Jump to content

A Look at Those “Difficult” Passages


Recommended Posts

 

John 11:26 - “And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die”.

 

This verse must be taken with the preceding one. Verse 25 speaks of those who die before the coming of the Lord in the last day. Verse 26 completes the picture: disciples alive at the Lord’s return will never die, being transformed directly from mortality to immortality without ever experiencing the sleep of death.

 

 

John 12:31 and 14:30 and 16:11 - “The prince of this world”.

 

  a) John 12:31 is a big difficulty in the way of a “personal Devil” interpretation. For orthodoxy has it that the Devil was cast out of heaven before the creation of Adam, and is not to be cast out of the earth until Christ’s Kingdom. This verse squares with neither, for it emphasizes: “Now shall the prince of this world be cast out”, Then who is “the prince of this world”? Two possibilities are available, both worthy of consideration:

 

  b) 1 Cor 2:7,8 suggests that “the prince of this world” may be equated with human ignorance of divine things. “Through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers” (Acts 3:17). Each of these passages in John yields good sense when read from this point of view. Does 1 John 4:18 refer to another “prince of this world” cast out by the love of Christ?

 

  c) The phrase may be taken literally as meaning “worldly rulers”, with special reference to the chief priests who were very shortly to come to arrest Jesus and who were to be “cast out” from their holy office by the sacrificial death of Christ (his “lifting up” John 12:32). Note that the identical word is translated “ruler” or “chief ruler” in John 12:42 and 7:26, 48 and in many other places in the N.T., mostly with reference to the religious rulers of the Jews.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

John 13:2,27: Luke 22:3 - “Satan entered into him”.

 

  a) The orthodox view of these words is not without its difficulties. Does Satan enter into one who is a devil? (John 6:70, cf. also R.V. of verses referred to).

 

  b) The distinction in John 13:2,27 between “the devil” (verse 2) and “Satan” (verse 27) is interesting. Verse 27 must refer to Iscariot’s own evil purposes. Verse 2 may suggest that the idea was first sown in his mind by some emissary of the chief priests.

 

  c) Verse 27 may be compared with God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (Exod. 10:20,27) and also with 2 Sam. 24:1; 1 Chron. 21:1. The suggestion has also been made that Judas was a man subject to black moods of evil temper, like Saul, and that these expressions are intended to suggest that idea.

 

 

Luke 22:31 - “Satan hath desired to have you” (plural)

 

The Satan here is surely the chief priest and his evil associates. These words probably refer to a proposal in the secret councils of the high priest’s palace that the entire band of apostles be rounded up as well as Jesus their leader.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romans 10:9,13 - “Only Believe”!

 

This passage is the sheet anchor of the rabid evangelical who declares that all that is needful is to” accept the Lord Jesus, take him as your own personal Saviour”.

 

  a) The words just quoted are, of course, sound enough if only it is understood in a wholesome Biblical sense. The trouble is that the meaning put into these words and into the passage from Rom. 10 is usually so completely contrary to the tenor of the entire New Testament. Especially is the assumption usually made that baptism is unnecessary.

 

  b) The immediate answer to the last assumption is the plain evidence of Matt. 3:15; Mark 16:16; John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 10:48; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21. So baptism is clearly essential.

 

  c) Is it credible that Paul can be disallowing the need for baptism in Rom. 10:9,13, when he has just written so powerfully about baptism in Rom. 6?

 

  d) Is it possible to be a true believer in Christ and at the same time disallow the plainest and simplest (so far as ease of obedience goes) of his commandments?

 

  e) Just, how to fulfil Rom. 10:13 (quoted from Joel 2:32) is shown by Peter, who makes these very words the fulcrum of his appeal to the crowd at Pentecost: Acts 2:21. Now note verses 37,38: “Men and brethren, what shall we do?... Repent, and be baptized... for the remission of sins”. See also verses 40,41: “Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized”. 

 

  f) Is it of any value to confess Jesus as Lord (verse 9) and at the same time openly and deliberately to reject one of the most obvious and most simple of his commandments?

 

  “Why call ye me Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46). Compare the fate of the one who hears Christ’s words “and doeth them not” (Matt. 7:26,27).

 

  g) Similarly, can one be a believer in Jesus (verse 13) and yet flout his authority in something as clear and important as baptism? “Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you”.

 

  h) These very words: “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (cited from Joel 2:32) were also used by Peter at Pentecost (Acts 2:21). Nevertheless Peter went on to require baptism of his hearers: “men and brethren, what shall we do?... Repent, and be baptized... Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized” (verse 37,38,40,41).

 

  i) Then why does not Paul also emphasize baptism in Rom. 10? Because, firstly, he is writing to baptized believers (see 1:7), and, secondly, because he has already emphasized baptism more than sufficiently in chapter 6. Note that Rom. 6:3: “So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ”, is so phrased in the original as to mean that all the readers had (with Paul also) received baptism. The R.V. reads accordingly.

 

  j) The same arguments apply in Acts 16:31; “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (note verses 32,33; the jailor “was baptized, he and all his”). 

 

  k) In Rom. 10:13, the Greek is, more literally: “Whosoever shall call the name of the Lord upon himself (Gk. Middle voice) shall be saved”; and a comparison with Acts 22:16, where the identical word-form is used, shows that Paul probably did have baptism in mind in this chapter: “Arise and be baptized, calling on the name of the Lord (literally: calling the name of the Lord upon thyself)”. Compare also James 2:7.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Infant Baptism

 

This perversion depends almost entirely on Acts 16:33 and Mark 11:14.

 

  a) The Philippian jailor was baptized, “he and all his straightway... And rejoiced, believing in God with all his house”. The argument goes thus: not only the jailor but also his household were baptized. There must have been children in the family. Therefore child baptism is valid.

 

  b) But this argument overlooks two important details. First, verse 32: “And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house”. So whoever they were who were baptized, they were evidently of an age capable of receiving instruction first of all, and therefore not babes in arms. Note also in connection with this: “believing in God with all his house”. The entire household was of an age when intelligent belief was possible.

 

  c) What of Mark 11:14: “Suffer the little children to come unto me... for of such is the kingdom of God”. Note first that there is nothing in this passage about baptism. Jesus merely put his hands on them and blessed them. It would be logical to infer from this that the Lord is pleased when parents seek to consecrate their children to him (as Hannah did Samuel) and certainly looks down with blessing on those thus committed to his care. But to infer baptism, which elsewhere invariably follows belief, is to go beyond what is written.

 

  d) A useful quote from Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, and a name held in reverence among all churchmen whether R.C. or C. of E. or N.C.: “Not of these, but of such is the Kingdom of God... It is not the age but the disposition that receives the Kingdom”.

 

  e) If indeed age is what Jesus was referring to, what of verse 15: “Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein”. If this were interpreted in the same way that verse 14 is used, it would mean that only those baptized in infancy (“as a little child”) have a hope of life. Reduction and absurdum!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 Cor 1:17 - “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel”.

 

  a) Surely only the very ignorant or the very prejudiced would ever quote this to prove that baptism is not essential. For in the same context (verses 14,16) Paul mentions certain ones whom he had baptized. Are we then to infer that Paul deliberately disobeyed his Master in this matter? 

