A SELECTION OF INTERESTING
CHRISTIAN CORRESPONDENCE
LETTER 1
Dear
Sir,
I am very glad you are bringing out a magazine on the
subject of the Lord's Return, and prophetic truth in relation to it, and
also preparation in heart and life needed in view of it. We are living in the most solemn and momentous
period of the world's history; and the
events which are occurring testify to the truth of prophecy in a startling
manner; that we are rapidly drawing near to the end of this dispensation, and
that the Coming of the Lord for His saints is imminent.* How necessary then
that every [regenerate]
believer should be awake to this; "the Bride must
make herself ready"; we [who want to be part of His Bride] must
be "a
people prepared of the Lord," cleansing ourselves "from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit",
"that our hearts may be "established unblameable in holiness" at His Coming. Weaned
from this world, we must "remember
I
am, etc.,
JOHN WARREN.
LETTER 2
Dear
Sir,
A
Christian man, much used years ago as a soul-winner, recently stopped me on the
road for a brief chat, during which he solemnly remarked, "Do you know, they are teaching in this city that when a
Christian dies, the spirit* keeps down here somewhere?" "Really! where do they teach the spirit rests; in the
coffin with the body?" "I don't know,"
he replied with dismay. "Where do you think the Christian's spirit goes at death?"
I asked. "Why, up to heaven, of course."
"Where do you suppose our Lord's Spirit went
at His decease?" I enquired. "Why,
straight up to His Father in the glory." That the believer died and
[the
regenerate soul]
goes to heaven at once seems to be the popular idea amongst
Christians. At the death of Mr.
Spurgeon, e.g., a telegram was sent out to the effect that, "Mr. Spurgeon entered
heaven at five minutes past eleven on Sunday evening." But, sir, do the Scriptures warrant this? Our
Lord to the Jews declared, "No man hath ascended into heaven"; again, after His
ascension, it was written, "David ascended not into
the heavens." But further,
we read, our Lord and the Thief the same day entered the same place, viz., ‘
[* It is the animating
spirit which leaves the body and returns to God at the time of death (Eccl. 12: 7); but the soul is the person; and the soul, at the time of death,
descends into Hades - the place of the dead. “You will
not abandon ME to Sheol” (Psa. 16: 10; Acts 2:27) To describe a disembodied soul as a ‘spirit’ is misleading. “…The
body without the spirit is dead…” (Jas.
2: 26); “They laughed at him, knowing that she
was dead.” … “Her spirit returned, and at once
she stood up” (Luke 8: 53, 55).]
The unwarranted assumption that Paradise was emptied, when our Lord
led captivity captive in respect of Himself, is one of the traditions of the
Mediaeval Church where errors grew like grass.
Surely
the promise, "I will come again and receive
you unto myself," or as the French Version beautifully renders it,
"I will come again and take you with Me,"
must be fulfilled before we can leave the tomb, enter heaven, and be
" forever with the Lord " (1. Thessalonians 4: 15-18).
Yours,
etc.,
CHAS.
S. UTTING.
LETTER 3
Sheol
[A reply to letter 2.]
Dear
Sir,
In
regard to Mr. Utting's letter in your current number,
surely his view is not correct?
Apart
from the use of the word Heaven in regard to the sky or firmament, there appear
to be three distinct "Heavens" spoken
of in the Bible.
1.
"The first Heaven and the first earth"
in Rev. 21: 1.
2.
"The new Heaven and the new earth" in
the same verse.
3.
"The Heaven of Heavens" - the Throne
of Jehovah, - "Our Father which art in Heaven."
1.
"The first Heaven and the first earth"
seem closely linked together. We are
here told that they "passed away" (Rev. 20: 11). In both passages "THE Heaven and THE
earth" are connected together in a manner which is evidently not
accidental.
"The first Heaven" is described as "passing away," after having served its purpose as
the temporary abode of the saints who have "fallen
asleep," whether before or during the Millennium. When "the first
earth” passes away there is no longer
any need for "the first Heaven." Moreover we are told at this juncture "Behold, I make all things new!" (Rev. 21: 5). Hence we have a "new Heaven and a new earth," far exceeding the first in its
beauty and glory.
Christ
seems to confirm this linking of the first Heaven and earth to ether in Matt. 5: 19, - "Till
the Heaven and the earth PASS AWAY" - the same word as in
Rev. 21: 1. So again He says in Matt. 24: 35, - "THE
Heaven and THE earth shall PASS AWAY"
(pareleusontai), using again the same word.
2.
To make this " first Heaven " a part
of Sheol, or Hades, seems to me entirely contrary to
the general spirit and teaching of the Bible, and to the meaning invariably
attached to these words. Where Sheol is not translated Hell in the Bible, it is either
Grave or Pit. The actual number of times
Sheol occurs in the A.V. is Hell 31 times, Grave 31
times, and Pit 3 times. When used as
hell it is obviously meant to be the temporary place of punishment where the
wicked dead are to await their final resurrection, trial and condemnation, and
there is nothing whatever to indicate that a part of it is to be reserved for
the saints who have "fallen asleep." The contrary seems clear from the following
considerations :
(a)
Sheol does not "pass
away," but is "cast into the
(b)
Just as the Heaven and the earth are linked together, so we find "death and hell [Hades]" are linked together in various
passages. They are not said to "pass away," but are cast together into the
(c)
The parable of Dives and Lazarus makes a clear distinction between Hell [Hades] and "Abraham's
bosom," and informs us that between them there is "a great gulf fixed." Could this, have been said
if
(d)
We are distinctly told that the prophet Elijah "went
up by a whirlwind into Heaven" (2 Kings
2: 11) - not down into the bowels of
the earth. It is fair to assume that he
went to the same Heaven, or paradise, which is the abode of the saints who have
fallen asleep, the only difference being that he did so without dying.
