our-bread-for-breakfast

All my springs are in Thee. (Psa. lxxxvii. 7). - (1)

Sun, 22 Jun 2014 03:39:25 +0100

by Charles H. Welch

#1. The primary significance of the passage considered.

The words that form the title of this series of articles occur at the close of a very remarkable Psalm; remarkable in that it insists upon Israel’s peculiar earthly mission among the nations, to whom they will extend the privilege of citizenship of Israel, a sentiment far removed from the narrower exclusiveness of Jewish interpretation. Two lines of teaching regarding Israel’s place in the earth are found in the scriptures, but they must be conceived of as parallels, not divergent or antagonistic. One emphasizes Israel’s unique position among the nations of the earth; the other that the Divine purpose is the blessing of all nations through Israel. Speaking of the exclusiveness that marked the false interpretation of the divine will for Israel, Perowne says:

“It was pervaded by a jealous exclusiveness which was remarkable even among the nations of antiquity, and which derived its force and sanction from the precepts of its religion. The Jews were constantly reminded that they were a separate people, distinct, and intended to be distinct, from all others . . . . . The Jewish church was not a missionary church. So far as the Jews looked upon the world around them, it was with feelings of antipathy, and with the hope, which was never quenched in the midst of the most terrible reverses, that finally they, as the chosen race, should subdue their enemies far and wide, and that, by the grace of Heaven. one sitting on David’s throne would be king of the world.”

While, alas, this is only too true, there are abundant evidences in the Prophets that the wider purpose of Israel’s call was understood, and never allowed to sink out of sight. The initial promise made to Abraham combines both aspects of the truth. God promised that He would make of him a great nation; that He would bless him and make his name great. But He also promised that he should be a blessing; that in him all families of the earth should be blessed (Gen. xii. 1-3).

The prophet Isaiah not only saw that in a future day “the mountain of the Lord’s house would be established in the top of the mountains”, but that “all nations should flow unto it”. The nations will voluntarily go up to the house of the God of Jacob, for there the nations will be taught the ways of the Lord, and Zion shall become the centre from which shall radiate the word of the Lord (Isa. ii. 2, 3). In the glorious day that is coming “there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek” (Isa. xi. 10).

Some of these nations are specified, and the fact that such old enemies as Egypt and Assyria are included in this great brotherhood of nations is an evidence of grace indeed:

“In that day shall Israel be third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel Mine inheritance” (Isa. xix. 24,25).

The growing fear of war, the increasing terror of modern weapons, the shrinkage of space by reason of wireless and air transport, the sudden worthlessness of frontiers as defences, are driving the nations of the earth to seek some means of bringing about international unity. This will ultimately lead to the rise of Babylon, and the advent of the last and greatest of the world’s dictators. But what the nations vainly seek to establish by policy and through fear, God intends to bring about by grace. Rome attempted some such uniting of the nations when it extended to them the rights of citizenship of that Empire; Greek philosophy groped amid the shadows after universal citizenship, and by its system of proselytizing even Judaism made some attempt to attain this end.

In Psalm lxxxvi., which immediately precedes the one under review, Davie foresees the conversion of the nations, saying:

“All nations whom Thou hast made, shall come and worship before Thee, O Lord; and shall glorify Thy name” (Psa. lxxxvi. 9).

Coming to the Psalm from which the title of these articles is taken, and which has started this line of thought, we observe the following features. The opening superscription, “A Psalm or Song for the sons of Korah”, is balanced by the closing subscription, “A Song or Psalm for the sons of Korah, to the chief Musician upon Mahalath Leannoth”. The key to these Psalm titles was discovered by Dr. J. W. Thirtle while examining two independent Psalms, namely the one in Isa. xxxviii. 9-20, and that in Hab. iii. In each of these the relationship of Title and Subscription is clear. The complete Psalm is as follows:

(1) The super-scription or title proper.
(2) The body of the Psalm itself.
(3) The sub-scription.

This subject forms the material of Appendices 64 and 65 of The Companion Bible, in which great work all the Psalms are set out in conformity with this pattern.

The words Mahalath Leannoth, therefore, instead of being part of Psalm lxxxviii., form the sub-scription of Psalm lxxxvii. Mahalath means “The great dancing”, for this is how Aquila translates the word in his revision of the Septuagint. Leannoth means “shouting”, or “great shouting”.

“We have only to read the Psalm in the light of I Sam. vi. 14, 15 to see the obvious connection with David’s bringing the Ark to Zion. In verse 2 of the Psalm there is a distinct allusion to the other places where the Ark had found a temporary dwelling. Shiloh (I Sam. i. 3; ii. 14; iii. 21; Psa. lxxviii. 60); Bethshemesh (I Sam. vi. 13); Kirjath-jearim (I Sam. vii. 1); Gibeah (II Sam. vi. 3, 4); the house of Obededom (II Sam. vi. 10-12). But none of these was the dwelling place Jehovah had chosen. Hence, Zion is celebrated as ‘the Mount Zion which He loved’ (Companion Bible, Appendix 65 x.).”

The association of the removal of the Ark with “dancing” is established by II Sam. vi. 14.

Many commentators see in Psalm lxxxvii. a reference to the days of Hezekiah, when it was said of him “that he was magnified in the sight of all nations from henceforth” (II Chron. xxxii. 23). Yet again, it has been assigned to the fulfillment of the promise that the Lord would return unto Zion, and dwell in the midst of Jerusalem (Zech. viii. 3), when the temple was once again built and when Zerubbabel was installed as prince of the house of Judah. There is no reason to limit the Psalm to any one particular period of rejoicing, so long as the rejoicing is definitely associated with the choice of Zion.

Where the A.V. reads, “I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon to them that know Me”, the R.V. reads “I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon as among them that know Me”. This is in keeping with the prophecy of Isaiah: “And the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day” (Isa. xix. 21). Egypt, Babylon, Philistia, Tyre and Ethiopia are addressed by the Lord as entering into the glorious privilege of citizenship, “This man was born there”. The glorious things that are spoken of Zion, the city of God, include this all-embracive blessing of the nations. It will be the highest dignity that any can attain, to be able to say, “I was born there”.

The “bringing forth of children” is a figure of frequent use in the prophets, and as it is physically impossible for all the nations specified to be born in Zion, its meaning must be extended to cover the privilege of inclusion by citizenship:

“Shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children . . . . . I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream” (Isa. lxvi. 8-12).

The time of this travail is immediately before the second coming of the Lord, “The bringing of sorrows” (Matt. xxiv. 8). These “sorrows” are not unto death, but pregnant with life, for the word odin is translated “travail” in I Thess. v. 3, and means “birth pains”, even as the verb odino is translated in Gal. iv. 19 “To travail in birth”. The prophetic day to which this looks is called in Matt. xix. 28, “The regeneration”, the time of rebirth for Israel and the nations. It is to this blessed fact that thought is directed in Psalm lxxxvii. Primarily therefore the exultant cry, “All my springs are in Thee”, refers to Zion, the mother of all the nations, together with Israel, who shall enter in to the kingdom of that day.

Having seen this, we are at liberty to extend the passage to cover the greater and more glorious truth that the believer to-day, as at all times, can look up to the Lord and exclaim, “All my springs are in THEE”. It is this aspect of truth that we hope to develop in the subsequent articles of this series.

----------------------

(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 33, page 39).

-------------------------

THE PULPIT OF THE OPENED BOOK (10) - by Charles H. Welch

Sun, 22 Jun 2014 02:37:14 +0100

#9. (10) “Go ye and learn what that meaneth,
I will have mercy and not sacrifice” (Matt. ix. 13).

Is there a danger in stressing the believer’s full acceptance in the sacrifice of Christ? Is there a danger in emphasizing that salvation is “not of works”? There is, if truth be not presented in all its fullness. We must, however, refrain from putting out our hand to stay the ark of God. We must not minimize by one iota either the completeness of redemption or the believer’s inability to provide the least contribution towards his acceptance. Moreover, if we see a believer taking an advantage of grace in that he assumes that one’s “manner of life” is of no importance, we must yet be watchful that, in stressing his responsibility, we neither reintroduce the fetters that redemption has for ever broken, nor preach the once-offered Sacrifice with any reservations.

It is evident from the objection raised in Rom. vi. 1 that the Apostle had so preached “grace without works” as to make it possible for the objection to be laid, “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” but we do not find in that chapter any attempt on the part of the Apostle to minimize the completeness of the offering of Christ. First, he meets the objection with a vigorous, “God forbid!” and then proceeds to show that every one that has accepted Christ as Sacrifice and Saviour, does so not only as if Christ had accomplished an objective work done on his behalf, but as if it is a work with which he must be identified, his language being, “How shall I that am dead to sin, live any longer therein?” (Rom. vi. 2). In the subsequent argument of the chapter, it is clearly stated that “His servants ye are to whom ye obey”, and that those who have been made “free from sin”, instead of receiving license to spend their blood-bought liberty in the pleasing of self, are free so that they may become “the servants of righteousness”. It is therefore untrue to assume that he who preaches the basic doctrine of the One Sacrifice for sin is not alive to the moral issues that must arise therefrom.

