,” by Alan Burns, pgs. 5, 6).
I am grateful for all those who have labored in the Word, whose articles God has used to help someone like me who is searching for a deeper realization of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Ted McDivitt (from his article 'Our Great God and Savior')
Non-Existent Crisis
The oracles of God are no longer entrusted to and believed by the Jew only; those proclaimed by Paul are addressed to a far wider circle, saints who are in Christ Jesus. This is stated by Paul in Romans 1:5-7.
What we need to realize here is that by establishing dealings direct with all the Gentiles instead of with the Jew only, God was not inaugurating a brand-new departure, a special arrangement to meet special circumstances; He was simply reverting to conditions which held good before His covenant with Abraham. Abraham's circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of the faith which was in UNCIRCUMCISION (Rom. 4:11). Seen from this point of view, it was God's restriction of His dealings with humanity to a channel through one nation, Israel, which was new and abnormal; not the reversion to His previous methods. Present conditions based on the Secret of Ephesians 3:6¬12 are new and unique in nearly every respect but not in this.
For the first time since Abraham we find in Paul's Evangel something which in its terms does NOT contemplate the Gentiles as completely or even seriously subordinate to Israel. Admittedly, at the start it does not contemplate them as quite equal to Israel. Israel has priority, a precedence of honor, "To the Jew first;" but in Paul's Evangel, in itself, there is no chasm between Jews and Gentiles in this respect. Blessing comes to both in like manner, not as something left over after the Jew has had his fill. Moreover, it does not come to either as Jew or Gentile, but as a SINNER needing a Savior.
There is, and there was, no promise which Israel could, AS ISRAEL, partake of on equal terms with the other nations. In Paul's Evangel all prior right, such as is implied in the very name "Israel,” is put out of court from the start. This is why Israel is not mentioned in promulgating the Secret.
Israel, as Israel, must either be in the foreground of the picture or not in it at all. Other nations cannot be on an equality with them. The circumcision itself is the badge of fleshly privilege. Where covenant is in operation, there is the superabundance of the Jew and the profit of circumcision. Where the Secret is in operation, covenant cannot be; and since “Israel” is the name which implies covenant privilege; when that vanishes, Israel vanishes too; the Jew in effect ceases to be.
Thus, the whole Evangel, God's Evangel, is in view only in the first four chapters of Romans, where Paul is setting forth the fundamentals. Even in them, the circumcision aspect of it is actually, so far as we are concerned, only a foil to the uncircumcision aspect which is the essence of the Evangel entrusted to Paul.
The Gentiles appear prominently on the scene in Paul's earlier Church Epistles, while Israel's own affairs are already secondary. In Ephesians Israel appears once only, and that as something belonging to past history. As a present factor in the situation Israel has vanished away. This one backward glance marks the end of Israel in the Prison Epistles. Earthly standing and fleshly blessings, the superabundance of the Jew and the profit of circumcision, have disappeared from the scene. Our standing and our blessing have become wholly spiritual among the celestials. Nor is this confined to the Prison Epistles as some would have us think. Some believe that Galatians is the earliest Epistle, yet in it (6:15) we read that "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything, but there is a new creation.”
Israel’s unique possession of the oracles of God was a thing of the past when Paul began to write his Epistles. At some point a crisis must have occurred to bring about the change. Can we locate the exact moment of that crisis?
I suggest that it is Acts 13:46-48, which comes after Paul's first proclamation to Israel and its rejection (13:45) wherein he first speaks of being made righteous by faith (v. 39). Here the Apostle and Barnabas explicitly state that they are turning to the Gentiles, and here "the word of the Lord" comes to the Gentiles as such and they believe (v. 46-48). Note the careful double witness which is emphasized, "Paul as well as Barnabas said …." This is followed up by further events of significance. The two proceed to Lycaonia, where they evangelize the inhabitants to turn back to the living God. They continue their evangelizing mission until a breach occurs at Antioch. Nevertheless Paul continues the dual apostolic witness by singling out the Apostle Silas. He also calls the Apostle Timothy.
In the face of these facts, there can be no reasonable doubt that Acts 13:46-48 marks the point when Israel (with Gentile proselytes) ceased to be the sole believers of the oracles of God. This information is obtained from the historical book, Acts. It is important to notice that our knowledge of this truth is not derived from Paul's Epistles. It is not a "body-church" nor even a Pauline truth (*).