(e)
The passage quoted by Mr. Utting, "No man hath ascended up to Heaven," surely refers
to the Father's Throne, the Heaven of Heavens. If, however, it be taken as
referring to the first Heaven, Paradise, Abraham's Bosom, it would appear to be
simply a confirmation of the statement that between Paradise and earth, as
between Hades and earth, there is "a great gulf
fixed," and there is no going backwards and forwards between the
two, though Elijah himself was allowed the exceptional privilege of appearing
on the Mount of Transfiguration and Paul and John were permitted to go there
while still living and to describe some of their experiences.
(f)
Assuming that Paul’s visit to Paradise, also called by him the third Heaven,
was to this same first Heaven, we are particularly told that he was "caught UP into Paradise," - not that he
descended into Sheol, or Hades.
I
am, etc.,
F.T.B.
LETTER 4
Sheol: A
Rejoinder.
[A Reply to letter 3.]
Dear
Sir,
May
I beg a brief reply to F.B.T.? His letter to a great extent is assumption
and theory. This will not do. Sheol (N.T. & LXX. Hadees)
is rendered in the A.V. "sometimes ‘Grave’ and sometimes ‘Hell.’ But they never
mean either the one or the other" (Govett). It is one general abode of the
dead (Eccl. 3:
20; 6: 6), but when the souls of the saved and the lost are
differentiated, distinctive names are given to the places where they are
awaiting resurrection. Hadees, Death, and
Destruction are terms used to mark the places of the lost, while the saved
are said to be in Abraham's bosom, or
To assume that any one of the
heavens is synonymous with
The
case of Elijah thus becomes irrelevant.
Finally,
the Scriptures record no instance of a disembodied human spirit [i.e.,
a disembodied soul]
entering the joys of heaven. Though
redeemed, it is unclothed, has the
stigma of death upon it, is ceremonially unclean, and is only part of the
man. Not till "in the twinkling of an eye" at the descent of the
Lord, will the saint be "raised in glory,"
body, soul and spirit re-united, one
man, “to be for ever with the Lord.”
Yours
etc.,
CHAS.
S. UTTING.
LETTER 5
ANY MOMENT
Dear
Sir,
In
the "Golden Day" article of December issue page 422 the words occur
"We look for the coming of the Lord at any moment."
I was rather surprised to read that in THE DAWN, but why should I be? For you do not teach all that you may see fit
to accept from contributors. I wish I
could have a criticism of the "any moment"
teaching dealt with in very few words, say as yes or no answers to a series of
questions around one point of view. Some
of my "any moment" friends admit that
such questions present real difficulty for the teaching they have been
accustomed to think in. Take an incident
in the life of the apostle Peter. John 21: 18.
"When thou shalt be old."
(1.)
Could Peter with the knowledge that he would live to be an old man believe that
the Lord would come during his lifetime - say a period of 30 - 40 years? Yes or
No?
(2.)
Does the prophesy of the Holy Spirit through Peter reveal a long series of
years of the Church’s life on earth after Peter and the Apostles have gone to
be with the Lord?
If
the answer to question one be NO, then we are bound to believe that Peter did
not teach the coming of the Lord during his lifetime.
If
the reply to question two be YES, then the Holy Spirit did not teach an any
moment coming by the Apostle Peter.
Further, the Holy Spirit would not teach through the other Apostles
anything in opposition to His teaching through Peter. Incidents in the life of the Apostle Paul and
the teaching of the Holy Spirit by him yield to me the same results. And Yes or No questions applied to the
teaching of our Lord lead to the same conclusion. What a different life the Church would be
living in these closing days if all the people of God thought the same thing!
I
am, etc.,
F.W.
FINNIE.
LETTER 6
[A reply from D. M. Panton to letter 5.]
Our
understanding of the Scripture on the problem raised by Mr. Finnie is expressed
in the article on the Parousia in this issue. As
usual in greatly debated points, there are two sets of Scriptures apparently
discordant; and the discovery of the truth (equally as usual) lies in their
adjusted harmony. - D. M. PANTON.
LETTER 7
THE APOSTLE PETER AND THE ADVENT
[A reply to letter 5.]
Dear
Sir,
Allow
me to reply to Mr. F. W. Finnie's letter in this month's number of THE DAWN
headed "Any Moment," with special
reference to the apparent difficulty he raised in regard to our Lord's word to
Peter - "When thou wast
young thou girdedst thyself and walkedst
whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old,
thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shalt gird thee, and carry thee
whither thou wouldst not."
I
would point out that the comment of the evangelist which follows his record of
this statement shews that it was found needful to
explain that Peter's death was within the scope of the prophecy, which would
indicate that another interpretation had been previously put upon it. I have taken it to refer to the lesson the
apostle was to learn from his fall and subsequent restoration. Our Lord had already promised him that when
he turned again he would be able to strengthen his brethren (Luke 22: 32), and I believe a spiritual experience
is indicated by this subsequent word of our Lord to Peter.
I
suggest that the opening clauses - "When thou wast young thou girdedst thyself,
and walkedst whither thou wouldest"
- refer to Peter's impulsive declaration at the Supper Table that he was ready
to go with our Lord both to prison and to death, the result of his inexperience
of his own strength indicated by the word "youth"
[young] and which ended so disastrously for him.
I think the words "when thou shalt be old"
mean when he had gained this experience of his own weakness, and the words
"thou shalt stretch forth thy hands"
indicate dependence, and the words "another shall
gird thee" that he should have the strength of Another to support
him, and the final words "carry thee whither thou
wouldst not" mean that he would thereafter do the will of Another
rather than his own will.
The
lesson was therefore the same that the apostle Paul sets forth in Romans 6. and 7.,
and expresses in his declaration that he was "always
bearing about in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may
be manifest in our body" (2 Cor. 4: 10); the
reality of this experience being shewn by the next
phrase - "For we who live are always delivered
unto death for Jesus' sake that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our
mortal flesh." This answers
very much to the apostle Peter glorifying God in living, the new life
of a crucified man as well as in ultimately dying the martyr's death.
