|
A Study Of
Dispensationalism
by Arthur W. Pink
Chapter 1
Having written so much upon both the
inspiration and the interpretation of Holy Writ, it is necessary, in order to
give completeness unto the same, to supply one or two articles upon the
application thereof. First, because this is very closely related to exegesis
itself: if a wrong application or use be made of a verse, then our explanation
of it is certain to be erroneous. For example, Romanism insists that "Feed my
sheep" (John 21:15-17) was Christ’s bestowal upon Peter of a special privilege
and peculiar honour, being one of the passages to which that evil system appeals
in support of her contention for the primacy of that Apostle. Yet there
is nothing whatever in Peter’s own writings which indicates that he regarded
those injunctions of his Master as constituting him "Universal Bishop." Instead,
in his first Epistle there is plainly that to the contrary, for there we find
him exhorting the elders or bishops, "Feed the flock of God which is among you,
taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy
lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but
being ensamples to the flock" (5:2,3).
Thus it is quite clear from the above
passage that Christ’s precepts in John 21:15-17, apply or pertain unto all
pastors. On the other hand, our Lord’s words to Peter and Andrew, "Follow
Me, and I will make you fishers of men" (Matt. 4:19) do not apply to the
rank and file of His disciples, but only unto those whom He calls into and
qualifies for the ministry. That is evident from the fact that in none of the
Epistles, where both the privileges and the duties of the saints are
specifically defined, is there any such precept or promise. Thus, on the one
hand, we must ever beware of unwarrantable restricting the scope of a verse;
and, on the other hand, be constantly on our guard against making general what
is manifestly particular. It is only by carefully taking heed to the general
Analogy of Faith that we shall be preserved from either mistake. Scripture ever
interprets Scripture, but much familiarity with the contents, and a diligent and
prayerful comparing of one part with another, is necessary before anyone is
justified in dogmatically deciding the precise meaning or application of any
passage.
But there is further reason, and a pressing
one today, why we should write upon our present subject, and that is to expose
the modern and pernicious error of Dispensationalism. This is a device of the
Enemy, designed to rob the children of no small part of that bread which their
heavenly Father has provided for their souls; a device wherein the wily serpent
appears as an angel of light, feigning to "make the Bible a new book" by
simplifying much in it which perplexes the spiritually unlearned. It is sad to
see how widely successful the devil has been by means of this subtle innovation.
It is likely that some of our own readers, when perusing the articles upon the
interpretation of the Scriptures, felt more than once that we were taking an
undue liberty with Holy Writ, that we made use of certain passages in a way
altogether unjustifiable, that we appropriated to the saints of this Christian
era what does not belong to them but is rather addressed unto those who lived in
an entirely different dispensation of the past, or one which is yet future.
This modern method of mishandling the
Scriptures—for modern it certainly is, being quite unknown to Christendom till
little more than a century ago, and only within recent years being adopted by
those who are outside the narrow circle where it originated—is based upon 2
Timothy 2:15, "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth
not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Very little or nothing
at all is said upon the first two clauses of that verse, but on the third one,
which is explained as "correctly partitioning the Scriptures unto the different
peoples to whom they belong." These mutilators of the Word tell us that all of
the Old Testament from Genesis 12 onwards belongs entirely to Israel after the
flesh, and that none of its precepts (as such) are binding upon those who are
members of the Church which is the Body of Christ, nor may any of the promises
found therein be legitimately appropriated by them. And this, be it duly noted,
without a single word to that effect by either the Lord or any of His
Apostles, and despite the use which the Holy Spirit makes of the earliest
Scriptures in every part of the New Testament. So far from the Holy Spirit
teaching Christians practically to look upon the Old Testament much as they
would upon an obsolete almanac, He declares, "For whatsoever things were written
aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and
comfort of the (Old Testament) Scriptures might have hope" (Rom. 15:4).