R. B. Withers
(*) But it is a truth which quite effectively disposes of the widely-held theory that Acts 28:28 marks the point of crisis as between Israel and the Gentiles. (C. J. Blay)
What we need to realize here is that by establishing dealings direct with all the Gentiles instead of with the Jew only, God was not inaugurating a brand-new departure, a special arrangement to meet special circumstances; He was simply reverting to conditions which held good before His covenant with Abraham. Abraham's circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of the faith which was in UNCIRCUMCISION (Rom. 4:11). Seen from this point of view, it was God's restriction of His dealings with humanity to a channel through one nation, Israel, which was new and abnormal; not the reversion to His previous methods. Present conditions based on the Secret of Ephesians 3:6¬12 are new and unique in nearly every respect but not in this.
For the first time since Abraham we find in Paul's Evangel something which in its terms does NOT contemplate the Gentiles as completely or even seriously subordinate to Israel. Admittedly, at the start it does not contemplate them as quite equal to Israel. Israel has priority, a precedence of honor, "To the Jew first;" but in Paul's Evangel, in itself, there is no chasm between Jews and Gentiles in this respect. Blessing comes to both in like manner, not as something left over after the Jew has had his fill. Moreover, it does not come to either as Jew or Gentile, but as a SINNER needing a Savior.
There is, and there was, no promise which Israel could, AS ISRAEL, partake of on equal terms with the other nations. In Paul's Evangel all prior right, such as is implied in the very name "Israel,” is put out of court from the start. This is why Israel is not mentioned in promulgating the Secret.
Israel, as Israel, must either be in the foreground of the picture or not in it at all. Other nations cannot be on an equality with them. The circumcision itself is the badge of fleshly privilege. Where covenant is in operation, there is the superabundance of the Jew and the profit of circumcision. Where the Secret is in operation, covenant cannot be; and since “Israel” is the name which implies covenant privilege; when that vanishes, Israel vanishes too; the Jew in effect ceases to be.
Thus, the whole Evangel, God's Evangel, is in view only in the first four chapters of Romans, where Paul is setting forth the fundamentals. Even in them, the circumcision aspect of it is actually, so far as we are concerned, only a foil to the uncircumcision aspect which is the essence of the Evangel entrusted to Paul.
The Gentiles appear prominently on the scene in Paul's earlier Church Epistles, while Israel's own affairs are already secondary. In Ephesians Israel appears once only, and that as something belonging to past history. As a present factor in the situation Israel has vanished away. This one backward glance marks the end of Israel in the Prison Epistles. Earthly standing and fleshly blessings, the superabundance of the Jew and the profit of circumcision, have disappeared from the scene. Our standing and our blessing have become wholly spiritual among the celestials. Nor is this confined to the Prison Epistles as some would have us think. Some believe that Galatians is the earliest Epistle, yet in it (6:15) we read that "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything, but there is a new creation.”
Israel’s unique possession of the oracles of God was a thing of the past when Paul began to write his Epistles. At some point a crisis must have occurred to bring about the change. Can we locate the exact moment of that crisis?
I suggest that it is Acts 13:46-48, which comes after Paul's first proclamation to Israel and its rejection (13:45) wherein he first speaks of being made righteous by faith (v. 39). Here the Apostle and Barnabas explicitly state that they are turning to the Gentiles, and here "the word of the Lord" comes to the Gentiles as such and they believe (v. 46-48). Note the careful double witness which is emphasized, "Paul as well as Barnabas said …." This is followed up by further events of significance. The two proceed to Lycaonia, where they evangelize the inhabitants to turn back to the living God. They continue their evangelizing mission until a breach occurs at Antioch. Nevertheless Paul continues the dual apostolic witness by singling out the Apostle Silas. He also calls the Apostle Timothy.
In the face of these facts, there can be no reasonable doubt that Acts 13:46-48 marks the point when Israel (with Gentile proselytes) ceased to be the sole believers of the oracles of God. This information is obtained from the historical book, Acts. It is important to notice that our knowledge of this truth is not derived from Paul's Epistles. It is not a "body-church" nor even a Pauline truth (*).
