THE COLLECTION OF SCRIPTURES
not shaken
by
GENL.
GOODWYN’S OBSERVATIONS.
BY ROBERT GOVETT.
MAYJOR GENERAL H. GOODWYN has printed a tract endeavouring
to silence the testimony of a number of Scriptures adduced by me, in proof that
not all believers will enter the millennial kingdom.
The
subject is one of such deep importance to the Christian, that I am not
surprised that it produces discussion.
And I am not one to be sorry for such a result; glad though I should be
that all should receive at once the witness of Holy Writ. This is not the first publication upon the
topic; and assuredly it will not be the last.
In
the tract on which I am about to comment, the usual line of argument is
taken. The texts which speak of grace as
continually now in exercise on God’s part toward the believer, are set against
those which tell with equal clearness of justice, as one day to
be brought to bear upon him. By a view
of the privileges of the believer it is thought that his responsibilities and their
consequences can be silenced. But it is
a mistake. A day is coming, in which God
will render to each according to his works.
‘How have my servants behaved themselves?’
will be Christ’s inquiry of His saved ones.
In
the tract which follows I consider (1)
THE JUDGMENT OF THE SAINTS; (2) ITS PRINCIPLE; (3) ITS RULE; (4) OFFENCES
AGAINST IT; (5) ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS; (6) AND THE PERIOD DURING WHICH REWARD
ACCORDING TO WORKS TAKES EFFECT.
OUR FIRST TOPIC THEN IS: -
JUDGMENT OF THE SAINTS.
My
text-paper, which the General improperly calls a ‘syllabus,’
said - "Judgment of the saints at Christ’s coming according to works: 2 Cor. 9: 6-10; Eph. 6: 5-9;
Phil. 4: 17; Rev. 2: 23; Rom. 14: 10-12."
The
General gives only the words. "Judgment of saints
at Christ’s coming;" omitting the rest of the sentence, and the
references. Why does he not admit the
doctrine contained in those Scriptures?
He
observes on this point that it is,
"Purely a judgment of works, and not of
persons:" Rom. 8: 1. "There is therefore
now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus."
Very
true: ‘no condemnation now:’ because
it is the day of grace: and no future condemnation of them as enemies to be
destroyed. But will there be any "day of judgment" - that is, "day if justice?" 1
John 4: 17;
‘A judgment purely of works and not of persons!’
What
does that mean? Such words the Scripture
does not use. Such words seem to signify,
that God, in the absence of His people, will make up the account of their
works, and render them the due recompense, without their appearing in person
before the bar of judgment. Does
Scripture say that?
1.
Nay, but that believers will have to appear in person before
Christ’s judgment-seat.
(1)
"For we shall all stand (be
set) before the judgment-seat of Christ."*
[*
The critical editions read, "of God."
But it matters not to this point, which we read.]
"For it is written, As I live saith the
Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God:"
Rom. 14: 10, 11.
(2)
"For we must all appear before the
judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in
his body:" 2 Cor.
5: 10.
(3)
"The Lord shall judge His people:"
Heb. 10: 30.
(4)
"So speak ye and so do as they that shall be
judged by the law of liberty:" Jas.
2: 12. See also 1 Cor. 6: 9, 10; Col. 3: 23;
Jas. 5: 9, 12; 1 Thess. 4: 6; Gal. 5: 10. Nor will there be the judgment of works
alone, but of motives also, and of faithfulness in those works: 1 Cor. 4: 5.
But
some say - ‘How should the Bridegroom judge the Bride?’
We
reply, that the judgment is not of many believers
together making up a body, but of each individual. Will the reader be so good as to understand,
that in the texts which follow the true rendering is not ‘every man,’ but ‘each?’
As
work is given to each severally, several also will be the judgment of each: Mark 13: 34.
(1)
"God, who will render to every man according
to his deeds:" Rom. 2: 6.
(2)
"Every man, shall receive his own reward according to his own
labour:" 1 Cor.
3: 8.
(3)
"Every man’s work shall be made manifest:"
13.
(4)
"The fire shall try every man’s work of what
sort it is:" 13.
(5)
"Let every man prove his own work,
and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone and not in another. For every man shall bear his own
burthen:" Gal. 6: 4, 5.
For
other proofs, see Matt. 16: 27; 2 Cor. 5: 10; 1 Cor. 4: 5; Eph. 6:
8; 1 Pet. 1: 17; Rev. 2: 23; 22: 12.
Each
will have to give account of himself.
(1)
"So then every one of us shall give account
of himself to God:" Rom. 16: 12.
(2)
"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit
yourselves : for they watch for your souls as
they that must give account :" Heb.
13: 17.
(3)
"I desire fruit that may abound to your
account:" Phil. 4: 17; Matt.
25: 19.
(1)
If then that account given by the servants to Christ as their Lord be satisfactory,
they shall receive reward; they shall enter the joy of their Lord: Rev. 11: 18; Matt. 25: 21, 23. They shall be accounted worthy
to partake of the millennial age, or the first resurrection, and to reign with
Christ: Luke 20: 35, 36; 19: 17, 19; Rev. 20: 4-6;
2 Thess. 1: 5, 11.
(2)
But what if they have no works to show?
Then they can have no reward. For
it is then the day of reward to works, as distinct from faith. And many just believe Christ, and die.
But
what if they lived years after believing in Christ, and have no good works to
show? Then they belong to the class of
unprofitable servants, who are shut out from the place of light and joy into
the darkness outside.
On
this the General observes:-
"This is of course has no allusion to unprofitable servants,
who are no true servants at all, and who not having life,
cannot serve in the power of Christ."
Does
the Scripture say of the "unprofitable servant,"
(Matt. 25,) that he has no life? No: it is only the General who does so.
The
one excluded from the joy of his lord is one of the Lord’s "OWN SERVANTS:" Matt.
25: 14. He is "servant" in the same sense as those admitted:
only that they were diligent and faithful, and he
not. New Testament Scripture nowhere, that I am aware, calls any ungodly man a servant of
Christ.
Does
Scripture assert, that every one who has spiritual
life works for Christ? By no means. Is he no
servant, who is a lazy servant? He does
not come up to the idea of a right servant, if not
profitable. But alas, the world can show
not a few examples of servants who are unprofitable to their earthly masters;
and the church can show many cases of those who have life toward God, but who
do not work for Christ.
(3)
But what will befall those, who, being believers, have done evil works?
They
will be rebuked as personally present, and the award will be given them by
Christ the judge.
(1)
"And now, little children, abide in Him; that when
He shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before Him at
His coming :" 1 John 2: 28.
(2)
"Sit not down in the highest room, lest a more
honourable man than thou be bidden of him.
And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee. ‘Give this man
place:’ and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room:"
Luke 14: 9.
(3)
"Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou
wicked servant:" Luke 19: 22.
(4)
“That servant, which knew his Lord’s will, and
prepared not himself, neither did according to His will, shall be beaten with
many stripes :" Luke 12: 47.
(5)
"He that doeth wrong shall receive for the
wrong which he hath done; and there is no respect of persons" - in
judgment: Col. 3: 25.
(6)
"Be not deceived: God is not mocked: for
whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap:"
Gal. 6: 7.
(7)
"For he shall have judgment without mercy, that
showed no mercy; [and] mercy rejoiceth
against judgment:" Jas. 2: 13.
See
also, Matt. 10: 32, 33; Luke 12: 8, 9; Matt. 5:
21-25, etc.
The
results of the judgment to some offenders will be infliction on themselves personally.
(1)
"If any defile the
[* Same word in both cases.]
So
God defiled with leprosy the king who defiled his temple by entering it as a
priest to offer incense: 2 Chron.
26: 16-21.
(2)
"Many stripes" are threatened to the
disobedient servant: Luke 12: 47.
(3)
The passage which tells of infliction of
a fine on the teacher of false doctrine, and a sad escape from the
building of his erection has been already touched on.
(4)
If the Lord find the steward whom he set over the household beating the
servants, but eating and drinking with the drunken. "The Lord of
that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour he
is not aware of, and shall appoint him his portion with the hypocrites ; there
shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth:" Matt.
24: 45.
On
the other hand, "THE RIGHTEOUS JUDGE"
shall give to his faithful warriors and steady racers the prize he holds out: 2 Tim. 4: 7, 8.
The
future judgment of believers then is not a judgment of works
solely. It is a judgment of believers,
set in person before Christ’s bar to give account of themselves. They receive an exact retribution for their
works, motives, and words, whether good or evil.
The
General continues. This future judgment
of Christ is
"A judgment when all members of the body will be in
resurrection state, for it is not on earth."
The
figure of "members of the body" is
never used in Scripture in connection with the judgment. How is it that he who professes to give what
the Scripture says, does not speak of the judgment of Christ’s "servants?" Matt. 27:
23-35; 24: 45-51; 25: 14- 30; Mark 13: 34-37; Luke 12: 35-48; 19: 13-26; Rev.
2: 20-27;
Privileges,
great as they are, will not prevent justice in the day when God has determined
to manifest His righteous judgment, and to render to each according to his
deeds: Rom. 2: 5, 6. Nor will the being in risen bodies prevent
it. The Judge can dismiss back to the place whence they came, those judged
unworthy. "From
him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath:" Matt. 25: 29.
"Cast ye the unprofitable servant into
outer darkness." "They which do such things
shall not inherit the
The
General proceeds:-
"Works unacceptable will be burnt up, but persons
saved, and according to their faith and the counsels of the heart
in love with all praise of God. (1 Cor. 4: 5; see 1 Cor. 3: 9-25.)"
The
apostle, speaking of teachers like himself and Apollos,
says:- "If any build upon this foundation gold,
silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man’s work
shall be made manifest; for the day shall declare (it) because it shall be
revealed by (in) fire;
and the fire shall try every man’s work [not "works"] of what sort it
is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a
reward. If any man’s work
[four times "work" not "works"] shall be burnt
(up) he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be
saved; yet so as by (through) fire:" 1 Cor. 3: 12-15.
Hence
it is clear that only those whose work of doctrine
stands the test, will receive reward.
Those whose work is burnt up are not rewarded, but a
fine is inflicted on them.* Then they will not enter on the
kingdom of reward: they will not be "accounted
worthy" of it: Rev. 11: 18; Luke 20:
35, 36. The persons of erroneous
teachers shall indeed be finally saved; but only after the fine is completed,
and after they have escaped with pain, shame, and fright from the house they
built, which has been consumed by judgment.
[* See Greek word for "suffer loss."]
The
fine on the erroneous teacher is inflicted, if I read aright, on his soul: Matt. 16: 26; Mark 8: 36; Luke 9: 25-27. These
passages speak of the loss of life in the [millennial] kingdom. If
the soul of the man be arrested, how shall he set himself free? And there no believers ashamed of Christ and
of his words now? How then shall they be
counted worthy of honour whom Jesus counts (as He says) worthy of shame?