Our thoughts have been directed to this aspect of truth by having to deal with the problems relative to the Mosaic law of Sacrifice and Offering which certain passages in the Psalms and the Prophets create. It is easy to lift out and regard as sweeping statements such words as “Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldst not”, or “Incense is an abomination” and so conclude that the whole system of sacrifice was thereby set aside, and that nothing more was demanded of any man than that he “walk humbly” with His God. But such an attitude of mind is, to say the least, illogical, for it not only sets aside the Mosaic law of Sacrifice, but also the bulk of the teaching of the N.T., completely emptying Paul’s epistles of any meaning.

No one acquainted with the teaching of the Lord in the Gospels, or of Paul, Peter and John in their Epistles, could hesitate to admit that the Sacrifice of Christ was held to be fundamental to salvation, and that this One Offering did most truly endorse and fulfil all that had been foreshadowed in the ritual sacrifices of the Old Covenant. In view of the reiterated statement that Christ came to fulfil the Law and the Prophets, it is not possible to believe that those self-same prophets did indeed set aside the supreme purpose for which “a body” had been “prepared” for Him.

This being so, it is highly probable that those who see any divergence between the Law and the Prophets in this matter of sacrifice for sin, have not only misunderstood the meaning of the prophet, but have equally misunderstood the law of sacrifice itself. If it be conceived that a sinner under the law could, as it were, obtain an indulgence for any sin and get off scot free by hiding behind a mere ceremonial, then Luther’s burning indignation against the notorious licences of Tetzel should have been directed to the more fatal licence inculcated by Moses! Such a conclusion carries with it its own refutation, but though writer and reader be at one over the matter, the subject is of such importance that an examination of the passages found in the Psalms and in the Prophets that appear to militate against the law of sacrifice seems desirable, and to this we now apply ourselves.

When David was convicted of sin and realized that no sacrifice provided by the law could give him peace, he exclaimed:

“Thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it. Thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise” (Psa. li. 16, 17).

Nevertheless, so far removed from David’s thoughts was it that the Mosaic sacrifices were rendered null and void, that he goes on to say that when Israel are restored; when the walls of Jerusalem are rebuilt; “Then shalt Thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering; then shall they offer bullocks upon Thine altar” (Psa. li. 18, 19).

Again, a superficial reading of Psa. xl. 6, “Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire”, might lead to the supposition that the law of sacrifice was set aside, but a reading of the context, and particularly the remote context of Heb. x., reveals that, instead of setting aside the law of sacrifice, this passage but demands its fuller and higher recognition. Commenting on this passage, Perowne says:

“We may perhaps paraphrase verses 5-8 as follows: My heart is full to overflowing with the thought of Thy goodness. How can I express, how can I acknowledge it? Once I should have thought sacrifices and offerings a proper and sufficient acknowledgment. Now, I feel how inadequate these are; for Thou hast taught me the truth; my deaf unwilling ears didst Thou open, that I might understand that a willing heart was the best offering that I could render. Then, being taught of Thee, I said, Lo, I come, presenting myself before Thee, not with a dead and formal service, but with myself as a living sacrifice.”

The tenth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews establishes two great truths regarding the doctrine of sacrifice.

(1) That the sacrifices offered under the law, together with its promises, were “shadows” of good things to come: and
(2) That these “shadows” find their substance and fulfillment, not in the repentance of the sinner, but in “the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. x. 10).

Yet once more, Psa. l. 8 has been similarly misconstrued:

“I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt offerings, to have been continually before Me.”

In these words God was not repudiating the Mosaic system but, as Perowne comments:

“The reason for this act of judgment is given first negatively. It is not because the people neglected the externals of the law, or had forgotten to offer the sacrifices appointed by the law. They had brought them; but they had brought them as if the act were everything, and as if the meaning of the act, and the spirit in which it was done, were nothing. But God demands no service for its own sake (the cattle upon a thousand hills were His), but as an expression of an obedient will. A thankful heart is more than all burnt offerings.”

It is in the light of such passages that we must read:

“To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? . . . . . I am full of the burnt offerings of rams . . . . . Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto Me” (Isa. i. 11-13).

These words were spoken to a people who could be likened to Sodom and Gomorrha, whose prayers were rejected because the hands that were spread out to God were “full of blood”. Such were enjoined to wash and make themselves clean; to put away the evil of their doings; to cease to do evil; to learn to do well. If the sacrificial system had been devised to make “the mere ceremonial act an easy means of blotting out the moral offence, iniquity would have been established by the law. The moral sense of the nation would have been enfeebled” (Patrick Fairbairn, D.D.).

Similarly, we must read another such passage in Jeremiah:

“I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices” (Jer. vii. 22).

A superficial reading of such a passage creates a contradiction; it sets the Prophets over against the Law. But, while it is true that when the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt nothing was indeed said of burnt offering and sacrifice, the system was introduced later when Israel made it clear by their worship of the golden calf that they would never attain to righteousness by the keeping of the law of Sinai.

Earlier in Jer. vii. we have the ominous repetition “The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord” (Jer. vii. 4), reiteration that savours more of the idolatrous repetition of the worshippers of Diana at Ephesus than of worship of the true God. In this connection it is noteworthy that the structure of Acts xix. 21 - xxi. 39, given in Volume XXX, page 98, places the “uproar” at the temple of Diana in correspondence with the “tumult” at the temple of Jerusalem, reducing the temple at Jerusalem to the level of that of Ephesus, and showing the force of the Lord’s words when He said “Your” house is left unto you desolate.

It was to those who used mere ceremonial as a screen for iniquity that the prophets so spoke. It is in the light of such moral necessity that we must interpret the words of Hosea: “I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings” (Hosea vi. 6).

On two occasions the Saviour used these words to correct a ceremonial and mechanical use of the law of sacrifice:

“But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am come not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Matt. ix. 13).
“But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless” (Matt. xii. 7).

It is only by the context that we can gather what this text “means”. It is in contrast with the narrow self-righteousness that would rather elevate and enlarge the law that prohibited certain occasions of fellowship with Gentiles, than see a poor outcast gathered into the fold of salvation. It was quoted in direct opposition to that narrow scrupulosity that condemned the disciples for plucking ears of corn on the Sabbath and elevated the unfeeling tradition of the Elders above the spirit of mercy resident in the law.

We, too, must learn what this twice-quoted passage from Hosea “meaneth”. We must not read it, “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice”, as though sacrifice was repudiated. The words kai ou, “and not”, denote a “comparative negative”, as for example, “Rend your hearts, and not your garments”, or as the parallelism of Prov. viii. 10 makes clear: “Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold”, for the Lord did not say that the Pharisees should not tithe “mint and anise and cumin”; these He said should not be left undone, but to omit the weightier matters of the law, such as “judgment, mercy, and faith” was to empty the law of its true “meaning” (Matt. xxiii. 23).

With such correctives ministered by the Psalmist, the Prophets and the Saviour, we can and should realize that the Mosaic sacrificial system was a divinely given, typical foreshadowing of the one great Sacrifice offered by the Lord, which indeed was no mere ceremonial, but involved the identification of the believer both with his Substitute’s death to sin, and in newness of life to God. The sacrifices of the law never touched the conscience; they were but shadows, but on the other hand they gave no premium to sin, and were only truly offered when the offerer was conscious of his guilt and felt a need both of a Deliverer and the moral necessity of repentance; a repentance that not only turned from the sin committed, but turn the heart toward the God Who had been so grievously offended.

A fitting conclusion would be a prayerful reading of Psalm li. in its entirety, observing the Psalmist’s consciousness of sin, his inability to provide any sacrifice that could meet his dire need, the desire for cleansing within, the desire for restoration and usefulness, and the complete endorsement, after all has been said, of the very sacrificial system which at first appears to be refuted and obsolete.

---------------------------

(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 33, page 133).

----------------------------

“Go ye and learn what that meaneth” (Matt. ix:13). - (1)

Sat, 21 Jun 2014 02:40:35 +0100

(A series of studies on the importance of, and the comprehension of, “meaning”)
by Charles H. Welch

No.1. Meaning

The Holy Scriptures, even though they had been written in letters of burnished gold would not have been a revelation of God to man, if the meaning of those burnished letters was hidden from man. It matters not how fair the script may be, or whose hand wrote the lines—they may even be engraved by the finger of God Himself as were the Ten Commandments, yet they would still fail of their purpose if no meaning were attached to the holy symbols. Significance, meaning, intention, these are the spirit; the actual words used are but the body, and as the body without the spirit is dead being alone, so is a word divested of its meaning.