R. B. Withers
(*) But it is a truth which quite effectively disposes of the widely-held theory that Acts 28:28 marks the point of crisis as between Israel and the Gentiles. (C. J. Blay)
What Is Mature
In our study of Scripture we need to be perpetually on the watch to distinguish between what is mature ("perfect") and therefore final, and what is partial, immature, and therefore temporary. Although in most of First Corinthians Paul is dealing with partial, immature, temporary conditions, he keeps on breaking out into the mature; and it is for us to take special notice of these features whenever they occur. Bearing this in mind, we can turn to a key passage in this epistle (I Corinthians 12:27-31) which reads literally:
"Now you are Christ’s body and members out of part; (you) whom God indeed placed in the Church -- first apostles; second prophets; third, teachers; thereupon powers; thereupon grace-effects of health, supports, pilotage, breeds of tongues. Not all are apostles, Not all are prophets, Not all are powers, Not all are having grace-effects of health, Not all are talking tongues, Not all are interpreting. Yet be zealous (regarding) the grace-effects - the greater ones. And still (a) way according to transcendence I am showing you." And the Apostle Paul then goes on to his splendid exhortation in praise of love.
The important thing to observe is that for these Corinthian believers to whom this section of the epistle was primarily addressed, the membership of the body was … EK MEROUS, out-of-part, that is to say partial, immature. This by itself shows that the section to which this belongs did not have mature believers in mind. There was no need to address all that to such; for, being mature, they necessarily already have the love which is "the tie of maturity" (Col. 3:14) and which is over all the virtues to be put on, listed in Col. 3:12,13 as "pitiful compassion, kindness, humility of disposition, meekness, patience, bearing with one another and dealing graciously among yourselves." To these there would be no need to show a way suited to transcendence.
So the immature were exhorted to "follow after" the love of which Paul wrote. While they were pursuing the Ideal they were also to be zealous for the spiritual things which were eventually to be discarded when they reached the goal of “the perfect" or mature, of whatsoever in any matter is mature … although the conditions were transcient, the provision for them was necessary.
Furthermore, the majority of believers have been immature ever since, but there is no excuse whatsoever for any to be in that state, let alone remain in it. Paul showed them a path according to transcendence. His words in First Corinthians 13 commending that path are some of the best known in Scripture, yet few read them and become mature.
Nearly as much is said about LOVE in Ephesians and the eight epistles that follow it as in the whole of the Greek Scriptures that precede it, and in that grand and somewhat neglected epistle, First John, the noun occurs no less than eighteen times. The verb to love occurs more frequently in those nine epistles than in the earlier ones, but the occurrences in the writings of John transcend in number everything else. However, anyone who wants to study the connection between LOVE and what is mature or "perfect” has only to study the occurrences of the word in the Prison Epistles. No Scripture neglects the subject. Some modern critics have asserted that the Revelation or Unveiling is a "ferocious book" and perhaps in a way it is, since it describes the eventual triumph by force of the Lord Jesus over His enemies; yet even so, the idea of love is found in Chapters 1.5; 2.14,19; 3.9; 12:11; and 20.9.
The second supremely great prayer in Ephesians (3:19) leads up to the climax "To get to know besides, the knowledge-transcending love of the Christ, that you may be filled up into the entire fullness of God." There is nothing beyond that!
From this we can legitimately regard all the lesser gifts or "spirituals" as being obsolete now. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that prophesying is continuing up to the present moment. Then, according to I Cor. 14.29-33, there must be prophets amongst us now when we assemble. Where are they? Reviewing in my mind the believers I have known, I then have to ask concerning them: "Is even one of them a prophet?" Certainly I would not care to make such a claim for myself, or for anyone else I have ever met. From experience, there is one thing I fully know. I have no means of getting any knowledge from, God, His Christ and His purposes, except through careful and thorough study of His Word, sometimes very arduous study, too; and I do not for one moment believe that at this present time anyone on earth is any better off. There are plenty of people who claim to have such direct knowledge of God; but they all display one thing in common: when they state any such revelation in plain language, it invariably turns out to be contrary to the Scriptures; that is, on the rare occasions when it has any contact with them at all.
Surely the answer is that the prophets of whom Paul wrote functioned only when some special personal need arose, some special message. Apostles and others specially commissioned such as Mark, Luke and James, had the function of writing Scripture itself; we are not told that any of these were prophets as well. The first two certainly wrote their Gospels when directly associated with the Apostles. Once the Scriptures were completed, there was nothing of that sort left to be accomplished.
