Own Way of Thinking
I do not believe that in this world or age it is possible to do away with sects. Most believers belong to their own way of thinking, that is, to a sect. People all have their own mentality, and their way of thinking tends towards those teachings in the Bible which specially attract them. This is all in accord with nature, and it is more or less true of every one of us. If sects are altogether wrong, there is no apparent remedy at present. They have existed since the time of Paul, and he could not prevent them. They will continue until the Lord comes. Only then can we be presented holy and flawless and unimpeachable, without spot or wrinkle. It is not easy to see Eph. 4:13-16 in operation at present, especially verse 13.We must not, however, be sectarian, in closely following one man, or pushing one dogma at the expense of other truths. The real heretic is he or she who picks out one special teaching and drives it so hard that it gets out of relation to truth as a whole, and becomes magnified out of all proportion. It would not be beneficial for anyone to eat at every meal nothing but potatoes. We require some mixture and variety. The same is very true as regards doctrine.When a sect, however, claims that it is not a sect, or claims that it alone has The Truth, or most of The Truth, or when it claims that all other sects are wrong, it has become a danger. The Body of Christ cannot be built up by excluding some of the members. Paul never said, or thought, that he would become the President of the Body of Christ. He was a truly humble man. But some who have followed him are not humble, though they may feign humility. No one feels himself to be full of pride so much as the really humble person.What would Paul say if he appeared in the world again in the flesh and observed the Church of Rome? Would he permit the idea that Peter had founded in Rome a church composed of Gentiles? Once long ago, at a "Catholic Truth" lecture, I asked the priest who gave the lecture how Peter could have done this, when the very idea of such a thing must have been most repugnant to Peter. I referred to a certain passage in the New Testament, and this well-educated priest fumbled for a long time with his testament and failed to find the place. The only other occupant of the platform then helped him and found the place. How can such a Church claim to lead the world in true religion?
Alexander Thomson
Alexander Thomson
The One God...
The One God willed to become a natural Man, and thus a full Man, for many reasons, the primary of which was the redemption of angels and men.
Emanuel Swedenborg
Emanuel Swedenborg
Jehovah Himself
Jehovah Himself came into the world and became the Saviour and Redeemer.
Emanuel Swedenborg
Emanuel Swedenborg
A Matter of Grace
GRACE is a wonderful expression of the Love of God. Few have perceived its vast scope, its marvelous liberality in its realm and place of operation. The grace of God has been minimized and presented as something so skimpily and sparingly given, that most of the believers have found that they had to be very careful not to count too much on it, but to be sure to supplement it with some of their own goodness, in order to feel safe about their standing with God.
But it can be made too elastic. It can be stretched so far that it turns into lasciviousness. It can be stretched so far that it runs into plain Antinomianism.
The conclusions that the writer referred to above draws from the declared fact that this is an "administration of grace" — Eph. 3 — is that nothing but grace can be administered during this time.
Now if this holds good because this is an administration of grace, then the same principle must work when an administration is of a different character.
Thus the time from the giving of the Law at Sinai was an Administration of Law. It was a "dispensation of death" — 2 Cor. 3. — Then, on the same principle, there could not be anything but law and death administered during that time.
The grace administration allows nothing but grace.
The law administration allows nothing but law.
If one is true, both are. If one is wrong, both are.
But the writer has admitted (properly) that grace was operating all the way thru, even from Adam.
The reason it was an administration of Law was that law was the predominating factor, but it did not exclude grace.
E.A. Larsen
But it can be made too elastic. It can be stretched so far that it turns into lasciviousness. It can be stretched so far that it runs into plain Antinomianism.
The conclusions that the writer referred to above draws from the declared fact that this is an "administration of grace" — Eph. 3 — is that nothing but grace can be administered during this time.
Now if this holds good because this is an administration of grace, then the same principle must work when an administration is of a different character.
Thus the time from the giving of the Law at Sinai was an Administration of Law. It was a "dispensation of death" — 2 Cor. 3. — Then, on the same principle, there could not be anything but law and death administered during that time.
The grace administration allows nothing but grace.
The law administration allows nothing but law.
If one is true, both are. If one is wrong, both are.
But the writer has admitted (properly) that grace was operating all the way thru, even from Adam.
The reason it was an administration of Law was that law was the predominating factor, but it did not exclude grace.
E.A. Larsen
Why the "Lake" of Fire?
I have long thought that there must be in the Bible some explanation of the word Lake as found in the dread expression "Lake of Fire" in the closing chapters of Revelation.
I would suggest that the "Dead Sea" is a type of the Lake of Fire. Sometimes it is very useful to link up statements in Holy Writ, which, at first sight do not seem to be connected. This is specially true of the Old Testament, where there are very many scattered statements in the Prophets.
The Dead Sea lies in the lowest part of that great valley which stretches in a direct line due south from the base of Mount Hermon to the head of the Gulf of Akabah. This valley is a chasm or fissure in the earth's crust, being for nearly 200 miles below the level of the ocean. The Dead Sea is the reservoir into which all its waters flow, and from which there is, and can be, no escape except by evaporation.
There are terraces in the hills around, which seem to indicate that at one time the waters of the Dead Sea were as high as the Mediterranean.
There are many hot sulphur springs in the district, and in some places the smell of sulphur and rotten eggs is very strong. In the brooks and along the shores pieces of sulphur, bitumen, rock-salt, and pumice-stone, are found in great profusion.
The water in the Dead Sea is more intensely salt than that of any other sea known. It has a bitter nauseous taste. One can float easily therein in an upright position with head and shoulders above the surface. Eggs can float, with only two-thirds immersed.