Not satisfied with their determined efforts
to deprive us of the Old Testament, these would-be super-expositors dogmatically
assert that the four Gospels are Jewish, and that the Epistles of James and
Peter, John and Jude are designed for a "godly Jewish remnant" in a future
"tribulation period," that nothing but the Pauline Epistles contain "Church
truth," and thousands of gullible souls have accepted their ipse digit—those
who decline so doing are regarded as untaught and superficial. Yet God Himself
has not uttered a single word to that effect. Certainly there is nothing
whatever in 2 Timothy 2:15, to justify such a revolutionizing method of
interpreting the Word: that verse has no more to do with the sectioning of
Scripture between different "dispensations" than it has with distinguishing
between stars of varying magnitude. If that verse be carefully compared with
Matthew 7:6, John 16:12 and 1 Corinthians 3:2, its meaning is clear. The
occupant of the pulpit is to give diligence in becoming equipped to give the
different classes of his hearer "their portion of meat in due season"
(Luke 12:42). To rightly divide the Word of Truth is for him to minister it
suitably unto the several cases and circumstances of his congregation: to
sinners and saints, the indifferent and the inquiring, the babes and fathers,
the tempted and afflicted, the backslidden and fallen.
While there be great variety in the
teaching of the Word, there is an unmistakable unity underlying the whole.
Though He employed many mouthpieces, the Holy Scriptures have but one Author;
and while He "at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the
fathers by the prophets" and "hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son"
(Heb. 1:1,2), yet He who spoke by them was and is One "with whom is no
variableness, neither shadow of turning" (Jam. 1:17), who throughout all ages
declares: "I am the Lord, I change not" (Mal. 3:6). Throughout there is perfect
agreement between every part of the Word: it sets forth one system of
doctrine (we never read of "the doctrines of God," but always "the
doctrine": see Deut 32:2; Prov 4:2; Matt 7:28; John 7:17; Rom. 16:17, and
contrast Mark 7:7; Col. 2:22; 1 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 13:9) because it is one single
and organic whole. That Word presents uniformly one way of salvation,
one rule of faith. From Genesis to Revelation there is one immutable Moral
Law, one glorious Gospel for perishing sinners. The Old Testament believers were
saved with the same salvation, were indebted to the same Redeemer, were renewed
by the same Spirit, and were partakers of the same heavenly inheritance as are
New Testament believers.
It is quite true that the Epistle to the
Hebrews makes mention of a better hope (7:19), a better testament or covenant
(7:22), better promises (8:6), better sacrifices (9:23), some better thing for
us (11:40), and yet it is important to recognize that the contrast is between
the shadows and the substance. Romans 12:6, speaks of "the proportion [or
"analogy"] of faith." There is a due proportion, a perfect balance, between the
different parts of God’s revealed Truth which must needs be known and observed
by all who would preach and write according to the mind of the Spirit. In
arguing from this analogy, it is essential to recognize that what is made known
in the Old Testament was typical of what is set forth in the New, and
therefore the terms used in the former are strictly applicable unto the latter.
Much needless wrangling has occurred over whether or not the nation of Israel
were a regenerate people. That is quite beside the real point: outwardly they
were regarded and addressed as the people of God, and, as the Spirit through
Paul affirmed, "who are Israelites: to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the
glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and
the promises: whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ
came" (Rom. 9:4,5).
Regeneration or non-regeneration affected
the salvation of individuals among them, but it did not affect the
covenant relationship of the people as a whole. Again and again God
addressed Israel as "backsliders," but never once did He so designate any
heathen nation. It was not to the Egyptians or Canaanites that Jehovah said,
"Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings," or
"Turn, 0 backsliding children...for I am married unto you" (Jer. 3:22,
14). Now it is this analogy or similarity between the two covenants and the
peoples under them which is the basis for the transfer of Old Testament terms to
the New. Thus the word "circumcision" is used in the latter not with identity of
meaning, but according to analogy, for circumcision is now "of the heart, in the
spirit" (Rom. 2:29), and not of the flesh. In like manner, when John closes his
first Epistle with "Little children, keep yourselves from idols," he borrows an
Old Testament term and uses it in a New Testament sense, for by "idols" he
refers not to material statues made of wood and stone (as the prophets did when
employing the same word), but to inward objects of carnal and sensual worship.
So too are we to see the antitypical and spiritual "Israel" in Galatians 6:16,
and the celestial and eternal "Mount Zion" in Hebrews 12:22.