Paul
does not in 1 Cor. 4,
affirm that every teacher shall be found faithful, and so receive praise; though
to an English ear it might seem so. At
the close of chapter three, he says, that all things belonged to the Christian,
whether Paul, Apollos, or Peter. There were indeed those who sought to weigh
and measure the respective fidelity of these servants of Christ, and teachers
of His truth. But for that Paul cared
next to nothing. He durst not abide even
his own judgment of himself; Christ’s judgment was the great thing, and that
would be asserted at his coming. But judgment
now on the subject of ministerial faithfulness is out of place, and premature. The elements on which it is to be calculated
are only very partially known. Wait
therefore till Christ come, for the true decision on this point; for to Him all
the elements of a right judgment are present; "and
then shall each have his* praise of God."
He is referring to the names he had just mentioned; names especially
tossed from tongue to tongue in that day.
And so he proceeds to state:- omitting Peter’s
name for sufficient reasons. "Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to
myself and Apollos, for your sakes: that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that
which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for (the) one against (the) other." (Greek.)
[* Force of the article. "The
(due) praise."]
Is
it true that every minister who handles the word of God,
is faithful in its use? Is there
faithfulness in every part of the service of every minister of the Gospel? Does Scripture assert it? The very contrary! "For we are not
as many who corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God
in the sight of God speak we in Christ." Also 2 Cor. 4: 2; 2 Tim. 16-18; Phil. 1: 15-17.
Are
there no ministers in the Establishment whose souls have been troubled by the
traditions of men there set up, and who felt they ought to leave them, who yet
have smothered such risings of conscience, and maintain them both by act and
word? Are there - to go deeper - none
among Romish priests, who do in a misty
manner believe in Christ enough for salvation, while yet they uphold all the
superstitions and idolatries of that which calls itself "the mother and mistress of all churches?" Are there none among them, who, after
maintaining the worship of Mary and of the Saints all their lives, at the close
just turn to Christ, and are saved? Will
such be rewarded as faithful servants?
The
General proceeds:-
"The entire matter of redemption and salvation, or redemption
of the body from the moment of regeneration to the transformation into the
likeness of the Son of God, and participation with Him in the heirship of the
kingdom is "the gift of God." "By grace are ye SAVED through faith”.
Heirs of God are heirs of salvation (Heb.
1: 14) and of the kingdom (Rev. 12: 10.)"
"It is not anywhere attempted to be shown in Scripture that
salvation or any of its glorious accompaniments, is attainable by works:"
Rom. 4: 2-5.
That
eternal life is the gift of God, not according to our works, but
His own purpose and grace, is joyfully owned: Rom. 6:
23; 2 Tim. 1: 9.
But
that entrance into the future [millennial]
Evidences
that the entrance into the millennial kingdom will be according to works, are
to be found frequently.
(1)
“They that are accounted worthy to attain that world (age) and the resurrection
[out] from among the dead:"
Luke 20: 35, 36.
(2)
"We pray always for you, that our God may count
you worthy of this calling:" 2 Thess. 1: 11.
(3)
"Being made conformable to his death, if my any
means I might attain unto the [select] resurrection from the dead." (Greek): Phil. 3: 14.
(4)
"Reaching forth unto those things which are
before, I press toward the mark for the
prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus:" 14.
For
other proofs see Rev. 2: 26, 27; 1 Cor. 9: 24-27; 10: 1-13; John 5: 28, 29; Matt. 5: 20; 7: 21.
The
General adds :-
"Verse 8 of Eph. 2 declares that
believers are not only saved by faith in opposition to works, but that the very
faith is ‘not of themselves, but is the gift of
God.’ Verses
9 and 10 go on to prove, that ‘we are
created unto good works,’ pre-ordained
thereto of God. As the fact then of men
being elected unto holiness proves that personal holiness is not
the ground of their election, so their being created and fore-ordained* unto good works are not the
ground of their new creation, and consequently not the ground of any accessory
or element of future glory involved in that new creation, which is absolutely ‘in Christ.’"
[*
This is not properly ‘foreordained’ -see margin.]
The
first part of this paragraph is part of my doctrine - that eternal life is
God’s gift to His elect. They are elect, contrary to their deserts. They are regenerate, contrary to their
deserts in Christ. But that any because of their new creation will enter the kingdom, is what the General has not shown, and cannot show. In the day of the Lord’s appearing, it will
not be enough to prove, that this dead tree has had life given to it of God; or
even that it has leaves. Nothing in that day will avail for
entrance, but fruits: James 2: 12-26; Matt. 7:
21;* John 5: 28, 29.
[*
Proof that the Sermon on the Mount belongs to us, will presently be given.]
"were it otherwise, or were these good works even before the
judgment-seat of Christ, to be declared the ground of the very lowest position
in the kingdom, or of acceptance with Him in any degree, the Scripture would be
gainsayed, for man would ‘have whereof to boast before God,’ and ‘to him that
worketh’ the reward would
be no longer a matter of grace."
Nothing is more mischievous, than
truth out of its place. There is a present
justification given to the believer during the age of mercy, on the ground of faith. And texts referring to this are the others
adduced, in order to overthrow, if possible, the sister-truth, - that there is
a future justification in the day of justice, which is to be on the ground of works,
as the fruits of faith. Out of
God’s two truths, most believers refuse one.
I
shall need only to cite testimonies in proof of the latter justification. Abraham was first justified by faith: Gen. 15. After that, God called upon him for the
obedience of faith, and he rendered it; first, in submitting to circumcision,
and at last by the sacrifice of Isaac.
As soon as that was in God’s sight accomplished, we find him justified
by works. "By myself have I sworn,
saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast
not withheld thy son, thine only son ; that in blessing I will bless thee, and
in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand
which is upon the sea shore, and thy seed shall possess the gate of his
enemies, and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, BECAUSE
THOU HAST OBEYED MY VOICE:" Gen. 22: 16-18.
On
this James comments - "But wilt thou know, O vain
man, that faith without works is idle?*
Was
not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered his
son Isaac upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works,
and by works was faith made perfect?" Jas.
2: 20-22. Now Abraham’s
justification is the pattern of that of his sons: Rom.
4.
[*
This is the true reading, as given by the critical editions.]
As
justified at first by grace against our deserts, the saved will have little
inclination to boast. But it is certain,
that reward will be at last on account of our works, and according to our
works. "Each
shall receive his own reward according to his own labour:"
1 Cor. 3: 8. In the day of God’s righteous judgment, He
will render to "each according to his deeds:"
Rom. 2: 6.
"I come quickly, and my reward
is with me to give to every man according as his work shall be:"
Rev. 2: 12.
In
that day, some will be well pleasing to Christ on the ground of the obedience
of faith. "Wherefore we labour,
that whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him:" 2 Cor. 5: 9.* Jesus will then proclaim some
blameless, and "worthy:"
Rev. 3: 4; Luke 20: 35, 36. He will say
to some, "Well done, good and faithful
servant:" and such He will exalt, because of their
works. Nay, and Paul could say of
himself, "I have fought the good fight, I have
finished the course, I have kept the faith :
Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the
Lord the Righteous Judge shall give me at that day:" 2 Tim. 4: 7, 8.
[*
For "accepted" it were better to
translate, - "well-pleasing to him."]
The
General has a paragraph on the kinds of work to which God calls His
saints. He sums them up in the one word
"righteousness," and traces that to its
internal sources of life within. This is
something of the same quality as sentiments above named. In this day the question is, ‘Has the tree life? Whence does the life come?’ But in that day the question is, ‘Has the tree good fruit?’
He
adds:-
"Peter gives a statement of works to be done, in addition to
faith, but they are all gifts, or component elements of the life of Christ, graces
RECEIVED corresponding to the graces in Jesus, (John 1: 16,) yet do they
secure an "abundant entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ."
"Here then is no exclusion on the ground of unacceptable
works, for God cannot exclude His own gifts."
Peter
addresses the men of faith, bidding them add a variety of graces to their
faith. And then he subjoins, ‘For if so, you will not be fruitless or idle in regard of the
future knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.’
But
does the apostle affirm that all believers are diligent and fruit-bearing? Quite the contrary! He tells of those ‘lacking
these things, blind, near-sighted.’ ‘Ah! That
means some unconverted men!’ Not
so! These have forgotten that they were
"purged from their old sins:"
5: 9.
Nay, he goes no to say, "Give
diligence to make your calling and election sure." For
if you do these things, an abundant entrance shall be yours into
Christ’s everlasting kingdom. Yes! Those who enjoy the millennial kingdom of the
Saviour will find that an abundant entrance into the everlasting
one which follows it. But will all
obtain that? Will those who lack these
graces enter? The implication to the contrary is clear enough.
Let
us hear the General again:-
"To explain further - The regeneration of a sinner is looked
upon as nothing short of absolute creation. He is a new creature or creation of God in
Christ. Identity is not thereby
destroyed, for it is ‘we’ who are thus created; on the other hand it is not
we, but Christ who liveth in us, by the faith of whom we live and act
out our life in the flesh. The result of
our re-creation therefore transfers the action of good works from believers to
Christ."! For, God is the
only doer of good works. He is
both good and doeth good: Psa. 119: 68. Hence though good works are looked for in the
believer, they are works of faith and labour of love: 1 Thess. 1: 3. ‘The fruit of the Spirit, not the energy of man on
the flesh:’ Gal. 5: 22-24. ‘For it is God that worketh in us both to will and to do
of his good pleasure:’ Phil. 2: 13. Again we are instructed (John 15) that union with
Christ is as truly the effective cause of acceptable works, as it
is the security of the believer’s life."
" ‘Without me can ye do nothing!’ is emphatic, and
Christ Himself is as liable to be judged thereby as the branch of the vine that
draws both substance and the right quality of sap for fruit producing."
What
confusion!
1.
First, this stultifies what has gone before.
There is to be, as the General has admitted, a judgment of works -
though not of persons. Now it appears, that really there are no good works to be
judged! They are all God’s: and
who shall judge Him? They are all
Christ’s, and how can He judge His own works?
But
does Scripture say so? Does the text
quoted say so? "thou art good, and doest good :" Psa. 119: 68. Does this affirm,
that none but God does good works?
"Faith wrought with his works,"
is said of Abraham. "The Father," I
read, "judgeth according to every man’s work." "I know thy
works:" "I will give unto every one of you according to your
works."
2.
This is another instance of the
mischievousness of Scripture truth wrested out of its place. It is true that God is the source of all
good. And during the day of grace, we
are oft reminded of this. But in the day
of justice to come, the Judge deals with deeds, and
overt acts. Here is a wrestler at
3.
But the General’s doctrine about good works (even if admitted) does not prevent
judgment taking effect upon evil works of believers. Some may say, ‘The
evil works of believers!’ Even so!
For what was the believer of
4.