I
gather that it was not until the time referred to in 2
Peter 1: 14, that the apostle received from his Master the intimation
that the words in question involved literal death. Until this time they would therefore present
no difficulty to the apostle in expecting the Coming of the Lord at "any moment."
If he had taken them from the first to mean he was to die a martyr's
death, he could hardly have offered, in his second recorded sermon to the Jews
that if they would repent there would come seasons of refreshing from the
presence of the Lord, and He would send the Christ (Acts 3: 19, 20) in accordance with Hosea 5: 15.
I
am, etc,
THEODORE
ROBERTS.
LETTER 8
Dear
sir,
The
September Dawn is full of searching and arresting things "A Block to
Progress" is calculated I should think, to arrest anybody. Let us not be discouraged, however, for it is
written He shall not be discouraged. Owing chiefly to the spread of Modernist
teaching thousands of erstwhile ‘believers’ are becoming unbelievers; but every
day thousands of erstwhile unbelievers are (through the
acceptance of the Gospel Message) becoming believers, and this is
the complementary truth. Wherefore let us humbly thank God, and take courage,
for "He shall see of the travail of His
soul, and shall be satisfied" (Isa. 53: 11).
I
am, etc.,
R.
L. LACEY
LETTER 9
[D. M. Panton’s
reply to letter 8.]
Mr.
Lacey is profoundly right: it is an awful truth of
the Word of God that the vine that remains barren timber must make place for
the fruitful; that banqueting seats, scorned, are made over to fresh guests,
and the crown the backslider forfeits goes to other brows; and even a lost
apostleship another takes. * The
Divine economy can never be baffled and never exhausted.
[* see: 'Judas: a regenerate
believer.’]
LETTER 10
LETTERS FROM THE EGYPTIAN
GAZETTE
Dear
SIR AUTHUR CANON DOYLE,
I
have read with attention in The Egyptian Gazette of May 30 a report by Mr.
H. A. White of an interview with yourself.
May I trouble you with two enquiries?
1.
You say: "Of course they have not time on the
other side ... They have no idea of time. They try sometimes to indicate time
but they may be out by months, or even a year or two." How, then, are we to deal with certain parts
of the Bible which purport to be revelations given by or through spirit beings,
in which they specify exact periods of time?
I refer to, for example, Daniel 9. ‘seventy sevens’ from one specified event to another 12: 11, 12, ‘1290 days,’
‘1335
days’: Revelation 11: 2 : 12: 6
13: 5 ; 20: 3 ; ‘1260 days,’ ‘42 months,’ ‘1000 years.’
Interpret
such expressions how we will, do they not at least suggest that such beings
have very distinct sense of time, both brief ‘days’;
longer ‘months,’ ‘years’;
and extended, ‘1000 years’? I would also ask whether it is not a
philosophical necessity that limited intelligences must think in limited
periods, since only an infinite mind can grasp eternity and not need bounds of
time space?
2.
You say: "When you talk about the Christ coming
down it does not necessarily mean that Jesus is coming down; it means that somebody
of a very high level is coming. Jesus
was only a medium for the Christ spirit. ... The Christ will have to come through some individual, not
necessarily Jesus; and we shall call this human being the Christ."
My
question is: How, then, is the charge to be met that will arise out of 2 Epistle of John,
verse 7: "For many deceivers are gone forth
into the world, even they that confess not that Jesus Christ
cometh in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist"
?
If
your time allows a brief reply I shall ponder it.
Believe
me,
Yours
faithfully,
G.
H. LANG.
LETTER 11
SIR A. CANON DOYLE’S REPLY
The
above letter was returned with the following note written at the head of
it: "I do not believe in literal
inspiration of the Bible. It is quite untenable.- A. C. D."
LETTER
12
[Mr
Lang’s response to Cannon Doyle’s reply.]
June 30th, 1927,
Dear Sir ARTHUR CANON DOYLE,
I
am in receipt of your very brief remark written at the head of my letter of
June 3rd.
It
seems merely to evade my questions.
These were not based on any particular view of the inspiration of the
Bible. For any thing they indicate my
view of that question might be your own, though in fact it is not.
Certain
statements by you appeared in print. I
asked if you be so good as to indicate how certain Bible statements, to the
contrary can be met. To inform me what
is not your view of the inspiration of the Bible really seems little to the
point, unless you wish thereby to intimate indirectly that what the Bible may
say is of too small importance to be discussed.
The
spirits instructing you tell you that in their world they have no idea of
time. I simply pointed out that a
certain, ancient Book, which says a good deal about such topics, speaks to the
contrary, and I enquired whether the latter view is not philosophically right
and the view you announce philosophically wrong?
The
point is worthy of elucidation, being really of importance to your case. The beings who teach you venture to foretell
the future, but they very judiciously excuse themselves from the test of
whether their predictions come true as to time, the excuse being that they have
no idea of time. This is ingenious, but
to the critical mind is also suspicious.
On
the contrary, the spirits whose predictions are reported in the Bible passages
I cited, submitted themselves to this keen test by defining points and periods
of time.
This
is in their favour; and the contrast raises pertinent and destructive questions
as to the ability and the character of the spirits of whom you are the
mouthpiece. Why do they avoid a crucial
test, and on an unfounded ground?
Upon
the matter of the burden of their predictions (apart from details) - that a
time of vast distress will lead on to one of peace and prosperity, and will
include the advent of a great dominating Personality - I simply remark in
passing that this is no more than they and you could have learned from the
Bible. Students of that Book have
expected these things ever since the Book was completed. Thus they are no revelation at
all, but only an unacknowledged repetition of what the Bible revealed long
since.
My
second question is even more fundamental.