The Bible consists of many parts,
exquisitely correlated and vitally interdependent upon each other. God so
controlled all the agents which He employed in the writing of it, and so
coordinated their efforts, as to produce a single living Book. Within that
organic unity there is indeed much variety, but no contrariety. Man’s body is
but one, though it be made up of many members, diverse in size, character, and
operation. The rainbow is but one, nevertheless it reflects distinctly the seven
prismatic rays, yet they are harmoniously blended together. So it is with the
Bible: its unity appears in the perfect consistency throughout of its teachings.
The oneness yet triunity of God, the deity and humanity of Christ united in one
Person, the everlasting covenant which secures the salvation of all the election
of grace, the highway of holiness and the only path which leads to heaven, are
plainly revealed in Old and New Testament alike. The teaching of the prophets
concerning the glorious character of God, the changeless requirements of His
righteousness, the total depravity of human nature, and the way appointed for
restoration therefrom, are identical with the Apostles’ teaching.
If the question be raised, Since the sacred
Scriptures be a strict unit, then why has God Himself divided them into two
Testaments? perhaps it will simplify the matter if we ask why God has appointed
two principal bodies to illuminate the earth—the sun and the moon. Why, too, is
the human frame duplex, having two legs and arms, two lungs and kidneys, etc.?
Is not the answer the same in each case: to augment and supplement each other?
But, more directly, at least four reasons may be suggested. First, to set forth
more distinctly the two covenants which are the basis of God’s dealings with all
mankind: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace—shadowed forth by the
"old" from Sinai and the "new" or Christian one. Second, to show more plainly
the two separate companies which are united in that one Body which constitutes
the Church of which Christ is the Head, namely redeemed Jews and redeemed
Gentiles. Third, to demonstrate more clearly the wondrous providence of God:
using the Jews for so many centuries to be the custodians of the Old Testament,
which condemns them for their rejection of Christ; and in employing the papists
throughout the dark ages to preserve the New Testament, which denounces their
idolatrous practices. Fourth, that one might confirm the other: type by
antitype, prophecy by fulfillment.
"The mutual relations of the two
Testaments. These two main divisions resemble the dual structure of the human
body, where the two eyes and ears, hands and feet, correspond to and complement
one another. Not only is there a general, but a special, mutual fitness. They
need therefore to be studied together, side by side, to be compared even in
lesser details, for in nothing are they independent of each other; and the
closer the inspection the minuter appears the adaptation, and the more intimate
the association. . . .The two Testaments are like the two cherubim of the mercy
seat, facing in opposite directions, yet facing each other and overshadowing
with glory one mercy seat; or again, they are like the human body bound together
by joints and bands and ligaments, with one brain and heart, one pair of lungs,
one system of respiration, circulation, digestion, sensor and motor nerves,
where division is destruction" (A. T. Pierson, from Knowing the Scriptures).
Chapter 2
Some Dispensationalists do
not go quite so far as others in arbitrarily erecting notice-boards over large
sections of Scripture, warning Christians not to tread on ground which belongs
to others, yet there is general agreement among them that the Gospel of
Matthew—though it stands at the beginning of the New Testament and not at the
close of the Old!—pertains not to those who are members of the mystical body of
Christ, but is "entirely Jewish," that the sermon on the mount is "legalistic"
and not evangelistic, and that its searching and flesh-withering precepts are
not binding upon Christians. Some go so far as to insist that the great
commission with which it closes is not designed for us today, but is meant for
"a godly Jewish remnant" after the present era is ended. In support of this wild
and wicked theory, appeal is made to and great stress laid upon the fact that
Christ is represented, most prominently, as "the son of David" or King of the
Jews; but they ignore another conspicuous fact, namely that in its opening verse
the Lord Jesus is set forth as "the son of Abraham," and he was a
Gentile! What is still more against this untenable hypothesis—and as though
the Holy Spirit designedly anticipated and refuted it—is the fact that Matthew’s
is the only one of the four Gospels where the Church is actually mentioned twice
(16:18; 18:17)!—though in John’s Gospel its members are portrayed as branches of
the Vine, members of Christ’s flock, which are designations of saints which have
no dispensational limitations.