But what means the General’s last paragraph?
"Without me ye can do nothing, is emphatic, and Christ
Himself is as liable to be judged hereby, as the branch of the vine that draws
both sustenance and the right quality of sap for fruit-producing."
This
is an awful, horrible principle! More plainly
expressed it is this. ‘Jesus cannot condemn any believer who is a branch in
Him. For the branch can retort upon the
vine, "Well, if I did not bring forth good fruit,
or brought forth evil fruit, the fruit is thine, for thou didst not give
me enough sustenance, or not sap of the right quality.’ This is the natural result of the principles
expressed here. They take away the believer’s responsibility, whether for good or evil
works. Beware Christians! This will increase unto more
ungodliness. Does the Scripture say what
the General teaches? The Saviour in
the words which immediately follow rebukes in solemn words this fearful
error. "If
a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered : and men gather them and cast them into the fire,
and they are burned:" John 15: 6.
The
General proceeds thus -
"Moreover, the life of the saint becomes as likely to be
lost, as that he should lose any privileges of that life, through a judgment of
works?"
What! When God gives "eternal life," how can that life
be lost? That he may not be "accounted worthy to attain that age," is taught
us by the same Scriptures which affirm the final glorification of God’s elect.
The
General has a long paragraph on the consecration of Aaron and his sons to the
priesthood. It is another example of
truth out of its place. That grace
begins the work in the believer’s soul, and maintains it during the day of
God’s patience, is granted. The question
is, Will all God’s priests be accepted at the
close of their service? What say the cases of Nadab
and Abihu? of Hophni and Phinehas?
We
come now to the question, -
WHAT WILL BE THE RULE BY WHICH
BELIEVERS WILL, IN THAT DAY, BE JUDGED?
Hereupon
the General observes:-
"In reference to the Sermon on the Mount generally, its true
character and object of having been perceived, references to it tend to
mislead. True that it is a standard,
and so was the law of which it is an amplification:
(m.i.*) but what saith the Scripture? (Rom. 10: 4,) ‘Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every
one that believeth.’ Evidently therefore, the discourse of the
Lord did not display a standard, or ground upon which the acceptance of
Christians was to rest, but a mirror in which the unbelieving Jews were
to behold that which should convince them of shortcoming, and of being totally
unfit to be subjects of a kingdom whose king was the Holy One of Israel. When I say, ‘Not a standard for believers’ -
I mean, not a standard by which they will be judged in any way. (Rom. 3: 21, 22; 10: 4,
and all Rom. 7, especially vers. 24, 25, and then 8: 1.) It is of course a standard of excellence to
be sought after and aimed at, though fully observed only by Jesus. It is set before the Church as it is, simply
because God cannot present to man anything beneath Himself,
or short of perfection." **
[* m.i. means ‘my italics.’]
[**
I observe that these remarks are attached to Matt. 16: 27, which is something
beyond the Sermon on the Mount. Is the
whole of that Gospel to be rejected by us?]
That believers are not under the law of Moses, but under grace, is true;
and therefore, that they are not to be accepted on the ground of obedience to
it, is also true. To these points the
above cited texts refer.
1.
But, that the Sermon on the Mount is an amplification of the Law - not
Scripture, but the General only says.
All reasoning then on this foundation is vain. It only begs the
question.
2.
Jesus put forth His words not as clearing away mistakes as to Moses’ testimony,
but with an authority that astonished the listeners. ‘It was said thus to
those of old, but I say unto you:’ Matt. 5: 21, 44. In this
style he repeals oaths, divorce, retaliation by
law. Moses’ law was based on justice
as its principle; Jesus’ Sermon on grace: 38, 48; Luke 6: 32 - 35.
Was it was addressed to unbelieving Jews? Nay, but to "disciples,"
(ver. 1, 2,) who had already confessed their sins and
been baptized. For those who did not own
John’s ministry refused also our Lord’s.
And Jesus baptized, no less than John: Luke
7: 29, 30; John 3: 26; 4: 12.
Jesus then addresses the disciples as already accepted by faith, sons
of God the Father, men of faith, to be persecuted for His sake, salt of the
earth, light of the world: 5: 11-16; 6:
1-18, 30, 33. He addresses them, in order to show them the way into the
future millennial kingdom.
3.
Accordingly, it is the standard for the judgment of all disciples who will
enter the kingdom. All who are
disobedient thereto, though they may own Jesus as Lord, will be refused. Are we, (as the General owns,) to look up to
this as a standard of excellence? Then
by our conformity to it or not, shall we
either enter into the kingdom, or be excluded from it. "Not every one
that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven ; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in
heaven:" 7: 21.
This
will of the Father the Saviour afterwards describes as - "These sayings of mine:" 24. That then
is the penalty of non-observance - exclusion of the disobedient from the
kingdom. All who take
up with the old standard of Moses, - as did the leaders of the law, - rejecting
Jesus’ words, shall not enter in.
The Sermon in Matthew compares Jesus’ new words with the Law. The Sermon in Luke
6, while announcing the same principles, omits reference to Moses. But
that too is spoken to "disciples:" 20. That
shows us, that the specifications of the characters required for entrance, are
both positive, and negative. While the
disciples who are rejected by the world for Christ’s sake enter the kingdom, as
‘blessed;’ disciples
who seek to gain the world’s good word, are excluded with a "woe."
Are
we disciples of Christ? These are His instructions for disciples. Are we sons of the Father in heaven? These are His directions, through His Son,
how to enter His future kingdom! "This is my beloved Son; HEAR HIM." Do we desire a place in the kingdom of glory,
and the recompense of reward? This is
the only way to it. Do we suffer for
Christ’s sake? This is the "consolation" held out to us.
Is
this ‘the standard of excellence’ for
Christians? Are all Christians walking
in accordance therewith? Far from it! Some exact their debts, and prosecute
offenders by law. Some take oaths;
some are soldiers, whose profession is to slay the enemies of their land. Some are magistrates; some live by law. What of these? As their standard, or their practice, or
both, do not rise above Moses’ law, Matthew 5: 20
applies to them "Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of
the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven."
"So speak ye and so do, (act) as they that shall be
judged by the law of liberty:" Jas. 2:
12. The Sermon on the Mount seems
to be the apostle’s "law of liberty;"
for his epistle is virtually a comment on the Sermon on the Mount *
[* Justification by works in the judgment-day: Jas. 2;
Matt. 7: 21. Evil speaking: Jas.
4: 11, 12; Matt. 5: 22-26. Boast
of the morrow: Jas. 4: 13-16; Matt. 6: 34. Oaths : Jas. 5: 12; Matt. 5: 33-37.]
The
General has a brief but astonishing paragraph.
"Matthew 7: 21 receives an answer in John
6: 40.
To believe is to do the will of God!" Gal. 2: 20.
John 6: 40
is Jesus’ instruction to unbelievers, calling them to faith in the day
of grace. But Matt.
7: 21, is His word to believers,
assuring them that faith alone will not
be sufficient in the day to come.
And
what says Gal. 2: 20? "I am crucified
with Christ, nevertheless I live ; yet not I , but Christ liveth in me, and the
life which I now live in the flesh I live ny the
faith of (in) the
Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." Now does this affirm, that all that will be
required in the coming day, is faith? By
no means! All it tells us in regard of
this question is, that during the present day of
grace, faith in Christ is the true principle of life; which is something very
different.
The
General continues:-
"When God said to Abraham, ‘Walk
before Me and be thou perfect,’
He gave utterance to the above principle; but did He suppose a man in the flesh
capable of that perfection, or that the inheritance of the land that was
his by promise, could be forfeited by any shortcomings thereof, would
Abraham be judged by that saying?" Heb. 6: 13, 14.
Yes! Abraham, if disobedient, would have forfeited
all the promises which were suspended on
conditions. Not till his act of
obedience in virtually sacrificing his son, did God utter on his behalf the
irrevocable oath: Gen. 22. This is shown also in the case of his sons,
brought out of
Compare
these two Scriptures. "I am come down to deliver them (
The
General thus continues:-
"The following is worthy of notice: ‘Flesh and blood cannot
inherit the
"Judgment before Christ as the great priestly Head of the
Body, is not for men in the flesh; the ‘old man,’ who ‘with his deeds,’ (bad works) is now
- by faith in the act of God at the cross of Christ - ‘put off,’ (Col. 3: 9, 10) will then
be actually and practically an accomplished fact."
"In the act of transformation of the members of the body into
their predestined similitude to the personal and moral excellencies of the
risen Son of God, (Rom. 8: 29,) everything that is of the flesh, or savors
of it in any way, will be ‘put off;’ and not only so, but together with these deeds of the old
man, all false doctrine ought of unacceptable building attempted to be raised, as
if it were a structure conformable to the true foundation, ‘will be revealed by fire,’
and treated as so much ‘wood, hay, and stubble:’ (1 Cor.
3: 12, 13.)
"Works that do not stand the
fire being thus dealt with, the doer of them ‘shall
suffer loss,’ not of the kingdom, if a child of
God and member of Christ, but of honourable position therein."
Fallacies
usually conceal themselves in a thicket of words; and this is an example. The appearance of argument here arises from
confounding together the two senses of "corruption,"
and "of flesh and blood." In what sense does the General take the
expression "flesh and blood?" and
"corruption?"
1.
It is certain that Paul is speaking of the physical body of the believer in 1 Cor. 15: 50. It is in the chapter which is treating of his
resurrection, if dead; and of his change, if living when the Lord shall
come. After having stated the difficulty
arising from the unfitness of our bodies, whether as still possessed of life,
or still more if lying under the bondage of death, to enter on the kingdom of
resurrection, he proceeds to clear away the obstacle by means of a special
revelation which was made to himself.
The
bodies of believers, whether alive or dead, will be changed in an instant. The corrupted body now in the tomb will be
clad with incorruption; the mortal body of the living believer be clothed with immortality.
But
if this be the true sense of Paul’s words, the General’s statement is not true.
‘Jesus (he will then say) will not judge anyone found alive in a mortal body,
or having to answer for deeds done thereby, concerning his fitness or unfitness
to enter the kingdom.’
This
is manifestly contrary to Scripture. We
shall have to account to Christ for deeds done in our body, whether we be found alive at His appearing, or among the dead: 2 Cor. 5: 10; 1 Thess. 4: 1-8.
Moreover, the General has allowed, that there will be a judgment of
works; and they are done, I suppose, in a body of flesh and blood. Our deeds and their consequences will cling
to us, after our being set in resurrection bodies before Christ. Reaping in the resurrection body will be the
result of a sowing in this: Gal. 6. The victors will be crowned in a body of
glory, for a race run in a mortal body of flesh and blood.
In
the next paragraph the confusion deepens.