The depression of the Dead Sea is without a parallel in the world. Its surface is round about 1,300 feet below the Mediterranean.
Somewhere on the shore lie buried the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, apparently destroyed by a shower of hot sulphur and an irruption of bitumen.
We must next turn to Zechariah, ch. 14. Verse 4 tells us that Jehovah's feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which will cleave into two pieces, and "Jehovah my God shall come, and all the saints with Him" (v. 5). Then v. 8 says that "On that day living waters shall flow out from, Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea; it shall continue in summer and in winter." These two seas are the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean.
Verse 10 states that "All the land shall turn into a plain, from Geba to Rimmon, south of Jerusalem,—and shall lift herself on high and abide in her own place."
Luke 17:29 mentions the fire and sulphur which rained from heaven and destroyed one and all who lived in Sodom. In Revelation 9:17-18 we read of horses which spit fire and fumes and sulphur out of their mouths, so that the third of human beings are killed. In Rev. 14:10 we next read of those worshipping the Wild Beast and his image, who will be tormented in fire and sulphur. Next, in Rev. 19:20 we learn that the Wild Beast and the False Prophet will be cast alive into the lake of the fire which is burning with sulphur, Then, in Rev. 20:10 Satan himself is cast into the lake of the fire and sulphur, to undergo his torment day and night for the ages of the ages. Finally, in Rev. 21:8, "Yet as to the cowardly, and faithless, and abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and magicians, and idolaters, and all the liars—their part is in the lake which is burning with fire and sulphur, which is the second death."
It will be noted that fire and sulphur are the remedies for those who are excessive sinners only. Nothing is said concerning sulphur in Rev. 20:15. Possibly this means that the sinners in this verse will get off comparatively lightly, when they admit their wrongdoings and repent.
Now the filling up of the Dead Sea must mean something. Its waters will become much less salty, and the stench of sulphur must disappear as the Lake becomes filled up and much deeper, wider and longer. At present no fish of any size can live in the Dead Sea, though small fishes can be seen where purer water pours into the lake from the North. The taste of the water is extremely disagreeable. When the Mediterranean flows into the lake fishes will be able to live in it, due to the "living waters."
What then about the Lake of Fire? Will it continue into what is called "eternity"? Certainly not, as Rev. 20:10 states clearly that Satan and the Wild Beast and the False Prophet will be tormented for the ages of the ages. As there is no account of the funeral of these three parties anywhere in the whole Bible, we must conclude that after their torment they obtain new life. "Behold, I am making everything new" says Rev. 21:5. This must include Satan and the others, who, in time, will be thirsting for the water of Life which is given freely (Rev. 22:17). The Lake of Fire must end up in Life, as all Death is to be abolished, not merely human death, or physical death.
The filling up of the Dead Sea area with living waters will be like the filling up of the Scroll of Life with names as sinners repent before the Great White Throne. Nowhere are we informed that all those before the Great White Throne shall be cast into the Lake of Fire, or that all sinners shall be condemned.
Sin is a deficiency, a lack of what we need, a shortcoming. We await our filling up with Holy Spirit. Eventually, all human beings will be filled full with Divine Spirit, just as the Sea of Death will be filled up and purified. Is Jehovah's hand shortened that it cannot save? Is He not Mighty to save?
We do not find the term "Dead Sea" in the Old Testament or in the New Testament. This name, in Latin, was given by Jerome, and it is very suitable. Three times it is called "the Sea of the Plain (or the Arabah), the Salt Sea": (Deut. 3:17 ; Joshua 3:16; 12:3). Six times it is called "the Salt Sea" (Gen. 14:3; Num. 34:3, 12; Joshua 15:2, 5; 18:19). Twice it is called" the Sea of the Plain" (or Arabah: 2. Kings 14:25; Deut. 4:49). Three times it is called the East, Eastern, or Former Sea (Hebrew qadmoni: Ezek. 47:18; Joel 2:20; Zech. 14:8). Modern inhabitants call it EI-Baheiret el-Myetah (The Sea the Dead); also Bahr Lut (Sea of Lot).
Another matter which ought to be considered is the fact that there have been many translations of the Bible which shew corrupt or false renderings, which have caused human beings to be sorely deceived and misled. Would not sinners have some grounds before the Great White Throne for pleading that these false translations had deceived them? Why, the corruption of the Hebrew and Greek terms for Ages to Eternal and Eternity would be enough to vindicate them.
Alexander Thomson
I would suggest that the "Dead Sea" is a type of the Lake of Fire. Sometimes it is very useful to link up statements in Holy Writ, which, at first sight do not seem to be connected. This is specially true of the Old Testament, where there are very many scattered statements in the Prophets.
The Dead Sea lies in the lowest part of that great valley which stretches in a direct line due south from the base of Mount Hermon to the head of the Gulf of Akabah. This valley is a chasm or fissure in the earth's crust, being for nearly 200 miles below the level of the ocean. The Dead Sea is the reservoir into which all its waters flow, and from which there is, and can be, no escape except by evaporation.
There are terraces in the hills around, which seem to indicate that at one time the waters of the Dead Sea were as high as the Mediterranean.
There are many hot sulphur springs in the district, and in some places the smell of sulphur and rotten eggs is very strong. In the brooks and along the shores pieces of sulphur, bitumen, rock-salt, and pumice-stone, are found in great profusion.
The water in the Dead Sea is more intensely salt than that of any other sea known. It has a bitter nauseous taste. One can float easily therein in an upright position with head and shoulders above the surface. Eggs can float, with only two-thirds immersed.