 

  b) Verse 13,15 explain: “Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius, lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.” The Apostle, concerned lest there should arise a party calling itself by the name of Paul and glorying in his prowess, had studiously refrained from administering the rite of baptism himself. It mattered not who performed the actual act of immersion. Thus some years later Paul expresses an understandable uncertainty of memory as to precisely who were the people that he himself baptized. What does it matter? he exclaims, my job is the preaching of the gospel.

 

  c) The general tenor of the passage is, then: Anyone is qualified to perform the rite of baptism itself. No special virtue whatever is associated with the “dignity” of the baptizer. Paul himself was commissioned by Christ to be, first and foremost, a preacher of the gospel. Whether he personally undertook the baptism of converts was a matter of no importance at all one way or the other.

 

  d) If indeed “Christ sent me not to baptize” is read (as some perversely try to read it) as a prohibition of baptism, then Paul writes his own condemnation in the same passage, for he mentions the baptisms by his own hand of Crispus and Gaius and the household of Stephanas!

 

  e) It is sometimes overlooked precisely how very strong is the testimony concerning the vital importance of baptism: “Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:5, and see also verse 22, 23). “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth now save us” (1 Peter 3:20). “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord” this, after the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:48). “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). “Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15). “If we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection” (Rom 6:5).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt 10:28 - “Kill the body but not the soul”.

 

  a) It is sufficient in the first place to draw attention to the fact that this very verse says the soul is destructible: “Fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell”.

 

  b) And this “destruction” of the soul cannot possibly be eternal torment, for the hell spoken of here is carefully and precisely defined by the context: “destroy both soul and body in hell”. Without controversy, the body is destroyed in the grave. Therefore this “hell” is the grave. It follows that the “soul” of the unrighteous is to be destroyed in the grave also.

 

  c) But now an objection: This verse speaks of men being able to destroy the body but not the soul. How is this to be reconciled with the conclusion just reached? Remember that the word “soul” means “life”, e.g. “whosoever shall lose his life (soul) shall preserve it” (Luke 17:33). If this is read as having reference to an immortal soul, the result is ludicrous. Further, a careful reading of Matt. 10:28 makes it evident that it is final and irreparable destruction that Jesus speaks of; “Fear not (for an instant) them which kill the body, but are not able to kill you for ever; but rather fear (always) him which is able to destroy you utterly and finally.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John 14:1-3 - The Father’s house of many mansions.

 

A hoary favourite with those who believe that good people go to heaven. With such it ranks only second to the thief on the cross. Indeed, with those who are good at misquotation it takes first place: “I go to prepare a place for you that where I am there ye may be also”.

 

Rejoinder may emphasize the following;

 

  a) Verse 3: “If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am there ye may be also.”

 

  b) Chapter 13:33: “As I said unto the Jews, whither I go, ye cannot come; so now say I unto you (disciples).” Compare chapter 3:13: “No man hath ascended into heaven (save Jesus)”. If the words just quoted from chapter 13:33 refer to martyrdom (see verse 36), then logically is not this the case in chapter 14:2,3? Thus, “go to prepare a place for you” would refer not to the Ascension but to the Crucifixion, by which Jesus “prepared a place” for those who are to share his suffering and his glory.

 

  c) If indeed disciples do go to heaven, then the second coming of Christ would be a separation and not a re-union “that where I am there ye may be also”.

 

  d) Where is the evidence that the Father’s house is heaven? This is gratuitous assumption. Every reference in the Bible to the Father’s house is to a temple on earth, e.g. chapter 2:16: “My Father’s house shall be called of all nations a house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves”, this, at the cleansing of the Temple. O.T. examples: Exod. 23:19; 1 Sam. 1:7; 2 Sam. 7:13; 1 Kings 8:10; 2 Kings 20:5, and many more. The temple Jesus speaks of is, of course, the spiritual house of Eph. 2:20-22; 2 Cor. 6:16.

 

  e) “I will come again and receive you unto myself”. By many (e.g. Plymouth Brethren) the simple meaning of these words is twisted to mean that Jesus comes to gather the saints together and take them to heaven. The devastating answer to any such contention is the combined testimony of the Scriptures that Jesus comes to reign on the earth. Nowhere is his reign spoken of as being in heaven. “Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool” (Psa. 110); “Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion”, (Psa.2); “The law shall go forth from Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isa. 2); He shall sit on the “throne of his father David”. (Luke 1:32)

 

  f) The view is not infrequently encountered in the ecclesias that “I will come again” has reference to a mystical spiritual in dwelling, and not to a literal bodily return. Verse 23 is usually cited in support of this. This is not the place to query the validity of such a use of either verse 23 or verse 3. For the moment let it suffice that if this be the sense intended by Jesus, he has never gone away. Is not the allusion in verses 1-3 to the High Priest’s atonement for the sin of the people? Likewise, Jesus must first offer the sacrifice, then present it in the divine Presence, and in due course come forth and bless the people in the name of the Lord (Heb 9:28). If this suggestion be a correct one, a literal going away and coming again seem to be required by the words under discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 Thess. 4:16- Caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air

 

This passage is almost the sole ground of the fantastic notion that at the second coming Jesus will gather the saints together, take them to heaven, and with them rule from thence over the earth.

 

  a) It is futile to meet these perverters of the word of God with the suggestion that here “clouds” mean “bands or groups of people” and the “air” means the “aerial”. To support such contentions with Bible proof the Christadelphian might be hard put to it. Is there any other passage which states clearly that the saints will be gathered by the angels in “bands”? Luke 17:31-37 points fairly strongly to a different conclusion. And what support can be adduced is some consideration which definitely rules out a literal interpretation of “clouds” and, requires a insistence, probably mistakenly on a figurative meaning.

 

  b) In fact, when the passage is carefully examined the literal reading of it is almost entirely free from difficulties. First, let it be insisted that nowhere does this passage say that the saints are taken to heaven. Clouds are mentioned; so also is the air. But not a hint of heaven. 

 

  c) “And so shall we ever be with the Lord”- where - in heaven? Heaven has not been mentioned. In the air? - but the air extends at most sixty miles high. Are we being asked to believe that the saints are to spend an eternal existence suspended in mid-air? The average zealot for the “Rapture” has never given a thought to these details or their logical consequences.

 

  d) Now is the time to point out that the Greek word translated “caught up” carries with it no idea whatever of “up”. It simply means “snatched away”. Other examples where the same word is used: “the spirit of the Lord caught away Phillip” (Acts 8:39): “The wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep:” (John 10:12); “No man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand” (John 10:29).

 

  e) Further, it is useful to point out that the phrase “in the air” should really be “into the air”, i.e. the idea is that of the saints being caught away into the air. (For the purpose of (this is the force of the Greek preposition here) meeting the Lord.)

 

  f) Couple this with an emphasis on “meet the Lord”, as in Acts 28:15 and Matt. 25:1-6, and the picture becomes clear: Christ and his angels come to the earth in glory. The angels are sent (Matt. 24:30) to gather the elect from the four winds of heaven. See the emphatic passages which declare that Christ will reign on the earth, from Jerusalem. See also the equally emphatic words that the saints will “reign on the earth” (Rev. 5:10). It is worthwhile, perhaps, to mention that the Plymouth Brethren and J.W.’s especially, aware of the weakness of their case when Rev. 5:10 is cited, propound one of the most bogus bits of Bible exposition on record. They retranslate thus: “And we shall reign over the earth”, i.e. as though from heaven. In sixteen other places in Revelation the identical phrase is translated “on the earth” or “upon the earth”, but not “over the earth”, as though suggesting remote control.