In order to be sure of the meaning of the Scriptures, we must give attention to grammar, to usage, to structure, to manner and custom, to time, place, circumstance and to the changing dispensations.

Before us as we write is a book which contains a “Form of service for the observation of the Passover”. Prayers preceding and following the search for leaven in the house are given, the disposition of the table, the cakes, shank bone, &c., is set out, the sanctification for the Passover is pronounced and prepared for, and then at the filling of the cup of wine the second time, the youngest child in the company asks: “Wherefore is this night distinguished from all other nights? On all other nights we may eat either leavened or unleavened bread, but on this night only unleavened bread; on all the other nights we may eat any species of herbs, but on this night only bitter herbs; on all the other nights we do not dip even once, but on this night we dip twice; on all other nights we eat and drink either sitting or leaning, but on this night we lean?” There is also provision “for him who hath not capacity to inquire” and the head of the family must begin to discourse, as it is said, “and thou shalt show thy son on that day”.

The Passover feast was never intended to be a mere empty ritual. Provision was made by Moses in the very day of its institution, that children should ask “What mean ye by this service?” (Exod. xii. 26). The same provision is found in connexion with the feast of unleavened bread (xiii. 8) and the setting apart of the firstborn. Another symbolic memorial which had attached to it the duty of explaining its meaning, was the erection of the twelve stones in the bed of the Jordan, for it is written, “When your children ask their fathers in time to come, saying, What mean ye by these stones? Then ye shall answer them . . . . .” (Josh. iv. 6, 7).

When we ask the “meaning” of any word or thing, we use a word that is derived from the Anglo Saxon maenan “to intend”, and a word has no message or power, that has no meaning or intention. A dog, who has no ability to consult either a dictionary or a lexicon knows what his master intends, when he makes certain sounds, and if his master had always said “in front” when he meant “to heel” the faithful animal would have obeyed the intention regardless of the common usage of the words. Significance is everything.

In the eighth chapter of Daniel a vision is recorded, and after the record come the words “And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning”, that a voice commanded “Gabriel make this man to understand the vision” (viii. 15, 16), showing the Lord’s pleasure in this desire of his servant.

Zechariah the prophet manifests a vivid inquisitiveness, that is answered by the heavenly visitant, and his questions “What are these, my lord?” “What is it?” and “whither?” run through chapters iv., v. and vi.

We find when turning to the N.T. that the same concern that the “meaning” of the message should be perceived actuates both the Lord and His apostles. “Declare unto us” said the disciples, “the parable of the tares of the field” (Matt. xiii. 36), and a patient comparative explanation follows. Peter received a strange vision, and hears a yet stranger command to “Rise, kill and eat”, and while he pondered what the meaning of such a vision could be the answer is provided by the embassy from Cornelius (Acts x. 17).

The Apostle makes much of intention, significance and meaning, when he sought to guide and restrain the Corinthians in the use of the gift of tongues. Let us read Moffatt’s translation:

“Suppose now I were to come to you speaking with ‘tongues’ my brothers, what good could I do you, unless I had some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching to lay before you? Inanimate instruments, such as the flute or the harp, may give a sound, but if no intervals occur in their music, how then can one make out the air that is being played either on flute or on harp? If the trumpet sounds indistinct, who will get ready for the fray? Well, it is the same with yourselves. Unless your tongue utters language that is readily understood, how can people make out what you say? You will be pouring words into the empty air! There are ever so many kinds of language in the world, every one of them meaning something. Well, unless I understand the meaning of what is said to me, I shall appear to the speaker to be talking gibberish, and to my mind he will be talking gibberish himself. So with yourselves; since your heart is set on possessing ‘spirits’ make the edification of the church your aim in this desire to excel” (I Cor. xiv. 6-12).

As the body without the spirit is dead being alone, so the Scriptures deprived of their meaning are empty sounds and unedifying symbols.

In the O.T. “meaning” is the translation of either the word binah “to understand” (Dan. viii. 15), damah “to think, or devise”, from the root meaning “to be like” (Isa. x. 7); or chashab “to devise, to count”. In the N.T. “meaning” is expressed, either by parts of the verb “to be”, as esti “it is” (Matt. ix. 13); eie “it would be” (Acts x. 17); a combination of “to be” and “to wish” thelo einai (Acts ii. 12); or dunamis “power” (I Cor. xiv. 11). Should the student seek the Hebrew word that is translated “mean” in Exod. xii. 26, in “Young’s Analytical Concordance”, he will not find it, simply because there is no word in the original that stands for it, the literal version of Exod. xii. 26 reading “What is this service to you?” but of course the intention is evident just the same.

In this series our purpose is to consider from a variety of angles, this great question of “meaning” and “intention” in order that in the study of the Inspired Words, we may attain unto a fuller understanding of the Inspired Word.

-----------------------------

(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 38, page 98).

---------------------------

THE PULPIT OF THE OPENED BOOK (9) - by Charles H. Welch

Sat, 21 Jun 2014 01:47:43 +0100

#8. (9) A synopsis of a year’s testimony.

After the initial testimony, covering the first six months’ witness at the Chapel of the Opened Book, summarized in the preceding articles of this series, our next step was to seek some acquaintance with the teaching of the Scriptures concerning the GOD Who gave them, and MAN to whom they were given.

We traversed much the same ground as has been covered under the headings “This God is our God” (Volumes XXII-XXV), and “Fruits of Fundamental Studies” (Volume XXVII and onward), the early articles on Genesis in “Fundamentals of Dispensational Truth” and “What is Man?” (Volume XIX). We do not therefore propose repeating the substance of these addresses here, as, although they were presented in very different form from the articles referred to, and many points given but passing attention were elaborated with fuller detail in the pulpit; in the main, the conclusions were very similar.

The addresses upon the Being and Attributes of God were prefaced by a reminder from Job xi. 7 where we read: “Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?” We realized that no title of God, or all His titles put together, could fully reveal to man the nature and being of God, Who is Spirit, Who is Infinite, Who is Absolute and Unconditioned. We realized that God must stoop down out of the Absolute and Unconditioned, into the realm of the Relative and the Manifest, where He comes into touch with limited and conditioned man. We did recognize with much joy that, great as are the titles and names assumed by God in making Himself known under the Old Covenant, the goal of the ages, as well as the crowning glory of all His titles and manifestations, is to be sought for in the New Covenant name of “Father”.

As our studies proceeded it became obvious that if we were to appreciate in any sense of reality the nature and being of God, we should have to follow this series of addresses with another, which sought a scriptural answer to the question, “What is man?” We found that man was made, “for a little”, lower than the angels; that his very name “Adam” suggests his prime purpose in the scheme of the ages, allied as it is to the word translated “likeness” in the verse where “Adam” is first mentioned in the original (Gen. i. 26), and we found much to encourage us as we realized that the first Adam, who was of the earth, earthy, was a “shadow”, a “figure”, of Him that was to come.

The nature of the soul and the unscriptural dogma “The immortality of the soul” were naturally included in this series, but, as time went on, the demand grew more insistent for some Divinely appointed bridge, some living link, that could span the gap between the Creator and His creatures; between Man, the sinner, and a God, too pure to look upon iniquity. Consequently the third section of the new series of addresses dealt with the need for, and the provision of, “The One Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus”.

The opening addresses of this new series dealt with the three-fold promise of a “Seed”.

(1) The SEED of the woman who should bruise the serpent’s head.
(2) The SEED of Abraham, limiting the channel of this promise to Israel, and revealing both the place that Israel must play in the outworking of the purpose of mercy, and also revealing the evangel that was “preached before unto Abraham”.
(3) The SEED of David, with its emphasis upon crown and throne, and also in the light of New Testament references to the foreknown sufferings and resurrection that would precede His accession and reign.

This threefold promise finds a threefold fulfillment in the opening of the New Testament.

(1) “Time” was fulfilled.—The testimony of prophecy was examined, the historical references of Luke ii. 1, 2; iii. 1, 2 scrutinized, the fact of Gal. iv. 4 realized, and the testimony of Mark i. 15 noted.
(2) “Place” was fulfilled.—Both the birth-place of Bethlehem and the upbringing at Nazareth fulfilled the prophets.
(3) “Person” was fulfilled.—Matthew and Luke give us two genealogies. One going back through Solomon to David and Abraham, the other going back through Nathan to David, Abraham and Adam. Matthew’s was seen to be the direct genealogy of Joseph the husband of Mary, Luke’s the line of Mary herself, her husband being the son-in-law, or legal son of his wife’s father. The appearance in both genealogies of Salathiel and Zorobabel (Matt. i. 12 and Luke iii. 27), suggesting a marriage between the Solomonic and Nathanic lines, was noted.