The depression of the Dead Sea is without a parallel in the world. Its surface is round about 1,300 feet below the Mediterranean.
Somewhere on the shore lie buried the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, apparently destroyed by a shower of hot sulphur and an irruption of bitumen.
We must next turn to Zechariah, ch. 14. Verse 4 tells us that Jehovah's feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which will cleave into two pieces, and "Jehovah my God shall come, and all the saints with Him" (v. 5). Then v. 8 says that "On that day living waters shall flow out from, Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea; it shall continue in summer and in winter." These two seas are the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean.
Verse 10 states that "All the land shall turn into a plain, from Geba to Rimmon, south of Jerusalem,—and shall lift herself on high and abide in her own place."
Luke 17:29 mentions the fire and sulphur which rained from heaven and destroyed one and all who lived in Sodom. In Revelation 9:17-18 we read of horses which spit fire and fumes and sulphur out of their mouths, so that the third of human beings are killed. In Rev. 14:10 we next read of those worshipping the Wild Beast and his image, who will be tormented in fire and sulphur. Next, in Rev. 19:20 we learn that the Wild Beast and the False Prophet will be cast alive into the lake of the fire which is burning with sulphur, Then, in Rev. 20:10 Satan himself is cast into the lake of the fire and sulphur, to undergo his torment day and night for the ages of the ages. Finally, in Rev. 21:8, "Yet as to the cowardly, and faithless, and abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and magicians, and idolaters, and all the liars—their part is in the lake which is burning with fire and sulphur, which is the second death."
It will be noted that fire and sulphur are the remedies for those who are excessive sinners only. Nothing is said concerning sulphur in Rev. 20:15. Possibly this means that the sinners in this verse will get off comparatively lightly, when they admit their wrongdoings and repent.
Now the filling up of the Dead Sea must mean something. Its waters will become much less salty, and the stench of sulphur must disappear as the Lake becomes filled up and much deeper, wider and longer. At present no fish of any size can live in the Dead Sea, though small fishes can be seen where purer water pours into the lake from the North. The taste of the water is extremely disagreeable. When the Mediterranean flows into the lake fishes will be able to live in it, due to the "living waters."
What then about the Lake of Fire? Will it continue into what is called "eternity"? Certainly not, as Rev. 20:10 states clearly that Satan and the Wild Beast and the False Prophet will be tormented for the ages of the ages. As there is no account of the funeral of these three parties anywhere in the whole Bible, we must conclude that after their torment they obtain new life. "Behold, I am making everything new" says Rev. 21:5. This must include Satan and the others, who, in time, will be thirsting for the water of Life which is given freely (Rev. 22:17). The Lake of Fire must end up in Life, as all Death is to be abolished, not merely human death, or physical death.
The filling up of the Dead Sea area with living waters will be like the filling up of the Scroll of Life with names as sinners repent before the Great White Throne. Nowhere are we informed that all those before the Great White Throne shall be cast into the Lake of Fire, or that all sinners shall be condemned.
Sin is a deficiency, a lack of what we need, a shortcoming. We await our filling up with Holy Spirit. Eventually, all human beings will be filled full with Divine Spirit, just as the Sea of Death will be filled up and purified. Is Jehovah's hand shortened that it cannot save? Is He not Mighty to save?
We do not find the term "Dead Sea" in the Old Testament or in the New Testament. This name, in Latin, was given by Jerome, and it is very suitable. Three times it is called "the Sea of the Plain (or the Arabah), the Salt Sea": (Deut. 3:17 ; Joshua 3:16; 12:3). Six times it is called "the Salt Sea" (Gen. 14:3; Num. 34:3, 12; Joshua 15:2, 5; 18:19). Twice it is called" the Sea of the Plain" (or Arabah: 2. Kings 14:25; Deut. 4:49). Three times it is called the East, Eastern, or Former Sea (Hebrew qadmoni: Ezek. 47:18; Joel 2:20; Zech. 14:8). Modern inhabitants call it EI-Baheiret el-Myetah (The Sea the Dead); also Bahr Lut (Sea of Lot).
Another matter which ought to be considered is the fact that there have been many translations of the Bible which shew corrupt or false renderings, which have caused human beings to be sorely deceived and misled. Would not sinners have some grounds before the Great White Throne for pleading that these false translations had deceived them? Why, the corruption of the Hebrew and Greek terms for Ages to Eternal and Eternity would be enough to vindicate them.
Alexander Thomson
What is Conscience?
Six hundred years ago much consideration must have been given in Old England to Conscience, as round about the year 1340 two important works Were written by eminent members of the Body of Christ. Dan Michel of Kent translated from the French into English a treatise, under the title of "The Ayenbite of Inwyt" (or The Remorse of Conscience, literally, Again-bite or Back-biting of Inner Knowledge or Consciousness), while Richard Rolle of Hampole, Yorkshire, wrote a famous long poem called "The Pricke of Conscience."
The word Conscience is a Latin term, signifying together knowledge, that is, a consciousness of all the facts taken together; an honest and full view of all the features concerned. The Old English word Inwyt means much the same, inner witness, and has nothing to do with the modern meaning of the word wit as referring to what is jocular.
Conscience is defined as the knowledge of our own acts and feelings as right or wrong; sense of duty; scrupulousness; the faculty or principle by which we distinguish right from wrong.
The Greek term found over thirty times in the New Testament (suneidEsis) expresses the same idea of all-round awareness or consciousness. The ancient Gothic version of sixteen hundred years ago (old English-German) expresses the same ideas, all-round reflection and consideration, careful and serious thought.