What could any prophet tell us, which God desires us to know, that is not already available to us in the Scriptures? We do not NEED any prophets now; and nobody would desire the services of any prophets except either as a substitute for the labor of research, or for idle or selfish curiosity. For God has given us in the Scriptures all we need to know and all we ought to wish to know. In them is available that full-knowledge of which Paul wrote in I Corinthians 13:12. It might be a very different matter if we had already sought and won and fully taken in that full-knowledge. Then we might plausibly ask for more - that is a very different matter; John himself, once the beloved disciple, the Apostle of love, and thus of all mortal mankind the closest to perfection, could not endure the full glory of the Lord Jesus in majesty but fell at His feet as dead (Rev. 1:17).
If we could stretch out our hands at will and pluck down such full-knowledge as is beyond our capacity now, it would blast us.
In His mercy He has shielded us; and the mature person would not have it otherwise.
R. B. Withers
"Now you are Christ’s body and members out of part; (you) whom God indeed placed in the Church -- first apostles; second prophets; third, teachers; thereupon powers; thereupon grace-effects of health, supports, pilotage, breeds of tongues. Not all are apostles, Not all are prophets, Not all are powers, Not all are having grace-effects of health, Not all are talking tongues, Not all are interpreting. Yet be zealous (regarding) the grace-effects - the greater ones. And still (a) way according to transcendence I am showing you." And the Apostle Paul then goes on to his splendid exhortation in praise of love.
The important thing to observe is that for these Corinthian believers to whom this section of the epistle was primarily addressed, the membership of the body was … EK MEROUS, out-of-part, that is to say partial, immature. This by itself shows that the section to which this belongs did not have mature believers in mind. There was no need to address all that to such; for, being mature, they necessarily already have the love which is "the tie of maturity" (Col. 3:14) and which is over all the virtues to be put on, listed in Col. 3:12,13 as "pitiful compassion, kindness, humility of disposition, meekness, patience, bearing with one another and dealing graciously among yourselves." To these there would be no need to show a way suited to transcendence.
So the immature were exhorted to "follow after" the love of which Paul wrote. While they were pursuing the Ideal they were also to be zealous for the spiritual things which were eventually to be discarded when they reached the goal of “the perfect" or mature, of whatsoever in any matter is mature … although the conditions were transcient, the provision for them was necessary.
Furthermore, the majority of believers have been immature ever since, but there is no excuse whatsoever for any to be in that state, let alone remain in it. Paul showed them a path according to transcendence. His words in First Corinthians 13 commending that path are some of the best known in Scripture, yet few read them and become mature.
Nearly as much is said about LOVE in Ephesians and the eight epistles that follow it as in the whole of the Greek Scriptures that precede it, and in that grand and somewhat neglected epistle, First John, the noun occurs no less than eighteen times. The verb to love occurs more frequently in those nine epistles than in the earlier ones, but the occurrences in the writings of John transcend in number everything else. However, anyone who wants to study the connection between LOVE and what is mature or "perfect” has only to study the occurrences of the word in the Prison Epistles. No Scripture neglects the subject. Some modern critics have asserted that the Revelation or Unveiling is a "ferocious book" and perhaps in a way it is, since it describes the eventual triumph by force of the Lord Jesus over His enemies; yet even so, the idea of love is found in Chapters 1.5; 2.14,19; 3.9; 12:11; and 20.9.
The second supremely great prayer in Ephesians (3:19) leads up to the climax "To get to know besides, the knowledge-transcending love of the Christ, that you may be filled up into the entire fullness of God." There is nothing beyond that!
From this we can legitimately regard all the lesser gifts or "spirituals" as being obsolete now. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that prophesying is continuing up to the present moment. Then, according to I Cor. 14.29-33, there must be prophets amongst us now when we assemble. Where are they? Reviewing in my mind the believers I have known, I then have to ask concerning them: "Is even one of them a prophet?" Certainly I would not care to make such a claim for myself, or for anyone else I have ever met. From experience, there is one thing I fully know. I have no means of getting any knowledge from, God, His Christ and His purposes, except through careful and thorough study of His Word, sometimes very arduous study, too; and I do not for one moment believe that at this present time anyone on earth is any better off. There are plenty of people who claim to have such direct knowledge of God; but they all display one thing in common: when they state any such revelation in plain language, it invariably turns out to be contrary to the Scriptures; that is, on the rare occasions when it has any contact with them at all.