 

  g) What about the phrase “in the clouds”? It is inadvisable and almost certainly wrong, to insist that this should read “in clouds”. Further, since there is now no possible objection to the “air” being literal air, is there any reasons why these should not be literal clouds? Consider: When the Tabernacle and the Temple were consecrated, the glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud. When Israel were delivered from Egypt, the angel of the Lord in the midst of the cloud protected them. When Jesus was transfigured, as in his Kingdom, this cloud of the Glory surrounded him. When he went away, it was in a cloud - The Cloud. And at his return, “behold, he cometh with clouds”- the Glory once again. When he sends his angels to gather his elect, again the Cloud will protect them and direct them to him. Could anyone wish for a more harmonious combination of scriptures?

 

  h) The spurious doctrine of the “Rapture”, dependent as it is on perversions of two passages (John 14 and 1 Thess. 4) and utterly devoid of any other support in the Bible, is one of the outstanding instances of how men are determined to make the Bible mean what they want it to mean. Its only rival, from this point of view, is the “Latter Day Saints” doctrine of baptism for the dead, with its only foundation - a confident but unstable reading of one verse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Pre-Existence of Christ

 

  a) Did Jesus exist in heaven as a person before he was born in Bethlehem? The Bible seems to answer plainly, yes; e.g. “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made”; “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he was before?; “I proceeded forth and and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me”; “Before Abraham was, I am”, “The glory which I had with thee before the world was”; “Thou loved me before the foundation of the world”. The list is formidable, and the meaning is plain. But why are they all in John? With the exception of Hebrews I and Colossians I, easily dealt with separately and easily shown to have no connection with the foregoing, the “pre-existence” of Christ cannot be even traced elsewhere in the Bible. Was John the only inspired writer to have this truth or to believe in it? This consideration should immediately awaken suspicion, for if this doctrine is true it should be one of the salient features of the Divine purpose and revelation. All the other fundamentals of truth can be found scattered throughout the Book. Why this most unexpected exception? Can it be that John has been misunderstood?

 

  b) Besides, what a contrast is presented in Matthew and Luke, where the narratives of our Lord’s birth carry no kind of suggestion that this little baby in a manger was really the metamorphosis of an Eternal Being. Notice Luke 1:32; “He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Highest”- not “He is great; He is the Son of Highest”. And contrast how these future tenses become present tenses when Jesus is born: “A Saviour, which is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:11).

 

  c) It is necessary to observe that the Bible speaks of the ‘pre-existence’ of others besides Jesus. “Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou earnest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee” (Jer. 1:5). “There was a man sent from God whose name was John (the Baptist)” (John 1:6). This example is specially interesting and extremely forceful, for the literal force of the Greek expression is: “a man sent from beside God”! Could words declare more clearly the preexistence of John? Yet no one believes that John the Baptist existed in heaven as a person before he was born of his mother Elizabeth. More than one enthusiast for the personal preexistence of Christ has been rendered speechless by this remarkable verse! The “pre-existence” of the saints is similarly implied in Eph. 1:4: “Chosen in him before the foundation of the world”.

 

  d) The whole subject is put in perspective by the two following passages:

 

    1) “... the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8). Manifestly these words do not teach that Jesus died before the world began; they are only an emphatic way of stressing the self-evident truth that it was in the foreknowledge and plan of the Father from the very beginning that Jesus should die as “the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world”.

  

    2) The Apostle Peter is explicit: “Redeemed... with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you” (1 Peter 1:19,20) - foreordained, but not formed. 

 

  e) It is necessary, then, in the light of paragraphs (c,d) to be on one’s guard against reading the idiom of the Bible, and especially the idiom of the Apostle John, as though it were ordinary everyday modern English. There are passages in abundance to illustrate the need for this caution, e.g.:

 

    1) “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death” (1 John 3:14). It is clear enough that here John does not use the words “life” and “death” in their ordinary sense.

  

    2) “Ye are from beneath; I am from above” (John 8:23). Are those who take this second phrase literally prepared to do the same with the first? Of course, the meaning is immediately made clear by what follows: “Ye are of this world; I am not of this world”.

  

    3) “Be of good cheer; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). How can this past tense be taken literally? Could Jesus possibly speak of having already “overcome the world” when there still lay before him the agony and sweat of Gethsemane? (But those acquainted with the Hebrew of the O.T. will have no difficulty here. For the sake of emphasis the O.T. commonly puts in the past tense what is to happen in the future.)

  

    4) “Those whom thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them perished (R.V.) but the son of perdition” (John 17:12). Here Judas is referred to as having already perished, although the next chapter shows him to be still very much alive.

  

  With many an example such as these available in the Gospel of John (they are hard to find in the other gospels), it ill becomes any man to dogmatize about his understanding of those listed in paragraph (a). Let him prove his point clearly first from other parts of Scripture (if he can), and then perhaps he may have some justification for coming back to these with a zeal according to knowledge.

 

  f) The insuperable difficulties of the orthodox believer in Christ’s pre-existence are his human nature and sacrifice. How can that which is immortal become mortal? If Jesus was always conscious of having existed in heaven as the glorious, creative Eternal Son, how could he be “tempted in all points like as we are”? The temptation of Jesus, his agony in the garden, even his death on the cross-all these become make- believe, playacting, except Jesus were truly Man and not an Epiphanes.

 

  g) The relevance and force of Paul’s argument in 1 Cor. 15:46 is often overlooked: “First, that which is natural; then that which is spiritual”, with reference to the saints attaining to immortality. But if Jesus had an eternal pre-existence, then for him this divinely appointed order is reversed: First, spiritual; then natural. How then is he the firstborn among many brethren if indeed his experience is the very reverse of theirs?

 

  Again, is there not a good deal of point in the words so emphatically applied to Christ: “Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee”? That expression “this day” requires that the begettal of the Son be in the finite time (for see Gen. 1:5). The words are meaningless if they refer to a Son begotten before all ages.

 

  h) It may be asked: What then is to be said about the positive meaning of the disputed passages in John’s Gospel? It can hardly be satisfactory merely to say airily “Ah, yes. John has an idiom of his own”. One requires to say what the words do mean.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John 8:42 - “I proceeded forth and came from God... he sent me”.

 

The phrase “from God” is the very one that is used of believers in verse 47: “He that is of God heareth God’s words”. And in the expression “he sent me”, the word is identical with that used of John the Baptist (John 1:6). There can be no doubt that here Jesus is piling up synonyms to emphasize the fact of his divine mission. Beyond this no one can argue with certainty, especially in the light of the use of these same phrases of men like John and the disciples.

 

 

John 8:58 - “Before Abraham was, I am”.

 

This great favourite is a first-class illustration of what can be achieved by divorcing a passage from its context. Verse 56 reads: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad”. Promises concerning Christ were given to Abraham, were believed and were rejoiced in. Thus, in prospect and in purpose, Christ existed in the day of Abraham, and even before Abraham was.

 

 

John 17:5 - “The glory which I had with thee before the world was”.