Dr. Bullinger gave a very fine definition of the Greek term in his Concordance: "a knowing with one's self, consciousness; the being one's own witness; the testimony to one's own conduct borne by consciousness, esp. the consciousness man has of himself in his relation to God, manifesting itself in the form of a self-testimony. Consequently it is the effect and result of faith, for a man's conscience will never condemn that which he believes to be right, and vice versa; hence the only conscience worth having is that which springs from 'a faith unfeigned,' see 1. Tim. 1:5."
Webster & Wilkinson say that the conscience is a spiritual instinct, which operates without any active energy of the. intellectual faculty, while "a good conscience" is one which governs itself by sound reason, and adopts for its own regulation the rule of God's will, especially as revealed in His word.
Paul could commend the sensitiveness of Timothy, who was genuinely concerned about the affairs of the Philippians (Phil. 2:20). Timothy's interest in them was very conscientious and unselfish. Paul knew of no one equally sensitive.
But as for the rest, all of them were seeking their own interests, not the interests of Christ Jesus (v. 20). Paul put the facts very bluntly. And to-day he could have said the same things about the Body of Christ as a whole.
When the Lord washed the feet of His disciples we may be sure this was done naturally and spontaneously, humbly and without affectation. He did not do this to make Himself seem very pious, or to create a fine reputation for Himself. Immanuel—with us GOD—could do such things, but we cannot stoop so low, because our humility is not genuine enough; it is too artificial and too sophisticated.
Dr. John A. Mackay, in "God's Order," warns believers to be careful lest they should confuse the cause of Truth with the attempt to consolidate their own position and insure their own prestige. He mentions the difficulty which leaders have in losing themselves in a cause.
How can we be sure that any leader is acting honestly and conscientiously? We can prove this if he is obeying the precept found in Phil. 2:4—humbly deeming others to be superior to himself, and not taking cognizance only of his own affairs, but those of people who are different from him. It cannot be wrong to take a kindly and conscientious interest in our spiritual relatives and fellow-members. Paul, in fact, forbids self-seeking in 1. Cor. 10:24, and in ch. 12:22-26 advocates the divine principle that if the humbler members of the Body are accorded proper honour, the Body will be so blended that it will shew no schism.
Let us, in our meetings and gatherings, in our correspondence with others, in our prayers for all the saints of God, make a positive and deliberate effort to render special honour and respect to those plain and unpretentious members of the Body of Christ who are apt to be neglected or forgotten.
Schisms arise largely through the adherents in a movement showering too much laud and glory upon their leader. Where the leader fails to lose himself completely in the cause for which he is fighting, and permits himself to be lionized, he permits a new sect to come into being, and is therefore guilty.
It is quite wrong for anyone to condemn sectarianism if he cannot point to a definite remedy. Paul has stated the proper remedy, but we do not see it being observed among us. It is not enough to say the true course is to obey Paul's charge that we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, unless and until we also obey other precepts, such as shewing proper honour to the humbler members of Christ's Body. None of us can keep the unity of the spirit simply by thinking or assuming that we are so doing. Conscience cannot thus be satisfied.
Just picture to yourself what would happen were the high dignitaries in the State Churches to discard their grand vestments and insignia, and descend to the level of the plain deacon (that is, anyone who helps in Christian work). What a real revival in Christian effort this would create! Nothing would fill the Churches more quickly. But alas, these dignitaries are too conscious of money and position and reputation; what they lack is conscience—not only conscience towards their fellow men, but towards the God they claim to worship.
But are matters any better in the many sects which have sprung up outside the Churches within the past two hundred years? Not one bit.
Far too often men or women are quite ready to "reign as kings" or queens (1. Cor. 4:8) over their subjects, who become obligated to stand by all their actions and opinions, even when they know these are wrong.
There is none of us who lives to himself or herself (Rom. 14:7). We have a conscientious duty towards every human being with whom we come in contact, especially those who belong to God. Let us not become like neighbours and gossips who are satisfied with only one side of the story. How seldom do we hear of someone insisting on getting the other side of the story. An active conscience will take into account a sufficient modicum of the salient facts and features and aspects. Our "inner witness" must review all the pros and cons. If necessary, we must be prepared to swear to our own hurt: it is not a very difficult operation. Until we learn how to do that, we shall never ascend the Holy Hill of Jehovah (Pss. 15 and 25).
In the Old Testament, if there is no word rendered conscience, there are some words (tham, thom, thummah) which probably mean something very close to conscience. These words occur over forty times and are translated by "integrity," "perfect," "upright," "simplicity," etc. Jacob is called a "plain" man (Gen. 25:27). The R.S. Version makes him a "quiet" man, while the New World Version says he was a "harmless" man (or, sound, innocent). Alford also puts "harmless (literally, perfect, blameless)," as designating Jacob's gentleness and innocence. Some have suggested that the true meaning is sincere, artless, or aimless. But aimlessness has no congruity with integrity. "Flawless" has been suggested, but this goes too far and says too much. Jacob was not quite flawless. Can anyone possess integrity and be upright who does not act conscientiously? A thoroughly sincere person would be conscientious, but Job was more than sincere: I think his claim was that he was conscientious. That is why he became a special target for Satan's malignance.
The word integrity speaks of wholeness, completeness; an unimpaired state. The integer is literally something left "un-touched" or unbroken. Conscience implies a wholeness of judgment or outlook. May this wholeness be our great aim in life as we study God's revelation, and in all our relationships with one another. Conscience in the world is very weak and ineffective, but within the Body of Christ it ought to dominate all our actions.
