The Differentiator Revisited
is now online. Just click on the above.
Announcement
At some point, the Differentiator Revisited website located at www.geocities.com/tws490 will become inaccessible. In an effort to save the information included at the site we are moving the material to what we hope will be more permanent sites. As the sites are developed, they will be announced (See Related Sites... below). It should be noted that corrections, improvements, and additions will be made even after the sites are announced.
Thessalonians
The epistles of Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians have been referred to as Paul’s “Perfection Epistles.” They are often considered to be the “mature epistles” that are based upon the “Preparatory Epistles” such as the two Thessalonian letters, Romans, the two Corinthian letters, and Galatians. Of this list, 1Thessalonians is usually thought to be Paul’s first letter.
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.
This then, was the motivation behind this work. For most of my years as a believer, I have not appreciated these letters on the same plane as Paul’s prison epistles. The Thessalonian letters though, are indeed teaching us the deep things of God and are most definitely mature letters.
The evidence suggesting that the Thessalonian letters were written early is weak at best. The internal scriptural support of this claim doesn’t ring true. In order to say Paul penned 1Thessalonians while he was at Corinth soon after he left Berea and Athens is like trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. This should never be the case with Scripture. On the other hand, there are numerous suggestions from a variety of scriptures which support that both letters were written very late in Paul’s career.
The late R.B.Withers used a quote from Dr. Bullinger that I’d like to use in closing. He writes: “As Dr. Bullinger originally pointed out, there are no Church Epistles beyond those two to Thessalonica because there is no higher truth to be taught. There is nothing further for churches as such. What further things Paul had to say were to individual believers, to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. His final message to churches was an appeal for discipline and prayer for peace and grace. It reads like a close of a treatise, and that is precisely what it is. To attempt to lead from it to Romans or 1Corinthians, as if in a sequence, involves an absurdity.”
Ted McDivitt
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.
This then, was the motivation behind this work. For most of my years as a believer, I have not appreciated these letters on the same plane as Paul’s prison epistles. The Thessalonian letters though, are indeed teaching us the deep things of God and are most definitely mature letters.
The evidence suggesting that the Thessalonian letters were written early is weak at best. The internal scriptural support of this claim doesn’t ring true. In order to say Paul penned 1Thessalonians while he was at Corinth soon after he left Berea and Athens is like trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. This should never be the case with Scripture. On the other hand, there are numerous suggestions from a variety of scriptures which support that both letters were written very late in Paul’s career.
The late R.B.Withers used a quote from Dr. Bullinger that I’d like to use in closing. He writes: “As Dr. Bullinger originally pointed out, there are no Church Epistles beyond those two to Thessalonica because there is no higher truth to be taught. There is nothing further for churches as such. What further things Paul had to say were to individual believers, to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. His final message to churches was an appeal for discipline and prayer for peace and grace. It reads like a close of a treatise, and that is precisely what it is. To attempt to lead from it to Romans or 1Corinthians, as if in a sequence, involves an absurdity.”
Ted McDivitt
Success or Victory?
John Buchan (Lord Tweedsmuir), one of the most outstanding men Scotland has produced in our times and well known for his romances of adventure, pointed out in one of them that "in this life you could often get success, if you did not want victory"; but, he added elsewhere in the story, "in this world I do not think you can get both at once—you must make your choice."
Experience has convinced me that this pronouncement by a wise man of affairs who had vast experience is profoundly true. Success—of a sort at least—is open to most of us, if we are willing to pay the price. But we ought to realize at the start that the price is a very high one, no less than the abandonment of all prospect of victory.
R. B. Withers
Experience has convinced me that this pronouncement by a wise man of affairs who had vast experience is profoundly true. Success—of a sort at least—is open to most of us, if we are willing to pay the price. But we ought to realize at the start that the price is a very high one, no less than the abandonment of all prospect of victory.
R. B. Withers
The Problem of Evil
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
63, Traquair Park West,EDINBURGH 12, Scotland.
Dear Brother Larsen:
Although it may not be directly provable from Scripture, your view that while God controls every detail of men's lives, He has not pre-determined every detail, or fixed it rigidly, has my entire support. I rejoice that you have written so forcibly and so clearly. Long have I waited for someone to do so. You may recollect that I, put forth similar opinions in a pamphlet ("Light and Heat") in 1941. But the majority of our friends have had their intelligence darkened by false teaching on certain very elementary themes. I trust, therefore, that you will have patience while I set forth in some detail what the Scriptures have taught me concerning these very important matters.
The root of all the mischief is contained chiefly in an article which appeared as far back as December, 1913, in the magazine "Unsearchable Riches," entitled "Free Moral Agency." It is not stated who was the author. To a superficial reader, the article appears to be unimpeachable. Passages are quoted from the Authorized Version of Proverbs and Psalms to "prove" that all the steps of mankind have been pre-arranged and devised by God. No doubt the A. V. text was utilized because at that time there was no Concordant Version. But the extraordinary thing is that no effort appears then to have been made to correct certain very evident errors in the A. V., errors which are vital in this discussion. What is also very extraordinary is that after the lapse of thirty-three years, there does not appear to have been any effort made to correct the errors of this article, which has long been issued as a pamphlet, and is still being issued. Once these errors are removed, it will be seen that the Scriptures leave plenty of room for a far grander theory and view namely, that which you have put forward, and the blighting curse of fatalism is removed.
This article makes much of Psalm 37:23, "The steps of a good man are ordered of the Lord." It is shown that the word good is not in the original, and that the passage is general, not particular. The reasoning, for reasoning it is, is that the steps of ALL men are ordered of Jehovah, although this is exactly what is not stated. That the verse could quite well mean that when the particular man's steps are prepared or ordered, it is from Jehovah, has not even been taken into account.
But the tragic blunder is that the Hebrew word for "man" does not appear in the verse at all. The writer has probably been so dazzled by the significant fact that the Hebrew word for good is not found in the original that he has not taken the trouble to read what term the Hebrew has for "man." The words Adam (human being) and Aish (man) are not used. Instead we find Geber. As verb or noun this root occurs about 350 times in the O. T. Dr. Bullinger's Companion Bible marks every occurrence and shews in his Appendix No. 14 how it should be distinguished from other words rendered by "man." This term signifies a STRONG MAN, and so the Oxford Hebrew Lexicon rightly renders. It is therefore evident that the expression does NOT refer to all men, as all men are certainly not strong men. The verb is used of the flood waters which "prevailed exceedingly" (Gen. 7: 19); of Israel and Amalek who "prevailed" (Ex.17:11); "His merciful kindness is great" (Ps. 117:2); "they were stronger than lions" (II Sam. 1:23); he shall confirm the covenant" (Dan. 9:27). The noun is used of the "mighty men" of Gen. 6:4; of Nimrod, "the mighty hunter" (10:9); "the mighty men of valour" (Jos: 1:14,and freq.); "how are the mighty fallen!" (II Sam. 1); "all the mighty men of wealth" (II Kings 15:20); "the four chief porters" (I Chron. 9:26); "men of war" (II Chron. 13:3); "let the weak say, I am strong" (Joel 3:10); "a poor man that oppresseth the poor" (Prov. 28:3; literally, "a strong one destitute and extorting from poor ones.").
The term appears to mean anyone who is in some way strong, or predominant, prominent, superior, or masterful. He is better than others in some way. There is therefore some small excuse for the A. V. inserting the word good. Such a man is not outstanding on account of his morality, but for his strength or position. He does not appear to represent any class in our modern society, and this is the reason why versions have not rendered the terms exactly. There is an urgent need of an exhaustive study of these special Hebrew terms.
Rotherham renders at Ps. 37:23 thus:—"From Yahweh are the steps of a man made firm, When with his way he is well pleased." This shows what a different construction can be placed on the verse, provided the word geber is properly rendered.
Another important text which has been grossly misrendered to bolster up this most mischievous doctrine is Provo 20:24:—"Man's goings are of the Lord; how can a man then understand his own way?" What the Hebrew states is, "From Jehovah the step makings of a STRONG ONE; and a human being — how will he understand his way?" Here again, not a word is said about ALL MEN, or about all the steps. And the likelihood is that the writer of the Proverbs was describing, in particular, his own experiences. Compare another verse upon which our false teaching is based, Prov. 16:9:—"A man's heart deviseth his way; but the Lord directeth his steps." Literally, this is, "Heart of human is devising his way, and Jehovah is preparing his step." Here again the words "all" or "always" are not found. The whole chapter, like the whole book of Proverbs, is specially applicable to and to be understood by the righteous and wise ones.
Jer. 10:23 is also made use of. Closely rendered it has, "I know, Jehovah, that not for a human being is his way; not for a man to go and to direct his step." The prophet had found this out by bitter experience. It is quite true that men cannot direct their steps always, and I do not think the man can be found who would claim to do so invariably. But to reason that because men cannot direct their steps, these are always directed by Jehovah, is to create a positive assertion from a negative basis. That God can direct anyone on occasion cannot be denied. Certain evil events in the O. T. are explicitly stated to have been "from Jehovah." But is that sufficient reason for claiming that everything comes directly from Him?