This threefold cord of evidence is supplemented by,

(4) The authority of His word as the “Sent One”.—He spoke with authority and not as the Scribes, and eight times in John’s Gospel He declared that the doctrine and the words He spoke were not His but the Father’s that sent Him.
(5) This authority is supplemented by the working of miracles, which were not only wonders and mighty works, but signs. The Lord appealed to these miracles, saying “believe Me for the very works’ sake” (John x. 38).
(6) Yet in spite of the fact that the fullness of time had come, and that Time, Place and Person all adhered; in spite of words of authority and miracles without precedent, the shadow of rejection is seen in Matt. xi., and becomes more pronounced as “parable” and “mystery” are introduced in Matt. xiii.
(7) This led us to the great prophecy of the second coming, Matt. xxiv., the very fact of there being a “second time” speaking of original rejection, as in the typical cases of Joseph and Moses (Acts vii. 13 and 35).

The crucifixion of the Saviour was viewed from the twofold aspects of Acts ii. 23: (1) “Delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God”, and (2) “Taken by wicked hands, crucified and slain”. “The last word” (Prov. xvi. 1-4, literal rendering) however is always with the Lord, and His last word is seen in operation when He raised the Lord from the dead.

In the Gospels the historic facts of the crucifixion and of the resurrection are given, but it is reserved for the succeeding speeches of the Acts and the doctrine of the epistles to show their true significance.

At the close of the Gospels we meet with the Commissions, the Lord appointing His representatives, and giving them their orders, before His departure. These commissions are found in each Gospel.

(1) “All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, even till the consummation of the age” (Matt. xxviii. 18-20).

This commission belongs especially to the kingdom, and is addressed to all nations. The words “gospel” and “preach” are not employed. However, with the setting aside of Israel at Acts xxviii. this proclamation awaits the time of the end, and the presence of the Lord is assured to those who make the proclamation “all the days until the sunteleia of the age”.

(2) “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe . . . . . they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following” (Mark xvi. 15-20).

This commission we are assured was fulfilled. The miraculous signs did follow. They persist throughout the Acts of the Apostles to the last chapter, being found in full operation in the churches of Corinth and Rome, while reference to them is found in Galatians, and Hebrews.

(3) “Repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of My Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high” (Luke xxiv. 47-49).

This commission is repeated in Acts i., and is partly fulfilled in the Acts of the Apostles. It is Pentecostal in character and scope.

(4) “When the Comforter is come, Whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me. And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with Me from the beginning” (John xv. 26, 27).

Matthias fulfilled the condition here specified, and was numbered with the Apostles (Acts i. 22-26). Pentecost fulfilled the promise of the Comforter, but John’s Gospel has a place in the purpose of grace that occupies the period from the destruction of Israel’s city to the second coming, during which the highways and byways are searched, and the wedding of the King’s son furnished with guests.

One other commission awaits investigation, that given to Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, but he was not called until, once again, rejection cast its shadow over the scene and the failure of Israel to repent, even after the second invitation, was evident.

The future ministry of The Chapel of the Opened Book will be largely occupied with considering the distinctions that must be observed between the various commissions, but will give particular attention to the commission and calling of the apostle Paul because of the close relationship between the present dispensation and that last of all the commissions, and the only one given by the ascended Christ, after all His earthly ministry had been fulfilled.

---------------------------

(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 33, page 130).

-------------------------

Truth in the Balance. (13) - by Charles H. Welch

Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:16:18 +0100

No.13. Prophecy and its Fulfillment.

Among the subjects that demand the “balance” for their interpretation and the appreciation of their value, must be numbered Prophecy and its fulfillment.

The following paragraphs written by Horne, in his “Introduction” are worth reproducing:

“The knowledge of future events is that object, which man, with the greatest desire, has the least ability to attain. By tracing cause and effect in their usual operations, by observing human characters, and by marking present tendencies, he may form some plausible conjectures about the future; and an experienced politician, who is thoroughly acquainted with the circumstances, interests, and tempers both of his own community and of those who are his neighbours, will frequently anticipate events with a sagacity and success which bear some resemblance to direst prescience, and excites the astonishment of less penetrating minds. Still, however, he is limited to a kind of contact with present circumstances. That which he foresees must have some connexion with what he actually beholds, or some dependence on it; otherwise his inquiries are vain, and his conjectures idle and delusive; and even within those narrow limits, how often is his penetration baffled, and his wisdom deceived. The slightest intrusion of uncommon circumstances, the smallest possible deviation from rules, which cannot by any means be rendered exact, destroys the visionary chain which he has constructed, and exposes his ignorance to himself and others. The prescience of the most experienced politician, in short, bears a close resemblance to that of an experienced general or a skilful chess player.”

Prophecy in the sense of an unfulfilled prediction, has little or no meaning or weight apart from its fulfillment, and the demonstration that any prophecy has been fulfilled is an evidence that God is at work, for:

“To foresee and foretell future events is a miracle of which the testimony remains in itself. It is a miracle, because to foresee and foretell future events, to which no change of circumstances leads, no train of probabilities points, is as much beyond the ability of human agents, as to cure diseases with a word, or even to raise the dead, which may properly be termed miracles of power. That actions of the latter kind were ever performed can be proved, at a distant period, only by witnesses, against whose testimony cavils may be raised, or causes for doubt advanced: but the man, who reads a prophecy and perceives the corresponding event, is himself the witness of the miracle; he sees that thus it is, and that thus by human means it could not possibly have been. A prophecy yet unfulfilled is a miracle at present incomplete; and these, if numerous, may be considered as the seeds of future conviction, ready to grow up and bear their fruit, whenever the corresponding facts shall be exhibited in the theatre of the world. So admirably has this sort of evidence been contrived by the wisdom of God, that in proportion as the lapse of ages might seem to weaken the argument derived from miracles long since performed, that very lapse serves only to strengthen the argument derived from the completion of prophecy.”

The Prophecies of the Scripture are reducible to four heads:

(1) Prophecies relating to Israel in particular.
(2) Prophecies relating to the neighbouring nations.
(3) Prophecies relating to the Messiah.
(4) Prophecies given by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and His apostles.

Prophetic utterances concerning Israel begin with the call of Abraham, and are continued to Isaac and Jacob. These prophecies foretell that the posterity of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, shall possess the land of Canaan, and that though they should lose the enjoyment of this land for a time, owing to their sinfulness, yet their title to the land should never be alienated, but that in God’s good time they should be gathered back and given possession of their land, there to continue in peaceful enjoyment to the end of time. The passages of Scriptures that contain these prophetic utterances are Gen. xii. 7; xiii. 14, 15, 15; xv. 18-21; xvii. 7, 8; Exod. iii. 8, 17; Deut. xxx. 1-5; Jer. xxx. 3. When the original prophecy was uttered, Abraham was an old man, without children, and had just left the land of his nativity to become a pilgrim in the land beyond the Euphrates unto which the Lord has led him. That land moreover was held by a number of warlike tribes, some of them being giants with “cities walled up to heaven”, yet the book of Numbers (chapter xxi.), Deut. ii. and Josh. iii. onwards, reveal how exactly these prophecies began to be fulfilled, while the remainder of the O.T. reveals the fulfillment of the threat to scatter the children of Israel from their land. We now confidently await the fulfillment of the third feature—Israel’s gathering, restoration and blessing. What has been fulfilled encourages us to believe that all will be fulfilled in God’s own time.

When the days drew near for the prophecy of the captivity of the Jews to take place, the prophet Jeremiah foretold Nebuchadnezzar by name (Jer. xxvii. 3-7). For a composite prophecy, so written before the event as to produce the feeling of contradiction, one is referred to the double prophecy of Jeremiah and Ezekiel concerning the fate of Zedekiah. If we compare Jer. xxxiv. 2-7 with Ezek. xii. 13 we find that Zedekiah should “see the king of Babylon”, yet he should “not see Babylon”, that he should be “carried to Babylon”, yet should die in peace and be buried after the manner of his ancestors, yet that he should die, nevertheless, at Babylon. The history of Zedekiah reveals a faithful fulfillment of all that was prophesied. He did see the king of Babylon, who ordered his eyes to be put out, he was brought to Babylon without seeing it, and that he died there (Jer. xxxiv. 4, 7; II Kings xxv. 6, 7). The only feature that is left unrecorded is that after his death Zedekiah was given an honourable burial, but in the absence of any word to the contrary this can be safely assumed.