 

The similar expression in verse 24 helps towards an explanation: “Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world”. Compare Matt. 25:34: “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world”. The kingdom, not yet established, has been (in the Divine purpose) in prospect since the very beginning - “prepared from the foundation of the world”. So also has the glory of Christ, for it is inseparable from the kingdom. The architect sees and knows every beautiful detail in his cathedral before ever the site is prepared and the foundation-stone laid. In this sense, and in this sense only, Jesus had glory with the Father before the world was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Col. 1:6-7- “By Him were all things created”

 

  a) The usual (Christadelphian) approach has been to take refuge in various alternative and, for the most part, illegitimate translations of the Greek prepositions, e.g.,: “all things were made on account of him”. This is wrong; it is bad.

 

  b) Another mistaken approach (under the baneful influence of modern criticism!) is to try to read Paul’s phrases and argument as an attack on the heresy of Gnosticism. This also is completely without foundation. There is nothing in Colossians which cannot be readily understood as a counter blast to Judaism, the inveterate enemy of Paul and his message. Gnosticism did not become a serious evil for at least 70 years after Paul died.

 

  c) In what sense was Jesus “the firstborn of every creature”? More correctly this is: “the firstborn of all creation”. Verse 18 interprets. There Jesus is “the firstborn from the dead” (and Rev. 1:5, same phrase). It is the New Creation of regenerate men and women that is spoken of, not the material creation of sun and stars, mountains, seas and forests. The demonstration of this is completed by two further points: (1) the words “creation”, “create”, are frequently used in this sense: Gal. 6:15; 2 Cor. 5:17; James 1:18; Eph. 2:10 and 4:24 and 2:14,15 (in all these the root word is the same in the original). 2 Cor. 4:4-6; 5; Isa. 51:6,16; 45:7,11,12,13 and 42:5,6; Psa. 102;18,25-28; and many other passages have the same idea but a different word. (2) Col. 1:15 not only has “firstborn of all creation” but also “the image of the invisible God,” a plain allusion to “let us make man in our image”, i.e. Christ is the beginning of a New Creation: he is a second Adam.

 

  d) Once this point is grasped the language of Paul can be taken literally (a strong recommendation always for any interpretation!) Jesus is literally the firstborn of the New Creation; all things in the New Creation were literally created by him and for him; he is literally before all things in the New Creation in point of time (which is what the word “before” signifies), since he was the first to rise from the dead; he is the Beginning. With this point of view established, where is the “pre-existence” of Christ in this passage? From every aspect its introduction is utterly irrelevant. In the face of the battery of passages in paragraph © the orthodox interpreter is helpless.

 

  3) But in a desperate attempt to save the day (being more intent on maintaining his dogma than on finding truth) he may cling with pathetic tenacity to the details of verse 16, where Christ’s pre-eminence and creative work covers not only earth but heaven.

 

Here once again the parallel passages in paragraph © answer the difficulty. Let it be strongly emphasized in any argument on this question that Colossians and Ephesians are twin epistles, explaining and interpreting each other. There is scarcely any detail in the one which does not find its counterpart in the other. Here Eph. 2:15 provides the key: “Having abolished in his flesh (= Col. 1:22) the enmity (Col. 1:21), even the law of commandments contained in ordinances (Col. 2:14,20); for to make (R.V.: that he might create) (Col. 1:16) in himself (Col. 1:19,20) of twain one new man (Col. 3:10). “When carefully perused this passage is seen to mean that Christ has created out of Jew and Gentile (twain) one new Christ-man. But observe that this creating is not a creating out of nothing but a re-constituting of both Jews and Gentiles on a different footing; by him they have been given a different status before God. The same idea is perhaps even more obvious in Eph. 2:10: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works”. This regeneration of men and women is spoken of as their creation. So also in Col. 1:16 both earthly and heavenly beings are “created” by Christ, i.e. in him they now have a fresh status, a different standing and a new function, in the great Purpose. “In him all things consist “(have their proper standing). Wherefore, it is written;” All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth”, and “Let all the angels of God worship him (Christ)”, and “who maketh his (Christ’s) angels spirits, his ministers a flame of fire”, and “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?”
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three Passages in Hebrews 1 

 

“By whom also He made the worlds” (Verse 2)

 

The word “worlds” here is “ages” and has nothing to do with the ordered or habitable universe. (Verse 8 has the same word: “Thy throne, O God, is unto the age of the ages”.) 

 

“Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth” (vs 10-12).

 

  a) This quotation from Psalm 102 reads here as though it were applied to Christ, and accordingly the words are seized with gusto by those who seek to prove his pre-existence, the more so since the preceding six quotations from the Old Testament undoubtedly apply to him.

 

  b) A good case can be made for the view that these words are a symbolic prophecy of the passing of the old Mosaic order (for does not Scripture insist that “the earth abideth for ever”?). Compare Isa. 50:9 and 51:6,16. But suppose this be granted, if the “Lord” of Heb. 1:10 be Christ, the words still require his pre-existence.

 

  c) Is the “Lord” of verse 10 really Christ? A careful reading of the context in Psalm 102 strongly suggests that this is the Creator Himself (is not the sufferer in Psalm 102 Christ?). This is the most obvious meaning of the words. But, and this is the main point, any Jew asking himself: “How will God sweep away the old order spoken of here?” would also immediately supply the answer: “By the Messiah, of course”. This idea is implicit in the quotation in Hebrews. But this old order to be swept away by Messiah on God’s behalf was first inaugurated through the ministry of angels: “For if the word (Moses’ law) spoken by angels was steadfast...” (Heb. 2:2); “Ye who received the law by the disposition (ordinance) of angels, and have not kept it” (Acts 7:53; Gal. 3:19). Hence the One whose work supercedes that of the angels must himself be of higher status than the angels. Thus Heb. 1:10-12 falls into its place as part of a sustained argument that Christ is greater than the angels. And at the same time any suggestion of a “pre-existent” Christ is shown to be completely foreign to the passage.

 

  d) Many an adversary might be disposed to contest the truth of the conclusion reached in paragraph (b). So be it. Let the words be read with reference to the literal material creation. Then the argument of paragraph © still stands, for that creation also was brought into being through the ministry of angels: “And Elohim said, Let us make man...”; which creation is also to be superceded by a New Creation, the work of a Christ greater than angels.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever” (verse 8).

 

Another favourite not only in support of the “preexistence” of Christ but also in support of the doctrine of three co-equal persons in the God-head.

 

  a) This argument staggers badly in three directions. First, “unto the Son” is a translation of debatable accuracy. The same preposition comes in the previous verse: “of the angels he saith...”. And in line with this the R.V. of verse 8 reads: “But of (concerning) the Son he saith...” Jesus comes in the glory of his Father (Matt. 16:27) and to sit on a throne assigned to him by the Father (Psa. 110:1), so that the throne might with appropriateness be spoken of as God’s throne.

 

  It is important here to observe that this R.V. translation cannot be insisted on, but it is at least equally as likely as the A.V., and this fact is sufficient in the first place to dilute the dogmatism of the self-confident champion of orthodoxy, especially too if he be reminded that all the Revisers except one were believers in the doctrine of the Trinity!

 

  b) Secondly, the context is a further source of difficulty to the orthodox. Verse 9, still part of the same quotation from Psalm 45, goes on: “therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee...”. Are these two co-equal, co-eternal persons? Similarly, verse 4: “(Jesus) being made so much (R.V.: having become by so much) better than the angels” - carrying a plain implication that Jesus until his glorification had known no superiority to the angels.