That God has prepared good works beforehand for the saints to walk in is undeniable (Eph. 2:10). That all the saints are walking in good works is not so certain. I think we are all acquainted with saints who are walking in some evil ways and works. But to liken this verse, as having reference to the saints, to verses in the O. T. which are alleged to refer to all men, as the article "Free Moral Agency" does, is to travesty Scripture altogether. In the Psalms and the Proverbs there are continual instructions and inducements to the righteous and the "kindly ones" (chasidim; A. V. "saints") to carry on with good works, into which Jehovah directs them. It is the steps of these people that are constantly said to be in Jehovah's hands. The feet of some were set in slippery. places (Ps. 73:18). Their steps were not established. All through Ps. 78:9-66 the steps of the rebellious people described were everything but established. The same applies to those mentioned in Rom. 3:12-16. There were some described in Ps. 125:5 who "turn aside unto their crooked ways, "whom Jehovah would lead forth with the workers of iniquity." Says David in Ps. 139:3 "Thou winnowest my path and makest to benefit all my ways," but can we say the wonderful knowledge shown by Jehovah and His attention was just as much for the "wicked" of verse 19? Did David petition (Ps. 140:4) to be kept from the wicked and violent man—that very man whose steps Jehovah had established? It is the meek whom Jehovah will guide in judgment (Ps. 25:9), while "All the paths of Jehovah are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies" (v. 10). It is the man who deeply respects (fears) Jehovah whom He will "teach in the way that He shall choose" (v. 12). It is the man who rolls his works unto Jehovah whose thoughts (i.e. devices or plans) will be established (not the lawless one; Prov. 16:3). It is the foolishness of man that perverts his way not the leading of Jehovah (Prov. 19:9). A child should be trained up in the way he should go (Prov. 22:6); it is not enough to "leave him to God" in a spirit of resignation or indifference. "So Jotham became mighty" (II Chron. 27:6). Why? Because the steps of all men are established by God? Not at all; but "because HE prepared HIS ways before Jehovah his God." "In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths" (Prov. 3:6). The one follows upon the other. This statement would be meaningless if the ungodly, who does not acknowledge Jehovah, received the same guidance as he who seeks Jehovah's face. Surely such verses teach very plainly that direction or guidance is contingent upon acknowledgment of God. And do not we, God's people, in experience find that this is true?
The article "The Problem of Evil" refers to the "oft repeated statement" that "All things are of God." But in the five verses cited it will be found that the "all things" are always limited. And in the 1933 volume of "Unsearchable Riches" it is maintained that the word "all" in such passages is "never absolute." It will be observed that in the 1944 Concordant Version the expression "the universe" appears to have dropped out. The reason for this we know not, but such an expression savours more of exegesis than translation. God can easily be operating the all things in accord with the plan of His will, without actively directing every step of every being of every kind. When a King rules or controls a country he does this in a general way only, leaving the administrative function to his servants and officials. A King or a President might step in on occasion when things were getting out of hand. But he never plans every step of everyone of his subjects.
It would be a distinct improvement could the Greek term boule, in its dozen occurrences, be rendered by "plan." This would suit every verse beautifully an would make sense where the "counsel of His will" is hardly intelligible. The verb is rendered "plan" at times. We were marked out before and according to a purpose of Him operating certain all things in accord with the PLAN of His will. God can operate His plan and control everything, without actively directing the steps and moves of all people. He can operate these "all things," whatever they are, and yet at the same time leave men a certain amount of liberty to choose their own ways.
That the steps of all men are NOT directed by God is clearly shown by James 4:15. Hebrew believers were not to ignore the Lord's wishes, but were to be doing this or that "should the Lord be willing." Suppose they proceeded to a certain town to trade or spend some time, without seeking to know the Lord's will or asking His guidance, would they not be acting contrary to God's will? To reason that God's intention or plan was that they should be disobedient and ignore His will would be to make revelation far too sophisticated for the ordinary simple believer. God does not publish His own will with the intention that His own children disobey it.
I shall now cite the very painful case of a Christian brother who was formerly a strong supporter of the teaching found in the article "The Problem of Evil," and who wrote a number of brief articles for the magazine "Unsearchable Riches" a few years ago. I shall call him Mr. Captive, as he has become, unfortunately, Satan's bondman. This is what he wrote me some time ago, "About two years ago I discarded Unsearchable Riches, The Bible, and all other religions built exclusively upon mythology. Jehovah to me does not exist, except as an old Jewish Idol God, more cruel and forceful than the many other gods of that time. I once worshipped your God of love, but when my eyes were opened, my brains were tested, I saw one who was just a myth, one who drowned a world, burnt a city, covered a poor man with boils, crucified his own and only son. I used my reason. . . I studied the origin of all these religions, and saw exactly where I was off the rails. . . I would like to turn your mind toward Reason, Logic, and Facts, three items seldom found in your so-called Sacred Scriptures. . . "
If we can aver that this poor man has been directed into such frightful steps simply because this is God's sovereign will, this man who was well taught in the Scriptures and stout in defending them at one time, would it not be true that such a calamity might possibly fall upon anyone of us at any time? James declares very clearly (1:13) that God is not triable (apeirastos) by evil things, yet HIMSELF is trying no one. But each one is being tried when, by his own desire, he is being drawn away and being lured. Thereafter, the desire, conceiving, is bringing forth sin. Poor Mr. Captive has been lured by sins of some kind, not lured away by our God. It is not God that has started him off on this slippery path, but his own desires. If God's published Word and Will are not sufficient to convince him now, what else can God do but leave him to his own choice and ways?
Some are seeking to maintain that God does not merely permit evils to overtake human beings, but that He actively and directly imposes evils upon men and leads them into evils. But we may not overlook words in the N. T. which have a meaning equivalent to "permit." What about the verb eaO? "God, who makes the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them; who in the bygone generations LEAVES (eiasen; aorist) all the Nations to be going (on) in their ways, although He leaves (another verb, aphEken) Himself not without testimony, doing good acts, giving showers from heaven and fruitful seasons" (Acts 14:16-17). This verb is defined as "permit without interference." The A. V. generally renders by "suffer." That God left or permitted the Nations to go in their own ways is not to be disputed, and it is quite as clear that He is still permitting them to proceed along the same lines. The fact that He gives harvests shews the direction in which He does not neglect them. "The times indeed, then, of that (great) ignorance condoning (or overlooking) God, as to the present is charging men—(that) all everywhere be changing their mind." (Acts 17:30). Yet in spite of this solemn charge, can we say that the great bulk of mankind does not continue to go on in its own ways? Paul hoped the Lord would "permit" certain things (I Cor. 16:7) and the writer to the Hebrews hoped likewise (6:3). Here the word is epitrepo. The Lord had to tolerate or bear with a faithless and perverted generation, according to Matt. 17:17 and Luke 9:41, where the verb is anechomai. God still suffers or tolerates a world that is strangely indifferent to His very existence.
It is quite true that the Scriptures never teach that God did "permit" evil to enter the universe. But it is just as true that never in the Scriptures is there the slightest reference to any Problem of Evil. That there is a mystery regarding the origin of Evil is beyond dispute. Never once, however, does any writer of the Scriptures allude to any mystery, or shew any inclination to probe the matter. The Lord Himself was silent on this weighty point. Paul reasoned out various other important matters, but is also silent regarding evil. But there are not lacking human beings who think themselves clever enough to spin from isolated verses some sort of a theory to account for the presence of evil. Have you ever observed that the passages or verses used are woven together, and are forced to mean far more than they necessarily state? There are Secrets that God has been pleased to reveal to men, and we can delight in these. But at the same time there are things which God has not revealed, secret things which belong to Jehovah our God. Let us avoid all possibility of acting towards our God with any shadow of irreverence.
Paul presents us with a clear and well reasoned out treatise on Sin and Righteousness. Theories regarding Evil, however, are one and all based upon scattered verses, which may or may not be germane to the subject. Upon Isaiah 45:7 an immense superstructure has been reared. "I One-creating evil" has been made to mean "I create ALL evil" (and no one else does so). Human beings too can create (I Peter 2:13). Human beings undoubtedly are creators of many evil things and evil desires. The LXX at Isa. 45:7 reads "creating evils" (ktizon kaka). There is in this chapter no further allusion to the contents of verse 7. Isaiah had a splendid opportunity to clear up certain mysteries which bother modern man, but he avoids the matter completely.
Another verse which may require a little elucidation is I John 3:8, literally, "he who (is) doing (the) sin out of the slanderer (or adversary) is, seeing that from beginning the slanderer is sinning." Now are we quite in order in inferring that the beginning referred to is that of Satan? What a pity John had not inspected the word "his" (autou) after "beginning." And precisely what is the connection between the two clauses, joined by "seeing that"? Why should the sin-doer be out of the Devil, because of the fact that it was from his beginning that the Devil sinned? Is there any logical connection? Some commentators have stated it this way, that sin-doers are of the Devil, for the reason that from their own beginning as human beings the devil is sinning.
There are many points upon which our curiosity is not satisfied. Some things are simply not our business. The present age is notably one in which people will not brook ignorance. Experts we must have upon every matter.