Prophecies concerning the Nations, occupy a large portion of the prophetic scriptures. Tyre, Egypt, Babylon, Nineveh, Ethiopia, the successors of Nebuchadnezzar, namely, the Medes and Persians and the Greeks are named. To give details of these embracive prophecies is beyond our present scope. To mention them is for the moment sufficient for our purpose. So marvelously did the fulfillment agree with the prophecy, “that the celebrated infidel Porphyry, in the second century, could only evade the force of them by asserting, contrary to all evidence, that they were written long after the event”.

Prophecies concerning the Messiah, however, cannot be treated in this fashion. They lie so near to the heart of truth, so close to the basis of all our hopes, that if they could be explained away we should be of all men most miserable. Let us tabulate some that are outstanding.

The place where Messiah was to be born, namely, Bethlehem, a little village among the thousands of Judah, was predicted by Micah the prophet (v. 2) 700 years before the event, which is as though someone in 1066 foretold the birth of an individual in some obscure village in England in the reign of George the Third!

The extraordinary character of this birth, namely, that the Messiah should be born of a virgin, was foretold by the prophet Isaiah (vii. 14; ix. 6, 7).

The extraordinary marvelous character of His death, is foretold by Isaiah, in that wonderful chapter, the fifty-third. Isaiah even goes so far as to foretell such details as:

“He made His grave with the wicked ones (plural), and with the rich one (singular) in His death” (liii. 9).

The death and resurrection of the Messiah were foretold with extraordinary exactness. The Psalms reveal that He would not see corruption (xvi. 10), that the instrument of His death should be crucifixion (xxii. 16) a mode of punishment unused among the Jews in David’s time; that He should sit on the right hand of God waiting until His foes be made His footstool (cx. 1), and that He should come again, His feet standing in the last day upon the Mount of Olives, the spot from which the N.T. records that He actually ascended (Zech. xiv.; Acts i.). Finally, for the present section, Daniel predicted the number of years that should intervene from the time indicated in Dan. ix. 25 to the coming of the Messiah the Prince Who should “be cut off and have nothing”, a prophecy which is a never-ending source of wonder to all who take the trouble to compute and examine chronology and history. Christ was born “in the fullness of time”.

The prophecies of the N.T. fall into two great groups. Those which were uttered by Christ concerning His own death and resurrection and which were immediately fulfilled, and those uttered by Christ and His apostles concerning the close of the age and the second coming of Christ, which prophesies necessarily await fulfillment, although the signs of the times, as predicted in I Tim. iv. and II Tim. iii., iv. are most certainly making themselves evident. The Saviour foretold His death, where it should take place, who would be instrumental in bringing it about, and what would precede it. He would be “killed” at “Jerusalem”, and suffer many things of “the elders, and chief priests and scribes” (Matt. xvi. 21). He specified what these “many things” would be. He would be delivered to the “Gentiles to mock, scourge and crucify” Him (Matt. xx. 18, 19). He also foretold His betrayal, indicated the traitor, and moreover, knew that all His disciples would forsake Him in the hour of His extremity (Matt. xx. 18; xxvi. 23, 31); and He even foretold that Peter would deny Him thrice before the cock crew twice (Mark xiv. 30). In every case the prophecy was fulfilled to the letter.

The Saviour just as explicitly foretold His resurrection. He would rise again “the third day” (Matt. xvi. 21), and that after He was risen He would go before the disciples into Galilee (Matt. xxvi. 32; xxviii. 16). The Lord foretold the descent of the Spirit and the enduement of the day of Pentecost (Luke xxiv. 49; Mark xvi. 17, 18), the destruction of Jerusalem with its temple (Mark xiii. 2; Luke xxi. 20-24). It would be a profitable exercise to trace out and tabulate the various expressions, such as: “That it might be fulfilled”, “That the Scripture might be fulfilled”, which are found in the four gospels, so that the close association of “promise and fulfillment” which characterizes the connexion between the Old Testament and the New might be appreciated for its true worth. There are twenty-eight such references where pleroo is used, beside other references and allusions. When all is placed in the balance that can be brought forth from the Scriptures concerning Prophecy and its fulfillment, the reader will possess an evidence for God and His Word, for Christ and His Redemption, that is overwhelming. Let us take courage. The prophecy that has been fulfilled is sufficient pledge to the believer of the prophecy which awaits fulfillment. “None shall want her mate” (Isa. xxxiv. 16).

--------------------------------

(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 38, page 246).

----------------------------------

THE PULPIT OF THE OPENED BOOK (8) - by Charles H. Welch

Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:43:10 +0100

#8. Deity of Christ, and the meaning of the Atonement.

Before attempting to speak on these momentous themes, a word or two concerning “God” is called for. What do we know of “God” as He is in Himself? The answer must be “Nothing”. Every title He has assumed has been for our sakes. Every manifestation has been a condescension, every name a limitation. God absolutely and unconditioned is unknown and unknowable by finite beings. When we read “God is spirit” we have a statement of fact which we can believe, but what do we know of life that is pure spirit? What are its modes? How can a “Person” be everywhere at once? What can we know of that order of being that is invisible, inaudible, intangible, infinite? If God reveals Himself under the title “I AM”—just what do we understand? Is there not the tendency on our part to reply, “I am what”? The name Jehovah which is adopted by God as His name for the age, is used repeatedly of Christ in the New Testament. He, too, at times claims the title “I AM”, as for example in John viii. 58, 59, and answers to the unspoken cry of our nature when confronted with the title, by filling it out in such claims as “I AM the bread of life”, “I AM the light of the world”, etc. In other words, Christ is God stepping down from the unconditioned into the realm of manifestation.

The Universe falls into two categories: (1) The Creator; (2) The Creature. Christ must be one or the other. Scripture affirms that Christ is the Creator (John i.; Col. i.; Heb. i.). The Universe falls into two categories: (1) All that is God; (2) All that is not God. Christ must be one or the other. Scripture affirms that He is God (John i.; Heb. i.; Rom. ix.). In Chapters i. and vi. of the first epistle to Timothy, God is said to be “invisible”, and that the mystery of godliness is that “God manifest in the flesh” (I Tim. iii. 16).

It is taught in Matt. xi. 27 that the Father is knowable, for it is the office of the Son to reveal Him, but the Son is inscrutable, “No man knoweth the Son, but the Father”, and the words “and He to whomsoever the Father will reveal Him” do not follow. Even Matt. xvi. 16, 17 does not reveal the nature of the Son.

The Old Testament is intensely monotheistic, not only in affirming that God is One, but by such repeated statements as characterize such a passage as Isa. xlv.

“I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside Me” (verse 5).
“For thus saith the Lord that created heavens. God Himself . . . . . I am the Lord; and there is none else” (verse 18).
“There is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour: there is none beside Me” (verse 21).
“Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else” (verse 22).

To any one that believes the Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God the above statements must be taken implicitly, without alteration or reserve—and they must be taken together with all that the context teaches. The near context says:

“I have sworn by Myself, the word is gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear” (Isa. xlv. 23).

If there is anything that is plain in this passage it is this, that to the One God, the Creator, the Saviour, to Him Who is God alone, with none beside Him, “every knee shall bow”. Paul as a Jew and as a Pharisee knew this, and held it tenaciously. As an Apostle he knew it and taught it, writing in Romans:

“For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God” (Rom. xiv. 11).

Does he throw this blessed revelation to the winds then when he wrote to the Philippians, or does he recognize in “Jesus”, God manifest in the flesh?

“That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. ii. 10, 11).

The Father is God, but so also must the Son be to justify this application of such a passage as that of Isa. xlv. The confusion of the titles “Father” and “Son” with the Being of the Absolute and Unconditioned God is the fruitful source of all the objections made to the Deity of Christ. Humanly devised creeds have taken the place of Scripture statements, transcendental philosophy mistaken for Scripture truth, to the confusion of the believer and the mutilation of truth.

Just as we saw that the inspiration of Scripture is linked with the principle of right division, so we see that the Deity of Christ is linked with His sacrifice for sin. The three passages which we have already referred to in answer to the question “Does Scripture give the title ‘God’ or ‘Creator’ to Christ?” indicate the link that there is between His Person and His Sacrificial Work.

Confining ourselves for the present to one great aspect of the Sacrifice for sin we look at the Atonement. The word so translated in the O.T. is the Hebrew kopher, and its primitive meaning is “to cover”. Such words as “A cloud”, “A hand”, “A spoon”, “A cave”, anything over-arching or hollow, are translations of this word or its derivatives. It means also “a village”, obviously a covering or a “roof over one’s head”, and survives in the N.T. name Capernaum, “the village of Naum”. While atonement means to “cover”, it does not mean “to cover up”, for it is written, “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper” (Prov. xxviii. 13) even though Psalm xxxii. 1 speaks of the blessedness of the man whose sins are “covered”. The fact that the law permitted the penalty to be commuted (Exod. xxi. 30, xxx. 12, Numb. xxxv. 31, 32) prepared the way for the glorious commutation of the cross.