 

  c) Guns are finally spiked by a demonstration that one who acts on God’s behalf, whether he be angel or man, is often spoken of in Bible idiom as God, e.g., Angels are spoken of as God: Gen. 16:13 and 18:13; Exod. 23:20,21; Hosea 12:3,5. Men are spoken of as God: Exod. 22: 28; Exod. 21:6 and 22:8 (Elohim); Psa. 138:1: and especially John 10:34, where Jesus quoting Psa. 82.:1,6, uses exactly the argument of this paragraph.

 

  d) Paragraph © was the answer also to those who seek to turn to bad account such words as “Mighty God” (Isa. 9:6) or Thomas’s confession: “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). With regard to this last is it credible that doubting Thomas would go at one leap to the conclusion that Jesus was God Almighty? Remember that he was a Jew soaked in “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord” Remember too that he had heard from Jesus such words as: “There is none good but one, that is, God”.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John 14:26 - “The comforter, which is the Holy Spirit.... He shall teach you all things...” (And John 15:26 and 16:13,14).

 

The orthodox doctrine of the personality of the Holy Spirit rests almost entirely on these passages, which all seem to refer to the Holy Spirit as “he”. What is the explanation?

 

There appear to be three possibilities:

 

  a) These three instances employ the common figure of speech, personification, i.e. just as Riches is personified as a god to be served (Matt. 6:24), and Sin as a king to be obeyed (Rom. 6:12) and Wisdom as a woman building a house (Prov 9:1), so also the Spirit is represented as a personal Comforter and Friend. A point to be urged in favour of this idea is that these seem to be the only places where the Holy Spirit is referred to as a person.

 

  b) A different approach: The Holy Spirit is the power of God (Luke 1:35). Consequently what the Holy Spirit does is really what God is doing. Thus the distinction between God and Holy Spirit becomes such a fine one as to be almost negligible, and the personal pronoun is not altogether inappropriate. Thus, “the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, shall teach you all things” means, in effect, “He - God - shall teach you all things through His divine power”. Compare: “to lie to the Holy Spirit... thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God” (Acts 5:3,4).

 

  c) Yet another view, basically simpler than either of the preceding, is this: It is one of the universal rules of grammar, whatever the language, that a pronoun shall agree in gender with its antecedent (the word it refers to), e.g. “You see that table? It used to stand in the middle of the floor”. “Table” is neuter; therefore “it”. Again, you see that boy? He is eight years old”. “Boy” is masculine; therefore “he”. Another more interesting example: “In the beginning was the Word (Logos).... All things were made by him”. The original Greek reads “him” because Logos is masculine. But in the French version, the equivalent word for Logos is feminine and therefore accordingly the passage in the French Bible reads: “All things were made by her”!

 

  Returning to John 14,15,16, it is note-worthy that all three passages are introduced by the word Comforter which in Greek is masculine. Consequently every succeeding pronoun is necessarily masculine also; not because the Holy Spirit is a person, but because being spoken of as a masculine Comforter it must grammatically be referred to by masculine pronouns.

 

  d) It may not be inappropriate to deal here with three other passages bearing on the same question. Acts 13:2:”... the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work where unto I have called them”. Do not the pronouns “me... I” require that the Holy Spirit be a person? By no means.

 

  Nothing is known definitely of the call of Barnabas. But who called Saul and for what work is known precisely: “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.... I have appeared unto thee to make thee a minister and a witness... delivering thee from the people (of Israel) and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from the power of darkness unto light” (Acts 26:16-18)

 

  Hence Acts 13:2 means: “Separate unto me (Christ) Barnabas and Saul”. Why then are these words represented as an utterance of the Holy Spirit rather than of Christ? Because the words were spoken through a man endowed with Holy Spirit power: “There were in the church at Antioch certain prophets... And as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said...” (Acts 13:1,2).

 

  e) What of the triple benediction in 2 Cor. 13:14? Does not this imply the personality of the Holy Spirit?; “... and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all”.

 

The argument goes, quite impressively:

 

         (I) Jesus and the Father are separate and distinct persons. So does not the third part of the benediction require the Holy Spirit to be a person also?

  

         (II) Communion means fellowship, which can only be experienced with persons.

 

  f) Acts 8:16: “For as yet he (the Holy Spirit) was fallen on none of them”. This is an interesting illustration of how theological prejudice can operate almost unconsciously in the mind of a translator. The original Greek has no pronoun in it (except one corresponding to the word “them”). Consequently, it is at the choice of the translator to put ‘he’, ‘she’ or ‘it’ according to his own judgment, with the balance loaded in favour of ‘it’ since the word “Spirit” is neuter in Greek. The common version here reads “he” simply because King James’ translators had themselves inherited without question the doctrine of the Trinity and its implied or explicit teaching of the personality of the Holy Spirit. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John 20:28 - “My Lord and my God”.

 

A stock “Trinity” proof text. Is it?

 

  a) In an attempt to evade the application of these words to Jesus, the suggestion is sometimes made that this was just an ejaculation of utter surprise. This is altogether unworthy. Thomas may have been a doubter, but his spiritual level was still infinitely higher than that of a blasphemous British dock - labourer. It must be conceded that the words “My Lord and my God” were intended to apply to Jesus. Then how? In what sense?

 

  b) Let it be emphasized and re-emphasized that Thomas was a Jew, soaked from childhood in the unshakable belief of Israel that “the Lord our God is one Lord”. For such it would be a moral and spiritual impossibility to move in a split second (or in a lifetime) from believing Jesus to be an ordinary man (verse 25), to an emphatic conviction that he was God Almighty.

 

  c) Next, let it be remembered that it is the common principle of the Old Testament to refer to God’s accredited representatives, be they men or angels, as though they were God. Those who act for God are spoken of as God. Angels are referred to as “God” in Gen. 16:13; 18:13; 32:30; and Exod. 23:20,21: Hos. 12:3,5, men are referred to as “God” in Exod. 21:6; 22:8, Psa. 138:1; 82:1,6; (John 10:34). Similarly, Messiah is referred to as “...him”; Isa. 64:4 (where he “the almighty: and “thee, O God”= Messiah). In Mal. 3:1 “prepare the way before me” becomes “before thee” in Matt. 11:10.

 

  d) So Thomas’s confession is certainly a recognition of the divine act in raising Jesus from the dead; it is probably an acknowledgment of Jesus as Messiah (Zech. 12:10, cp. “reach hither thy finger”); it is certainly not a declaration of belief that Jesus was God the Son.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rom. 9:5 - “Christ... who is over all, God blessed forever”.

 

Another Trinitarian favourite!

 

  a) It is very tempting to deal with “difficulty” by making a textual amendation. For the most trilling modification of the text imaginable would make the passage read: “Of whom is God who is over all...” This would fit splendidly into the context. Paul enumerates the spiritual privileges of Israel: the Shekinah glory, the law, the promises, the fathers, the Messiah himself and even God over all is specially the God of Israel. This alluring approach to the problem must be put aside, simply because there is no manuscript evidence in its favour.

 

  b) The margin of the R.V. indicates that, as in the more familiar Thief on the Cross passage, there are uncertainties of punctuation here. Besides the A.V., there are two other possibilities, both of which need to supply part of the verb “to be” (as also in verse 9,16 [observe the italics] and many another N.T. passages).

 

  “Of whom, as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all. Let God be blessed for ever”;

  

  Or: “Of whom, as concerning the flesh Christ came. Let God, who is over all, be blessed for ever”.