The current theory regarding the Eons is largely based upon sheer guesswork. No one yet can present a logical explanation of Heb. 9:26 or Heb. 1:8 (for the eon of the eon). The same serious flaw which we found and condemned in other sects we encounter here: the guess becomes "the truth."
That God can and does forsake or leave alone individuals and whole nations is amply proved from the word azab (ozb) in the O. T. God left Hezekiah alone, to try him, that He might know all in his heart (II Chron. 32:31). "Then... I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them." (Deut. 31:17). "My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (Psalm 22:1). "For Jehovah. . . . forsaketh not His saints" (Psalm 37:28). That the word means "leave alone" rather than "forsake" is shown at Judges 2:21, which should read, "the nations which Joshua left alone when he died." "I have forsaken Mine house, I have left Mine heritage" (Jer. 12:7). "Thou wilt not leave My soul in the unseen" (Psalm 16:10). "Yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken" (Psalm 37:25).
The meaning of this word is destroyed if it is true that all the time God is actively directing the steps of those whom He leaves alone or forsakes.
"Wherefore God gives them up (paredoken), in the lusts of their hearts, unto uncleanness, that is (tou), to be dishonoring their bodies among themselves, those who alter the truth of God in what is falsehood" (Rom. 1 :24-25, and cf. verses 26 and 28). "Now God turns and gives them up (paredoken) to be offering divine service to the host of heaven" (Acts 7:42). "Those who, having become past feeling, give THEMSELVES up (paredoken) to wantonness, unto all unclean action, in greed" (Eph. 4:19).
There is all the difference in the world between God, the thrice holy One, positively directing human beings into such foul steps, and merely leaving them to their own choice. But some minds cannot perceive the difference.
Another passage which has probably been wrongly understood by many is Acts 15:17-18, which in the A. V. reads thus: ". . . . saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." This statement does not appear to have any direct connection with what precedes or follows. The C. V. follows the reading of Codex Alexandrinus, "The Lord is saying, 'Who is doing these things.' Known to the Lord is His work from the eon." The Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus read "Doing these things known from eon." The 1944 C. V. slightly alters to ". . . Known from the eon to the Lord is His work." Cunnington reads, "Saith the Lord, doing these things which were known from of old." Rotherham (1st edition, 1872) has, ". . . says the Lord who does these things—known from antiquity." I should incline to the- reading of the R. v., "Saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from the beginning of the world," provided we put it this way, "Who maketh these things knowable (or to be known, so that they can be known; gnosta), from obscurity."
Wherefore, continues James, seeing that God has made these things known or to be known from obscurity, that the Nations should seek the Lord, my decision is that the Gentiles should not now be harassed if they seek Him.
The A. V. and the C. V. have preferred a conflate reading, which does not clear up the sense. Doubtless what the Lord does is and must be known to Him. But we do not require to assume or infer that He had every detail "cut and dried" from obscurity.
Would not our God seem far more wonderful if He could at any time cope, and cope successfully, with any and every situation which might arise, during the reign of Sin and Evil? He declares the end from the beginning (Isa. 46:10), and has revealed the main out, lines of great things to come. But what is never stated is that all the intermediate steps have been rigidly planned out. Strictly, the original Scriptures never present God as the Almighty. The Greek term pantokrator means, all-controller, all-wielder, like the beautiful Old English Al-wealdened. As you affirm, God controls everything. But we are under no necessity to believe that He has planned every wink or sneeze or yawn, every chew or bite or breath. Must we believe that every foul utterance of man, every unclean thought or act, every murderous intent, is directly instigated by God? That such teaching is very much out of harmony with what the Bible says is proved by the fact that this abominable teaching leaves no room for the grand Greek word proskarterEsis, well rendered by "perseverance," and its verb. Now any system of teaching which does not leave room, and ample room, for the exercise and for the efficacy of prevailing prayer, through perseverance, must be rigidly ruled out as erroneous. It will be very difficult to find, among the ranks of the Concordant people, many who have any experience of true perseverance in supplication before God. They try to maintain that they do really believe in prayer, but this term bewilders them. This alone ought to be sufficient to prove that their teaching is wrong and sadly deficient. You were very right to state that "these fatalistic notions are a curse in the Reconciliation movement." The Devil has seen to it that much fine teaching has been spoilt by foul weeds getting into the good soil.
If it is our God Himself who enjoins upon us perseverance in petitions before Him "on every occasion" (see Rom. 12:12; Eph. 6:18; and Col. 4:2), surely He must have made provision for the results. Surely He must be amenable to strong petitioning, to that holy boldness and freedom of speech (parrhEsia). But if God has planned out every step of our lives, and the lives of all mankind, there is not, and cannot be, any need for perseverance.
O the folly of concentrating upon the knowledge of God's ways and purposes, and neglecting the experimental daily knowledge of God! It is of those who take the trouble to seek Him out that He becomes rewarder. Far too many students are setting mere knowledge above the acquisition of true wisdom.
To many devout people it appears to be humiliating to find that God is One capable of changing His mind. Surely this is very different from saying that His essence remains the same, as spirit, while His nature does not alter. No doubt while on earth the Lord had the same freedom to change His mind that others had. Why should not God, in whose image we are made, change His mind? To do so, shews Him not as a weakling, but as extremely human. Has not God revealed Himself as human, in a Human Being? He is not far from anyone of us. Indeed, He is very close to Humanity. The human race is His kindred.
Has it come to be a humiliation to believe what God has revealed concerning Himself? If it is God Himself who tells us that He can "repent" or rather "change His mind," let us believe Him, in simple trust. To speak of God repenting is not very suitable, as this word has taken on a theological nuance connected generally with sins. It is much better to render both the Greek metanoeO and the Hebrew equivalent nacham by "change the mind" or "change the attitude." To render the Hebrew word by both repent and console is to destroy concordance. These words are not interchangeable. But we can bridge the gulf by saying "change the mind" or "change the attitude" or "change the outlook." It is just here that it requires a major operation to get the student of Scriptures to comprehend that terms utilized by God have only one inherent meaning. Was the divine vocabulary so meagre that God could not find different terms for different ideas? Is it the same thing to exhibit repentance as to exhibit consolation? Jehovah was not by any means consoled because He had made man' kind. "It repenteth me that I have made them." (Gen. 6:7), or rather, "I change My mind that I have made them." Not only so, but He suffered grief. We must not seek to get rid of such expressions by calling them examples of the figure Anthropopatheia, or Condescension, as though God were only artificially simulating human feelings. Did God suffer no grief when His Son was slain? It is quite misleading in Acts 26:23 to read "that Christ should suffer," or "if it be the suffering Christ" (C. V). The word used is pathEtos, which means "capable of suffering." That was the kind of Messiah the prophets and Moses foretold, but far from the kind of Messiah the Jews expected. And in His suffering, did not the Son mirror the Father?
Jehovah changed His mind about setting up Saul as king (I Sam. 15:11). God changed His mind about the evil He had said would bring upon Nineveh (Jonah 3:10) after He had plainly revealed that the city would be destroyed in forty days. The O. T. knows nothing about any distinction between God's revealed will and His hidden intention. The people of Nineveh "believed God," and did not look upon His threat as a trick. When they turned from their evil way, God was quite justified in changing His mind and sparing them. Other cases of God "repenting" or changing His mind are to be found at Ex. 32:14, Jer. 18:8, 10, 20:16, 42:10, Ps. 110:4, 135:14. In the Piel or Fiol conjugation, the word is generally rendered in the A. V. by "comfort." This makes perfectly good sense, but it must be understood as a state of mind produced through a change being made. "And David comforted Bath-sheba his wife" (II Sam. 12:24). That is to say, he induced her to change her mind or attitude. All Jacob's sons and daughters rose up to comfort him when Joseph was missing, but he refused to be comforted (Gen. 37:35). They failed to get him to change his mind about Joseph. "For Jehovah shall comfort Zion" (Isa. 51:3), but He will do so by changing their mind, with regard to Himself, to their evil past, and to their evil state. This is something more than mere comfort. It means an entire new out look. He will even comfort all her waste places. That is, even their outlook will be changed.
As then, the Scriptures clearly reveal that God can and does change His mind, we come to just where He has left room for His people to supplicate Him with perseverance. We realize that many steps in our lives are not rigidly fixed and pre-determined. As you say, "God permits us to live on a low spiritual plane, if we want to be there." God leaves it to us whether we shall serve and honour Him, or whether we shall drift and quench His spirit. That we are enjoined not to be quenching the spirit (I Thess. 5:19) implies that we can quench His spirit. And have we never done this in our lives? Nor are we to be sorrowing the spirit, the holy (spirit) of God in which we are sealed unto deliverance day (Eph. 4:30). Are there not also certain things which can hinder our prayers? Can it be our God who sends these hindrances? The leader of an Irish sect of Brethren which tended much to mysticism ended his days greatly respected by his followers, but unknown to most of them, practicing some of the unmentionable vices of the flesh alluded to in Rom. 1:27. Could it ever be the will, or the intention of our God, that these things should be so? Assuredly not! God's will and intention for His saints is plainly stated in Rom. 12:2, "but to be transformed by the renewing of your mind, for you to be testing what is the will of God, (namely) that which is good and well able to please (euareston) and mature." The will of God cannot consist of anything tainted by evil. That many do not obey verses 1 and 2 is clear to all. How can we test what is God's' will (that which is good, etc.) if everything that happens is His will, including much that is evil?