Alexander Thomson
The word Conscience is a Latin term, signifying together knowledge, that is, a consciousness of all the facts taken together; an honest and full view of all the features concerned. The Old English word Inwyt means much the same, inner witness, and has nothing to do with the modern meaning of the word wit as referring to what is jocular.
Conscience is defined as the knowledge of our own acts and feelings as right or wrong; sense of duty; scrupulousness; the faculty or principle by which we distinguish right from wrong.
The Greek term found over thirty times in the New Testament (suneidEsis) expresses the same idea of all-round awareness or consciousness. The ancient Gothic version of sixteen hundred years ago (old English-German) expresses the same ideas, all-round reflection and consideration, careful and serious thought.
Dr. Bullinger gave a very fine definition of the Greek term in his Concordance: "a knowing with one's self, consciousness; the being one's own witness; the testimony to one's own conduct borne by consciousness, esp. the consciousness man has of himself in his relation to God, manifesting itself in the form of a self-testimony. Consequently it is the effect and result of faith, for a man's conscience will never condemn that which he believes to be right, and vice versa; hence the only conscience worth having is that which springs from 'a faith unfeigned,' see 1. Tim. 1:5."
Webster & Wilkinson say that the conscience is a spiritual instinct, which operates without any active energy of the. intellectual faculty, while "a good conscience" is one which governs itself by sound reason, and adopts for its own regulation the rule of God's will, especially as revealed in His word.
Paul could commend the sensitiveness of Timothy, who was genuinely concerned about the affairs of the Philippians (Phil. 2:20). Timothy's interest in them was very conscientious and unselfish. Paul knew of no one equally sensitive.
But as for the rest, all of them were seeking their own interests, not the interests of Christ Jesus (v. 20). Paul put the facts very bluntly. And to-day he could have said the same things about the Body of Christ as a whole.
When the Lord washed the feet of His disciples we may be sure this was done naturally and spontaneously, humbly and without affectation. He did not do this to make Himself seem very pious, or to create a fine reputation for Himself. Immanuel—with us GOD—could do such things, but we cannot stoop so low, because our humility is not genuine enough; it is too artificial and too sophisticated.
Dr. John A. Mackay, in "God's Order," warns believers to be careful lest they should confuse the cause of Truth with the attempt to consolidate their own position and insure their own prestige. He mentions the difficulty which leaders have in losing themselves in a cause.
How can we be sure that any leader is acting honestly and conscientiously? We can prove this if he is obeying the precept found in Phil. 2:4—humbly deeming others to be superior to himself, and not taking cognizance only of his own affairs, but those of people who are different from him. It cannot be wrong to take a kindly and conscientious interest in our spiritual relatives and fellow-members. Paul, in fact, forbids self-seeking in 1. Cor. 10:24, and in ch. 12:22-26 advocates the divine principle that if the humbler members of the Body are accorded proper honour, the Body will be so blended that it will shew no schism.
Let us, in our meetings and gatherings, in our correspondence with others, in our prayers for all the saints of God, make a positive and deliberate effort to render special honour and respect to those plain and unpretentious members of the Body of Christ who are apt to be neglected or forgotten.
Schisms arise largely through the adherents in a movement showering too much laud and glory upon their leader. Where the leader fails to lose himself completely in the cause for which he is fighting, and permits himself to be lionized, he permits a new sect to come into being, and is therefore guilty.
It is quite wrong for anyone to condemn sectarianism if he cannot point to a definite remedy. Paul has stated the proper remedy, but we do not see it being observed among us. It is not enough to say the true course is to obey Paul's charge that we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, unless and until we also obey other precepts, such as shewing proper honour to the humbler members of Christ's Body. None of us can keep the unity of the spirit simply by thinking or assuming that we are so doing. Conscience cannot thus be satisfied.
Just picture to yourself what would happen were the high dignitaries in the State Churches to discard their grand vestments and insignia, and descend to the level of the plain deacon (that is, anyone who helps in Christian work). What a real revival in Christian effort this would create! Nothing would fill the Churches more quickly. But alas, these dignitaries are too conscious of money and position and reputation; what they lack is conscience—not only conscience towards their fellow men, but towards the God they claim to worship.
But are matters any better in the many sects which have sprung up outside the Churches within the past two hundred years? Not one bit.
Far too often men or women are quite ready to "reign as kings" or queens (1. Cor. 4:8) over their subjects, who become obligated to stand by all their actions and opinions, even when they know these are wrong.
There is none of us who lives to himself or herself (Rom. 14:7). We have a conscientious duty towards every human being with whom we come in contact, especially those who belong to God. Let us not become like neighbours and gossips who are satisfied with only one side of the story. How seldom do we hear of someone insisting on getting the other side of the story. An active conscience will take into account a sufficient modicum of the salient facts and features and aspects. Our "inner witness" must review all the pros and cons. If necessary, we must be prepared to swear to our own hurt: it is not a very difficult operation. Until we learn how to do that, we shall never ascend the Holy Hill of Jehovah (Pss. 15 and 25).
In the Old Testament, if there is no word rendered conscience, there are some words (tham, thom, thummah) which probably mean something very close to conscience. These words occur over forty times and are translated by "integrity," "perfect," "upright," "simplicity," etc. Jacob is called a "plain" man (Gen. 25:27). The R.S. Version makes him a "quiet" man, while the New World Version says he was a "harmless" man (or, sound, innocent). Alford also puts "harmless (literally, perfect, blameless)," as designating Jacob's gentleness and innocence. Some have suggested that the true meaning is sincere, artless, or aimless. But aimlessness has no congruity with integrity. "Flawless" has been suggested, but this goes too far and says too much. Jacob was not quite flawless. Can anyone possess integrity and be upright who does not act conscientiously? A thoroughly sincere person would be conscientious, but Job was more than sincere: I think his claim was that he was conscientious. That is why he became a special target for Satan's malignance.