I scarcely wonder you chose to ignore it. You repeat the ancient gnostic
invention that "Jesus" and "the Christ" are not one and the same person, but
that "Jesus was only a medium for the Christ
spirit." The Bible, however,
asks bluntly, "Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus IS the
Christ?" - not is a medium of the Christ
spirit (1 John 2: 22).
Those
who teach you say that Jesus is not the One who is coming,
and certainly not in flesh.
The Bible distinctly asserts that Jesus is the coming One and that
he will come in flesh, that is, in the identical humanity
and body in which He lived on earth and now lives at the right hand of God,
only glorified. You deny this; and the
Bible very solemnly retaliates upon you by asserting that he who denies it is
"the deceiver and the antichrist" (2 Ep. John 7; Acts 1: 9-11; 1
John 4: 1-6).
It
is no wonder that, you dare not face the literal sense of Holy Scripture. Its statements being true, your position and
prospects are dismal enough, which, believe me, moves my heart.
As
these letters arose out of utterances of yours in the public press, in the
interests of the public and of the truth I propose to send them to the
press. It is profoundly important that
all should know that on such vital matters spiritism
and the Word of God are irreconcilable opponents. With all respect and with all earnestness
I press this upon your own attention and remain,
Yours
faithfully,
G.
H. LANG.
To this letter no answer was received.
LETTER 13
TRANSUBSTANTIATION
In
1898 a lady (who afterwards entered the Church of Rome) wrote to Archbishop
Temple for counsel on the Lord’s Supper, and the Archbiship
replied :-
Madam. - The bread in the Holy Communion is certainly not God
either before consecration or after, and you must not worship it.
Yours
faithfully,
F. CANTUAR.
LETTER 14
Emotion in Service.
Dear
Sir,
The
conversation with Hudson Taylor in your September issue rightly
emphasizes aspects of truth; but may not the somewhat
unbalanced presentation encourage some to regard coldness as maturity? Emotion
without faith and obedience is deadly, and this is the usual danger to-day:
hence a rocky-ground hearing with natural joy, and failure
to count the cost as our Lord so earnestly sets it forth in Luke 14: 25-35.
But
if we have tasted that He is gracious, we would grow up unto Him in all
things. He Himself was ever perfect,
and He beheld the city and wept over it: He was moved with
compassion. Paul wrote to saints with
tears; and spoke with weeping of the enemies of the cross of Christ, nor did he
become unemotional at
Granted
that the joy of a child and of an adult may have different aspects, and the joy
of a mature believer is expressed in some ways differently from that of a young
believer, and with a fuller view of encouragements and discouragements, and a
quiet calm; granted that it is likewise with sorrow also:- yet nevertheless, do
we not need to be humbled that we are not more like Christ in
the intense emotion which the Song of Songs portrays, and in the depth of
feeling when reproach broke His heart?
The
evil of an evil world would pain us more: if we become, "used" to it,
are we not failing, in measure, to walk in the Spirit Who emphasizes
intercession with groanings which cannot be
uttered? In so writing, I feel my own
coming short and while praying "Come, Lord
Jesus," long to be more prepared daily by an all-round growth, and
to illustrate the precious words "as sorrowful,
yet alway rejoicing."
I
am, etc.,
PERCY
W. HEWARD.
LETTER 15
THE BRIDE OF CHRIST: AN INQUIRY
Dear
Sir,
It
is submitted that the
1.
It is never so designated.
2.
While more than a dozen Scriptures speak of the Church as the Body of
Christ, not one says it is His Bride.
3.
Perhaps the most glorious scene in the whole Bible is that in which the Holy
Spirit describes the marriage of the Lamb, whose bride is the heavenly City;
i.e., those saints, as inhabitants thereof, whose while apparel
will represent their "righteous
acts."
But
amongst these will be Abel, Enoch, etc., who are outside the Church.
4.
But if the "Marriage of the Lamb" be
so wonderful and august an event, and the "Bride
of the Lamb" so glorious, how can it be otherwise than an
assumption to think that the Church is Christ's bride, when the Christ -
as Christ - is associated with no such glorious event, neither is a
bride assigned Him in the whole of the New Testament ?
5.
The Bride of the Lamb reigns with her Bridegroom, and is seen, after the marriage
in Rev. 19., as the armies of heaven clothed
in white linen descending with their Leader and King on
the white horse to take the Kingdom by force.
But as many thousands the Church will be disqualified from reigning with
Christ, then the Church as an entity can be neither the "Bride of the Lamb," nor a bride of Christ.
6.
It seems that the "wife of the Lamb"
is composed of the Martyrs, Prophets, and Overcomers, of all the Dispensations,
and so of course would include those of the Church, but those only.
7.
If the Church were the bride of Christ, then, if Christ be going to marry it
(or her) pre-millennially, whatever were the spiritual condition of any member
at death - short of excommunication sins - would be immaterial to their
enjoying, in the resurrection, the heavenly felicities and raptures of such an
occasion!
I
append some notes.
The
parables of the Marriage Feast, Wedding Garment, and Ten Virgins have each
their teaching, but do not throw light on the point discussed, I think.
The
great passage Eph. 5: 22-33, to me, shews the great love, and union, existing between Christ
and His Body, and also what is required by Him to exist between husband and
wife: but it nowhere declares that the Church is His bride; it says it
is his "Body."
2 Cor. 11: 2. "for
I espoused you, etc."
This
is a personal travail of Paul's in prayer and wrestling of spirit on behalf of
the Corinthians, even as he did for the Colossians, and those of
2 Cor. 11: 1. It was manifestly impossible for
Paul or any man to present any Christian or any Church "a pure virgin to Christ." The Holy Spirit in
recording this wonderful love of Paul's does not say, nor teach, that the
Church of God itself is "espoused" to
Christ, nor married to Him. It is the
record by the Holy Ghost of a wonderful, personal, private, and local
intercession and travail; it was mighty and glorious, on the part of a lonely
warrior, a giant of faith.