Observe on how many occasions the apostle Paul shews himself as dependent on the prayers of the saints. Earnestly does he entreat the brethren (Rom. 15:30-32) to struggle together with Him in the prayers to God that he should be rescued from the unyielding ones in Judea, that his dispensation which was unto Jerusalem might be well received, that he might come to the Romans with joy through God's will, and be resting with them. In other words, they were to beseech God that He might make these things His will for Paul. Had Paul been a rank fatalist like almost every member of the concordant or reconciliation sect, he would never have troubled the Roman saints with this "struggling." Victorious prevailing supplication has now-a-days gone almost completely out of fashion. Paul's instructions are being disobeyed with impunity, and no one seems to care. Who is there to fulfill his words in Eph. 6:18-20? Where is there the vigilance and perseverance concerning all the saints? Where is there the supplication that others may speak the truth with boldness? How often do we encounter an Epaphras, always struggling for the saints in the prayers, that they may stand mature and fully assured in everything willed of God (Col. 4:12)? Why, can God not attain this end apart from the prayers of the saints? It would seem that He relies on these prayers for this purpose. See also verses 2-4 of the same chapter, and I Thess. 5:25.
That the instructions given in I Tim. 2:1-2 have simply been shunned for centuries is notorious. Are they ever obeyed in gatherings of believers who reckon themselves as "advanced"? It is left to worldly Churches to give some kind of obedience to Paul's directions. How can our poor prayers have the effect of permitting our lives to be mild and quiet? Yet Paul puts these instructions "first of all." Very evidently Paul firmly believed that "Prayer Changes Things."
Not upon some vague "will of God"—rigidly predetermined from ancient eons, did Paul depend so that he might be granted to Philemon's home, but he relied on the prayers on those who lived there. (Phm. 22).
All this means that our prayers have a great deal to do with what is to happen. Things non-essential to God's fixed plans can be moulded into God's will through our supplications. Spiritually, we are seated. with Christ in the heavenly places. Should we be enduring, we shall be reigning with Him in the coming eons. With such a high destiny, why should not we, who are family-members of God, (Eph. 2:19) even in some small measure be used to co-operate with God in forging and formulating some of those minor links which are not directly the subject of prophecy? If, both naturally and spiritually, "in Him we live and move and have our being," why should the Ideal of all perfect Fatherhood not make! some of the humble petitions of His own children His will? Any good human father would do as much, and gladly.
The very fact that God tells us to supplicate Him is proof that He requires our petitions and depends upon them. In this there is unlimited scope for everyone of us, provided we cast aside the ensnaring coils of fatalism.
One would think, that if God were the only agent in bringing about spiritual blessing in revivals and periods of special illumination, He would scatter these rays equally over all countries. But the plain fact,is that it is men and women mainly in or from Nordic lands who are at the root of these movements. Very largely, God has left it to the members of His Church to carry-on this, work, through the power inherent in His word.
We could all, each one of us, accomplish one hundred times more than we are doing. It is according to the power working in us that He is able to do excessively above all that we are requesting or apprehending (Eph. 3:20). But who believes that statement? Fatalism is Satan's choice weapon to destroy that power.
That God does not operate His universe to the last trivial detail is very well illustrated by the divine Law of Marriage. "What God yokes together, let not MAN be separating" (Matt. 19:6) is the divine principle. In what way, however, does God effect the yoking, and to what extent? One would think that if God directly chose each yoke pair, He would choose ideal partners. This no doubt does happen occasionally, but in general it certainly does not. That God, as a faithful Creator, would grant to His own people suitable mates is not denied, provided He is earnestly approached in prayer. But we must admit, and the fact is undeniable, that the great mass of human marriages is nothing more or less than the working out of the natural law of human selection, almost entirely upon a fleshly basis. God has set this general law in operation, just as He has set all other natural, laws in operation. These laws He keeps in control, yet leaves them to carry-on in accord with nature. The Lord had just been saying, "the two shall be for one flesh." God views man and wife as one flesh, not two. The yoking is, therefore, not necessarily spiritual. Even upon the creation of Woman, although Jehovah God found for Adam "a helper as his counterpart or complement" (Gen. 2:18,20), Adam exclaims, "This time it is bone from my bone and flesh from my flesh." (Verse 23). This union must have been ideal, as God did act directly in this one case.
Amid all God's natural laws, evil is operating. Nature brings about famines, storms, plagues, want, distress, and so on. But can we aver that God plans that any specific human being must fall into any specific evil? Is it not more like the facts that God leaves evil and nature to carry on their operations, according to natural laws? True, on special occasions, God can and does intervene to bring a certain evil upon a certain person or nation. Even the "showers and fruitful seasons" (Act 14:17) are subject to nature's law, as sometimes some nations do not enjoy these. Yet on occasion, God can certainly "go out of His way" to feed an individual who is starving.
In marriage, flesh draws to flesh; there is more or less of mutual attraction, sometimes no doubt partly of spirit as well as of flesh. A great many marriages, especially in this age, though perfectly honour' able, are very shallow affairs, and cannot produce much happiness or lasting harmony. In general, God does not choose each one's life partner deliberately, but merely leaves His own laws of nature to operate, and to the extent of His own law, the yoke is a yoke. Does God directly plan the remarriage of divorced parties? Sometimes a man chooses a woman who turns out to be a thorough virago or termagant. Are we to infer that this is God's specific choice for him and for him alone? After a time the woman dies. The man, his nature still the same as before, marries again, a woman who makes an ideal counterpart. Is this again God's specific choice? Would it not be more in accord with fact to say that God sets His laws in motion, and "leaves" mankind to go on in its own ways, making its own choices, taking its own path, within certain time and place boundaries? To a great extent God leaves us all to this law of natural selection. I could travel to my work each morning by four or five different routes or methods: Is it God who chooses and directs how I go each time? Does He really need to bother about such trivial details? We might work ourselves into a state of extreme nervous exhaustion by worrying about God's minute by minute "will" for us.
If God chooses all the marriage steps of all men and women, He appears to be acting very fitfully and almost at random. In India children are "married" at a ridiculously early age. Is that God's specific will for them? In some eastern countries the partners are artificially mated, before they even see each other.
That God directly leads all mankind into their erring and erratic ways is extremely difficult to swallow.
Or to take another assumed example. A company of earnest men form a version of God's word, on the most consistent lines known to them. Later on, it is discovered that this is very defective in many ways. It was God who directed them to this work, and led them through it. Then they improved their labours and turned out another edition. But this also was found honeycombed with errors of a different sort, and the edition was again scrapped. Nevertheless, it also was claimed as "from God." Yet again was it found necessary to make a thorough revision of the work, and the laborious and painful task was again undertaken. Could it be that each of these labours was directly from God and directly ascribable to Him? Is that the way in which He operates? How could it be claimed that He was the "Author" of each of these very imperfect efforts?
In this day when many nations all over the world are shackling themselves by curtailing the liberty of their subjects, when so-called democracy is becoming a farce and a failure, let us shake ourselves free of the slavery of fatalism, and come into some of the glorious freedom of the children of God. The doctrine that all men's steps have been pre-arranged of God is a perversion of Scripture, most seductive and most dangerous.
Reverting now to Eph. 1:11, are we strictly in order in asseverating that the "all things" which God is said to be operating, cover every minutest happening in the whole history of the universe? According to I Cor. 12:4-6, there are diversities of graces, of services, and of operations, but the same God Who is operating "the all" in all. Verse 11 will shew that this refers only to the saints. In Eph. 1:10 it is not specifically stated whether "the all" to be headed up in the Christ includes the dead. The whole passage as it stands might be understood as referring only to believers. What God is operating in accord with the plan of His will might be in connection with His own people, the subjects of the chapter. We do not require to jump out of the context and claim that "the all" refers to everything in all time and to everybody who ever lives. The verse could quite well mean that God is operating all things necessary to the plan of His will, or operating all things which are in line (kata) with His plan. Or Paul might have meant that all that God is operating, He is operating in accord with a plan He has made. It may be salutary to bear in mind that there is an explanation of Rom. 8:28 somewhat different from the usual and popular one. Can we truly say, do we really experience as a fact, that every little or big event in our lives is working for good? We know some believers who have taken their own lives. It will not do to reason that this was working for good in the resurrection life. To those loving God, He is working all things together for good, to those called (or rather, callable; klEtois; some will be called in the future) according to a purpose, seeing that (hoti) whom He foreknew, He designates beforehand. . . . . He calls also. . . He justifies also. . . . . He glorifies also. Are not these the glorious steps that work together for good to us? We require to take a dispassionate and unselfish view of the passage, excluding rigidly views that are really based upon our selfish wishes.