Surely the answer is that the prophets of whom Paul wrote functioned only when some special personal need arose, some special message. Apostles and others specially commissioned such as Mark, Luke and James, had the function of writing Scripture itself; we are not told that any of these were prophets as well. The first two certainly wrote their Gospels when directly associated with the Apostles. Once the Scriptures were completed, there was nothing of that sort left to be accomplished.
What could any prophet tell us, which God desires us to know, that is not already available to us in the Scriptures? We do not NEED any prophets now; and nobody would desire the services of any prophets except either as a substitute for the labor of research, or for idle or selfish curiosity. For God has given us in the Scriptures all we need to know and all we ought to wish to know. In them is available that full-knowledge of which Paul wrote in I Corinthians 13:12. It might be a very different matter if we had already sought and won and fully taken in that full-knowledge. Then we might plausibly ask for more - that is a very different matter; John himself, once the beloved disciple, the Apostle of love, and thus of all mortal mankind the closest to perfection, could not endure the full glory of the Lord Jesus in majesty but fell at His feet as dead (Rev. 1:17).
If we could stretch out our hands at will and pluck down such full-knowledge as is beyond our capacity now, it would blast us.
In His mercy He has shielded us; and the mature person would not have it otherwise.
R. B. Withers
Who then, was Jesus?
He could not have been merely a man, for there never was a man who had two consecutive thoughts absolute in truthful perfection.
Jesus must have been what Christendom proclaims Him to be - a divine being - or He could not have been what He was. No mind but an infinite mind could have left behind those things which Jesus gave to the world as a heritage.
Adlai Loudy
Jesus must have been what Christendom proclaims Him to be - a divine being - or He could not have been what He was. No mind but an infinite mind could have left behind those things which Jesus gave to the world as a heritage.
Adlai Loudy
Standing Against Error
Time was when many quite ordinary men and women were sufficiently mighty in the Scriptures by themselves to make the stand against error that we ALL should be making. Those who have such gifts ought to be on call for helping others, though this need not require outstanding intelligence or some highly recognized degree of learning.
The translation and understanding of the Greek original has been illuminated now by so much research that the ordinary person should be able to stand on his own feet against all adversaries, relying only on the power of the Word alone and the Holy Spirit Who speaks therein. What is often lacking in making a stand for the truth is not the ability to befit one's self; it is rather the lack of the WILL to do so; the consuming love of truth that ought to burn in us all.
It is a solemn fact (and for the Christian it also should be a most alarming one) that each time a person turns aside from truth in favor of some teacher's dogma, he makes the task of retracing his steps more and more difficult. The human mind tends to move in set patterns of thought, so as long as the mind conforms to the pattern of Scripture, it faithfully reflects the spirit and teaching of Scripture. On the other hand, if the mind is permitted to run in accord with a pattern of some dogma which a different mind has devised contrary to Scripture, that will very soon change the pattern into something altogether different from Scripture; and, worse still, neither mind will be aware of that perversion. Of all such things let us beware.
Excerpted from an editorial in Treasures of Truth, circa 1972.
The translation and understanding of the Greek original has been illuminated now by so much research that the ordinary person should be able to stand on his own feet against all adversaries, relying only on the power of the Word alone and the Holy Spirit Who speaks therein. What is often lacking in making a stand for the truth is not the ability to befit one's self; it is rather the lack of the WILL to do so; the consuming love of truth that ought to burn in us all.
It is a solemn fact (and for the Christian it also should be a most alarming one) that each time a person turns aside from truth in favor of some teacher's dogma, he makes the task of retracing his steps more and more difficult. The human mind tends to move in set patterns of thought, so as long as the mind conforms to the pattern of Scripture, it faithfully reflects the spirit and teaching of Scripture. On the other hand, if the mind is permitted to run in accord with a pattern of some dogma which a different mind has devised contrary to Scripture, that will very soon change the pattern into something altogether different from Scripture; and, worse still, neither mind will be aware of that perversion. Of all such things let us beware.
Excerpted from an editorial in Treasures of Truth, circa 1972.