Where does Scripture say aught about Jesus judging as the ‘Great priestly Head of the body,’ the Church? Scripture speaks of the Lord judging His
servants individually; which is something very different: Matt. 25: 19; 1 Cor. 4: 4, 5;
Jesus,
says the General, is not to judge "men in the
flesh." In what sense is the
phrase used? Does it mean men unregenerate? Or does it mean men in mortal bodies? It is true, that unregenerate men will not be
judged by the Lord during His presence in the air. But believers, who are alive when Christ
descends, will be judged. Moreover, though they will not be "in the flesh" in a spiritual sense, yet "the flesh" will be in them. Nor do I know any Scripture which affirms
that at once on resurrection all traces of "the
flesh," spiritually considered, will be put off.
That
as soon as any is "in Christ," he has,
as justified judically, ‘put
off the old man,’ is true. But
that at the moment of ascending to meet the Lord the old man (in the sense of a
perfect sanctification) will be put off, I do not find stated in Scripture. At any rate, the General has given no
Scripture proof of it. It rests upon his
word. Certain it is,
that our responsibility for the deeds done in the mortal body is not put off
with the mortal body. Certain also is it, that the one-talent servant is not perfectly
satisfied. ‘Ah,
but he is no servant!’ I have
answered that objection. Nor are the
foolish virgins, or those put out of the churches for immorality, and dying out
of communion perfectly sanctified; or those cut off at
The
General has allowed that there will be a judgment for works. But this doctrine carried out into its
consequences would deny all judgment for works.
(1.) There are no good works: they are all God’s
doing. (2.) There are no evil works
to be judged: for they are put off with the old body.
The
General’s great argument is "the members of the
body" of Christ. With him
privilege is to swallow up judgment. The church is so great,
it is not to be touched by the penalties of responsibility broken. But the figure of the Christ, consisting of
Head and members, as used in the Scripture, does not sustain his theory. It occurs but in three places.* Let us look at them.
[*
Eph. 4: 25, speaks of believers as being
"members one of another." I give also the places where "the body" of Christ is named: Eph. 1: 22; Col. 1: 18, 24; Eph. 4: 4, 12, 16; Col. 2:
19; 3: 15.]
1.
In
2.
In 1 Cor. 12 the
apostle speaks of the Holy Ghost as then bestowing His supernatural gifts on
each believer. ‘We,’ he says, ‘are many members, but one body, and that the body of
Christ. Let not, therefore, the inferior
members be jealous of the superior: each has his place
and his use.’ This tells, then,
of present use and service on earth. It
is exhortation, not promise. Does the
apostle say, ‘It is impossible to remove one of these
members, though but for an instant, from its place and service?’ The very contrary! He directs the separation of one of the
members from the body, in the very epistle in question: 1 Cor. 5. And this
exclusion from the assembly is God’s visible proof of another and longer
separation which is to take effect when Christ shall judge. Thus what the Scripture says is contrary to
what the General says.
3.
In Eph. 5: 22, Paul speaks of Christ as the
Head of His body the Church. As the
Church is to obey Christ, so let the wife her husband. "Husbands, love
your wives, as Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might
sanctify it by the bath of the water with the word,"* that He might present it to Himself perfect.
[*
This, I doubt not, refers to baptism, as answering to the bride’s bath: 4: 4, 51.
The water without the name of Father, Son, and Spirit, were nought. But the word
added to the element makes the ordinance.
Baptism is the visible cleansing of the Church for Christ.]
Now
although the result is not stated absolutely here, but only as a matter of
design on Christ’s part, yet I willingly own, that as God presented Eve to
Adam, so Christ shall present the Church to Himself perfect. The only question is - WHEN? The General assumes,
that it will be at the millennium. But
this is the point to be proved!
The same epistle tells us of the loss of the kingdom which some
believers may suffer, because of offences like those of the world: offences
which do really occur, and for which some from time to time are put out from
the fold into the world, 5: 3-7. Though we love and cherish our bodies, yet at
times we are compelled to cut off one or more, lest death ensue.
What
is "the transformation" of which the
General speaks? Physical? Or spiritual? And when does it take place? That all God’s
elect will be finally glorified is true: Rom. 8: 29. But that same chapter tells of exclusion from
millennial life, because of sin; or entrance upon it, as a result of God’s
pleasure in holiness: 12, 13.
‘The old man’ always means the spiritual evil remaining
in the unregenerate. But Scripture never
affirms, that it is at once put off by a perfect
sanctification in all believers, as soon as they rise.
Scripture
does not speak of false doctrine, or of ill-judged building as being "revealed by fire," - but of "the day." "For the day shall declare:* because it shall be revealed in fire:" 1 Cor. 3: 13.
[* No ‘it’ in the
original.]
Scripture
says, that only the teacher whose work stands the testing fire, shall be
rewarded. The other not only does not
obtain reward, but something is abstracted from what he has. "He shall be
fined."* Will he in an instant escape
the fear and pain of the house burning over his head? Will he in an instant pay the fine?
[* See Greek.]
But what of the defiler of the
But
even if the work of the misguided believing teacher be burned up, the General provides, that the loss he shall suffer shall be only of
honourable position in the kingdom, not of the kingdom itself. Where
does the Scripture say so?
“‘Why, in
There
is no "hath" in the Greek, in either
case! The tenses are not in the
perfect. While each child of grace shall
finally enter the city of
"Nor is this [entry into the kingdom] merely a condition in the present age, but the necessary
preliminary to the position in material glory; for the Holy
Spirit is the unalterable attached seal of the Father to that end,
and is the divine earnest and pledge of the same, until the hour of the
manifestation of the purchased possession."
But
what if no one now is in possession of that seal of God? If I read Scripture aright, it was the miraculous
gifts of the Holy Ghost, a something communicated after faith: John 6: 27; Eph. 1: 13. May we assume that every believer has the
Spirit in power? Was it not at
Let
us hear the General again:-
"Christ is not only the believer’s righteousness, sanctification,
and redemption, (1 Cor. 1: 30,) but his glorification: Rom. 8: 30. He is the saint’s inheritance from first to
last, for every promise of God is only fulfilled in Him: 2 Cor. 1: 20. Whatever Christ is
as a glorified Man, that every member of
His body is before God: 1 Cor. 3: 23. ‘The glory’ that God has given to Christ His Son in risen
humanity, or the kingdom which He has conferred upon Him from beginning to end,
He ‘has
given them’ already, (John 17: 22,) and shall there be an occasion whereby one jot or one tittle of this gift of glorious free grace shall be set
aside of defeated? Can there be a
moment’s separation of those, from Christ and His kingdom in its entirety,
who from the moment of their resurrection or changed condition, are said to be
‘FOR
EVER WITH THE LORD?’"
Two
classes of passages speak of the believer: one of his present perfection of standing
in grace before God, during the time of grace.
But there are other passages which tell of justice in the day when
justice takes its turn upon every soul of man.
Now many Christians seek to make these two classes of testimony in God’s
Word fight with each other. But in vain. The
first class of passages will not reject the second. Will not Christ descend from above to reckon
with His servants? Will He not inquire
how they have behaved since grace brought them into the place of service?
That
by ‘the glory’ of John
17: 22,
is meant the millennial glory, few will affirm, who will read the context. "The glory which
thou gavest me, I have given them, that they
may be one, even as we are one, I in them, and thou in me, that they may be
made perfect in one, and that the world may know that thou hast loved them, as
thou hast loved me."
John speaks throughout his Gospel of ‘eternal
life:’ scarcely does he touch ‘the kingdom.’
Grace
shall not be defeated: but when our
works come into question, severance of one from another must take effect. Jesus, when looking at works, divides his
seven Churches of the Apocalypse into ‘overcomers’
and ‘the overcome.’ The promises there are to overcomers
alone. To walk with Christ in white
shall belong only to the undefiled of garments: and they, as in
“‘But will not 1 Thess. 4, prove the point?
- ‘And so shall we be ever with the Lord?’’
This
lever also snaps, as soon as one perceives what is the
purpose of the Holy Ghost in that chapter. Some Thessalonian
believers, finding that saints sickened and died before the Lord came, feared
that such were shut out of the kingdom.
They were looking for the Son of God out of heaven; and these were no
longer on the earth to meet Him. Paul
therefore teaches by the Spirit, that physical death is no
barrier against the believer’s entering the kingdom. Jesus Himself died: yet He shall be Chief and
Lord in the kingdom. So then death shall
be no barrier to those that are His: but both the living and the sleepers shall
together be carried up in clouds to meet the Lord in air: after which (if death
be the only obstacle) there shall be no more severance of body and soul. So then this passage does not in the least
invalidate the view given. It treats of
the instant removal of physical barriers at the Lord’s advent, in the case both
of the living saints and the dead ones.
But
does this passage affirm anything contrary to others which assure us how deeply
our own conduct for good or evil shall affect us then? Far from
it! How could Paul contradict himself? How could the General overlook the
verses which just precede? Shall they be accounted
worthy of reward to whom the Lord comes as revenger? 3-8. * [* Is not this a rending of a verse from the context?]
‘Ah! They were hypocrites!’ You must prove it! In 1 Cor.
vi, 8-11 is proof positive to the contrary. For thus
runs the syllogism.
1.
No unrighteous person shall enter the
2.
Some of you Christian believers are unrighteous: ver. 8.
3.
Therefore some of you shall not enter the kingdom.
‘Ah! They are mere professors!’
By
no means! They were "washed, sanctified, justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God:"
11.
How can the mere professor be among the justified in Christ?
We
come to the question - Will the omission of baptism exclude from the
kingdom? On this the General
says:-
"In regard to the ‘unbaptized’
being rejected from the kingdom, the authority for which is attempted to be
shown from John 3: 5, a sad mistake has been committed. The passage records the teaching of a Jew out
of his own scriptures, by the Lord, who could have made no allusion to
Christian Baptism, for it was not an ordinance found in those scriptures,
neither had it been then an appointment in the church which had not an
existence at that hour: Matt. 16: 18; Acts
2: 41."
"The Lord was declaring the necessity of regeneration
previous to entrance into the kingdom, illustrating the doctrine from the
annunciation of the fact that
In
spite of the General’s sentence that this is a ‘sad
mistake,’ I hold it to be a truth bearing so much evidence on its forehead,
that with all the clear-headed and unprejudiced of believers, I shall win the
day.
‘Jesus,’ says the General ‘was instructing a Jew
"out of His own Scriptures." Where then, I ask, in the first thirteen
verses which speak of regeneration, are the passages of Scripture which Jesus
quotes? Where those to
which he alludes?
The
General says, Ezek. 36: 22, 32. What is the proof? He says so!
‘Jesus could not have spoke of
Christian baptism,’ (says the General) ‘because
it was not an ordinance found in those Scriptures.’
Was
not baptism typed for us in the Old Testament?
(1)
Peter thought so. He finds it in Noah’s
salvation in the ark: 1 Pet. 3: 17-21.
(2)
Paul thought so. He finds it in
‘But Christian baptism was not then commandad.’