Finally, I must bring forward one clear and indisputable statement from Holy Writ to shew that God is not operating everything that happens in this world. Jeremiah (ch. 7:31) tells us that the children of Judah had done evils in Jehovah's sight, even burning their sons and daughters in the fire, "which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart." See also ch. 19:5, and ch. 32:35. Literally, "nor did it ascend upon My heart."
Now, if these horrible and inhuman practices did not as much as come into Jehovah's heart or mind, how possibly could He have planned that Judah would commit them? God did not determine or direct that Judah should commit such crimes. It is not God who determines in advance the evil acts of mankind. I quote from the article, "Free Moral Agency," "Man goes the way that God desires; his steps have been prearranged and are all ordained of the Lord." When we think of it, surely this is the most slanderous teaching that could be put forth to destroy the faith of believers. It is one of Satan's old lies, dressed in quasi-scriptural language.
May God's lovable saints be delivered from this frightful travesty of the truth!
63, Traquair Park West,EDINBURGH 12, Scotland.
Dear Brother Larsen:
Although it may not be directly provable from Scripture, your view that while God controls every detail of men's lives, He has not pre-determined every detail, or fixed it rigidly, has my entire support. I rejoice that you have written so forcibly and so clearly. Long have I waited for someone to do so. You may recollect that I, put forth similar opinions in a pamphlet ("Light and Heat") in 1941. But the majority of our friends have had their intelligence darkened by false teaching on certain very elementary themes. I trust, therefore, that you will have patience while I set forth in some detail what the Scriptures have taught me concerning these very important matters.
The root of all the mischief is contained chiefly in an article which appeared as far back as December, 1913, in the magazine "Unsearchable Riches," entitled "Free Moral Agency." It is not stated who was the author. To a superficial reader, the article appears to be unimpeachable. Passages are quoted from the Authorized Version of Proverbs and Psalms to "prove" that all the steps of mankind have been pre-arranged and devised by God. No doubt the A. V. text was utilized because at that time there was no Concordant Version. But the extraordinary thing is that no effort appears then to have been made to correct certain very evident errors in the A. V., errors which are vital in this discussion. What is also very extraordinary is that after the lapse of thirty-three years, there does not appear to have been any effort made to correct the errors of this article, which has long been issued as a pamphlet, and is still being issued. Once these errors are removed, it will be seen that the Scriptures leave plenty of room for a far grander theory and view namely, that which you have put forward, and the blighting curse of fatalism is removed.
This article makes much of Psalm 37:23, "The steps of a good man are ordered of the Lord." It is shown that the word good is not in the original, and that the passage is general, not particular. The reasoning, for reasoning it is, is that the steps of ALL men are ordered of Jehovah, although this is exactly what is not stated. That the verse could quite well mean that when the particular man's steps are prepared or ordered, it is from Jehovah, has not even been taken into account.
But the tragic blunder is that the Hebrew word for "man" does not appear in the verse at all. The writer has probably been so dazzled by the significant fact that the Hebrew word for good is not found in the original that he has not taken the trouble to read what term the Hebrew has for "man." The words Adam (human being) and Aish (man) are not used. Instead we find Geber. As verb or noun this root occurs about 350 times in the O. T. Dr. Bullinger's Companion Bible marks every occurrence and shews in his Appendix No. 14 how it should be distinguished from other words rendered by "man." This term signifies a STRONG MAN, and so the Oxford Hebrew Lexicon rightly renders. It is therefore evident that the expression does NOT refer to all men, as all men are certainly not strong men. The verb is used of the flood waters which "prevailed exceedingly" (Gen. 7: 19); of Israel and Amalek who "prevailed" (Ex.17:11); "His merciful kindness is great" (Ps. 117:2); "they were stronger than lions" (II Sam. 1:23); he shall confirm the covenant" (Dan. 9:27). The noun is used of the "mighty men" of Gen. 6:4; of Nimrod, "the mighty hunter" (10:9); "the mighty men of valour" (Jos: 1:14,and freq.); "how are the mighty fallen!" (II Sam. 1); "all the mighty men of wealth" (II Kings 15:20); "the four chief porters" (I Chron. 9:26); "men of war" (II Chron. 13:3); "let the weak say, I am strong" (Joel 3:10); "a poor man that oppresseth the poor" (Prov. 28:3; literally, "a strong one destitute and extorting from poor ones.").
The term appears to mean anyone who is in some way strong, or predominant, prominent, superior, or masterful. He is better than others in some way. There is therefore some small excuse for the A. V. inserting the word good. Such a man is not outstanding on account of his morality, but for his strength or position. He does not appear to represent any class in our modern society, and this is the reason why versions have not rendered the terms exactly. There is an urgent need of an exhaustive study of these special Hebrew terms.
Rotherham renders at Ps. 37:23 thus:—"From Yahweh are the steps of a man made firm, When with his way he is well pleased." This shows what a different construction can be placed on the verse, provided the word geber is properly rendered.
Another important text which has been grossly misrendered to bolster up this most mischievous doctrine is Provo 20:24:—"Man's goings are of the Lord; how can a man then understand his own way?" What the Hebrew states is, "From Jehovah the step makings of a STRONG ONE; and a human being — how will he understand his way?" Here again, not a word is said about ALL MEN, or about all the steps. And the likelihood is that the writer of the Proverbs was describing, in particular, his own experiences. Compare another verse upon which our false teaching is based, Prov. 16:9:—"A man's heart deviseth his way; but the Lord directeth his steps." Literally, this is, "Heart of human is devising his way, and Jehovah is preparing his step." Here again the words "all" or "always" are not found. The whole chapter, like the whole book of Proverbs, is specially applicable to and to be understood by the righteous and wise ones.
Jer. 10:23 is also made use of. Closely rendered it has, "I know, Jehovah, that not for a human being is his way; not for a man to go and to direct his step." The prophet had found this out by bitter experience. It is quite true that men cannot direct their steps always, and I do not think the man can be found who would claim to do so invariably. But to reason that because men cannot direct their steps, these are always directed by Jehovah, is to create a positive assertion from a negative basis. That God can direct anyone on occasion cannot be denied. Certain evil events in the O. T. are explicitly stated to have been "from Jehovah." But is that sufficient reason for claiming that everything comes directly from Him?
That God has prepared good works beforehand for the saints to walk in is undeniable (Eph. 2:10). That all the saints are walking in good works is not so certain. I think we are all acquainted with saints who are walking in some evil ways and works. But to liken this verse, as having reference to the saints, to verses in the O. T. which are alleged to refer to all men, as the article "Free Moral Agency" does, is to travesty Scripture altogether. In the Psalms and the Proverbs there are continual instructions and inducements to the righteous and the "kindly ones" (chasidim; A. V. "saints") to carry on with good works, into which Jehovah directs them. It is the steps of these people that are constantly said to be in Jehovah's hands. The feet of some were set in slippery. places (Ps. 73:18). Their steps were not established. All through Ps. 78:9-66 the steps of the rebellious people described were everything but established. The same applies to those mentioned in Rom. 3:12-16. There were some described in Ps. 125:5 who "turn aside unto their crooked ways, "whom Jehovah would lead forth with the workers of iniquity." Says David in Ps. 139:3 "Thou winnowest my path and makest to benefit all my ways," but can we say the wonderful knowledge shown by Jehovah and His attention was just as much for the "wicked" of verse 19? Did David petition (Ps. 140:4) to be kept from the wicked and violent man—that very man whose steps Jehovah had established? It is the meek whom Jehovah will guide in judgment (Ps. 25:9), while "All the paths of Jehovah are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies" (v. 10). It is the man who deeply respects (fears) Jehovah whom He will "teach in the way that He shall choose" (v. 12). It is the man who rolls his works unto Jehovah whose thoughts (i.e. devices or plans) will be established (not the lawless one; Prov. 16:3). It is the foolishness of man that perverts his way not the leading of Jehovah (Prov. 19:9). A child should be trained up in the way he should go (Prov. 22:6); it is not enough to "leave him to God" in a spirit of resignation or indifference. "So Jotham became mighty" (II Chron. 27:6). Why? Because the steps of all men are established by God? Not at all; but "because HE prepared HIS ways before Jehovah his God." "In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths" (Prov. 3:6). The one follows upon the other. This statement would be meaningless if the ungodly, who does not acknowledge Jehovah, received the same guidance as he who seeks Jehovah's face. Surely such verses teach very plainly that direction or guidance is contingent upon acknowledgment of God. And do not we, God's people, in experience find that this is true?
The article "The Problem of Evil" refers to the "oft repeated statement" that "All things are of God." But in the five verses cited it will be found that the "all things" are always limited. And in the 1933 volume of "Unsearchable Riches" it is maintained that the word "all" in such passages is "never absolute." It will be observed that in the 1944 Concordant Version the expression "the universe" appears to have dropped out. The reason for this we know not, but such an expression savours more of exegesis than translation. God can easily be operating the all things in accord with the plan of His will, without actively directing every step of every being of every kind. When a King rules or controls a country he does this in a general way only, leaving the administrative function to his servants and officials. A King or a President might step in on occasion when things were getting out of hand. But he never plans every step of everyone of his subjects.