Among the essentials for a scriptural atonement we must instance two particularly:

(1) The shedding of blood. Lev. xvii. 11; Heb. ix. 22.
(2) The Offering must be “perfect”. Lev. xxii. 19, 20.

This essential place of the shedding of blood is carried over into New Testament doctrine. It is the basis of Justification (Rom. iii. 23-26); Sanctification (Heb. ix. 13, 14); Forgiveness (Col. i. 14); Presentation (Col. i. 22); and Cleansing (I John i. 7, 9).

The passage of Scripture which was read at the meeting brings the Deity of Christ and His Sacrifice close together:

“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works” (Titus ii. 13, 14).

From earliest days, Preachers, Teachers and Students have exercised themselves in the endeavour to frame some definition of the Atonement that will give it its Scriptural place in the Divine purpose. With great diffidence the following was submitted to the Meeting as a beginning, with the hope that at subsequent Meetings the various features could be taken up individually and the definition clarified thereby:

The atonement is an expedient introduced into the Divine moral government, devised by infinite wisdom, to satisfy both the righteousness and the love of God in the forgiveness and salvation of the sinner who believes the gospel.

This atonement consists of the Substitionary Sacrifice of Christ, bearing our sins in His Own body on the tree, and through the shedding of His precious blood a ransom has been found, satisfaction made, reconciliation accomplished, justification, sanctification, forgiveness, life and peace for ever assured.

The atonement thus made provides a ground upon which a holy God can meet a sinner in grace and mercy, without in the slightest degree compromising the throne of His holiness, or doing dishonour to His holy law.

It is of the very essence of this atonement that its benefits should be freely bestowed and freely received, without merit or legal works on the part of the sinner thus saved. It is by grace through faith alone.

At future “Foundation Day” Meetings, every one of these terms used in the attempted definition could be examined. What is Substitution? Sacrifice? Satisfaction? What is meant by the “necessity” of the atonement? What is meant by “A ground upon which a holy God can meet a sinner in grace and mercy”? What is meant by “An expedient introduced into the Divine moral government”? and so with every feature both of this, and of the other three basic doctrines of the Trust.

In conclusion we print a comment upon the first Foundation Day Meetings received from a friend who was present:

“On Saturday, 26th May, the first Foundation Day Meetings of the Chapel of the Opened Book were held, and proved to be of an auspicious character.
In reviewing the circumstances leading up to the establishment of this witness, the individual details are prosaic enough, but their cumulative effect reveals a sure guidance of the hand of God which is very heartening in a day when ‘there is no open vision’. Their ultimate effect may even prove historical.
It is the more remarkable that it was the outcome, not of a single mind or purpose, but born of a latent desire on the part of many widely scattered people who, seeking for the truth, found it, and finding it desired to spread it to an ever widening circle of seekers, so that in a day when counsel is darkened and confusion tends to bewilder the minds of men, a beacon has been lit by which to steer in the aftermath of the storm that is past and the storms already appearing.”

-------------------------------

(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 33, page 126).

-------------------------------

USEFULNESS at the expense of FAITHFULNESS - by Charles H. Welch

Thu, 19 Jun 2014 11:46:02 +0100

(Suggested by Bro. Dwight Chua)

Does God Accept Usefulness in Christian Service at the Expense of Faithfulness?

We reproduce the substance of a private letter, reinforced and expanded in places to make it intelligible to every reader, and only published now at the pressing request of a number who feel the matter to be one of extreme urgency.

We are encouraged to hope that what we have said will not make us appear dogmatic or unyielding. We extract from a letter made by a valued reader upon seeing the original correspondence:

‘It teaches us all a lesson. With great kindness, yet frank and without compromise, it points out from Scripture the clear responsibility of those who believe the marvellous truth of the Mystery; and what happens when they fail to meet it by failure to follow through.

Your clarification of the two dispensations now in operation should be very enlightening to many who do not see the distinction, and ignorantly assume that all believers today are in the same calling’.

Dear Brother in Christ,

How shall I attempt to write where the subject is so intimately connected with the private conscience of a believer? I so strongly believe in individual responsibility, the Berean spirit in life as well as in doctrine, that I have never usurped the prerogative of the Lord, nor dared to anticipate the verdict of the Judgment Seat of Christ.

I am exercised deeply, however, whenever I know that a ministering brother, who believes the Mystery, is being tempted to compromise in a denomination and yet hope to be counted a faithful teacher in line with the committal of 2 Timothy 2:2.

Perhaps if I turn to a portion of Scripture it may point the moral, and we can hope that He Who inspired the
record will once again use it in His own good way. So I turn to the book of Exodus, and there learn the message given to Moses:

‘The God of the Hebrews hath met with us: let us go, we pray thee, three days’ journey ... ‘ (Exod. 5:3).

This is repeated in Exodus 7:16 without diminution. Pharaoh for the time relented (Exod. 8:8), but later went back on his word (8:15). At length Pharaoh offered a series of compromises:

Go ye ... IN THE LAND (Exod. 8:25).
Go ye ... NOT VERY FAR AWAY (Exod. 8:28).
Go ... but WHO? (Exod. 10:8).

To all this Moses had but one reply:

‘We will go with our young and with our old, with our sons and with our daughters, with our flocks and with our herds will we go’ (Exod. 10:9).

Pharaoh lengthens the rope:

Go ye that are men ... not the little ones (Exod. 10:10,11).

i. e. be influenced by the needs of ‘wife and children’ left behind.

‘Go ye ... only let your flocks and your herds be stayed’ (Exod. 10:24).

i. e. let possession, property, the argument ‘we must live’ weigh with you.

Look at the attitude of Moses - ‘not an hoof’ (Exod. 10:26), and think of the attitude of Paul - ‘not for an hour’
(Gal. 2:5). ALL was necessary ‘to serve God’ - the flocks and herds, the little ones, the three days journey - and if Moses had faltered over one temptation, words fail to record the possible consequences.

It is impossible I believe for any believer to miss the solemn lesson here. PHARAOH has his successors today; would God Moses had as many too.

The dispensation of the Mystery cannot co-exist with a New Covenant which was made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah with their earthly hope and destiny. This necessarily means that to stand in a pulpit and preach the MYSTERY, and then partake of the Memorial feast of the New Covenant is to straddle the fence, and stultify one’s teaching. What such an attitude must do to the conscience of one who thus acts we must leave with the Lord.

The apostle Paul has told us what our attitude should be to the temptation to ‘soft-pedal’ this or that doctrine or practice.

‘We are not as many, which corrupt the word’ (2 Cor. 2:17).

The word here translated ‘corrupt’ means to ‘hucksterise’, to adulterate wine as a taverner did, and is translated ‘mix with water’ in Isaiah 1:22.

James tells us that he who hears the Word, but is not a doer ‘reasons himself on one side’ paralogizomai (Jas. 1:6,8,22 literally).

Two arguments have been put forward as a justification for remaining in a denomination. (1) ALL believers
today, willy-nilly, are members of the Body of Christ so the minister may as well stay where he is. (2) The other arises out of the failure to see the dispensational place of the Gospel of John.

The words written in Galatians 2:7-9 show that two very distinct ministries could and did run together, and the following items suggest most clearly that John’s Gospel has a place now.

In the parable of Matthew 22:1-10 we have the following sequences:

(a) The original preaching of the earthly Kingdom (1-3).
(b) The repeated preaching at Pentecost (4-6).
(c) The consequence A.D. 70 (7).
(d) Yet after the destruction of Jerusalem, and after Acts 28, the command was given ‘Go ye ... into the
highways’ (9).

John’s Gospel, written according to tradition in John’s extreme old age, appears to have been penned in the
shadow of Paul’s later ministry.

John could not have primarily had a Jewish reader in mind, for no Jew needed the words ‘Rabbi’, ‘Rabboni’, or ‘Messiah’ interpreted (John 1:38,41 and 20:16). Neither was it necessary to tell a Jew that the Passover was a ‘feast of the Jews’ (John 6:4). John’s parish was THE WORLD, and his great message was ‘life’. No distinct calling is indicated. The vast majority of Christians today are ‘John 3:16 believers’. This is blessed indeed, but such belief does not make one a member of the Body of Christ by itself.

It has been suggested that as every believer today must be a member of the church which is the Body of Christ whether he knows it or not, that this justifies a minister who sees the truth of the Mystery continuing his denominational connexion.

We have no access to the Book of God’s election, we can only deal with evidence. So Paul ‘knew’ the election of the Thessalonians by their ‘faith’ (1 Thess. 1:4,5), and the epistles to Ephesians and Colossians were not only addressed to ‘Saints’ but to ‘Faithful’. Such were sealed, but only ‘upon believing’ - not otherwise.