No: nor is it necessary that it should have been.
Jesus,
as the General allows, was "declaring the
necessity of regeneration previous to entrance into the kingdom."
Good! This great truth then was
signified by the rite of immersion; whether as originally given
to the Jew, or as afterwards commanded by the Lord to the Christian. ‘You must be born again, ere you can see the
kingdom;’ - lies at the root of the ordinance, as commanded to the Jew. The same is its meaning as laid upon
the Christian. It is designed of
God to speak to the eye the great truth which His Word would send to the
heart. The Spirit’s begetting of the
soul to God is a secret work; but the birth out of water is God’s visible
attestation of that to both the world and the Church. Now it is immersion alone which can fulfil
the Lord’s words concerning a being "born out of water."* [* Ek.] None can be born out of water who is not first in
the water. There is no birth out of water in some drops sprinkled on any. Says the Prince
of critics, - "There are many passages of
Scripture which allude to baptism in which a way as to show that to immerse was
its mode. Of this kind is John iii, 5, a passage the misunderstanding of which laid
a foundation for the grossest superstitions of nominal Christianity. To be born of water most evidently implies
that water is the womb out of which the person who is born proceeds. That this is the reference of the figure,
whatever may be supposed to be its meaning, cannot for a moment be doubted by
any reflecting mind." It
presents to the eye death and burial of the flesh, and new life of the spirit;
death to this age, resurrection to the new age, or the kingdom.
The
Saviour’s allusion to this therefore was full to the point. It was God’s emblematic picture of the great
truth of regeneration in order to the kingdom.
It conveyed a fitting rebuke of Nicodemus, because, like the rest of the
sect of the Pharisees, he had disobeyed this command, given alike by John the
Baptist, and by Jesus: Luke 7: 27-30.
Had
Nicodemus observed this rite, the possibility of the new birth of an adult
would have at once flashed on his mind.
That baptism is alluded to, is confirmed both by the preceding and
following context. The Holy Ghost has
spoken of Jesus’ immersion by John, and of its significance: John 1: 29-34.
Immediately after Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus comes a notice of
baptizing, both by John and by Jesus: 22, 23. While it is significantly added, that John
chose Silam, because there was much water
there. Does sprinkling require
much? (See also John
4: 1, 2.)
If
then Jesus might justly rebuke the Pharisee, who hoped to enter the kingdom,
and yet refused the rite which God ordained as the part of obedience thereto;
much more may He rebuke the Christian who is guilty of the same offence. For to us is the good news of the kingdom
preached as well as to them.
The
Christian sets aside baptism at his peril. He shall not enter the kingdom of God,
unless born out of water, as well as regenerated by the Spirit: John 3: 5; Luke 7: 29, 30; Rom. 6: 5, says the
same thing. "For IF WE became fellow-plants in the likeness of His
death, why, we shall be also of the [first]
resurrection." (Greek.)*
How comes it that those two oaks stand so close together, majestically
throwing out their giant arms, the pride of the forest? Once they were acorns, buried in the same
hole. Now, as buried together, together
have they risen; together they bear sway over the trees.
[*
"In the likeness" and "his" are added by the translators, to the
confusion of the sense.]
Was
it enough to be one of the natural seed of Abraham, in order to have a right to
the land of promise? No! If not circumcised the eighth day, the
Israelite was to be cut off from his people, as a breaker of the covenant: Gen. 17: 9, 14.
The
General affirms, "that
(1)
Is Christ speaking here of
"
That
Here
then are abundance of sad mistakes; the last being the
worst: but there are others to come. For
he proceeds:-
"The meaning of ‘clean water’ or water of purification may be easily gathered by
comparison of Numb. 19: 1-10 with Heb. 9: 13, 14, where it will be apparent that in Jewish phraseology the
Lord declared the necessity of the application of the blood of Christ to the
conscience of a sinner by means of the word of truth: that he must be
spiritually taught to believe himself a participator in the benefits derived
from the propitiatory sacrifice of that blood, or he ‘cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’ The converse of
the above must also be true, viz., that a regenerate sinner, being transferred
from ‘the power of darkness,’ is a participator in all and every elemental portion,
both as to time and substance, of that which constitutes the kingdom of the Son
of God."
(1)
Does ‘clean water’ mean the same
thing as ‘water of purification?’
If I drink clean water, do I drink water of purification? Is a ‘clean man’ a ‘man of
purification?’ If I eat a ‘clean beast,’
do I eat a ‘beast of purification?’ The
gallant General is no critic.
(2)
The ‘clean water’ of Ezekiel is wholly different
from ‘the water of purification,’ described in Num. 19.
The water mentioned by Ezekiel was ‘clean water.’ The ‘water of
purification’ was not ‘clean water.’ I would drink of Ezekiel’s clean water, if
permitted. But I should be sorry to
drink of the water of purification; water mingled with ashes! A clean man was to sprinkle the
unclean person with Moses’ ‘water of purification;’
not in order to regenerate him, but to cleanse from defilement. But God is hereafter to
sprinkle the clean water in
(3)
The General would make the birth out of water to mean the application of the blood
of Christ to the guilty sinner.
But no! Water never, I believe, means blood,
in the Old Testament or the New. He who affirms, must prove it. Much less does the being ‘born out of water,’ signify the
sprinkling of Christ’s blood upon any.
Jesus is referring to the Spirit’s work of regeneration,
not to His own work of atonement.
(4)
‘Except a man’s conscience be sprinkled with the blood
of Christ,’ says the General, ‘he cannot enter
the kingdom.’ Very
true. He would then deduce the
conclusion that ‘if so sprinkled, he must enter.’ By no means. Let me put a like case. ‘Except a man have
six hundred a year, he cannot be a member of parliament’ - conversely,
therefore, ‘If he have six hundred a year, he must be a member of parliament!’ The gallant General is no logician.
He
proceeds :-
"As to the reference to deniers of Jesus; let me remark, that
it is not an uncommon thing with the apostles to address men making a
profession merely of Christianity (and received into church fellowship
on that ground) as if they were true believers. This is for the purpose of testing their
condition of heart, (a matter that even an inspired apostle never presumed to
judge of except by outward acts,) and either of constraining them to separate
from an assembly in which they had no lot or part, (1 John 2: 19,) or by
conviction of consciences, bring them to a knowledge of eternal life!"
"But the true believers, always under the unerring hand of
the Father, though they may be permitted like Peter to fall, cannot fall away. They are ‘kept
by the power of God, through faith,’ for the
inheritance ‘reserved in heaven’ for them."
Here
again the text of which I rest is left out by the General. It is very strong, so I am not
surprised. "I endure all things for the elect’s sakes,
that they also may attain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with
eternal glory. It is a faithful saying:
for if we be dead (died) with him, we
shall also live with him; If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if
we deny him, he also will deny us.
If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful, he cannot deny himself:"
2 Tim. 2: 10-13. ‘Apostles often
address mere professors, as if they were true believers!’ Does Scripture say so? No! It
is the General’s theory, by which he would turn aside from believers the solemn
threats which the Holy Spirit addresses to them when they go astray. The passage from Timothy just quoted, - is it
spoken to ‘mere professors?’ Are "THE ELECT" mere professors? Was Paul a mere professor? He classes himself with those to whom these
warnings are addressed. “If we deny him, he also will deny us." ‘Ah, but He can’t:
for we are elect!’ "If we believe not, yet he abideth
faithful, he cannot deny himself." Those who take the General’s word for it, will find it will not stand in that day against the declaration
of Christ: Matt. 10: 32, 33. Is there no
danger of a Christian denying Christ?
Was Peter no believer? Did not he
deny? ‘Ah, but
he cannot finally fall away.’ And don’t I teach that? But may he not so fall as to lose
reward? "Then all the disciples forsook him and fled."
Will
the General affirm - ‘that wherever the threatenings
against sin are found addressed to disciples or believers in the Gospels or
Epistles, they refer to professors only?’ If so, it would be well to prove it by the
Scriptures. 1 John 2: 19, is not a case in
point. "Even
now there are many antichrists ... They went out
from us, they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have*
continued with us: but they went out, that they might
be made manifest that they were not all (none)
of us." Now is this an
instance where the apostle is seemingly addressing threats to all believers,
but really aiming at mere professors only?
There is no threat: and these were outside the church. ‘Aye, but they once were within.’ Granted, and what
then?
[*
"No doubt" are words inserted by
translators.]
In
Matt. 7, Jesus addressing disciples, says,
that those who admire His teaching, and own His Lordship, but do not obey His
words in the Sermon on the Mount, will, in the last great crisis before His
kingdom comes, fall heavily; giving up their profession: Matt. 7: 24-27.
‘Ah, but the Sermon on the Mount is not for us.’
I have answered that; and now I add - ‘If the Sermon on the Mount is not for
you, neither is the
What
again says Jesus? "I say unto YOU MY FRIENDS, Be not afraid of them that
kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will
forewarn you whom ye shall fear, Fear him, who after he hath killed hath power
to cast into hell ; yea, I say unto you, Fear him:" Luke
12: 4, 5. ‘There is ‘Mr, Govett’s doctrine, plain enough!’ But is it he who says so?
See
also my previous remarks on 1 Cor.
6: 8-11. They are no mere
professors who are addressed there.
The
General proceeds:-
"A very forcible illustration of the above occurs in Heb. 6, where those
Hebrews are alluded to, who after the day of Pentecost had obtained special
privileges beyond even those which had been nationally conferred on them; yet
who blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, and murdered the witness of Christ, when
the touchstone of the exaltation of that Jesus whom they had crucified as a
malefactor was applied to their consciences."
Would
it not have been well to state this matter a little more clearly? Are the unconverted Jews referred to in Heb. 6: 4-8?
Had they been made "partakers of the Holy
Ghost?" Had they received
"powers of the future age?" Had they professed Christ’s
faith, been baptized, and, by the laying on of the apostle’s hands, received
the gifts of inspiration and miracle?
Would it not have been as well to show that Scripture says so? At present I find only that the General
does. Can he point out any instance in
which apostles laid hands on, and gave gift to, any unbeliever? I know of none. Simon Magus came the nearest to it of any:
but he is informed that these gifts are not for him, because his heart is
not right with God: Acts 8. ‘Yes, but Jesus
speaks of rejecting at His coming those who, as He confesses, wrought miracles,
and were inspired.’ This then
must refer to something yet to come.
There is no record of any such thing in the Acts or Epistles.
How,
on the General’s theory, does the warning of Heb. 6
belong to Paul’s argument? - ‘O Christians, I have much to tell you about Milchizedec, but you are become dull of hearing. Considering the length of time you have
been believers, you ought now to be teachers of others, instead of
which, you need to be taught again the alphabet. You want pap, instead of solid
food. You are babies in
Christ, instead of being men. Come, be not ever
poring over the first principles of Christian faith and practice, but go on to
the deeper truths of it!’ And how do his
succeeding words fit on to this? ‘For it is impossible if unconverted men fall away
from the supernatural gifts and the grace they have never received,
to renew them again to repentance!’ Is that it?