It would be a distinct improvement could the Greek term boule, in its dozen occurrences, be rendered by "plan." This would suit every verse beautifully an would make sense where the "counsel of His will" is hardly intelligible. The verb is rendered "plan" at times. We were marked out before and according to a purpose of Him operating certain all things in accord with the PLAN of His will. God can operate His plan and control everything, without actively directing the steps and moves of all people. He can operate these "all things," whatever they are, and yet at the same time leave men a certain amount of liberty to choose their own ways.
That the steps of all men are NOT directed by God is clearly shown by James 4:15. Hebrew believers were not to ignore the Lord's wishes, but were to be doing this or that "should the Lord be willing." Suppose they proceeded to a certain town to trade or spend some time, without seeking to know the Lord's will or asking His guidance, would they not be acting contrary to God's will? To reason that God's intention or plan was that they should be disobedient and ignore His will would be to make revelation far too sophisticated for the ordinary simple believer. God does not publish His own will with the intention that His own children disobey it.
I shall now cite the very painful case of a Christian brother who was formerly a strong supporter of the teaching found in the article "The Problem of Evil," and who wrote a number of brief articles for the magazine "Unsearchable Riches" a few years ago. I shall call him Mr. Captive, as he has become, unfortunately, Satan's bondman. This is what he wrote me some time ago, "About two years ago I discarded Unsearchable Riches, The Bible, and all other religions built exclusively upon mythology. Jehovah to me does not exist, except as an old Jewish Idol God, more cruel and forceful than the many other gods of that time. I once worshipped your God of love, but when my eyes were opened, my brains were tested, I saw one who was just a myth, one who drowned a world, burnt a city, covered a poor man with boils, crucified his own and only son. I used my reason. . . I studied the origin of all these religions, and saw exactly where I was off the rails. . . I would like to turn your mind toward Reason, Logic, and Facts, three items seldom found in your so-called Sacred Scriptures. . . "
If we can aver that this poor man has been directed into such frightful steps simply because this is God's sovereign will, this man who was well taught in the Scriptures and stout in defending them at one time, would it not be true that such a calamity might possibly fall upon anyone of us at any time? James declares very clearly (1:13) that God is not triable (apeirastos) by evil things, yet HIMSELF is trying no one. But each one is being tried when, by his own desire, he is being drawn away and being lured. Thereafter, the desire, conceiving, is bringing forth sin. Poor Mr. Captive has been lured by sins of some kind, not lured away by our God. It is not God that has started him off on this slippery path, but his own desires. If God's published Word and Will are not sufficient to convince him now, what else can God do but leave him to his own choice and ways?
Some are seeking to maintain that God does not merely permit evils to overtake human beings, but that He actively and directly imposes evils upon men and leads them into evils. But we may not overlook words in the N. T. which have a meaning equivalent to "permit." What about the verb eaO? "God, who makes the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them; who in the bygone generations LEAVES (eiasen; aorist) all the Nations to be going (on) in their ways, although He leaves (another verb, aphEken) Himself not without testimony, doing good acts, giving showers from heaven and fruitful seasons" (Acts 14:16-17). This verb is defined as "permit without interference." The A. V. generally renders by "suffer." That God left or permitted the Nations to go in their own ways is not to be disputed, and it is quite as clear that He is still permitting them to proceed along the same lines. The fact that He gives harvests shews the direction in which He does not neglect them. "The times indeed, then, of that (great) ignorance condoning (or overlooking) God, as to the present is charging men—(that) all everywhere be changing their mind." (Acts 17:30). Yet in spite of this solemn charge, can we say that the great bulk of mankind does not continue to go on in its own ways? Paul hoped the Lord would "permit" certain things (I Cor. 16:7) and the writer to the Hebrews hoped likewise (6:3). Here the word is epitrepo. The Lord had to tolerate or bear with a faithless and perverted generation, according to Matt. 17:17 and Luke 9:41, where the verb is anechomai. God still suffers or tolerates a world that is strangely indifferent to His very existence.
It is quite true that the Scriptures never teach that God did "permit" evil to enter the universe. But it is just as true that never in the Scriptures is there the slightest reference to any Problem of Evil. That there is a mystery regarding the origin of Evil is beyond dispute. Never once, however, does any writer of the Scriptures allude to any mystery, or shew any inclination to probe the matter. The Lord Himself was silent on this weighty point. Paul reasoned out various other important matters, but is also silent regarding evil. But there are not lacking human beings who think themselves clever enough to spin from isolated verses some sort of a theory to account for the presence of evil. Have you ever observed that the passages or verses used are woven together, and are forced to mean far more than they necessarily state? There are Secrets that God has been pleased to reveal to men, and we can delight in these. But at the same time there are things which God has not revealed, secret things which belong to Jehovah our God. Let us avoid all possibility of acting towards our God with any shadow of irreverence.
Paul presents us with a clear and well reasoned out treatise on Sin and Righteousness. Theories regarding Evil, however, are one and all based upon scattered verses, which may or may not be germane to the subject. Upon Isaiah 45:7 an immense superstructure has been reared. "I One-creating evil" has been made to mean "I create ALL evil" (and no one else does so). Human beings too can create (I Peter 2:13). Human beings undoubtedly are creators of many evil things and evil desires. The LXX at Isa. 45:7 reads "creating evils" (ktizon kaka). There is in this chapter no further allusion to the contents of verse 7. Isaiah had a splendid opportunity to clear up certain mysteries which bother modern man, but he avoids the matter completely.
Another verse which may require a little elucidation is I John 3:8, literally, "he who (is) doing (the) sin out of the slanderer (or adversary) is, seeing that from beginning the slanderer is sinning." Now are we quite in order in inferring that the beginning referred to is that of Satan? What a pity John had not inspected the word "his" (autou) after "beginning." And precisely what is the connection between the two clauses, joined by "seeing that"? Why should the sin-doer be out of the Devil, because of the fact that it was from his beginning that the Devil sinned? Is there any logical connection? Some commentators have stated it this way, that sin-doers are of the Devil, for the reason that from their own beginning as human beings the devil is sinning.
There are many points upon which our curiosity is not satisfied. Some things are simply not our business. The present age is notably one in which people will not brook ignorance. Experts we must have upon every matter.
The current theory regarding the Eons is largely based upon sheer guesswork. No one yet can present a logical explanation of Heb. 9:26 or Heb. 1:8 (for the eon of the eon). The same serious flaw which we found and condemned in other sects we encounter here: the guess becomes "the truth."
That God can and does forsake or leave alone individuals and whole nations is amply proved from the word azab (ozb) in the O. T. God left Hezekiah alone, to try him, that He might know all in his heart (II Chron. 32:31). "Then... I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them." (Deut. 31:17). "My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (Psalm 22:1). "For Jehovah. . . . forsaketh not His saints" (Psalm 37:28). That the word means "leave alone" rather than "forsake" is shown at Judges 2:21, which should read, "the nations which Joshua left alone when he died." "I have forsaken Mine house, I have left Mine heritage" (Jer. 12:7). "Thou wilt not leave My soul in the unseen" (Psalm 16:10). "Yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken" (Psalm 37:25).
The meaning of this word is destroyed if it is true that all the time God is actively directing the steps of those whom He leaves alone or forsakes.
"Wherefore God gives them up (paredoken), in the lusts of their hearts, unto uncleanness, that is (tou), to be dishonoring their bodies among themselves, those who alter the truth of God in what is falsehood" (Rom. 1 :24-25, and cf. verses 26 and 28). "Now God turns and gives them up (paredoken) to be offering divine service to the host of heaven" (Acts 7:42). "Those who, having become past feeling, give THEMSELVES up (paredoken) to wantonness, unto all unclean action, in greed" (Eph. 4:19).
There is all the difference in the world between God, the thrice holy One, positively directing human beings into such foul steps, and merely leaving them to their own choice. But some minds cannot perceive the difference.
Another passage which has probably been wrongly understood by many is Acts 15:17-18, which in the A. V. reads thus: ". . . . saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." This statement does not appear to have any direct connection with what precedes or follows. The C. V. follows the reading of Codex Alexandrinus, "The Lord is saying, 'Who is doing these things.' Known to the Lord is His work from the eon." The Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus read "Doing these things known from eon." The 1944 C. V. slightly alters to ". . . Known from the eon to the Lord is His work." Cunnington reads, "Saith the Lord, doing these things which were known from of old." Rotherham (1st edition, 1872) has, ". . . says the Lord who does these things—known from antiquity." I should incline to the- reading of the R. v., "Saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from the beginning of the world," provided we put it this way, "Who maketh these things knowable (or to be known, so that they can be known; gnosta), from obscurity."
Wherefore, continues James, seeing that God has made these things known or to be known from obscurity, that the Nations should seek the Lord, my decision is that the Gentiles should not now be harassed if they seek Him.
The A. V. and the C. V. have preferred a conflate reading, which does not clear up the sense. Doubtless what the Lord does is and must be known to Him. But we do not require to assume or infer that He had every detail "cut and dried" from obscurity.