It
seems that the only heavenly bride which the ‘Son of
God’ will have will be "the Bride of the
Lamb." "THE SPIRIT AND THE BRIDE SAY,
COME." The
bride here I think stands for the "watchful" in the Church, who long for His coming,
and as such will "qualify" and be of course in the company forming
the "Bride of the Lamb." As this bride of Rev.
22, 17 cannot be completed company, but only that portion of it in
existence at the time, so, coming immediately after the definition of the Bride
of the Lamb, and description of her as well, the only conclusion possible is
that this is the Bride referred to; and we are confined to applying the term
here occurring to those who witness,
proclaim, work for, and obey, Christ, as they wait and watch for the ‘coming’
of verse 20.
I
was greatly surprised and pleased to come across a footnote "The Coming
Prince," p.200. Sir Robert Anderson says:- "In Scripture the Church of this Dispensation is symbolized
as the Body of Christ, never as the Bride. From the close of John Baptist’s
ministry the Bride is never mentioned until she appears in the Apocalypse (John 3: 29, Rev. 21: 2-9). The force of the ‘nevertheless’ in Eph. 5: 33, depends on
the fact that the Church is the Body, not the Bride. The earthly relationship is re-adjusted by a
heavenly standard. Man and wife are not
one body, but Christ and His Church are one body, therefore a man is to
love his wife, ‘even as himself.’"
I
submit there is only one heavenly Bride, and that "The Bride of the Lamb"; also that the idea the Church is the bride of Christ is an
assumption and a fallacy.
I
am, etc.,
CHAS.
S. UTTING.
LETTER 16
[A reply to Letter 15.]
Dear
Sir,
I
have read with interest your correspondent Mr. Utting’s
letter on the Bride of Christ, appearing in the October DAWN, and should like a
little space in your magazine by way of reply.
May
I say at the outset that what I believe underlies Mr. Utting’s
denial that the
To
suggest, as Mr. Utting does, that the bride, who in
concert with the Spirit cries "Come"
in response to Him Who reveals himself as the "Root
and offspring of David, the bright and morning star" (Rev. 22: 16, 17), is confined to that portion of
the Church which is (as Mr. Utting says) " in existence at the time of our Lord's coming,"
is to take away the whole value of our Lord’s last message from all the saints
throughout the ages who by reason of death will not be on earth when He comes.
I
do not see how it can be disputed that the writer of the Apocalypse himself
formed part of the bride saying "Come,"
for indeed it is proved by the response of verse 20,
which was surely the writer’s own.
These
two passages, the application of which to the Church can hardly be disputed,
make void Sir Robert Anderson’s statement quoted by Mr. Utting
that the Church of this dispensation is never symbolized as the bride. Sir Robert’s dragging in the symbol of the body
into Ephesians (5:
33) shews that he likewise does not
distinguish between the reality and the symbol.
He might just as well say that the Church in Ephesians cannot "grow into a, holy temple of the Lord" (2: 21) because it is the body of Christ. If we press the figure in this way we might
say that Christ cannot present us to Himself as a glorious church (verse 27)
because we are members of His body (verse 30).
I
am surprised to see that Sir Robert Anderson states that man and wife are not
one body, when Scripture says the two shall become one flesh (verse 31. See 1 Cor. 6: 16).
A
reference to the context of John 3: 29 will shew that the figure of the bride is used there to justify
John's disciples leaving him for Christ by enforcing the claims of the Bridegroorn - "He that hath
the bride is the Bridegroorn." Those who thus attached themselves to Christ
became the nucleus of the Christian church into which the Gentile Corinthians
were afterwards admitted.
As
regards Romans 7: 1-6, Mr. Utting overlooks the fact that , the word "joined" is no more found in the passage than
"married," or the Greek verb which is
thus translated hardly carries this meaning, and the verb would be better
translated as "be" or "become" to another man.
I
quite agree that the saints of the old dispensation will be among those
described as the bride at the marriage of the Lamb (Rev.
19: 7), for through death they have become heavenly saints, but I fail
to see why their presence should exclude us who are equally heavenly
saints. On the contrary, I read that
"without us they are not made perfect"
(Heb. 2: 40). It seems to me presumptuous for anyone to
define exactly of whom "the wife of the Lamb"
is composed, as Mr. Utting does, limiting it to
certain people whom he describes as "martyrs,
prophets, and overcomers,"
All I would dare to say is that if a man is not an overcomer, he has no
right to expect to sit down with "the faithful and
true Witness"; in His throne (Rev. 3:
14, 21), which is I suppose one of the privileges of the Lamb's wife.
The
importance which I attach to the subject is that I dread the weakening in the
souls of believers of those ties of affection Christ which are, I believe,
intended to be strengthened by the use of the symbol of the bride.
I
am, etc.,
THEODORE
ROBERTS.
LETTER 17
THE CHURCH A BRIDE?
[A reply to letter 16.]
Seven
reasons and five scriptures were given as the ground for rejecting the theory
that the Church is a Bride of Christ.
The "reply" does not dispose of these reasons and challenges
only three of my readings of Scripture.
In dealing with 2 Cor.
11: 2, Mr. Roberts is of course quite logical; but we do not start quite
alike. The meaning of the remark that
neither Paul nor anyone could betroth any person to Christ was, I thought,
obvious, viz: that such an operation is the sovereign
act of God the Holy Ghost. Still, there
are the words "betrothed," "husband," and - "Christ,"
so that at first sight, and reading superficially, some support appears to be
offered for the theory. However this
gives the opportunity to observe that the betrothal looks on to the nuptials, but
by no means guarantees them to the individual!