The word integrity speaks of wholeness, completeness; an unimpaired state. The integer is literally something left "un-touched" or unbroken. Conscience implies a wholeness of judgment or outlook. May this wholeness be our great aim in life as we study God's revelation, and in all our relationships with one another. Conscience in the world is very weak and ineffective, but within the Body of Christ it ought to dominate all our actions.
Alexander Thomson
Great Wonder
I do not separate Christ from God any more than a voice from the speaker or a ray from the sun. Christ is in the Father as a voice from the speaker. He and the Father are as the ray and the sun are one light. An amazing mystery it is that God can thus be cojoined with man and man with God. A great wonder that God has taken to himself the body of Christ that it should be his peculiar dwelling place.
Michael Servetus
Michael Servetus
John 16:13
Yet whenever that may be coming -- the spirit of truth --it will be guiding you into all the truth, for it will not be speaking from itself, but whatsoever it should be hearing will it be speaking, and of what is coming will it be informing you.
God-Man
The first verse of John's Gospel tells us that "In beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word was face to face with God, and God was the Word." If we read as most versions do in the final clause, it must be "and the Word was God." At the beginning of his first Epistle, John tells us about the "Word of Life," that living or life-giving Word that was manifested, that Eonian Life which indeed was face to face with the Father.
Everything which came into being did so through that Word (John 1:3). Paul tells us that all things in heaven and on earth have been created through God's Image (Col. 1:16). But should there be any dubiety as to who or what this Word is, Rev. 19:13-16 will dispel this, for He is called, "King of kings and Lord of lords."
In ancient times that Word was face to face with God, the Father. But now, John shews that He has come face to face with Mankind.
"And the Word becomes Flesh," says John. He does not say it united with flesh, or fell upon flesh, or assumed flesh. The Word becomes something which it was not before. And if that Word appears in flesh as Jesus Christ, the Son of God, that is, a Man, why should not that Man, or God-Man, of the Old Testament theophanies, Who spoke for God and represented God, be the same Word or Expressor of God? Could He be anyone else? Were there two distinct Beings who have expressed God? One who could appear at times in glorious form, and another in weakly flesh?
"Supernatural beings," says our Unitarian friend, "cannot enter sympathetically into the experience of human woes, because they do not sin or suffer temptation through flesh that they do not have." This statement would make God the Father a very unsympathetic Being, and it would rule out a mass of very comforting texts upon which we have been relying. And those messengers of Heb. 1:13-14, are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth for service on account of those about to fall heir to salvation? They must be supernatural, as human beings are not spirits.
But we have One who, admittedly, had a supernatural human birth, although He knew no sin whatever. But he was nothing more than a lucky human being? He might have been anybody?
If the Lord Jesus had no pre-existence of any kind or form, some verses will be extremely difficult to explain or understand. Let us test a few of them.
Gal. 4:4: "Now when the fullness of the time comes, God sends forth His Son, coming to be (genomenon) of (ek; out of) a woman, coming to be (genomenon) under law." Here for "coming to be" the A.V. reads "made," while the R.V. erroneously reads "born," which would require a spelling in the Greek slightly different, gennOmenon, as found at Luke 1:35, to which we shall later refer. The two verbs are quite distinct, BECOME, come to be, come into being, occur, come to pass, is ginomai; while be born, beget, generate, is gennaO.
Now, while it is perfectly true that the Lord was born of a woman, in addition, He came to be of a woman. To speak thus of an ordinary human being would be rather absurd. More true would it be to assert that human beings come into being through two parents. Nor could it be asserted that the One seen in Old Testament times "came to be" of a woman. No wonder Douglas Edwards, in his fine book, "The Virgin Birth in History and Faith" (1943: Faber & Faber, London), asks, "Why does St. Paul, when writing of the earthly origins of Jesus Christ, consistently refuse to employ the ordinary Greek word for being 'born'?"
The other day, I picked up cheap a book on "The Virgin Birth," by a man who ridiculed this idea altogether. He demanded to know why such a doctrine was not blazed forth by every New Testament writer, if it was true. Edwards, however, proves beyond all doubt that every N.T. writer was well aware of the fact, but had some modesty, a virtue not known to most of those who are unyielding to God and His Truth.
Rom. 1:3: "Concerning His Son, Him coming to be (genomenou) out of David's seed according to flesh." Here again Paul, for very good reasons, known to himself, avoids the common word "born," and uses an unusual word. Phil. 2:6-8: "Who, all-along-existing (huparchOn) in God's form, deems it not pillaging to be equal to God, but empties Himself, taking slave-form, coming to be (genomenos) in likeness of human beings, and in fashion being found as a human being, He humbles Himself, becoming (genomenos) obedient unto death, yet a cross-death."
Most singular it is, that this passage is all but ignored in the pamphlet we are reviewing. All that is stated is that remarks already made upon Christ's pre-existence in the divine mind and purpose cover this passage. Thus the paramount passage in the New Testament which clearly indicates the pre-existence of Christ is got rid of. We must protest. That is not the method to employ in seeking for divine Truth.