Would not our God seem far more wonderful if He could at any time cope, and cope successfully, with any and every situation which might arise, during the reign of Sin and Evil? He declares the end from the beginning (Isa. 46:10), and has revealed the main out, lines of great things to come. But what is never stated is that all the intermediate steps have been rigidly planned out. Strictly, the original Scriptures never present God as the Almighty. The Greek term pantokrator means, all-controller, all-wielder, like the beautiful Old English Al-wealdened. As you affirm, God controls everything. But we are under no necessity to believe that He has planned every wink or sneeze or yawn, every chew or bite or breath. Must we believe that every foul utterance of man, every unclean thought or act, every murderous intent, is directly instigated by God? That such teaching is very much out of harmony with what the Bible says is proved by the fact that this abominable teaching leaves no room for the grand Greek word proskarterEsis, well rendered by "perseverance," and its verb. Now any system of teaching which does not leave room, and ample room, for the exercise and for the efficacy of prevailing prayer, through perseverance, must be rigidly ruled out as erroneous. It will be very difficult to find, among the ranks of the Concordant people, many who have any experience of true perseverance in supplication before God. They try to maintain that they do really believe in prayer, but this term bewilders them. This alone ought to be sufficient to prove that their teaching is wrong and sadly deficient. You were very right to state that "these fatalistic notions are a curse in the Reconciliation movement." The Devil has seen to it that much fine teaching has been spoilt by foul weeds getting into the good soil.
If it is our God Himself who enjoins upon us perseverance in petitions before Him "on every occasion" (see Rom. 12:12; Eph. 6:18; and Col. 4:2), surely He must have made provision for the results. Surely He must be amenable to strong petitioning, to that holy boldness and freedom of speech (parrhEsia). But if God has planned out every step of our lives, and the lives of all mankind, there is not, and cannot be, any need for perseverance.
O the folly of concentrating upon the knowledge of God's ways and purposes, and neglecting the experimental daily knowledge of God! It is of those who take the trouble to seek Him out that He becomes rewarder. Far too many students are setting mere knowledge above the acquisition of true wisdom.
To many devout people it appears to be humiliating to find that God is One capable of changing His mind. Surely this is very different from saying that His essence remains the same, as spirit, while His nature does not alter. No doubt while on earth the Lord had the same freedom to change His mind that others had. Why should not God, in whose image we are made, change His mind? To do so, shews Him not as a weakling, but as extremely human. Has not God revealed Himself as human, in a Human Being? He is not far from anyone of us. Indeed, He is very close to Humanity. The human race is His kindred.
Has it come to be a humiliation to believe what God has revealed concerning Himself? If it is God Himself who tells us that He can "repent" or rather "change His mind," let us believe Him, in simple trust. To speak of God repenting is not very suitable, as this word has taken on a theological nuance connected generally with sins. It is much better to render both the Greek metanoeO and the Hebrew equivalent nacham by "change the mind" or "change the attitude." To render the Hebrew word by both repent and console is to destroy concordance. These words are not interchangeable. But we can bridge the gulf by saying "change the mind" or "change the attitude" or "change the outlook." It is just here that it requires a major operation to get the student of Scriptures to comprehend that terms utilized by God have only one inherent meaning. Was the divine vocabulary so meagre that God could not find different terms for different ideas? Is it the same thing to exhibit repentance as to exhibit consolation? Jehovah was not by any means consoled because He had made man' kind. "It repenteth me that I have made them." (Gen. 6:7), or rather, "I change My mind that I have made them." Not only so, but He suffered grief. We must not seek to get rid of such expressions by calling them examples of the figure Anthropopatheia, or Condescension, as though God were only artificially simulating human feelings. Did God suffer no grief when His Son was slain? It is quite misleading in Acts 26:23 to read "that Christ should suffer," or "if it be the suffering Christ" (C. V). The word used is pathEtos, which means "capable of suffering." That was the kind of Messiah the prophets and Moses foretold, but far from the kind of Messiah the Jews expected. And in His suffering, did not the Son mirror the Father?
Jehovah changed His mind about setting up Saul as king (I Sam. 15:11). God changed His mind about the evil He had said would bring upon Nineveh (Jonah 3:10) after He had plainly revealed that the city would be destroyed in forty days. The O. T. knows nothing about any distinction between God's revealed will and His hidden intention. The people of Nineveh "believed God," and did not look upon His threat as a trick. When they turned from their evil way, God was quite justified in changing His mind and sparing them. Other cases of God "repenting" or changing His mind are to be found at Ex. 32:14, Jer. 18:8, 10, 20:16, 42:10, Ps. 110:4, 135:14. In the Piel or Fiol conjugation, the word is generally rendered in the A. V. by "comfort." This makes perfectly good sense, but it must be understood as a state of mind produced through a change being made. "And David comforted Bath-sheba his wife" (II Sam. 12:24). That is to say, he induced her to change her mind or attitude. All Jacob's sons and daughters rose up to comfort him when Joseph was missing, but he refused to be comforted (Gen. 37:35). They failed to get him to change his mind about Joseph. "For Jehovah shall comfort Zion" (Isa. 51:3), but He will do so by changing their mind, with regard to Himself, to their evil past, and to their evil state. This is something more than mere comfort. It means an entire new out look. He will even comfort all her waste places. That is, even their outlook will be changed.
As then, the Scriptures clearly reveal that God can and does change His mind, we come to just where He has left room for His people to supplicate Him with perseverance. We realize that many steps in our lives are not rigidly fixed and pre-determined. As you say, "God permits us to live on a low spiritual plane, if we want to be there." God leaves it to us whether we shall serve and honour Him, or whether we shall drift and quench His spirit. That we are enjoined not to be quenching the spirit (I Thess. 5:19) implies that we can quench His spirit. And have we never done this in our lives? Nor are we to be sorrowing the spirit, the holy (spirit) of God in which we are sealed unto deliverance day (Eph. 4:30). Are there not also certain things which can hinder our prayers? Can it be our God who sends these hindrances? The leader of an Irish sect of Brethren which tended much to mysticism ended his days greatly respected by his followers, but unknown to most of them, practicing some of the unmentionable vices of the flesh alluded to in Rom. 1:27. Could it ever be the will, or the intention of our God, that these things should be so? Assuredly not! God's will and intention for His saints is plainly stated in Rom. 12:2, "but to be transformed by the renewing of your mind, for you to be testing what is the will of God, (namely) that which is good and well able to please (euareston) and mature." The will of God cannot consist of anything tainted by evil. That many do not obey verses 1 and 2 is clear to all. How can we test what is God's' will (that which is good, etc.) if everything that happens is His will, including much that is evil?
Observe on how many occasions the apostle Paul shews himself as dependent on the prayers of the saints. Earnestly does he entreat the brethren (Rom. 15:30-32) to struggle together with Him in the prayers to God that he should be rescued from the unyielding ones in Judea, that his dispensation which was unto Jerusalem might be well received, that he might come to the Romans with joy through God's will, and be resting with them. In other words, they were to beseech God that He might make these things His will for Paul. Had Paul been a rank fatalist like almost every member of the concordant or reconciliation sect, he would never have troubled the Roman saints with this "struggling." Victorious prevailing supplication has now-a-days gone almost completely out of fashion. Paul's instructions are being disobeyed with impunity, and no one seems to care. Who is there to fulfill his words in Eph. 6:18-20? Where is there the vigilance and perseverance concerning all the saints? Where is there the supplication that others may speak the truth with boldness? How often do we encounter an Epaphras, always struggling for the saints in the prayers, that they may stand mature and fully assured in everything willed of God (Col. 4:12)? Why, can God not attain this end apart from the prayers of the saints? It would seem that He relies on these prayers for this purpose. See also verses 2-4 of the same chapter, and I Thess. 5:25.
That the instructions given in I Tim. 2:1-2 have simply been shunned for centuries is notorious. Are they ever obeyed in gatherings of believers who reckon themselves as "advanced"? It is left to worldly Churches to give some kind of obedience to Paul's directions. How can our poor prayers have the effect of permitting our lives to be mild and quiet? Yet Paul puts these instructions "first of all." Very evidently Paul firmly believed that "Prayer Changes Things."
Not upon some vague "will of God"—rigidly predetermined from ancient eons, did Paul depend so that he might be granted to Philemon's home, but he relied on the prayers on those who lived there. (Phm. 22).
All this means that our prayers have a great deal to do with what is to happen. Things non-essential to God's fixed plans can be moulded into God's will through our supplications. Spiritually, we are seated. with Christ in the heavenly places. Should we be enduring, we shall be reigning with Him in the coming eons. With such a high destiny, why should not we, who are family-members of God, (Eph. 2:19) even in some small measure be used to co-operate with God in forging and formulating some of those minor links which are not directly the subject of prophecy? If, both naturally and spiritually, "in Him we live and move and have our being," why should the Ideal of all perfect Fatherhood not make! some of the humble petitions of His own children His will? Any good human father would do as much, and gladly.
The very fact that God tells us to supplicate Him is proof that He requires our petitions and depends upon them. In this there is unlimited scope for everyone of us, provided we cast aside the ensnaring coils of fatalism.