 

  Of these, the second is definitely preferable, on the grounds of both grammar and doctrine. But, read either way, the passage is seen to be a thankful ascription of praise to God for all that He has done for Israel.

 

  c) Let it be re-emphasized that, with scholars quarrelling as to how the words shall be punctuated (see R.V.mg.) no one is in a position to assert dogmatically that the A.V. reading must be received.

 

If read as punctuated in the A. V. (which it is contended is the most natural reading of the Greek) the term “God” can be understood in the light of the Scriptural usage referred to in the previous note on John 20:26.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Acts 8:37 - “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”

 

Is this all that is necessary for salvation, that one should merely “believe in Christ” without troubling about baptism or the acceptance of a creed? Are not these words inconsistent with the idea that understanding and acceptance of some creed or system of doctrine is necessary before baptism?

 

  a) The words themselves are of doubtful authenticity. The textual evidence is strongly against their retention. Nevertheless the case for insisting on them is made much stronger by Acts 9:2,1 John 5:5, where no textual queries of any kind arise.

 

  b) It needs to be recognized that early believers with Jewish background already had a corpus of sound doctrine and understanding of the divine purpose. What they needed more than anything else, was a recognition that the “Son of God”, the Messiah, was none other than Jesus of Nazareth. Once this fact was accepted, the purpose of his death and resurrection and ascension became evident at once, and the whole divine purpose in him could be seen as a harmonious whole. Hence, with such people, acceptance of Jesus as the Son of God was the key to a ready and tolerably complete appreciation of the Truth.

 

  c) Why then is it not sufficient today to require this same simple assent: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”? Because: (i) recognition that “salvation is of the Jews” has today been most completely lost sight of; (ii) the average individual today lacks the good Biblical background which could safely be taken for granted in those days with every Jew (and with many who were not Jews, e.g. Cornelius); (iii)in the earliest days there was not the same clutter of false doctrines and perversions of Christian principle to contend with. It is this most of all which makes negative as well as positive teaching so necessary today. It was not long before the Apostles found the need for a double emphasis of that sort, e.g. 1 Cor. 15: 35,36; 1 Tim. 1:19,20: cp. 2 Tim. 2:17,18: 1 John 4:1-3.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 Cor 11:14 - “Satan transformed into an Angel of Light”

 

  a) This passage really proves too much. For is it not true that those who quote it to support the idea of a personal Devil also believe that Satan was transformed from an angel of light because of rebellion in heaven? They can hardly have it both ways, even though they may wish to. 

 

  b) One is tempted also to ask just what is this personal Devil. Four at one moment we are asked to believe he is an angel of light, at another a roaring lion (1 Peter 5:8), at another a many-headed dragon (Rev. 12). Is he also a chameleon?

 

  c) As in so many places, it is only attention to the context that is needed to demonstrate the true meaning and expose the error which men try to read into these words. Let these passages in the same epistle be studied with care: ch 3:1 and 10:2,3,10,12,17,18 and 11:3,4,18-23. It soon becomes evident that Paul writes to defend himself against the insinuations of Jewish adversaries who are doing their utmost to undermine his authority in the ecclesia at Corinth. They set themselves forth as Jews of high standing, they parade proudly their qualifications and they boost one another’s prestige by letters of recommendation and eloquent encomiums about each other. They go further than this, and denigrate Paul in every possible way, making base insinuations about his weak physique and his contemptible speech. And all this in order that another gospel (with a strong Judaistic emphasis?) might be foisted on these hospitable Corinthians. Nevertheless, says Paul, these teachers are really false apostles, deceitful workers’ a thing not to be surprised at, since the chief adversary, their leader and organiser, sets himself forth as an angel (or perhaps just a messenger) of light. Thus the Satan is seen to be a human Satan, deliberately and wickedly seeking to subvert the Corinthians from loyalty to Paul and the gospel he has taught them.

 

The same Satan is referred to in ch. 2:11, “Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jude 9 - Michael and the Devil contending about the body of Moses

 

  a) The believer in a superhuman devil, who may perhaps be forgiven for reading this verse as clear-cut evidence for his dogma, is nearly always too easily satisfied about the conclusiveness of his proof texts. Here, for instance, it rarely occurs to him to ask: Why should the Devil want custody of the body, of Moses? Is not his concern with souls, rather than bodies? And if such a question is put to him he has to fall back on a pure invention usually the idea (of mediaeval flavour) that the Devil wished to lure the people of Israel into superstitious veneration of Moses’ body, a likely tale, when one considers the constant bitterness with which they contemned their leader all through the forty years of wilderness wanderings. It is not amiss to emphasize in this way that the adversary’s evidence concerning the Adversary rests on passages which are at best only half understood by the one who cites them.

 

  b) It is usually blithely assumed that this verse is a reference to or a quotation from the apocryphal book “The Assumption of Moses”. But this is not definitely known to be the case, for the only evidence is the assertion of a late Christian Father. Further, it is far from certain that “The Assumption of Moses” was already in existence when Jude wrote; for the part of that book which is now known appears to make allusions to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and should therefore be written, presumably, after that date. It is by no means unlikely that Jude was misunderstood by some early writer, who then proceeded to write his own apocryphal story, “The assumption of Moses”, on the strength of it. Again, much is made by some critics of the detail in the Targum of Jonathan about the body of Moses. But the Targum makes no allusion to the Devil or to any contention concerning the body of Moses.

 

  c) More positively, it is possible to adduce two Biblical proofs that the Devil of Jude 9 is human and not superhuman. It is only a pity that these proofs involve a detailed sustained argument of a type which is often above the heads of those who cite Jude 9 so readily.

 

  d) The first of these rests on the palpable dependence of Jude’s Epistle on 2 Peter. The many similarities between the two epistles must have impressed every careful reader. Jude 17,18 (2 Peter 3:3) shouts the conclusion that Jude had 2 Peter before him when he wrote. It follows, then, that verses 8,9 are Jude’s version (or amplification) of 2 Peter 2:10,11,12; “... them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption”. It is clear that the whole of 2 Peter 2 is about human and not superhuman adversaries of the Truth. So the same of the details there are obscure in their meaning.

 

  e) The words “The Lord rebuke thee” provide an unmistakable clue, for they clearly come from Zech. 3:2. Observe that both passages mention the angel of the Lord (Michael), Satan (the devil), and these words: “The Lord rebuke thee”. If further evidence is needed that Jude alludes to Zechariah, it is to be found in two further references to the same passage. Verse 23: “Pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh” looks back to Zech. 3:2,3: “Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments...”. Thus an exposition of Zech. 3 provides also an explanation of Jude 9.

 

  f) Then what of Zech 3? Most probably the Satan there represents the priests of Zechariah’s time who were put out of the priesthood through lack of adequate qualification (Ezra 2:62). In their chagrin these turn on Joshua; “Then what of you as High Priest? Where are your high-priestly robes?” (These would doubtless have disappeared during the long years of the Babylonian Captivity.) So, by divine mandate, Joshua’s “filthy garments” are replaced by garments “for glory and for beauty”. Also divine decision is thus given that the One who is to stand up with Urim and Thummin to decide all matters of priesthood (Ezra 2:63) is none other than Joshua himself (Zech 3:9).