Hence the apostle's anxiety for the Corinthians, his travail for the
Galatians, and agony for the Laodiceans. At their conversion all believers are
betrothed to Christ; the marriage is still future. The husband’s title in the context is Christ:
true; and as Christ is head of the Church this was consistent in a letter to
the early Church; but in the future dispensation when the glorious nuptials
occur it is the marriage of The Lamb, not of The Christ.
Mr.
Roberts supplying "become," as more
correct than "joined" in
The
remarks of Sir R. Anderson to my mind appear unanswerable. Mr. Robert's suggestion that because the
Scripture states husband and wife become one flesh, therefore they are one body
I do not understand. Husband and wife
surely are two bodies, and when they die will require two coffins.
In
dealing with Rev. 22: 16, 17, Mr. Roberts
places in inverted commas, as quoting myself, words not mine as so placed; thus
simply demolishing something which was not erected. I must leave this however for sake of space,
but crave your permission to say that :-
These
facts are patent:
(1)
the formula "The Bride of Christ" is
quite outside the New Testament; Roman and Anglo-catholics
appropriate it as their own.
(2).
The only recorded marriage of Our Lord is that of Rev.
19. and it is in his capacity as " The Lamb,"
not as "The Christ."
(3).
The wife of the Lamb includes Old Testament heroes; therefore the Church as
such and as an entity is precluded, although members thereof who qualify as per Heb. 11., and fulfil the conditions of 2 Tim. 2: 12,
etc., will be in the glorious company of the former.
(4).
Neither record nor description of any wife or marriage of Christ - as
Christ - is given us.
(5).
The glorious destiny of the wife of the Lamb impels the conviction that, were
there so brilliant a company as a bride of Christ, her destiny would also be shewn us and would appear an equally if not more glorious
one than the former.
I
am, etc.,
CHAS.
S. UTTING.
LETTER 18
My
Dear Children,
John Paterson, of Penyvenie in Ayrshire, was of those
persecuted Covenanters of the 17th Century who chose suffering and death rather
than displease God. He had been
attending a "conventicle" - or forbidden religious meeting - when, on
his homeward way, he observed two dragoons on horseback following him; but the
ground being soft and boggy, they made no speed, while he - on foot - went
lightly through the moss. Having passed
the summit of what is called the "Meikle
Hill" he found a mossy furrow in which he lay down for concealment. The troopers, however, had dogs with them,
which they put on the scent. The animals
advanced over the broken surface of the morass, exactly in the line of his hiding-place;
he heard them coming, and expected every moment that they would appear on the
edge of the trench above him; but just when they were about to spring forward
to the place where he lay, a fox jumped from its lair in their very face, and
bounded down the hill. The joyous dogs
left their former scent and stretched themselves out at full speed after the
fugitive fox, and the soldiers, forgetful of all else, followed the chase,
passing within a few yards of the place where Paterson lay. Hearing the hubbub, and not knowing the
cause, he raised himself, peering cautiously over the edge of the deep bog, and
observed the fox, the dogs, and the soldiers in full race down the heathy
slope, leaving him far behind.
Hearing
that he had been publicly denounced as a rebel and a reward offered for his
capture, Paterson left his home and hid himself in Benbeoch
Craigs, from whence he came down, when possible, to
visit his household. One day, as he had
just left his retreat, he saw dragoons approaching. He instantly retraced his steps, but the
troopers, noticing that he hastily ascended the hill as if anxious to avoid
observation, rode after him. As he was
climbing over the stone dyke (or wall) which stood a few hundred yards from the
bottom of the crags, he turned to see what progress the horsemen were making,
and, perceiving the speed with which they advanced, sprang from the wall and
ran to seek his hiding-place. In this
place are large masses of granite torn and tossed from the neighbouring hill,
evidently by some powerful convulsion of nature. As
"Blessed are ye," the Lord Jesus Christ said,
"when men shall revile you, and persecute
you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice
and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in Heaven: for so persecuted
they the prophets which were before you."
(Matt. 5: 11). The Lord shewed
how even the prophets - whose memory when He spoke was venerated by the Jews as
that of undoubted men of God - had in their life-time been the objects of
persecution and reviling. And He would
have His people be willingly prepared for the same treatment, since the
world will never tolerate an unflinching witness for God. True, there are times when - in any given
place, as in
Since,
then, God's word warns us that
"All who
will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (2 Tim. 3: 12),
and since we never know when we may be called upon to choose between obedience to God at all costs, and disobedience to
God in order to keep man's favour, let us who are His seek to be
prepared for the test. He alone can
prepare us - whether our battle-ground be home or school or a wider
sphere. To Him, therefore, let us
seek, for such a living faith in Him as will result in daily
stedfast faithfulness, for "he that is faithful in that which is least
is faithful also in much" (Luke 15: 10). And "this is the victory which overcometh the world,
even our faith."
Your
affectionate friend,
HELEN
RAMSAY.
[*Taken from Traditions of the Covenanters,- by the Rev.
R. Simpson,
LETTER 19
OUR TITLE
Dear
Sir,
There
is considerable objection to the name of THE DAWN. Nearly everyone I come in
contact with thinks it has to do with Russelism, or
Millennial Dawnism. A
I
am, etc.,
W.
L. MADLEY.
LETTER 20
[Mr. Panton’s
(the editor of The Dawn Evangelical Magazine) reply.]
We
felt the force of Mr. Bradley's contention before the magazine was started; and
no doubt here and there the title creates some confusion. But we do not see why one of the loveliest
words in the language, and the word that exactly expresses our outlook, should
remain the monopoly of a false sect; and with the circulation of the magazine
the problem solves itself. To change
the name now, in the confusion it would create, is probably the greater evil,
and is hardly practicable. -Ed.
LETTER 21
Daniel's Seventy Weeks
[The following letter, printed in The Rock,
is worthy of exceedingly careful thought - D.M.P..]
Dear
Sir,
Shall
I briefly present to you some objections which I entertain against the common
view of the seventy weeks? (Dan. 9: 20-27).