We cannot possess that humility or humble-disposition which will cause us to deem others better than ourselves, unless we acquire that disposition which is and was in Christ Jesus. That disposition, however, did not find its origin on our earth. Was the Lord in God's form while He was on earth among men? Had the chiefs of this eon known Who the Lord was, had He appeared in the form of God, we may be very certain they would never have dared to crucify Him (1. Cor. 2:8).
But He came clothed in that humble disposition which is the loveliest characteristic of the God of Heaven. True humility has its root and origin in God Himself.
Not only did Christ Jesus in ancient times (as our quotations from the Hebrew writings shew) subsist in God's form, but we translate that He was "all along existing" thus. One of the most interesting Greek words in the Bible is this term, huparchO (UNDER-ORIGINate). We recommend a study of its occurrences as meaning something akin to "exist all along, be for a long time." Essential it is that some time element must be shewn. It signifies more than existence; rather existence for a time. The first part of the word (hupo, UNDER), may be suspected of bearing a signification like "out of sight" in some cases, or referring to that which is not prominent.
As the word is of some importance in this passage, a little study of other occurrences will be of great help. Jairus had long time been chief of the synagogue (Luke 8:41). We cannot render it that he "possessed the chieftainship of the synagogue," as archOn only means chief, and it is nominative, not accusative, which would have been archonta. This word never means belong or possess, which are very discordant ideas.
It is not only the one inherently smaller or lesser among you all who is great (Luke 9:48), but the one who long time has been so. Real humility is not a virtue to be acquired quickly.
Alexander Thomson
Everything which came into being did so through that Word (John 1:3). Paul tells us that all things in heaven and on earth have been created through God's Image (Col. 1:16). But should there be any dubiety as to who or what this Word is, Rev. 19:13-16 will dispel this, for He is called, "King of kings and Lord of lords."
In ancient times that Word was face to face with God, the Father. But now, John shews that He has come face to face with Mankind.
"And the Word becomes Flesh," says John. He does not say it united with flesh, or fell upon flesh, or assumed flesh. The Word becomes something which it was not before. And if that Word appears in flesh as Jesus Christ, the Son of God, that is, a Man, why should not that Man, or God-Man, of the Old Testament theophanies, Who spoke for God and represented God, be the same Word or Expressor of God? Could He be anyone else? Were there two distinct Beings who have expressed God? One who could appear at times in glorious form, and another in weakly flesh?
"Supernatural beings," says our Unitarian friend, "cannot enter sympathetically into the experience of human woes, because they do not sin or suffer temptation through flesh that they do not have." This statement would make God the Father a very unsympathetic Being, and it would rule out a mass of very comforting texts upon which we have been relying. And those messengers of Heb. 1:13-14, are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth for service on account of those about to fall heir to salvation? They must be supernatural, as human beings are not spirits.
But we have One who, admittedly, had a supernatural human birth, although He knew no sin whatever. But he was nothing more than a lucky human being? He might have been anybody?
If the Lord Jesus had no pre-existence of any kind or form, some verses will be extremely difficult to explain or understand. Let us test a few of them.
Gal. 4:4: "Now when the fullness of the time comes, God sends forth His Son, coming to be (genomenon) of (ek; out of) a woman, coming to be (genomenon) under law." Here for "coming to be" the A.V. reads "made," while the R.V. erroneously reads "born," which would require a spelling in the Greek slightly different, gennOmenon, as found at Luke 1:35, to which we shall later refer. The two verbs are quite distinct, BECOME, come to be, come into being, occur, come to pass, is ginomai; while be born, beget, generate, is gennaO.
Now, while it is perfectly true that the Lord was born of a woman, in addition, He came to be of a woman. To speak thus of an ordinary human being would be rather absurd. More true would it be to assert that human beings come into being through two parents. Nor could it be asserted that the One seen in Old Testament times "came to be" of a woman. No wonder Douglas Edwards, in his fine book, "The Virgin Birth in History and Faith" (1943: Faber & Faber, London), asks, "Why does St. Paul, when writing of the earthly origins of Jesus Christ, consistently refuse to employ the ordinary Greek word for being 'born'?"
The other day, I picked up cheap a book on "The Virgin Birth," by a man who ridiculed this idea altogether. He demanded to know why such a doctrine was not blazed forth by every New Testament writer, if it was true. Edwards, however, proves beyond all doubt that every N.T. writer was well aware of the fact, but had some modesty, a virtue not known to most of those who are unyielding to God and His Truth.
Rom. 1:3: "Concerning His Son, Him coming to be (genomenou) out of David's seed according to flesh." Here again Paul, for very good reasons, known to himself, avoids the common word "born," and uses an unusual word. Phil. 2:6-8: "Who, all-along-existing (huparchOn) in God's form, deems it not pillaging to be equal to God, but empties Himself, taking slave-form, coming to be (genomenos) in likeness of human beings, and in fashion being found as a human being, He humbles Himself, becoming (genomenos) obedient unto death, yet a cross-death."
Most singular it is, that this passage is all but ignored in the pamphlet we are reviewing. All that is stated is that remarks already made upon Christ's pre-existence in the divine mind and purpose cover this passage. Thus the paramount passage in the New Testament which clearly indicates the pre-existence of Christ is got rid of. We must protest. That is not the method to employ in seeking for divine Truth.
We cannot possess that humility or humble-disposition which will cause us to deem others better than ourselves, unless we acquire that disposition which is and was in Christ Jesus. That disposition, however, did not find its origin on our earth. Was the Lord in God's form while He was on earth among men? Had the chiefs of this eon known Who the Lord was, had He appeared in the form of God, we may be very certain they would never have dared to crucify Him (1. Cor. 2:8).