I cannot help thinking that many ministerial brethren stop short at Acts 13 because it permits the early church position of 1 Corinthians with the ‘ordinances’ to be retained. All this sounds very comfortable, but it savours a little of the spirit that prompted the words:

‘Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty’ (Luke 16:6),

but it is required in stewards, not that they should be successful, popular, happy, contented etc. etc., but just
FAITHFUL (1 Cor. 4:2).

I most sincerely sympathise with all the problems that the perception of the Mystery imposes upon the believer, especially if such is already in a denominational ministry. I know by personal experience the strong pull of the argument ‘don’t hide your light under a bushel’, ‘teach these folk as far as you can’, ‘just soft pedal a bit, and you could fill so and so chapel’. I have had all this and more. But never have I been more thankful for anything than the resolve by grace to make no compromise. Can we imagine The Berean Expositor would be alive today or any of its literature published, if I had succumbed and taken over the ministry of a denominational assembly? I pray that you may be guided by the Lord, and that His will for you may be abundantly clear.

Yours, very understandingly, yet very
uncompromisingly by grace,

Signed, Charles H. Welch.

A Berean leaflet.
The title Berean is borrowed from Acts 17:11, as we seek to emulate the believers in Berea, who ‘Searched to See’ if the things taught them were ‘So’.
Rev. David Muiguru, P.O. Box 242,
Ngong Hills.

---------------------

http://charleswelch.net/Usefulness%20at%20the%20Expense%20of%20Faithfulness.PDF

---------------------

THE PULPIT OF THE OPENED BOOK (7) - by Charles H. Welch

Thu, 19 Jun 2014 01:46:13 +0100

#7. “Foundation Day”, 26th May, 1945.
A summary of two addresses given by the Principal.

Inspiration, and right-division of the Scriptures.

“Something new” will always catch the ear, but a good preacher can invest the most orthodox of subjects with all the interest of the heterodox if he knows his business. This standard we shall most certainly aim at when we have the joy and privilege of training others to take their place among the ranks of those who have been found “apt to teach” (II Tim. ii. 2, 24); it is fitting, therefore, that the speaker to-day should live up to this searching test. With four such themes as the basic tenets of the Berean Forward Movement to be dealt with in two short meetings, there will be little or no room for anything more than a statement of the truths involved; nevertheless, even though most, if not all, assembled on this occasion believe and know quite intimately these precious doctrines, they must be re-stated this day as though they were being propounded for the first time, or defended against opposition.

Without subscribing to any existing creed, it is very evident to all who know The Berean Expositor and those concerned with its production, that we have most definite views concerning the doctrines contained in the Scriptures, and these doctrines have been maintained, by the grace of God, since The Berean Expositor was first published in 1909, and it is hoped that they will continue to be maintained until faith is exchanged for sight.

On a number of occasions Paul makes it manifest that he had a great aversion to labouring “in vain”, and enjoined upon Timothy to have “a form of sound words” which he had heard of the Apostle. When, therefore, the Berean Forward Movement was instituted it became necessary to state and include in a Deed of Trust the basic doctrines of such Movement, so that the work inaugurated should continue, and the labour already expended should be fruitful.

The simplest basis was sought, and it was felt that this must include statements concerning The Word and The Lord. Consequently the Inspiration of all Scripture, and the Deity of Christ were set down as fundamental. It was then realized that the great work of Christ must be included, and so His One Sacrifice for sin was added. These it was felt would prove sufficient, and not impose shackles upon those who follow. It was however realized that there were many Protestant and other Societies that would endorse these three doctrines, but who would not subscribe to the central feature of our Witness, namely, the subject of Dispensational Truth; therefore it was considered essential that the Principle of “Right Division” should be included.

Our doctrinal basis therefore is fourfold:--
(1) Full inspiration of the Scriptures.
(2) Right division of the Scriptures.
(3) The Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.
(4) All sufficiency of His one Sacrifice.

These basic tenets were included in the Deed of Trust, but as is well known, Deeds of Trust do no implement themselves. Unless Trustees are faithful, and unless the company of believers constituting the Movement are made aware of them, it is possible for such tenets, in the course of time, to become a dead letter. They may be “safe” in the Black box in which they are kept, but they may also be “dead and buried” therein.

With this in mind it was deemed desirable that:

(a) From time to time the foregoing basic doctrines be brought prominently before those constituting the Movement, at what is to be known as “Foundation Day” Meetings, to be held on the last Saturday in May each year. These to take the place of the old Annual Meetings.
(b) Whoever should speak at these Meetings, their subject must be one or more of the four basic doctrines or their interrelationship.
(c) At the first of these gatherings it was considered fitting that the Principal should be the sole speaker, and deal with all four basic doctrines, two in the afternoon, and two in the evening.

For the afternoon, the Inspiration and Right Division of Scripture was the theme, and in the evening The Deity of Christ and His One Sacrifice were dealt with.

It was pointed out that the Inspiration and Right Division of the Scripture were really inseparable. Both are maintained in one epistle, namely in II Tim. iii. 16 and II Tim. ii. 15, and all Scripture cannot be accepted as true unless Right Division is applied. This will be demonstrated presently. First, however, let us present the case for the Inspiration of Scripture.

Three passages provide all that we need at the moment, II Tim. iii. 16; II Pet. i. 19-21; and John xvii. 8, 14, 17. They are as follows:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (II Tim. iii. 16).
“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation (or, of its own unfolding); for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (II Pet. i. 19-21).
“I have given unto them the words which Thou gavest Me” (John xvii. 8).
“I have given them Thy word” (John xvii. 14).
“Thy word is truth” (John xvii. 17).

It is noteworthy that both Paul and Peter wrote the above words in view of imminent martyrdom, even as John xvii. is uttered in view of the approaching death on the cross. This adds to the solemnity of the utterances, and the obligation under which such passages place all believers.

“Right Division” is a basic principle of interpretation. The meaning of the term is best understood by consulting Prov. iii. 6, where the Septuagint reads “He shall rightly divide thy paths”. Full acceptance of inspiration is jeopardized where right division is not observed. For example, Exod. xii. 14, 15 declares that “that soul shall be cut off from Israel” who fails to observe the law concerning unleavened bread, and the commandment to keep the Sabbath day holy, which was enforced even by the death penalty (Numb. xv. 32-36), cannot be correctly understood in the light of such passages as Rom. xiv. 5, 6, or Col. ii. 16 unless the distinction between dispensations is observed.

Our Lord’s recognition of the principle of right division is clearly seen in Luke iv. 16-21, where He stopped short in the quotation of Isa. lxi. 1, 2 because of the two time periods found in that passage. The two commands “Go not” of Matt. x. 5 and “Go ye” of Matt. xxviii. 19 only makes sense if right division is observed. Mark xvi. 17 declares that “these signs shall (not may) follow them that believe”, and apart from right division it is difficult to see how believers to-day can have any assurance of their salvation. The scientific student as he observes the strata of the earth, the composition of the chalk cliffs, the coal deposits, the fossils embedded in the rocks, is stumbled by the teaching that creation took place in six days some six thousand years ago; indeed, Hugh Miller was driven to suicide by conflicting loyalties, yet the observation of right division allows the Scriptures to be implicitly believed and accepted.

Other matters like the use of the Lord’s prayer, the special word translated “daily” in that prayer, and the specific meaning of the “temptation” for which deliverance is sought, are discoverable when Kingdom is distinguished from Church and the prayer seen in the light of the book of the Revelation.

In the evening the subjects were The Deity of Christ and the meaning of the Atonement.

------------------------------

(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 33, page 124).

-------------------------------

Truth in the Balance. (12) - by Charles H. Welch

Thu, 19 Jun 2014 01:18:17 +0100

No.12. The Testimony of the Types.

Among the fruitful studies of Scripture, the study of the types, with their corresponding antitypes must be given a place in any series that looks at truth in the balance. The word tupos has passed into our language, and means something that is symbolized or figured. The Greek word is derived from tupto “I strike or beat” and tupos means, first “a blow”, as tupis means “a hammer”, then the mark or impression produced by the blow or the impression of a seal, the stamp of a coin, the trace of a footstep, and so a form, figure, image, pattern, model, example, emblem or type. So antitype, antitupos, meant originally in classical Greek something that repelled or hit back, tupos antitupos meant the “blow against blow” of the hammer and the anvil, and so the word came to mean a copy, an impression, or the thing prefigured by the type. The O.T. abounds with types. Not only are there such obvious types as the Passover Lamb, but there are typical men, like Adam or Joseph, and typical events like the Flood and the Six days Creation. We are told in I Cor. x. 6 and 11, that the wilderness wanderings of Israel, with their murmurings and experiences “happened unto them for ensamples” (I Cor. x. 11). Both “ensample” and “example” are used in this chapter to translate the Greek word tupos. Ensample is obsolete, example is from ex+emere to take out, exempt, and means “something taken out, a sample”. This, however, is only part of the intention of tupos, for tupos is not only an example, it is a figure which demands an antitype to make its purpose complete.