Equally remarkable is the
fact that the very same Epistle which contains the verse (2 Tim. 2:15) on which
this modern system is based emphatically declares: "All Scripture is
given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be
perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (3:16,17). So far from large
sections of Scripture being designed for other companies, and excluded from our
immediate use, ALL Scripture is meant for and is needed by us. First, all of it
is "profitable for doctrine," which could not be the case if it were true (as
Dispensationalists dogmatically insist) that God has entirely different methods
of dealing with men in past and future ages from the present one. Second, all
Scripture is given us "for instruction in righteousness" or right doing, but we
are at a complete loss to know how to regulate our conduct if the precepts in
one part of the Bible are now outdated (as the teachers of error assert) and
injunctions of a contrary character have displaced them; and if certain statutes
are meant for others who will occupy this scene after the Church has been
removed from it. Third, all Scripture is given that a man of God might be
"perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works"—every part of the Word is
required in order to supply him with all needed instructions and to produce a
full-orbed life of godliness.
When the Dispensationalist
is hard pressed with those objections, he endeavors to wriggle out of his
dilemma by declaring that though all Scripture be for us much of it is
not addressed to us. But really, that is a distinction without a
difference. In his exposition of Hebrews 3:7-11, Owen rightly pointed out that
when making quotation from the Old Testament the Apostle prefaced it with "the
Holy Spirit saith" (not "said"), and remarked, "Whatever was given by
inspiration from the Holy Spirit and is recorded in the Scriptures for the use
of the Church, He contrived to speak it to us unto this day. As He liveth for
ever so He continues to speak for ever; that is, whilst His voice or word shall
be of use for the Church—He speaks now unto us . . . .Many men have
invented several ways to lessen the authority of the Scriptures, and few are
willing to acknowledge an immediate speaking of God unto them therein."
To the same effect wrote that sound commentator Thomas Scott, "Because of the
immense advantages of perseverance, and the tremendous consequences of apostasy,
we should consider the words of the Holy Spirit as addressed to us."
Not only is the assertion
that though all Scripture be for us all is not to us meaningless,
but it is also impertinent and impudent, for there is nothing whatever in
the Word of Truth to support and substantiate it. Nowhere has the Spirit given
the slightest warning that such a passage is "not to the Christian," and still
less that whole books belong to someone else. Moreover, such a principle is
manifestly dishonest. What right have I to make any use of that
which is the property of another? What would my neighbor think were I to take
letters which were addressed to him and argue that they were meant for
me? Furthermore, such a theory, when put to the test, is found to be
unworkable. For example, to whom is the book of Proverbs addressed, or for
that matter, the first Epistle of John? Personally, this writer, after having
wasted much time in perusing scores of books which pretended to rightly divide
the Word, still regards the whole of Scripture as God’s gracious revelation to
him and for him, as though there were not another person on earth, conscious
that he cannot afford to dispense with any portion of it; and he is heartily
sorry for those who lack such a faith. Pertinent in this connection is that
warning, "But fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve . . . so your
minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Cor.
11:3).
But are there not many
passages in the Old Testament which have no direct bearing upon the Church
today? Certainly not. In view of 1 Corinthians 10:11—"Now all these things
happened unto them for ensamples [margin, "types"]: and they are written for our
admonition"—Owen pithily remarked: "Old Testament examples are New Testament
instructions." By their histories we are taught what to avoid and what to
emulate. That is the principal reason why they are recorded: that which
hindered or encouraged the Old Testament saints was chronicled for our benefit.
But, more specifically, are not Christians unwarranted in applying to themselves
many promises given to Israel according to the flesh during the Mosaic economy,
and expecting a fulfillment of the same unto themselves? No indeed, for if
that were the case, then it would not be true that "whatsoever things were
written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and
comfort of the scriptures might have hope" (Rom. 15:4). What comfort can I
derive from those sections of God’s Word which these people say "do not belong
to me"? What "hope" (i.e. a well-grounded assurance of some future good) could
possibly be inspired today in Christians by what pertains to none but Jews?
Christ came here, my reader, not to cancel, but "to confirm the promises
made unto the fathers: and that the Gentiles might glorify God for His
mercy" (Rom. 15:8,9)!