1.
The prophecy regards Daniel's people of
2.
It is the discovery of prophetic truth made by an angel (vv. 21, 22). Now angels are specially commissioned to aid
3.
The Jews are the people of the letter
(2 Cor. 3.),
and the prophets of
"Weeks," then, are to be taken literally, of seven
days each (Lev. 12: 5; Num. 28: 26; Jer. 5: 24; Dan. 10: 2, 3).
4.
It is a prophecy, I suppose, of the false Christ, who
shall arise to deceive
He
shall make a covenant with Israel for one week, and in the midst of the week
shall break his covenant, causing the sacrifices of the Temple to cease, and
setting up the "abomination of desolation"
on the Temple (vv.
27); at which moment Christ's Jewish disciples are to flee with headlong
speed out of Jerusalem (Matt. 14: 16-24).
5.
The literal half-week is seen in Revelation 11:
7-11, when the two "prophets,"
Enoch and Elijah, are slain at
6.
"The Anointed One" slain at
7.
Has the commandment to restore and to build
Will
the Lord's people search and see?
R.
GOVETT.
LETTER 22
[Comments by D. M. Panton on
letter 21.]
We
are not inviting a discussion on the Seventy Weeks, for it is exactly one of
the subjects that are illimitable and interminable - a sure proof that the
certainty often assumed on the subject does not exist: but it is due to Dr.
Hospers to have an opportunity of meeting the "Objections"; and we welcome a word from our Hebrew brother in
Tangier. Later, we may handle the
criticisms, if our position so kindly sent us by our correspondents, criticisms
which it would be an intellectual pleasure to meet; but, for spiritual reasons,
we are loath to absorb the space, and are inclined to think that an
over-indulgence in this type of discussion - dealing with an alleged mystical
figuring - has helped to bring prophecy into disrepute. Our readers have had the three main views
placed before them. For the bewildering
maze of figurative interpretations - the literal interpretation can be but one
- we would again refer the impartial student to Lange on Daniel; a maze of
which one in ten writers on the Seventy Weeks seems to be aware, nor one in a
hundred to see the paralyzing uncertainty into which plunges his own theory. We are no enemy to ascertained facts, but we
demur to theories, so unproved as to be innumerable, being pressed on the
Church as facts.
- D. M. PANTON.
LETTER 23
[A
response to letter 22 above.]
Dear
Sir,
Your
kind notice of my article on the Seventy Weeks carries your editorial reminder
that I did not refer to your "Objections"
(THE DAWN, Feb. 15, p. 518). I am not
after having the last word, but I take your remark as a tacit invitation to
have these met, if possible. Surely we
are after the truth. I had placed my
main reliance upon the thetical side
of the matter, and already my article was long enough. Allow me, then, to notice the objections in
the order in which you gave them.
1.
We must be careful about laying down our own conditions what
prophecy ought or ought not to say, and we may not determine the manner in
which this should be done. May we demand
that a "prophecy so startlingly evidential"
should be referred to again in the New Testament? Would not this be following the Modernist
principle which reasons on similar lines in regard to certain doctrines, as the
Virgin Birth, not given often enough?
2.
Neither does it seem proper for us to say that there may not be a gap in the 70
weeks. Nor does the Holy Spirit need to
inform us of such a gap in so many words. There are other cases in which He jumps over a
period of 2000 years; as, Luke 4: 17-21,
"syllable of explanation" there
either. And how often telescopes the two
Advents without telling us so! God may
do any "unique thing" He pleases.
3.
That there should be a gap in the 70 weeks is not necessarily an untruth. It is hardly correct to affirm that there is
not the remotest hint of such a thing. Indeed?
the fact that 70 weeks were marked off into 7 and 62
and 1 weeks is most cant in that direction.
4.
This objection is purely an exegetical one. The fulfilment of the items of Dan. 9: 24 at the end of the 70 weeks does not prove anything about the course of
the 70 weeks as such. That is to
say, even if granted that these items are fulfilled at the
end of the last week (however short or long), it tells us absolutely
nothing as to the beginning of these 70 weeks, or their
course.
5.
Is it "fatal to the ordinary view that, in a
mathematical prophecy, such as this, in which its sole evidential value rests
on an accurate and demonstrable fulfilment, no agreement concerning even the
first Advent dates, which ought to have been obvious, has ever been reached"?
Here again human requirements are
posited. Theoretically, we would say,
such and such ought to be so. But here
we run up against the age-long psychological problem: Why do not all people see
alike - even the most learned? Why will not everybody think logically? Why does not everybody love to do the right
thing even though experience constantly proves how the wrong acts bring damage?
etc. "Demonstrable fulfilment,"
"obvious," - perhaps. But let us consider the realities of life and
actual experience. At this late date,
the honest Editor is but adding another variation to the large number, and by
what token may he affirm that he has found it? Why he and not another, even though the matter
should have been plain enough to all - even though plain as mathematics? Thus we all flounder in a bog of subjectivism
and would save ourselves with an arbitrary gesture, meanwhile looking wise. We dare say that the thetical
presentation of the matter is the only safe course to take.
6.
"A prophecy which puts numerical limits to the
sin of Daniel’s people, Daniel is said to have understood (Dan 10: 1)."
To be perfectly accurate, this "understanding"
of Daniel does not pertain to the vision concerning which our controversy
relates; it refers to what follows, what occurred at another time. But even then, we must be cautious about
pressing the measure of this "understanding."
He was immensely comforted as he learned
of the near approach of the Messiah and the eventual salvation of his people.
7.
May we plead that "Daniel's dates lie
buried till they are unsealed, so abandoning all evidential significance in the
figures?" In answer, we
refer to paragraph 5 above, and add that there is often in Scripture a degree
of relativity with which we must reckon. Though things are ever so plain, it ever
remains to us a process of seeking. We
are informed, but, as were the disciples concerning Jesus’ death and
resurrection, still we do not fully understand. Much was revealed to Daniel, but the
revelation to the Apostle John was needed to carry our knowledge further. Somehow these figures have immense value to us
however much all may be struggling to make use of them.