We are told, positively in the N.T. that the following were types. Adam, “who is the figure of Him that was to come” (Rom. v. 14). The teaching of I Cor. xv. concerning the first and the last Adam is fundamental. It involves the Headship of Christ, His resurrection and the deliverance of His people, His future domain when all things shall be put under His feet, all of which find their anticipatory type in the creation, position and expressed intention at the creation of Adam. Peter uses the Ark and its deliverance from the waters of the flood as a figure of salvation when writing to the dispersion, saying:

“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us” (I Pet. iii. 21).

This passage literally rendered reads:

“Which (i.e. water; the relative, being neuter, can only refer to the word ‘water’) being antitypical (Gk. antitupos)” (“Companion Bible”).

The apostle, writing to the Hebrews concerning the tabernacle and its antitype heaven, says:

“For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures (antitypes) of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us” (Heb. ix. 24).

In Heb. ix. 9 another word is translated “figure”, namely, parabole, parable or continued simile:

“But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: the Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the Holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: which was a figure (parabole) for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; which stood only in meats and drinks and divers washings (baptismos), and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation” (Heb. ix. 7-10).

This passage is followed immediately by the balancing revelation concerning Christ. It is so important and so illustrative of the method we are here pursuing that we continue our quotation, in order that this “parable” with its truth in the balance may be seen:

“But Christ being come an High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building (ktisis, creation); neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, Who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God” (Heb. ix. 11-14).

Here we have on the balance, the holiest of all that belonged to this creation, and the Holiest of All, which being heaven itself, belonged to the spiritual realm. The earthly high priest needed to offer to himself, whereas the heavenly High Priest was “holy, undefiled, and separate from sinners”, and needed not to offer for Himself as the earthly types did, neither did He need to offer “daily”.

“For this He did once, when He offered up Himself” (Heb. vii. 26, 27).

He needed not the blood of others (ix. 25), He offered “His own blood” (ix. 12). He was a high priest of good things to come of which the “law” was but a ‘shadow” (x. 1). The typical offerings never touched the conscience; the one offering of Christ did. So the parallel advances, and so the Lord instructs us in this most precious truth.

If we are to spend as much time in examining every type, this series will grow beyond reasonable dimensions, although it is possible, we may have to return to this fruitful theme when dealing with the types alone. Here we are rather considering many and varied examples of truth in the balance of which the types are but one important instance.

Let us consider some of the outstanding types in the Scripture, being guided in our selection by the writers of the N.T. Firstly, let us tabulate a few typical men.

Adam, we have already seen was a “figure” of Him that was to come (Rom. v. 14) and the references to Adam in I Cor. xv. must be added.

Cain provides John with a type of the children of the devil, and the world’s hatred (I John iii. 9-13).

Abel’s offering provides a type of the blood of Christ, which speaketh better things than the blood of Abel (Heb. xii. 24).

Noah, the Ark, the flood, the number of those saved, the character of the times, and the angelic sin and fall associated with the days of Noah are referred to as typical (Matt. xxiv. 37; I Pet. iii. 20; II Pet. ii. 5).

Melchisedec, who appears in the record of Scripture, having neither pedigree nor term set to the length of his priesthood; without any record of his birth or death; yet remarkably great by the fact that Abraham made an offering to him of a tithe of the spoils and received in return his blessing; all these items are gathered up in Heb. v.-vii. to show by the type, the infinitely greater Priesthood of Christ.

Joseph. The life of Joseph is marvelously full as a type of Christ. Beloved by his father, sent to his brethren who hated him, sold by Judah (Judas in the N.T.) for silver, lost to sight for years, imprisoned for a crime he did not commit, between two other prisoners, one of whom was restored and one hanged, like the two malefactors, finally the instrument of deliverance to his brethren, who repented and acknowledged their sin, and especially indicated by Stephen in his speech as a type of the Lord Who, like Joseph, “the second time” will be acknowledged by His brethren.

From typical men, we may turn to typical observances, with which the religion of Israel was replete.

The Passover. “Christ our Passover sacrificed for us” (I Cor. v. 7).

The Leaven. “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened” (I Cor. v. 7).

The Firstfruits. “But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept” (I Cor. xv. 20).

Pentecost. “When the day of Pentecost was fully come” (Acts ii. 1).
“This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” (Acts ii. 16).

Tabernacles. “The last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, if any man thirst, let him come unto Me” (John vii. 7).

The “End” of the age. The Sunteleia (used in Matt. xiii. 39, 40, 49; xxiv. 3; xxviii. 20 and Heb. ix. 26), the word used was the title given to the third feast of the year, “the feast of the ingathering, which is in the end of the year, when thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field” (Exod. xxiii. 14-16).

The experiences of Israel in the wilderness, we have already seen were “examples”, and we tabulate a few:

The Manna. “Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness and are dead . . . . . I am the living bread which came down from heaven” (John vi. 49-51).

The Rock. “They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ” (I Cor. x. 4).

The Brazen Serpent. “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up” (John iii. 14).

Here we must stop. We have gathered enough to illustrate the importance of observing the testimony of the types of Scriptures as part of the wider principle which is implied by the title of this series, namely, “Truth in the Balance”.

----------------------------------

(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 37, page 205).

-----------------------------------

Truth in the Balance. (11) - by Charles H. Welch

Wed, 18 Jun 2014 02:30:55 +0100

#11. An examination of several books of the New Testament in
which “balance” is an integral factor in true interpretation.

We have put a number of the doctrines of Scripture into the scales, and found that truth is whole when truth is balanced, but when truth is not put into the scales it can easily be perverted. The reader of The Berean Expositor cannot read many of its pages without realizing that this element of balance plays an important part in our arrival at the truth of an epistle, a book, a passage or the whole purpose of the ages. From the vast outline of the age purpose commencing with Gen. i. 1 and ending with I Cor. xv. 28 (which we have considered in Nos.2 and 3 of this series), to the “one word” quoted by Paul from Isa. vi. (Acts xviii. 25-27) this balance and correspondence is discoverable, and a judicious use of it is an all important factor in interpretation. Let us take a few examples, most of them known to the reader, but which if brought together in one article may prove a demonstration that cannot be denied.

Let us apply this principle of balance to the Gospel according the Matthew, the Acts of the Apostles, the epistles to the Ephesians and to the Hebrews, and while avoiding anything like fullness of detail let us note the outstanding features which most clearly testify to the value of this method of study.

Without the addition of any further material, it is evident that the references given, clearly indicate that the Gospel according to Matthew falls into two distinct portions, and when this is recognized, no scheme of interpretation will be acceptable that does not give full place to this inspired subdivision.

We turn next to that most important book, the Acts of the Apostles, and once again, by observing the balance of its parts, we are compelled to recognize that the book is practically an account of and a comparison of two ministries, those of Peter and Paul.

The reader is asked to remember, that in the effort to reduce the four subdivisions of Acts, into four lines of print, the unavoidable exclusion of detail may give a false impression. If however, each section is taken and examined, the balance of parts will become so evident that the purpose of Luke, in vindicating Paul from the charges laid against him by the Jews, will be clear. In the series of articles on the Acts, which commenced in Volume XXIV, this analysis is taken to a considerable length and the interested reader may acquaint himself with what has there been presented.

The first epistle of the Mystery is the Epistle to the Ephesians, and whether our exposition has been of Genesis on the one hand or of the Apocalypse on the other, every article in The Berean Expositor has been written with Ephesians as the basic epistle of our calling constantly in mind. We have set out the structure of this Epistle in its literary form, in Volume XXXV, p.123, and in XVIII, p.167; as a chart in the form of a tree in Volume XXIV, p.4, and as a pair balances in Number 10 of the Berean Messages.

The last example of this particular aspect of the subject “Truth in the balance” is the presentation of the epistle to the Hebrews.

Hebrews is addressed to believers, “Holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling”. The exhortation is “let us go unto perfection”, the warning is the alternative of “drawing back unto perdition”. Examples of unbelief are taken from Israel in the wilderness who did not mingle faith with the things they heard, while examples of belief are taken from the Old Testament characters who from Abel to Moses manifested the truth that “faith is the substance of things hoped for”.

Truth in the balance is the sacred imprint on all Scripture.

-----------------------------

(From The Berean Expositor, vol. 36, page 241).

----------------------------