 

  There is an impressive parallel with Jesus (Joshua). He, though despised and rejected of the leaders of Israel, is God’s declared High Priest and is himself the cause and means of their rejection. But this is not done by him in person during his priesthood, nor by angels (who earlier had ministered the Law of Moses). Instead, “the Lord rebuke thee” The casting out of reprobate Israel is God’s own act.

 

  Thus by an easy extension the same kind of argument can be used by Jude concerning other Jewish would-be corrupters of the Faith (antinomians, judging from the tone of the Epistle). These by their conduct would make Christ’s priesthood a tainted one. But he does not take any direct action against them as yet. Instead, “the Lord rebuke thee”. 

 

  g) The rock on which all the foregoing seems to founder is the phrase “the body of Moses”. The usual method of coping with this difficulty is to argue by analogy that as the ecclesia is the Body of Christ (Eph. 1:23; 1 Cor. 12), so the people of Israel - baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea are the body of Moses. There is a double weakness here: (2) No such usage of the “body of Moses” occurs in Scripture. (l) The idea that “the body of Moses” equals “the people of Israel” is difficult to read back into the context of Zech. 3.

 

  h) An alternative approach which seems to have been generally overlooked: The word “body” was also used colloquially for “slave” or “servant”. See Rev. 18:13 R.V.mg., and also bro. John Carter on Hebrews, page 177.

 

The first Joshua was literally the servant of Moses (Exod. 24:13). The Joshua of Zech 3, being High Priest, was also Moses’ servant, in a figure, for he served the Law that Moses gave. Thus the phrase in Jude 9 slips neatly into place as part of the allusion to Zech. 3. It scarcely needs to be stressed here how aptly the same words apply to Christ, “the minister of the circumcision for the truth of God”.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rev. 12:7 - “War in Heaven”

 

A great favourite with those who believe that the Devil was an archangel who rebelled against the authority of the Almighty and who was therefore cast out to work unlimited evil in this world. The interpretation of this passage on these lines is an example of the carelessness of those who use it to support such a dogma. In reply, then:

 

  a) Revelation is a book of signs and symbols. This fact is immediately self-evident from a perusal of any chapter, e.g. chapter 12; do verses 1,14 describe a literal woman? Does the Devil really have seven crowned heads and ten horns? Is he really a dragon? Rev. 1:1 (signified”) declares the symbolism of the book. And interpretative verses here and there confirm such a conclusion: e.g. 1:20 and 17:9-12.

 

  b) How can this “war in heaven” refer to a conflict which took place “before the world began”, when the conclusion of the war brings “the kingdom of our God and the power of his Christ”? (verse 10). The other words of verse 10 are equally forceful: “which accused our brethren before God day and night”. How could the devil do this if he were cast out of heaven before the creation of Adam?

 

  c) If indeed the dragon and his angels became rebels against the will of the Lord of all, it is pertinent to enquire: Where is the guarantee that those who are glorified with Christ (made “equal to the angels”) will not similarly rise up against the authority of the Almighty after they have tasted the blessings of immortality?

 

  d) Verse 8: “neither was their place found any more in heaven”, poses an interesting contrast with John. 1:6. The orthodox Devil worshipper cannot hang on to both of these verses. He must make his choice between them.

 

  e) “He knoweth that he hath but a short time” (verse 12) is a serious difficulty to the believer in a personal devil. Can the entire duration of the human race be termed “a short time”?

 

  f) In recent years “Jehovah’s Witnesses” have realized some of the weaknesses inherent in their interpretation of this chapter. A directive from Brooklyn now requires them to expound thus: The war in heaven took place in 1914 (the date they claim of the invisible “coming” of the Lord). In that case one may reasonably enquire: since God is “of purer eyes than to behold evil” (Hab. 1:13; Psa 5:4,5), how did the devil manage to stay so long in heaven? And again, if 1914 be the date of the devil’s casting into the earth, was that also the date of the establishing of “the Kingdom of our God and the power of his Christ”? What sort of a kingdom of God has the world been since 1914?

 

  g) It is strongly recommended that when in controversy on this passage, no attempt be made to put forward an interpretation of Rev 12. To do this is to invite the adversary to slip happily away after half a dozen side-issues. The basic question here is; Does this chapter teach the existence of a personal Devil. But the one contending earnestly for the Faith has a duty to satisfy himself as far as possible as to what this chapter is about. A purely negative Christadelphian is a poor sort of creature.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rev. 14:10,11- “The smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever”

 

It is remarkable how eager many sincere believers in the Bible are to prove that God is not love- by consigning millions of their fellows to torture which is to last not just for hundreds of years but for ever! This passage and Rev. 20:10,15 are prime favourites with all such. And this in spite of the following difficulties in their path:

 

  a) The figurative character of the Book of Revelation. See Rev. 12:7. 

 

  b) If verse 10b is literal- “tormented with fire and brimstone” so also must verse 10a be literal: “The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation”. But who would be so foolish as to see anything but a figure of speech here? (cp. Jer. 25:15).

 

  c) “Tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb.” If this is hell-torment, then Jesus and his angels will be in hell also! Did not Jesus describe the fate of the wicked as “outer darkness”? Is he not to say to them “depart from me...”?

 

  d) The “fire and brimstone” of Chapter 9:17,18 is figurative enough.

 

  e) “The smoke of their torment, ascendeth up for ever and ever” is paralleled by chapter 19:3: “Her smoke rose up for ever and ever” which in turn is explained by chapter 18:18, where the destruction of “Babylon the great” is depicted. And this is no hell-fire, for it is witnessed and lamented by merchants and ship-masters.

 

  f) Then why “for ever and ever”? To give emphasis to the idea of utter destruction. Compare Jude 7: “Sodom and Gomorrah... suffering the vengeance of eternal fire”- which is certainly not to be taken literally; see Lam. 4:6: “which were overthrown as in a moment”. (That phrase “eternal fire” is interesting. It is an example of transferred epithet: “suffering the fire which is God’s eternal vengeance”).

 

  g) It is important to recognize that the words of verse 11 are quoted from Isa. 34; 10. Each passage is a commentary on the other. Isaiah 34 is a manifestation of divine wrath in the Last Days against “all nations” and especially against Edom (Idumea). Is this going to be fulfilled in hell? Again, the ultimate desolation of this stricken territory - thorns in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof... an habitation of dragons, a court for owls”- is so literally described that it is difficult to see how these words can be fulfilled in hell. Yet the one who would quote Rev. 14:10,11 with reference to hell fire, ought, logically, to be prepared to make the same kind of application of Isaiah 34.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Acts 15:29 - “... That ye abstain... from blood, and from things strangled...”

 

A favourite passage with Seventh Day Adventists in their insistence on a careful distinction between permitted and proscribed foods. It is a pity that some Christadelphians also have been taken in by a mistaken exegesis of this passage and have allowed themselves to be tied down to unnecessarily severe food laws.

 

  a) There can be no doubt that the fourfold prohibition of Acts 15 was a temporary measure for the sake of harmonious relationships between Jew and Gentile in the early church. Three of the four were definitely revoked by apostolic authority in later days (1 Cor. 8:7-13 and 6:12; Rom. 14:2-6 and 14-23; 1 Tim. 4:4,5; this last passage is specially emphatic).