No!
it is evident that Paul is speaking of believers who
had years ago been baptized, and received the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost,
and yet were in danger of falling back to the law of Moses. "Let us go on to
perfection!" Was Paul one of the unconverted, who had committed the
unpardonable sin? ‘It is not said Paul wrote the Hebrews.’ Very well:
the inspired writer (whoever he was) says of those he thus addresses, that he
was persuaded of them, that they were to be saved. For God could not forget their good
works springing of love to him: ver. 10. Does that speak them unbelievers?
Others
seeing that this Epistle teaches ‘Mr. Govett’s
doctrine,’ hurl it overboard altogether.
That is the integral method of getting rid of it.
The
General next observes:-
"These notes might be indefinitely prolonged, - in fact, I
have many more to confirm the above, but enough has been stated to show the
unscriptural character of Mr. Govett’s doctrine, of
which an account will have to be rendered before the face of the Great High
Priest, on account of the perplexity, distress, and sorrow, which it has caused
to many of His sheep and lambs."
A
great deal of a like kind would go but a little way towards showing what the
Scriptures say on the points in question.
Does the General think he has hereby proved Mr. Govett’s
doctrine unscriptural? ‘Mr, Govett’s
doctrine!’ Did he
write the Gospels? Epistles
and Revelation? It is from them
that the seventy-five texts in the text-paper on which the
General is commenting, are drawn! ‘Mr.
Govett’s doctrine unscriptural!’ It is very odd, if it be unscriptural, that
he only collects Scriptures together, thinking they prove his point. What is Scripture? And where are teachings from it to be found,
if not in this collection of texts? What
is there of Mr. G.’s but the grouping of them?
‘But for this offence Mr. G. will have to give account at
last before Christ!’
Would
that Mr. G. were as strong, and ready to give account
on all points, as on this. It seems
then, that the General owns at last that account is personal,
it may be attended with shame or damage to the teacher!
But
where is the mischief of pressing on believers words spoken to them by Christ
and His apostles? ‘Oh, such perplexity has been caused to many!’
Alas
for those who wrongly simplify matters, by
explaining away unpleasant parts of God’s truth! Is the doctrine so very intricate? Eternal life is the gift
of God: Rom. 6: 23. The millennial
glory is a reward to be sought by the believer in the way
of obedience: Heb. 3., 4.;
Phil. 3.; 1 Cor. 6.; Matt. 6: 33; 7: 21.
I would promise to teach the truth to children of twelve!
‘But it has caused such sorrow to many of Christ’s people.’
It
would be a good thing if many of them
were led to repentance. I find Jesus
calling believers of His churches seven times over to repent! Rev. 2: 5, 16, 21, 22; 3: 3, 19. I find Paul rejoicing at the "mourning" to which he led Corinthian Christians.
"Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but
that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry
after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in
nothing. For godly sorrow worketh
repentance to salvation not to be repented of:" 2 Cor. 7: 9, 10. "Purify your
hearts, ye double-minded," says another apostle. "Be
afflicted, and mourn, and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness!" James 4: 8, 9.
Mr.
G. errs in good company.
He
thinks that many of Christ’s sheep and lambs have gone astray, and need to be
led back, with Christ’s staff in hand.
He will not be one of those who lift them over the hedge, and its
thorns. He thinks, too, that many of the
sheep butt at those who would lead them back to the fold. He will then not be one of those who assure
them, either that they cannot stray; or that, if they do, they cannot hurt
themselves. Are there no threatenings to
believers?
‘But you lift up sad denunciations of woe against disciples,’
Who utters
"woes" against disciples? "Woe unto the world because of offences: for it must needs be that offences come, but woe to that man
by whom the offence cometh:" Matt.
18: 7; Luke 17: 1.
After
addressing some of the disciples as "blessed,"
there is One who goes on:-
"But woe unto you (disciples) that are rich: for ye
are receiving (Greek) your consolation. Woe
unto you that are full : for ye shall hunger. Woe unto
you that laugh now : for ye shall mourn and weep. Woe unto you ,
when [all] men shall speak well of you: for so
did their fathers to the false prophets :" Luke
6: 24-26. Who said
so? Jesus, I think!
‘But you darken the poor pilgrim’s earthly path!’ Alas! Many believers are not ‘poor pilgrims,’ but
are rich citizens of the earth, enjoying its wealth, honours, pleasures;
carving as large slices of the world as they can. Shall we give these fresh
sleeping-draughts? I dare not! Unless it be after James’s fashion. - "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the
friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever then will be
(wishes to be) the friend of the world is the enemy of God:"
James 4: 4.
Or after Paul’s - "Be not deceived: God is
not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he
also reap." "Know ye not
that the unrighteous shall not inherit the
The
General then drops a word against "isolated
texts, apart from their context."
No
Scripture in itself is "isolated." Each is connected part with part. In the paper of Scriptures on which the
General is commenting, these are manifestly not isolated; for together they
make up a harmonious system. If "in the mouth of two or three witnesses" any truth
of Scripture may be proved: how impregnable this collection of seventy-five
conspiring testimonies. Mr, G. has also
other guns in reserve; forming a body of upwards of 370! Talk of ‘isolation’ after that! ‘Tis the isolation
of a marshalled battalion, where each soldier has others on right and left, and
all march on together. Have any been wrested from their context,
which speaks a different language?
This must be proved. It has not
been attempted hitherto. But the General
has been guilty of this in his citing 1 Cor. 6: 2, 3, while verses
9-11 teach exclusion; and in citing Col. 1:
12, 13, while verse 23 of that
chapter and parts of chapter 2 teach
exclusion: 8: 18-23.
If
the General prefers the integral method of establishing the doctrine, he shall
have that also. He has only to look at
the first Epistle to the Corinthians. There he will find in chapter 3, the teacher’s responsibility, and the woe on him who
defiles God’s church. In chapter 4 there is the judgment of motives before
Christ. In chapter
5 present exclusion from the
church is the witness of a future one. The same sins which exclude from God’s table
now, shut out from sitting down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the
Or,
if you please, turn to HEBREWS.
There
I read, that the mission of the Son of God, far from
setting believers free from responsibility, lades them with a still heavier one
than that of
[*
There is no "any man."]
I
have also further proved the doctrine in my work on ‘Entrance into the Kingdom,’ First and
Second series.
The
General’s last observations have a double edge: and I would earnestly exhort
him in the view of the evidence given to submit to God’s truth, established
both by the ‘fractional’ and ‘integral’ methods. I would also add, that I did not carry the doctrine I here teach to
the Scripture. To my surprise I found it there.
We
are now come to the last point of the subject.
WHAT IS THE PERIOD WHICH THE
SAVIOUR’S RECOMPENCE OF HIS PEOPLE TAKES EFFECT?
The
difficulty under this head is to know what the General meant; so awkwardly is
the matter expressed, so confusedly is it put together. His argument appears to be, that there is but
one kingdom, and that eternal.
1, "The kingdom of heaven
temporary."
"A clear establishment of the fallacy of this statement, I
believe will render easier the task of refuting others. The kingdom that God is about to confer upon His
Son will be conferred upon Him at the sounding of the seventh or last trump,
and is said to be "For ever and ever." The correct reading of Rev. 11: 15
being, "The kingdom of the world," or,
"Sovereignty of the world," (Tregelles.)
Moreover, this assignment of Sovereignty to the Glorified Man Christ
Jesus, is at the time when the whole members of the body first meet Him in the
air, and are then "Cought up to the throne of God:"
(Rev. 12: 5; Jude 24, with 1 Thess. 4: 16, 17,) this conferring
joint sovereignty upon the Church, as an entire body with Christ."
I
shall consult best the reader’s comprehension of the subject by dividing the
General’s observations into three parts.
1.
THE RAPTURE
2, THE MILLENNIAL REIGN.
3.
THE
First,
then, with regard to (1) THE RAPTURE.
On
this the General asserts, that:-
1.
There is but one rapture of the Church.
2.
It takes place at the seventh trump.
3.
Thenceforward all the Church rules together with Christ, as a perfect body of
which He is the Head.
A
simple and pleasant scheme - if it were only Scripture!
But
the General alleges on his behalf three texts.
(1) Rev. 12: 5.
"She brought forth a man-child who was to
rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up to God, and to
His throne."
(2)
Jude 24. "Now
unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faltless before the presence of His glory with exceeding
joy."
(3)
"For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with
a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and the trump of God: and the dead in
Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up
together with Him in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we be
ever with the Lord:" 1 Thess. 4: 16, 17.
Now
do these texts prove the General’s theory?
Very far from it!
(1)
Is the Man-child the Church? What is his
Scripture proof? Perhaps the General
will allege Jude 24.* He must prove then that Jude 24 refers to the Man-child’s rapture. To me it is evident, that while some of the
Church will constitute a part of the Man-child, yet that the praises given of
the Child are higher than can be truly stated of believers in general. "They overcame
him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony, and they
loved not their lives unto the death:" 11. The testimony of some believers, far from
being the ground of victory against Satan, would but furnish him with fresh
matter of accusation: for it is not true.
Nor is every believer ready to give up life for Christ.
[*
The true reading of Jude 25 shows that
Christ is not the presenter there spoken of.]
(2)
Is this the only rapture? What Scripture
says so? It is the General’s theory,
without Scripture proof. The Apocalypse
is full of proof, that there are more
raptures than one. Before a seal is
opened, there is one: Rev. 4: 1, 2. Under the sixth
seal there is another. For then is
beheld the Great Multitude of the victorious standing before the throne of God:
Rev. 7: 9-17. In chapter 11,
just before the mention of the seventh trump, occurs the rapture of the Two
Witnesses. After the resurrection of the
Man-child, there are those left on earth who hold the
testimony of Jesus: 12: 17. In chapter 14: 1,
the First fruits are seen on high before God’s throne; and after that, the
Harvest generally is reaped by the Son of Man: 14-16. Nay, even at the sixth vial, while the
spirits of Satan are collecting men for the great Battle of God, there is a rapture: 16: 15.
(3)
Is the Man-child’s rapture at the seventh trump? On what proof of Scripture does this
rest? On none. The General says so. It is evident on the contrary,
that it must occur before the fifth trump. For the Child is caught up before the woe
begins: Rev. 12: 12. But the woe of earth
beginning at the fifth trump: 8: 13. And I suppose, that the fallen star who opens
the pit’s mouth in Rev. 9: 1, is none other
than Satan, ejected from heaven after his lost battle against Michael - a
battle which arises because of the Man-child’s ascent: 12:
7-9.