One would think, that if God were the only agent in bringing about spiritual blessing in revivals and periods of special illumination, He would scatter these rays equally over all countries. But the plain fact,is that it is men and women mainly in or from Nordic lands who are at the root of these movements. Very largely, God has left it to the members of His Church to carry-on this, work, through the power inherent in His word.
We could all, each one of us, accomplish one hundred times more than we are doing. It is according to the power working in us that He is able to do excessively above all that we are requesting or apprehending (Eph. 3:20). But who believes that statement? Fatalism is Satan's choice weapon to destroy that power.
That God does not operate His universe to the last trivial detail is very well illustrated by the divine Law of Marriage. "What God yokes together, let not MAN be separating" (Matt. 19:6) is the divine principle. In what way, however, does God effect the yoking, and to what extent? One would think that if God directly chose each yoke pair, He would choose ideal partners. This no doubt does happen occasionally, but in general it certainly does not. That God, as a faithful Creator, would grant to His own people suitable mates is not denied, provided He is earnestly approached in prayer. But we must admit, and the fact is undeniable, that the great mass of human marriages is nothing more or less than the working out of the natural law of human selection, almost entirely upon a fleshly basis. God has set this general law in operation, just as He has set all other natural, laws in operation. These laws He keeps in control, yet leaves them to carry-on in accord with nature. The Lord had just been saying, "the two shall be for one flesh." God views man and wife as one flesh, not two. The yoking is, therefore, not necessarily spiritual. Even upon the creation of Woman, although Jehovah God found for Adam "a helper as his counterpart or complement" (Gen. 2:18,20), Adam exclaims, "This time it is bone from my bone and flesh from my flesh." (Verse 23). This union must have been ideal, as God did act directly in this one case.
Amid all God's natural laws, evil is operating. Nature brings about famines, storms, plagues, want, distress, and so on. But can we aver that God plans that any specific human being must fall into any specific evil? Is it not more like the facts that God leaves evil and nature to carry on their operations, according to natural laws? True, on special occasions, God can and does intervene to bring a certain evil upon a certain person or nation. Even the "showers and fruitful seasons" (Act 14:17) are subject to nature's law, as sometimes some nations do not enjoy these. Yet on occasion, God can certainly "go out of His way" to feed an individual who is starving.
In marriage, flesh draws to flesh; there is more or less of mutual attraction, sometimes no doubt partly of spirit as well as of flesh. A great many marriages, especially in this age, though perfectly honour' able, are very shallow affairs, and cannot produce much happiness or lasting harmony. In general, God does not choose each one's life partner deliberately, but merely leaves His own laws of nature to operate, and to the extent of His own law, the yoke is a yoke. Does God directly plan the remarriage of divorced parties? Sometimes a man chooses a woman who turns out to be a thorough virago or termagant. Are we to infer that this is God's specific choice for him and for him alone? After a time the woman dies. The man, his nature still the same as before, marries again, a woman who makes an ideal counterpart. Is this again God's specific choice? Would it not be more in accord with fact to say that God sets His laws in motion, and "leaves" mankind to go on in its own ways, making its own choices, taking its own path, within certain time and place boundaries? To a great extent God leaves us all to this law of natural selection. I could travel to my work each morning by four or five different routes or methods: Is it God who chooses and directs how I go each time? Does He really need to bother about such trivial details? We might work ourselves into a state of extreme nervous exhaustion by worrying about God's minute by minute "will" for us.
If God chooses all the marriage steps of all men and women, He appears to be acting very fitfully and almost at random. In India children are "married" at a ridiculously early age. Is that God's specific will for them? In some eastern countries the partners are artificially mated, before they even see each other.
That God directly leads all mankind into their erring and erratic ways is extremely difficult to swallow.
Or to take another assumed example. A company of earnest men form a version of God's word, on the most consistent lines known to them. Later on, it is discovered that this is very defective in many ways. It was God who directed them to this work, and led them through it. Then they improved their labours and turned out another edition. But this also was found honeycombed with errors of a different sort, and the edition was again scrapped. Nevertheless, it also was claimed as "from God." Yet again was it found necessary to make a thorough revision of the work, and the laborious and painful task was again undertaken. Could it be that each of these labours was directly from God and directly ascribable to Him? Is that the way in which He operates? How could it be claimed that He was the "Author" of each of these very imperfect efforts?
In this day when many nations all over the world are shackling themselves by curtailing the liberty of their subjects, when so-called democracy is becoming a farce and a failure, let us shake ourselves free of the slavery of fatalism, and come into some of the glorious freedom of the children of God. The doctrine that all men's steps have been pre-arranged of God is a perversion of Scripture, most seductive and most dangerous.
Reverting now to Eph. 1:11, are we strictly in order in asseverating that the "all things" which God is said to be operating, cover every minutest happening in the whole history of the universe? According to I Cor. 12:4-6, there are diversities of graces, of services, and of operations, but the same God Who is operating "the all" in all. Verse 11 will shew that this refers only to the saints. In Eph. 1:10 it is not specifically stated whether "the all" to be headed up in the Christ includes the dead. The whole passage as it stands might be understood as referring only to believers. What God is operating in accord with the plan of His will might be in connection with His own people, the subjects of the chapter. We do not require to jump out of the context and claim that "the all" refers to everything in all time and to everybody who ever lives. The verse could quite well mean that God is operating all things necessary to the plan of His will, or operating all things which are in line (kata) with His plan. Or Paul might have meant that all that God is operating, He is operating in accord with a plan He has made. It may be salutary to bear in mind that there is an explanation of Rom. 8:28 somewhat different from the usual and popular one. Can we truly say, do we really experience as a fact, that every little or big event in our lives is working for good? We know some believers who have taken their own lives. It will not do to reason that this was working for good in the resurrection life. To those loving God, He is working all things together for good, to those called (or rather, callable; klEtois; some will be called in the future) according to a purpose, seeing that (hoti) whom He foreknew, He designates beforehand. . . . . He calls also. . . He justifies also. . . . . He glorifies also. Are not these the glorious steps that work together for good to us? We require to take a dispassionate and unselfish view of the passage, excluding rigidly views that are really based upon our selfish wishes.
Finally, I must bring forward one clear and indisputable statement from Holy Writ to shew that God is not operating everything that happens in this world. Jeremiah (ch. 7:31) tells us that the children of Judah had done evils in Jehovah's sight, even burning their sons and daughters in the fire, "which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart." See also ch. 19:5, and ch. 32:35. Literally, "nor did it ascend upon My heart."
Now, if these horrible and inhuman practices did not as much as come into Jehovah's heart or mind, how possibly could He have planned that Judah would commit them? God did not determine or direct that Judah should commit such crimes. It is not God who determines in advance the evil acts of mankind. I quote from the article, "Free Moral Agency," "Man goes the way that God desires; his steps have been prearranged and are all ordained of the Lord." When we think of it, surely this is the most slanderous teaching that could be put forth to destroy the faith of believers. It is one of Satan's old lies, dressed in quasi-scriptural language.
May God's lovable saints be delivered from this frightful travesty of the truth!
Powerful Prayer
Why, then, ought not we Christian people, who have been declared righteous, lift up our prayers to God Almighty that He might change the hearts of evil men and women everywhere. Powerful prayer is profitable if we are really in earnest, and God is waiting for our prayers.
Alexander Thomson
Alexander Thomson
Fruit
Not only does fruit reproduce life in due course by its death, but in its ripeness it maintains life by giving sustenance to the hungry and refreshment to the thirsty, whilst still retaining its fundamental function in its seed of life, the stone or pip. Fruit and chaff both fall to the ground and rot, the former to bring forth new life in abundance, the latter to dissolve, resolving itself into its elements and thus forming humus. The former speaks. to us of resurrection and the latter of disintegration. In the sense that its elements form the food of the growing plant, it may be said that it becomes reintegrated eventually.
J.G.H. Steedman
J.G.H. Steedman
Silly Thoughts
"The sun is terrible in its brightness. You'll go blind if you stare at it too long."
"Then what good is it?"
"Its goodness or badness doesn't matter. All that matters is that it's there. And so whether we want to or not we must learn to live with it."
"But it's not always there. Where does it go?"
"No one knows but when it goes away we close our eyes and when it comes back we reopen them."
"Have you ever noticed that when it's gone there is less warmth and less light? Could the absence of the sun in any way be related to those factors?
"What a ridiculous thought! The sun is in the sky, aloof and unapproachable. How could it be responsible for the light and warmth in our lives?"
"Yes, of course, how silly of me."
"Then what good is it?"
"Its goodness or badness doesn't matter. All that matters is that it's there. And so whether we want to or not we must learn to live with it."
"But it's not always there. Where does it go?"
"No one knows but when it goes away we close our eyes and when it comes back we reopen them."
"Have you ever noticed that when it's gone there is less warmth and less light? Could the absence of the sun in any way be related to those factors?
"What a ridiculous thought! The sun is in the sky, aloof and unapproachable. How could it be responsible for the light and warmth in our lives?"
"Yes, of course, how silly of me."
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