But He came clothed in that humble disposition which is the loveliest characteristic of the God of Heaven. True humility has its root and origin in God Himself.
Not only did Christ Jesus in ancient times (as our quotations from the Hebrew writings shew) subsist in God's form, but we translate that He was "all along existing" thus. One of the most interesting Greek words in the Bible is this term, huparchO (UNDER-ORIGINate). We recommend a study of its occurrences as meaning something akin to "exist all along, be for a long time." Essential it is that some time element must be shewn. It signifies more than existence; rather existence for a time. The first part of the word (hupo, UNDER), may be suspected of bearing a signification like "out of sight" in some cases, or referring to that which is not prominent.
As the word is of some importance in this passage, a little study of other occurrences will be of great help. Jairus had long time been chief of the synagogue (Luke 8:41). We cannot render it that he "possessed the chieftainship of the synagogue," as archOn only means chief, and it is nominative, not accusative, which would have been archonta. This word never means belong or possess, which are very discordant ideas.
It is not only the one inherently smaller or lesser among you all who is great (Luke 9:48), but the one who long time has been so. Real humility is not a virtue to be acquired quickly.
Alexander Thomson
Deeper Than You Think
When we are told that the Thessalonian letters are a preparatory teaching for deeper and more mature truths set forth in later letters, we have a tendency to read them exactly that way. We will not see these as the deep truths and mature writings of Paul that they really are. Our mindset will cause us to miss the richness of each word and phrase that the apostle penned in these two letters.
Ted McDivitt
http://www.geocities.com/tws490/thess.html
Ted McDivitt
http://www.geocities.com/tws490/thess.html
Reticences of God
Where God has refrained from speaking plainly, it is our duty to do likewise, and to resist the temptation to fill in the gaps. We should respect the reticences of God as carefully as His declarations.
R. B. Withers
http://www.geocities.com/tws490/tchurchofg.html
R. B. Withers
http://www.geocities.com/tws490/tchurchofg.html
Our Only Owner
Perhaps the great key to seeing the theme of this last book in Scripture, is in the first three words in the Greek apokalupsis iEsou christou which when properly translated reads Unveiling of Jesus Christ. It is not so much concerned about the future, though indeed it has much of Israel's future contained in it, but it is an unveiling of our Lord and Saviour, our only Owner, Jesus Christ. All the Divine titles are unveilings of Him and Him alone. He is the Great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13).
Rick Farwell
http://www.geocities.com/tws490/Owner.html
Rick Farwell
http://www.geocities.com/tws490/Owner.html
Coming to Terms
There are certain terms which some of us would prefer to others as closer fidelity to truth. "Justification", for example, as widely used in translation, has some disturbing overtones to sensitive ears. "Declared righteous" comes much nearer to the inspired original.
Cecil J. Blay
http://www.geocities.com/tws490/zTTial.html
Cecil J. Blay
http://www.geocities.com/tws490/zTTial.html
Difficult Subject
I do not think that there is a more difficult subject in the Scriptures than that of the Godhead.
E. A. Larsen
http://www.geocities.com/tws490/1lthom.html
E. A. Larsen
http://www.geocities.com/tws490/1lthom.html
Objection to Revelation?
Apparently their objection is not so much to the idea of God revealing Himself to humanity as to the idea of this revelation being written down and embodied in a book. Yet no amateur who wants to construct, say, a television set objects to obtaining a book of instructions telling how this is to be done, still less does he blame the writer of such a book for his temerity in writing it and its readers for their "fundamentalism" in following it. Why should it be right to receive a revelation from God but wrong to write it down?
R. B. Withers
http://www.geocities.com/tws490/enegate.html
R. B. Withers
http://www.geocities.com/tws490/enegate.html
Said and Done
Are, as some believe, the events of history predetermined by God? Is all that has happened, is happening, and will happen set in stone? But if nothing can happen spontaneously, then isn't even God Himself unable to alter the course of events, and therefore, once the process of determination begins (and until it ends), God Himself is lacking in free will? T. J. Kinsey responds: “God doesn’t have free will? What a concept. As is the idea that, while God can know everything about a subject or object, He cannot chose to know less than everything. Or, knowing everything, that God is somehow locked into one possible subsequent behavior, not allowed to evaluate among several different courses of action or inaction. It seems to me that the central flaw of determinist theory is that it reverses the idea that God knows enough to predict all sub-God behavior, to state that lowly humans can predict God behavior. Most humans aren’t particularly knowledgeable or perceptive about other humans who are different from themselves in relatively minor respects, yet a few presume to have insights into the mind and personality of God beyond the bits that He’s revealed. Tough sell.”
The word is Logos
John is the only writer who uses logos with reference to Jesus as the Word—four times in ch. 1 of his Gospel, once in verse 1 of his first Epistle, and in Revelation 19:13. This was a necessary title for him to use when he wanted to mention the relationship between the divine revelation in the life of Jesus and the pre-existence of Jesus. This incarnate One, the Son of Mankind as He appeared in flesh, is the centre of all history. Therefore the question of His pre-existent work arises also. He did not appear from nowhere. Thus John's Gospel emphasizes very strongly the participation of the pre existent Christ in creation. The creation belongs to divine revelation just as does salvation through Him who became flesh. Both Genesis and John's Gospel commence with the words "In beginning." Christ was the Mediator both of Creation and of Revelation.
Alexander Thomson
http://www.geocities.com/tws490/hicgword.html
Alexander Thomson
http://www.geocities.com/tws490/hicgword.html