Also
in 2 Thess. 2: 1-3
it is taught, that the watchful saints will be caught up to Christ before the
terrible Day of the Lord sets in upon the earth. But the terrible day of the Lord is nearly at
its height when the seventh trump sounds. The watchful saint is to be kept out
of the hour of temptation which shall try the whole habitable earth: Rev. 3: 10. But if there be no rapture till the
seventh trump sounds, the whole church will be left in the midst of the temptation
of Antichrist’s day.
(4)
Where is any word in these texts about "the whole
members of the body" of Christ?
The book of Revelation presents the Church to our notice as consisting
of seven lamp stands, and each of the churches is dealt with separately on its
own responsibility. The consequences of
which is, that each is divided into conquerors and conquered, the promises
being only for the former. Nor does Rev. 12 show the Church as one body with
Jesus. The Man-child is a unity complete
in itself. If Jesus be in the scene, it
is as Michael. And the voice of heaven
describes the Man-child as separate from the "Christ:"
ver. 10.
(5)
Does Rev. 12: 5, describe the same scene as 1 Thess. 4: 16, 17? Where is the proof? The General says so. But where is the descent of Christ, with
shout and trump? Whither is the
Man-child taken? Into
the air? Nay,
but to the throne of God. Does
Christ reign on earth as soon as the Man-child is caught up? Nay, but earth’s darkest three-and-a-half
years begin after it: Rev. 13: 5.
(6)
Does all the Church reign with Christ during the thousand years? Where are the Scriptures which assert this? Nowhere. The General
says so: the Scripture does not. Jesus
promises to the conqueror who keeps His
works to the end that he shall then rule the nations: Rev. 2: 26, 27.
But not all the Church are conquerors in this day of trial; not all keep
Christ’s works unto the end.*
[*
But the General cites also Psa. 149.
"All his saints” are to execute
judgment on kings. No New Testament
doctrine is to be proved by Old Testament citations, unless by one
inspired. What mischief has come in
through the contrary practice! These
saints of the Psalm appear to be men in flesh.
Do risen men need "beds?" ver. 5.]
1 Cor. 6: 2 does not affirm,
that all believers shall judge the world.
Verses 8-11 speedily introduce the
exceptions to the Spirit’s general statement.
The true meaning of 2 Tim. 4: 1,
derived from it true reading, is, "I continue to
testify before God and Christ Jesus, who is about to judge the living and the
dead, both His manifestation and His kingdom." This then will not aid the General.
All
the General’s three propositions then concerning this point are erroneous.
We
consider next:-
2.
THE MILLENNIAL KINGDOM
3.
THE
On
these points the General says, further:-
“The kingdom has at first a judical aspect, (Psa. 2.,
97.; 98: 9; 2 Tim. 4: 1.) and "all His saints" have
this honour of judgment jointly with their Lord. (Psa. 149; 1 Cor. 6: 2; Dan. 7: 13, 14, with the interpretation thereof, ver. 22.) This judical
government is for the purpose of bringing in the heathen nations of the
millennial earth to the blessings of the glad tidings of salvation, through the
ministry of Israel: (Isa. 52: 7-10; Psa.
22: 27, 28; Psa. 2: 6-9; Rev. 21: 24, 25.) In order to this,
"He
must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet." But does He cease to reign then? First examine the use of the word "till" in following
passages:-
Isa. 43: 4. "He shall not fail nor be discouraged till
He have set judgment in the earth." (Did HE fail then!)
Psa. 112: 8. "His heart is
established, He shall not be afraid until He see His desire upon His enemies." (Was HE afraid
then?)
Rom. 5: 13. "Until the law, sin was in the world." (Did sin quit the world then?)
These are some of the passages that tend to show the use of "till" in 1 Cor, 15: 25.
As to the eternity of His kingdom, see following Scriptures: Isa. 9: 6, 7. The kingdom established
"Even
for ever."
Luke 1: 32, 33. "Of His kingdom there shall be NO END!"
Dan. 7: 14. "Shall stand
forever."
Dan. 2: 44. "Shall stand
forever."
Heb. 1: 8. Of the Son it is said,
"THY
THRONE, O GOD, is for ever and ever."
2 Peter 1: 11. "
Again in reference to 1 Cor.
15: 24. "When he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God even the
Father." This is
simply the act of transference of the kingdom from David to Solomon, both types
of the same person, and their joint acts typical of his. "Solomon sat on the
throne of David:" 1 Kings 2: 2. But he also "sat on the throne of the
Lord as king, instead of David his father."
Thus David’s, Solomon’s, and the Lord’s throne is one. David reigned until he had subdued his
enemies, and then transferred THE SAME
sovereignty to Solomon, which at that time was that of the world: 2 Chron. 9: 23."
In
answer to this I shall prove that there are TWO kingdoms:-
1.
The temporary one, of a thousand years.
2.
The eternal one, which succeeds it.
(1)
I cited two passages as establishing this: 1 Cor. 15. "Christ the first-fruits; afterward
they that are Christ’s at His coming. Then (afterwards) cometh the end, when He shall have
delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father: when He shall have put down
all rule, and all authority and power.
For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet:"
23-25.
Here
then is a kingdom which is temporary. It
lasts only, till Jesus as the Christ has put down all foes. He has done that at the close of the earth’s
existence. Death itself is then made
powerless. Then the Christ delivers up
the kingdom which was committed to him, to the Father.
But
the General does not accept this testimony of Scripture. He seems here to be pleading, that there is
but one kingdom, and that without end.
He sees that the word "till" is
in his way. So he labours to silence its
testimony: but in vain. He thinks he
finds passages where "till" loses its
meaning. They are not to be heard, till
it can be shown that the idea of any change beyond its limit must be
surrendered. Is it so here? The farthest from it! We are instructed in the change which does
commence and continue beyond the limit.
Verse 28
of the same Scripture confirms the two proofs which have gone before it. "And when all
things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Sun also himself be subject to
him that put all things under him, that God may be all
in all." The General would
have it, that after all foes are subdued, Jesus shall
not give it up, but shall hold it still. Here then he contradicts Scripture.
The
General does not give my statement fairly. I put in my text-paper:-
"The kingdom of heaven temporary: 1 Cor. 15: 24.
For a thousand years: Rev. 20: 4-6."
He
omits the Scripture passage from the first line. He does not notice the second line, or its
appended passage.
That
then let us consider: Rev. 20: 4-6.
1.
John sees in vision some who "lived and reigned with Christ a thousand
years. But the rest of the dead lived not again, till the thousand years were
finished." Those who enter this glory reign with the Christ a thousand years : 4-6. When the reign of the Christ for a thousand
years is ended, Satan is loosed, the last rebellious army marches against God,
and is cut off. Then occurs the judgment of the dead,
and the passing away of the old earth.
Here
then the Apocalypse adds its coincident testimony. There is a temporary kingdom of a thousand years;
which Jesus having received, as the Father’s viceroy in order to put down all
hostile power, at length surrenders to the Father, after that purpose is
accomplished.
So
clear is this, that one wonders how any believer can question it, and much more deny it.
In so doing, the General is at variance, not with Scripture alone, but
with himself. In his Antitypical
Parallels, he says, p. 461:-
"The divine purpose for which the Lord Jesus will have come
to rule over and judge the world will have been at this time accomplished. The residue of His Father’s family will be
redeemed, and He will have judically purged out from
His kingdom during the thousand years all evil principles, and all living evil
men opposing His authority and power. Thus He will close His Davidical reign, having "put all his enemies under his feet:" p. 484, Also
pp. 471, 482, 483.
The
word "till" then is to have its usual
signification.* It here implies limit, after which a predicted change takes
place. ‘Do you mean
that Jesus will not reign after that?’
Not a day after it, in His character of ‘the
Christ!’
[* Such as in Luke 1: 20; 21:
24; Acts 3: 21; Matt. 24: 38.]
Jesus
is never called ‘the Christ’ in the Apocalypse,
after the thousand years are ended. Twice
is He so called during them: not once after it.
Lest any should allege Rev. 22: 21,
as contradicting this statement, I haste to fill up the pitfall, by assuring
the student that the word "Christ"
there is not genuine; as decided by the Alexandrian and Sinaitic
manuscripts, and by Buttman, Lachmann,
and Tischendorf, among the critics.
It
is during the millennial kingdom, or "the age to
come" that the recompense is given to the accepted: Luke 6: 20-24; 20: 35, 36; Heb. 3.,
4.; Rev. 11: 18; Luke 14: 13, 14.
And now concerning the
Jesus,
after the thousand years, is to "deliver up the
kingdom to God, even the Father."
On this the General says:-
"This is simply the act of transference of the kingdom from
David to Solomon, both types of the same person, and their joint acts typical
of his."
The
confused paragraph out of which this is taken, is
designed to prove, that Jesus rules during the thousand years, as David; after
them, as Solomon. The empire is the
same, before and after the millennium; and the same person rules it before and
after that period. Then there is
no transference! What is it to
transfer? "To
convey from one (place or) person to another; to transport or remove to
another (place or) person." "To convey as a right from one person to another." If therefore the same person hold the kingdom, there is no transference!
But
the Scripture not only declares the transference, but teaches us also with whom
the transfer begins, and to whom it is made. "He
(Christ) shall have delivered up the
kingdom to the Father:" 24. "He must reign till"
- "The Son also himself shall be
subject to Him that put all things under Him, that God
may be all in all:" 28. As the kingdom was given by the Father to the
Son, so, the end accomplished,- it is rendered back by
the Son to the Father. Herein then the
General is not only not stating what the Scripture does; but is contradicting
it.
Moreover
the eternal state differs from the millennial in not a few points; points so
fundamental, that it cannot be called "the same
sovereignty."
1.
Its scene is different.
The millennial kingdom is upon the old earth: the eternal, is upon the
new earth, after the old is passed away; Rev. 21:
1, 2.
2.
The millennial kingdom is in not a few points imperfect: the
eternal is perfection. In the eternal
kingdom Satan is no more loosed; nor are any foes of
God and Christ left at large: Rev. 20.
3.
The principle of rule is no longer said to be the "rod of iron;" for there are no wicked men to be
destroyed. Death is ended. God hath made
all things new: Rev. 21.
4.
There is a difference in the form of Government. During the millennium Jesus sits upon His own
throne, and that is on earth: Rev. 3: 21. Around His are other subordinate thrones; as
those of the twelve apostles: Matt. 19.
But
after the millennium we read only of one throne, and that seated in the
heavenly city. On it the Father sits paramount ; the
Son occupies a subordinate place. The General’s idea, which he has very obscurely
stated, is, that the Son alone is the visible and prominent Ruler after the
millennium as well as before it ; that the heavenly
Father is unseen by His saved ones.