I
am, etc.,
G.
H. HOSPERS, D.D.
LETTER 24
[A
reply to letter 23 above.]
Dear
Sir,
Both
numbers of THE DAWN (Feb. and May), are before me, and I read your article on
the Seventy Weeks, the Objections, and the criticism to both.
As
there are so many theories that are advanced now-a-days on different subjects
of Scripture, as a rule, I avoid censure. I find I have hardly time to accomplish all
the writing that lies generally before me. I could not however pass over this subject of
the Seventy Weeks without making a few remarks in the hope that they might
throw some light on such an important subject. And I can only spare time to
touch on a few points.
Let
me say, first, that I am a Hebrew by birth, and that I have been working among
the Jews, as the Lord's servant, for over twenty years. This subject has been referred to hundreds of
times in our arguments with the Jews, and of course I have had to make a close
examination of the passage.
Hebrew
students should notice a distinction between the usage of the word "weeks" in Daniel, and the usage of it in the
other parts of the Old Testament. A
careful examination will reveal that the word translated "weeks" has a masculine and a feminine form. Where the feminine is used, it is a clear
reference to weeks; and where the masculine is used, it refers to a "heptad," a word which stands in the same
relation to 7, as the word "dozen" to 12. A 7 of years; a 7 of days; and may be used for
a 7 of anything else. Now, the masculine
form is found only in Daniel, and the feminine in every other place in the Old
Testament where the word is used, and where the meaning is distinctly weeks,
and could not be taken for any-thing else.
This
of course differs from the statement in THE DAWN for February, page 488, where
we read, "Throughout the Old Testament this word
is never used of any but weeks," and then the conclusion, is come
to that in Dan. 10: 2, "It is explicitly stated that the word uses consists of days."
Rather
than think that Dan. 10: 2 confirms the
usage of the word in the previous chapter, I believe it does state exactly the
opposite. Why say in the tenth chapter
"weeks of days," if the usage of the
word in the previous chapter means also days? As a matter of fact, it would be out of place,
unless he wants us to understand the use of the word in the previous chapter is
not "of days."
I
say therefore that Daniel in the ninth chapter understood that the angel was
speaking to him of 70 sevens of years, and lest we should confuse the 3 sevens
of the tenth chapter with the 70,
he distinguishes them by adding "of days."
It stands then that the use of the word
in the masculine by Daniel means a "seven,"
and not an ordinary week.
Looking
at the ninth chapter now, we are told that
Daniel understood by books the number of the years of the captivity in
Daniel
had made inquiry about the 70 years of the captivity, the answer came in a
period (of years naturally) extending to 70 sevens. (One is reminded of a
similar answer in Matt. 18: 21, 22). As if the angel had said: You want to know
what is going to be your people's destiny after the 70 years. It is determined that 70 sevens more of years
(or 70 times over) are to pass over them and the holy city before "the transgression is finished, or shut up," etc.
(verse 24). And the prophecy sets out, not from the
release of the people, but from the edict to restore and to build Jerusalem,
and extends to the cutting off of the Messiah, the destruction of the restored
city by the Romans, and then to a period when the Jews would go back to
Jerusalem, and make a covenant with Antichrist, the Roman prince, whose end
would be at the time of the consummation of the prophecy.
And
we notice that a division is made, undoubtedly for our guidance, of the 70
sevens, into 7, 62, and 1; three distinct periods indicative of different
events that would take place. The first
period was to start with "the commandment to
restore and to build
Now
with the rejection of Him came the rejection of
Parenthesis of Time. In your "Objections" 2 and 3
you state that the inserting "2000 years between
the last two weeks without the remotest hint of any such thing in the passage,"
would make the prophecy "an actual untruth."
Do
we find in the Old Testament any other prophecies allowing of such an insertion
of 2000 years without the slightest reference to it in the passage? Yes. Isa. 61: 1, 2,
was referred to by our Lord in Luke 4: 18, 19.
In comparing the two passages we find
that our Lord quoted only half of the verse of Isa. 61: 2,
and He said, "This day is this Scripture fulfilled
in your ears," a reference no doubt to this dispensation of grace
which His first coming ushered in. "The Day of
vengeance" of the same verse is still awaiting His Return. See Isa. 34: 8 ; 63: 4 ; Jer. 51: 6,
etc.
We
take another prophecy, Isa. 9. If you examine carefully the Hebrew of verse 1 you will see both advents mentioned
therein without any reference to a long period between.
Micah 5: 2 is as we know a reference to His first Advent. But verse 3
tells us that "He will give them up until the time
that she which travaileth hath brought forth."
These last words are undoubtedly a
reference to Isa. 66: 7-9, to
The
Apostle Peter (in 1 Pet. 2: 11 and 12) does tell us that the prophets were not given
clear light as to the things which they did testify with reference to the first
and second Advents of Christ. But what
God kept secret from them, none could have discovered until He was pleased to
reveal it unto us.
One
more remark. Reference has already been made the May magazine to your statement
in page 487. "The marked absence of the article
would be strange, if not impossible, applied to Christ." And Dr. Hospers is right in saying that
both the Hebrew and the Greek allow of the use of the word as a proper name. But may I add that we have in the Hebrew Bible
that the definite article "the" is
very frequently dropped after the Hebrew word "ad"
("until" or "even"). Examples of this we find in Ex. 12: 10, "until
(the) morning" - twice repeated in the
verse. 1 Sam. 2: 5, "even (the) barren."
I
am, etc.,
M.
BARKEY.
Tangier.
-------
[To be continued (D.V), as and when
I select more interesting correspondence - WHT.]