"Ephesian Truth"
Not long ago someone pointed out that very little was said in our publication about what he called "Ephesian truth." The later issues of "Things to Come" and the earlier issues of "The Berean Expositor" some forty years ago were cited, and this was made the basis of a suggestion that in some way our ministry was therefore inferior in quality.
This notion is based on a misunderstanding, the idea that Ephesians exists detached from the Scriptures that were written before it. This is the very notion that my first contributions were written to dispel. Paul's Epistles form a unity, and any attempt to split them between two “Dispensations" can only spoil them.
The reason why I have said comparatively little about the truths specially set out in the Prison Epistles is that I have had plenty to do clearing and repairing the foundations. It is no use to live in cloud-castles. However celestial our standing may be, we have got to keep in mind that it is solidly based on terrestrial history and truths revealed to us on earth. That is why I am so strongly opposed to the (untrue) "Acts 28.28 frontier" teachings which involve putting such stress on so-called "Ephesian truth". The exponents of these ideas are like men who have climbed up on to a roof by a ladder, and then kicked it away. Everything they teach about "Ephesian truth" is vitiated by the unsound assumptions beneath and behind it.
The trouble with these attempts to dwell in "Ephesian truth" is the same as that with people who regard material things and the resurrection of the body as "unspiritual". They are, in actual fact, attempting to be more "spiritual" than God Himself. If the Word did not shrink from becoming flesh, we most certainly ought not to assume a disdainful superiority over material things as the self-styled "spiritual" folk do.
It is most strange that people who admit that the Secret of Ephesians 3:6-12 is through the Evangel of which Paul became dispenser, nevertheless in practice treat that Evangel almost as something beneath notice. The chief exponent of the "Acts 28:28 frontier" theory found himself forced to build his "Ephesian temple" with "Roman stones"; but Romans is not a ruin to be disposed of in such a way. It is an integral part of a superb edifice of which the Prison Epistles are the completion. It is not as if any of us fully understood the Evangel. None of us do, least of all those who in practice are so ready to put much of it away into a past "dispensation”. If we did, we would not want to leave it out of reckoning; we would instead want to study its manifold relations with the glories founded upon it. Realization of these facts makes me exceedingly cautious about accepting anything at all set out by these writers concerning the Prison Epistles; not that it is necessarily wrong but because it is based on a false general view of Scripture.
R. B. Withers
This notion is based on a misunderstanding, the idea that Ephesians exists detached from the Scriptures that were written before it. This is the very notion that my first contributions were written to dispel. Paul's Epistles form a unity, and any attempt to split them between two “Dispensations" can only spoil them.
The reason why I have said comparatively little about the truths specially set out in the Prison Epistles is that I have had plenty to do clearing and repairing the foundations. It is no use to live in cloud-castles. However celestial our standing may be, we have got to keep in mind that it is solidly based on terrestrial history and truths revealed to us on earth. That is why I am so strongly opposed to the (untrue) "Acts 28.28 frontier" teachings which involve putting such stress on so-called "Ephesian truth". The exponents of these ideas are like men who have climbed up on to a roof by a ladder, and then kicked it away. Everything they teach about "Ephesian truth" is vitiated by the unsound assumptions beneath and behind it.
The trouble with these attempts to dwell in "Ephesian truth" is the same as that with people who regard material things and the resurrection of the body as "unspiritual". They are, in actual fact, attempting to be more "spiritual" than God Himself. If the Word did not shrink from becoming flesh, we most certainly ought not to assume a disdainful superiority over material things as the self-styled "spiritual" folk do.
It is most strange that people who admit that the Secret of Ephesians 3:6-12 is through the Evangel of which Paul became dispenser, nevertheless in practice treat that Evangel almost as something beneath notice. The chief exponent of the "Acts 28:28 frontier" theory found himself forced to build his "Ephesian temple" with "Roman stones"; but Romans is not a ruin to be disposed of in such a way. It is an integral part of a superb edifice of which the Prison Epistles are the completion. It is not as if any of us fully understood the Evangel. None of us do, least of all those who in practice are so ready to put much of it away into a past "dispensation”. If we did, we would not want to leave it out of reckoning; we would instead want to study its manifold relations with the glories founded upon it. Realization of these facts makes me exceedingly cautious about accepting anything at all set out by these writers concerning the Prison Epistles; not that it is necessarily wrong but because it is based on a false general view of Scripture.
R. B. Withers