The
General adds:-
"The reference above from Heb. 1: 8,
is enough to establish the fact, that the Lord will continue His reign on the
new earth as God. "Unto the Son He saith, Thy throne O God, is for ever and ever." He is the "express image"
of the invisible God, and "the brightness
of His glory:" (Heb. 1: 3; Col. 1: 15.) He is "over
all, God blessed for ever:" Rom. 9: 5. In Isa. 9: 6, He is called "the
everlasting Father:" and Himself
has declared the oneness of the Father with Him: John 14: 8, 9. In Him is "the fulness of the Godhead bodily," that is in His glorified humanity."*
[* The Godhead of the Son is and was present in the person of
Jesus, not only after His glorification, but before it also.]
"The throne of God and the Lamb (not "of," Tregelles) are one:" Rev. 22: 1.
The
intent of all this is to prove, that after the millennium ‘tis not the joint
visible reign of the Father and the Son, the Father being pre-eminent, the Son
subordinate; but that there is but one Person visible on the throne, and
that that person is the Son.
Now
this is manifestly contrary to the Scriptures which describe the eternal
kingdom. "And
I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty is its temple, and the
Lamb:" 21: 22. Here the order of the Greek is followed: and
it is evidently God’s design in this singular placing of the words, to prove to
us, that there are two persons in question, of whom "the Lamb" occupies the subordinate place. So again - "The glory of God did
lighten it, and its lamp is the Lamb :" 23.
Here is the same singular position of the words with the same intent. Also in
the last chapter, "He showed me the river of the water of life bright as
crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb."
The throne is one; but the persons occupying it are two. Though Tregelles in his English translation omits the
"of" before !the Lamb," giving thus to
the English reader the idea that "God and the Lamb" are the same
person, yet he does not so in his Greek and English edition of the Apocalypse.
And it is either an oversight of his in the English translation, or else a
mistranslation unworthy of his scholarship. For there are two articles ; one before God, and one before the Lamb, showing
that the persons are two. The same Greek expression, to be rendered in the same
way, occurs in verse 3.
While
God is at present the unseen God, dwelling in light unapproachable, yet it is
not to be so forever. As John tells us,
"The throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it;
and His servents shall serve Him. AND THEY SHALL
SEE HIS FACE:" 22: 3, 4. Shall
the sons of God never see their Father?
Eph. 1: 5.
Whatever
our views of the typical character of the reign of David and Solomon, they
cannot be allowed to alter in the least the direct statements of the New Testament. Our views of the types must conform to them,
not the text of the New Testament to our views of the types. In the Old Testament history David ends his
reign; Solomon begins it, receiving the kingdom from his father. In the day to come, Jesus, having received
from His Father power delegated to Him for a time, at the close of that time
restores it to Him who gave it. The
cases on this point are unlike, even to contrast.
The
General proceeds:-
"Strange indeed would it be to see the Son of God set aside
from that dominion which is plainly shown to be His, as "the Last Adam,"
and that in "the Paradise of God on earth!" (Rev. 2: 7.) Whilst it is announced that "the Tabernacle of God is with men." when the
What
the General is aiming at in the first part of this obscure paragraph, I cannot
tell. He has next made a misquotation if
a singular kind. "The paradise of God on
earth:" Rev. 2: 7. There
is no such words as those in italics; and on them the
stress seems to be laid.
Not
Jesus, but the New Jerusalem is the tabernacle of God in the eternal
kingdom. Jesus is the king dwelling in
His royal abode. ‘The mystery of God is
finished.’ "I saw the
[*
Probably it should be "out of the throne,"
as Tregelles gives it in his English translation.]
Heberws 9: 11 proves against the
General, that Jesus is not the temple, but the priest passing through it.
"But Christ being come an High Priest of good things to come,
by (through) a greater and more perfect
tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building, entered
in once into the holy place."
What
Ezekiel 37 has to do with the matter, unless
to bear witness against the General’s interpretation, I know not. The sanctuary is certainly distinguished in
it from the God who dwells therein: Exek. 37: 26-28.
"Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall
be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them and multiply them:
yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And the heathen shall know that I the Lord do
sanctify
As
the proof of God’s exercising both grace and justice in
relation to His people is continually confirming itself on my mind from clear
testimonies of Holy Writ, I will now give a new view of the matter, sustained
by some of the Scripture evidence.
1.
With my whole heart I rejoice in the blessed place which the grace of God holds
in our salvation. On that we are in
accord. From this principle proceed
God’s sovereign election, justification, sanctification, certain perseverance,
and ultimate reception of the elect in eternal life.
2.
But righteousness of God’s part has also its play, its times, and
its results. God intends in a day to
come to render to each son of man
according to his deeds.
This
is established by:-
(1)
There being no passages which speak of the kingdom as being God’s
gift to simple faith; but of graces additional to faith being required : 2 Pet. 1: 5-11; Matt. 7: 21; 5: 1-12, 20; Luke 14: 13,
14; Matt. 28: 3.
(2)
That class of passages which tells of a day of justice to come, in which God
will render to each in justice "according to his works :" Rom. 2: 5-16; Rev. 22: 12; Matt. 7: 1, 2; Heb. 10: 30;
13: 4; Jas. 2: 12-26; Matt. 5: 21-30; Rom. 14: 10; 2 Cor.
5: 10; 1 Tim. 5: 24, 25; Heb. 2: 1, 2.
(3)
Those passages which call on such as are ready believers to seek the kingdom;
and warn us of the danger of losing it: Phil. 3:
10-15; 1 Cor. 9: 24; 10: 14; Matt. 6: 33; Luke 12:
31;
(4)
Those passages which describe the effects of Jesus’ coming and reckoning with
His servants: Matt. 7: 21. We have then
the ‘blessed’ enterers, and the excluded with a
‘woe:’ Luke 6:
20-26; 17: 1; Matt. 18: 7; 24: 45-51;25: 14-30; 28: 21-35; Rev. 2., 3.
(5)
Those passages which speak of Jesus as "counting"
some "worthy:" Luke 20: 36; 2 Thess. 1: 5, 11; Rev. 3: 4;
Luke 21: 36.
(6)
Those which speak of ‘fruit’ and ‘works’ as alone accepted in that day ; Matt.
vii, 21 ; Rom. ii, 6, 10 ; Matt. xvi, 21 ; Rev. ii, 23 ; xxii, 12.
(7)
Those which describe the reward of works as being as certain and as natural as
the harvest after the sowing: 2 Cor.
9: 6; Gal. 6: 7. Or as the result of
self-denial and effort, like the prize at the Grecian games: 2 Tim. 4: 7, 8; 1 Cor. 9: 24-27; Phil. 3.; Rev. 11: 18; 22: 12; Luke 6: 23,
35; Heb. 11: 6, 26; 10: 35 ; Matt. 6: 1-16; 10: 41; John 4: 36; 1 Cor. 3: 8, 14; 2 John 8.
(8)
The past facts of Jewish history considered as typical teach the same truth: 1 Cor. 10: 1-12; Heb. 2: 1-3;
3: 7 – 4: 11; Jude 5; Heb. 12: 16, 17.
More
might be added: but these will suffice for the candid.
In
conclusion, I think the reader will agree with me, that he has seldom or never
seen a tract whose contents are farther astray from its title. It professes to give what the Scriptures say:
it really gives what the General thinks about some of the
Scriptures I have adduced in my collection of passages.
As
I am sure that no one could discover from the General’s tract and his
description of my text-paper as a ‘syllabus,’
what sort of thing it is, I print it at the conclusion of this. Then the candid will see,
that it has nothing of mine but the grouping.
He will see too, how little of it the General has touched; only, I
think, ten passages out of seventy-five. But there are other papers of texts beside
this.
Here
then I close. God speed the truth.
ETERNAL LIFE THE GIFT OF GOD (Rom. 6: 23,) TO
BELIEVERS: (John 3: 36; 6: 23,)
The
kingdom of heaven temporary: 1 Cor.
15: 24. For a thousand years: Rev. 20: 4-6.
Judgment
of the saints at Christ’s coming according to works:* 2
Cor. 5: 1-10; Eph. 6: 5-9; Phil. 4: 17; Rev. 2: 23;
Rom. 14: 10-12.
[*
It was in the former pages given as 2 Cor. 9 by mistake.]
ENTRANCE INTO THE KINGDOM TO BE ACCORDING TO WORKS: Matt
5: 20; 7: 21; 16: 27.
SOME BELIEVERS WILL BE EXCLUDED.
Generally stated: 2 Cor. 5: 1-10.
As
not coming up to the right standard: Matt. 5: 20.
As
offenders against a brother’s rights: Matt. 5: 25,
26.
Rich:
Luke 6: 24.
Sensual
and mirthful: Luke 6: 25.
High
in repute: Luke 6: 26.
From
entrance into the kingdom - the unbaptized: John 3: 5.
The
Unrighteous : 1 Cor. 6: 1-10.
The
circumcised Gentile believer: Gal. 4: 30; 5: 5.
Takers
of oaths: James 5: 12.
Deniers
of Jesus in time of persecution: 2 Tim. 2: 12.
Receivers
of false doctrines and traditions of men: Col. 2:
8, 18.
Disobedient:
Heb. 4: 11. (Not "unbelief.")
THREATS TO BELIEVERS.
For
angry words: Matt. 5: 21, 22.
Hand
or eye causing stumbling: 27-30.
The
unforgiving: Matt. 6: 14, 15; 18: 23-35.
Judging: Matt. 7: 1, 2.
Envious
and quarrelsome: Matt. 24: 48-51.
Ashamed
of Christ: Matt. 8: 38.
Causer
of stumbling to little ones: Mark 9: 41-50; Matt.
18: 6-9.
Disobedient:
Luke 12: 47, 48.
Deniers
of Christ through fear: Luke 12: 4, 5.
Slothful
servant: Matt. 25: 14-30.
Resisters
of civil authority: Rom. 13: 2.
Teachers
of false doctrine, right in fundamentals: 1 Cor. 3: 10-15.
Disturbers
of churches: 1 Cor. 3:
16, 17; Gal. 5: 10.
Defrauders
and many other characters: 1 Cor.
6: 1-10.
Wrong-doers:
Col. 3: 22; 4: 1.
Unclean:
1 Thess. 4: 3-7.
Disobedient:
Heb. 6: 7-9.
Refusers to listen to Christ: Heb. 12:
25-29.
Adulterers:
Rev. 2: 22, 23; Heb. 13: 18, 19.
Corrupters
of Revelation: Rev. 22: 18, 19.
Those
who abide not in Christ: John 15: 1-6.
"SHALL NOT ENTER THE KINGDOM." Seven texts.
Matt. 5: 20; 7: 21; 18: 3; 19: 23; Luke 18: 17, 24; John 3: 5;
Mark 10: 15.
Also
1 Cor. 6: 9, 10; Gal. 5:
19-21; 6: 7, 8; Matt. 10: 32, 39; 16: 26; 18: 17, 18; Luke 9: 26.
Esau’s
exclusion from the blessing typical: Heb. 12: 16,
17.
-------