 

  b) Then why the prohibitions in the first place? For the reasons indicated in Rom. 14 and 1 Cor. 8. Where brethren have a conscience on a matter of this kind, they are to be regarded as “weak” and out of Christian charity as little as possible is to be done which might give offence in their eyes. Three of the four prohibitions fall into this category of things permissible but not expedient because of ingrained Jewish prejudices among the early brethren.

 

  c) It is worth noting that all four prohibitions had close association with idolatrous practices of those days. The fornication referred to was one of the vilest evils of the time. Corinth and all other large cities abounded with pagan sanctuaries and temple prostitutes. Again, much of the meat offered for sale in the shops came from temple offerings which had been slain and devoted to an idol in ways altogether repugnant to the scruples of the average Jewish conscience. Thus Acts 15 was a very practical gesture of consideration for Jewish brethren who were becoming seriously disturbed by “latitudinarian” trends in the early church- see especially Acts 15:21.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 Cor 3:15 - “He himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire”

 

This is the passage to which, above, all others (what others?) the Romanist goes with confidence for proof of his doctrine of Purgatory.

 

  a) His interpretation is vetoed immediately by the context. According to the Catholic, this fire, which bums up a man’s work but saves himself, is the discipline of Purgatory which follows immediately after death and endures for an unspecified but varying period. But Paul says: “Every man’s work shall be manifest, for the day shall declare it, because it (the Day) is revealed in fire” (verse 13, R.V.). It is the Day of Judgment which is alluded to here (2 Thess. 1:6,7) and not a time of punishment or purging of long duration. 

 

  b) In this same verse 15, the Romanist Is inconsistent. He argues for the burning up of the “wood, hay, stubble” as being the purging out of a man’s soul of all that is unworthy. Yet Paul says concerning this: “if any man shall suffer loss”. Strange language, truly, to use of that which a man ought to be glad to be rid of in order to fit himself for eternal happiness!

 

  c) The simplest way in this case is to show simply just what the passage really does mean. Because of the partisan spirit in Corinth (verse 4), Paul discusses at length the relations between a man and his converts to Christ: “I planted, Apollos watered: but God gave the increase.... we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s tilled land, ye are God’s building.... I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon” (verse 6,9,10).

 

“Every man’s work shall be made manifest.” The Day of judgment will reveal the spiritual quality of a preacher’s converts, whether gold, silver, precious stones for the eternal temple of God, or wood, hay, stubble-cheap, tawdry, unenduring.

 

“If any man’s work abide (i.e. if his converts endure to eternal life) he shall receive a reward”- the reward of seeing in the Kingdom of God the fruits of his labour and travail.

 

“If any man’s work shall be burned (if his converts prove to be of no lasting value in the sight of the judge of all), he shall suffer loss”- the loss of seeing much loving labour come to nought. There are few preachers of the gospel who do not experience this bitterness of the Day of Account long before that Day dawns, through the defection of converts for whom they have worked and prayed.

 

“But he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire”. The same fire of judgment which perhaps burns up the fruits of a life time’s labours is to be endured by the preacher himself also. And even though all his converts should perish, he himself may yet stand approved, because of the faith an a zeal with which he has lived and worked in all good conscience before God. (Is it the figure of a man escaping with his life from a burning house?)

 

The very coherence of an exposition such as this sweeps the Romanist error out of existence, and exposes more pointedly than ever the complete lack of connection between the “purgatory” interpretation and the context.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 Cor. 15:29 - Baptism for the dead

 

  a) On this verse and on this verse alone the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) dogmatically base their dogma that a baptism undertaken on behalf of friends, relations and ancestors, dead and gone, will save them from eternal damnation.

 

  In reply it is sufficient to ask for other Bible evidence for the same remarkable doctrine. Strange, surely, that a vital doctrine should be set forth in only one place in the whole Bible (and that just in passing, not explicitly), whilst every other doctrine can be readily traced in a dozen places in a dozen different books. And how can the Mormon be sure that his interpretation of this verse is a correct one, since at least half- a-dozen other quite different interpretations have been put forward at one time or another? These considerations are sufficient to put the Mormon and his baptism - for- the- dead right out of court. One cannot help feeling sorry for people who can be so easily misled. 

 

  b) It cannot be too clearly recognized or too strongly insisted on that there is no evidence whatever of the early church ever practising any form of baptism for the dead. The notion is sometimes found in commentaries that it was an early custom to baptize vicariously some living person in the same room as the corpse of one who had just died unbaptized. All this is mere conjecture - a kind of back inference from this very verse in 1 Cor. 15. Many chapters about Bible manners and customs have also been written by the same entertaining but unedifying method.

 

  c) Since it is desirable to be able to offer a positive explanation for this passage, one or two alternatives are listed here. One suggestion is that the words of Paul are an ellipsis for: “What shall they do which are being baptized on behalf of (the hope of) the dead?” A similar sort of ellipsis occurs in verse 3, where “Christ died for our sins” clearly stands for the fuller expression “Christ died as a sacrifice or expiation for our sins”.

 

  d) Alternatively in this sense: “What shall they do who are being baptized so as to fill up the ranks of those taken from us by death? Why, in that case, receive baptism to fill their vacant places?” Such a view as this runs on smoothly into verse 30: “And why (same Gk. phrase as at end of verse 29) stand we in jeopardy every hour?” There seems to be a suggestion of exposure to peril by an open profession of faith.

 

  e) Re-punctuate (as with the well-known thief-on- the-cross passage) and supply the ellipsis differently - and perhaps more probably “What shall they do which are being baptized? (It is) on behalf of the dead, if the dead rise not at all. Why then are they baptized for the dead?” If there is no resurrection of the dead, baptism associates one with a dead “hope” and not with a living hope. If it is also noted that verses 20-28 really form a parenthesis, verse 29 now continues the argument of verse 19 perfectly. About this suggestion two further details call for mention. The word “dead” is plural, and cannot therefore refer to Christ, as some might be tempted to read it. Also, the supplying of the words “it is” is a common feature of N.T. translation, e.g., verse 27.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 Cor. 15:50 - “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God”.

 

  a) This passage is commonly quoted (i) by those trying to prove that the “spiritual body” Paul talks about in verse 44 is really no body at all; (ii) by “Jehovah’s Witnesses”, who use it to “prove” that Jesus rose from the dead as a spirit without a body.

 

  b) It is not recommended that in discussion on this passage one take refuge in the familiar: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, but flesh and bones can”. The unsympathetic debater invariably regards it as a rather slick evasion - a quibble in fact.

 

  c) One stage in the answer to either of these is to ask how a “spiritual body” (by which these controverters commonly mean “a spirit without a body”) can inherit the kingdom of God which is to be on the earth.

 

  d) Best of all is to carry the offensive into the camp of the enemy by exposing his inability to understand Bible language. What does the New Testament mean by “flesh and blood”? Certainly not the meat on our bones and the fluid in our veins, but the frail weak sinful nature we bear, e.g., “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (Matt 16:17); “I conferred not with flesh and blood” (Gal. 1:16); “As the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same...” (Heb. 2:14).

 

These passages are decisive. Paul’s argument clearly is: This weak human nature of ours needs to be changed before it is fit for immortality. God has equipped everything in His universe to be perfectly fitted for the environment it is to live in - fishes for the sea, birds for the air, and so on (verse 39). So also with man. When God designs him for eternal life, he must be freed from the frailties which are characteristic of a life of mortality, but not freed from a body. See Phil. 3:21.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...