It must also be borne in
mind that, in keeping with the character of the covenant under which they were
made, many of the precepts and the promises given unto the patriarchs and their
descendants possessed a spiritual and typical significance and value, as
well as a carnal and literal one. As an example of the former, take Deuteronomy
25:4, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn," and then
mark the application made of those words in 1 Corinthians 9:9,10: "Doth God take
care for oxen? Or saith He it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no
doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope." The word
"altogether" is probably a little too strong here, for pantos is rendered
"no doubt" in Acts 28:4, and "surely" in Luke 4:23, and in the text signifies
"assuredly" (Amer. RV) or "mainly for our sakes." Deuteronomy 25:4 was
designed to enforce the principle that labour should have its reward, so that
men might work cheerfully. The precept enjoined equity and kindness: if so to
beasts, much more so to men, and especially the ministers of the Gospel. It is a
striking illustration of the freedom with which the Spirit of grace applies the
Old Testament Scriptures, as a constituent part of the Word of Christ, unto
Christians and their concerns.
What is true of the Old
Testament precepts (generally speaking, for there are, of course, exceptions to
every rule) holds equally good to the Old Testament promises—believers today are
fully warranted in mixing faith therewith and expecting to receive the substance
of them. First, because those promises were made to saints as such, and what God
gives to one He gives to all (2 Pet. 1:4)—Christ purchased the self-same
blessings for every one of His redeemed. Second, because most of the Old
Testament promises were typical in their nature: earthly blessings adumbrated
heavenly ones. That is no arbitrary assertion of ours, for anyone who has been
taught of God knows that almost everything during the old economies had a
figurative meaning, shadowing forth the better things to come. Many proofs of
this will be given by us a little later. Third, a literal fulfillment to
us of those promises must not be excluded, for since we be still on earth and in
the body our temporal needs are the same as theirs, and if we meet the
conditions attached to those promises (either expressed or implied), then we may
count upon the fulfillment of them: according unto our faith and obedience so
will it be unto us.
But surely we must draw a
definite and broad line between the Law and the Gospel. It is at this point that
the Dispensationalist considers his position to be the strongest and most
unassailable; yet nowhere else does he more display his ignorance, for he
neither recognizes the grace of God abounding during the Mosaic era, nor can he
see that Law has any rightful place in this Christian age. Law and grace are to
him antagonistic elements, and (to quote one of his favorite slogans) "will no
more mix than will oil and water." Not a few of those who are now regarded as
the champions of orthodoxy tell their hearers that the principles of law and
grace are such contrary elements that where the one be in exercise the other
must necessarily be excluded. But this is a very serious error. How could the
Law of God and the Gospel of the grace of God conflict? The one
exhibits Him as "light," the other manifest Him as "love" (1 John 1:5; 4:8), and
both are necessary in order fully to reveal His perfections: if either one be
omitted only a one-sided concept of His character will be formed. The one makes
known His righteousness, the other displays His mercy, and His wisdom has shown
the perfect consistency there is between them.
Instead of law and grace
being contradictory, they are complementary. Both of them appeared in Eden
before the Fall. What was it but grace which made a grant unto our first
parents: "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat"? And it was law
which said, "But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat
of it." Both of them are seen at the time of the great deluge, for we are told
that "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord" (Gen. 6:8), as His subsequent
dealings with him clearly demonstrated; while His righteousness brought in a
flood upon the world of the ungodly. Both of them operated side by side at
Sinai, for while the majesty and righteousness of Jehovah were expressed in the
Decalogue, His mercy and grace were plainly evinced in the provisions He made in
the whole Levitical system (with its priesthood and sacrifices) for the putting
away of their sins. Both shone forth in their meridian glory at Calvary, for
whereas on the one hand the abounding grace of God appeared in giving His own
dear Son to be the Saviour of sinners, His justice called for the curse of the
Law to be inflicted upon Him while bearing their guilt.
In all of God’s works and
ways we may discern a meeting together of seemingly conflicting
elements—the centrifugal and the centripetal forces which are ever at work in
the material realm illustrate this principle. So it is in connection with the
operations of Divine providence: there is a constant interpenetrating of the
natural and supernatural. So too in the giving of the sacred Scriptures: they
are the product both of God’s and man’s agency: they are a Divine revelation,
yet couched in human language, and communicated through human media; they are
inerrantly true, yet written by fallible men. They are Divinely inspired in
every jot and tittle, yet the superintending control of the Spirit over the
penmen did not exclude nor interfere with the natural exercise of their
faculties. Thus it is also in all of God’s dealings with mankind: though He
exercises His high sovereignty, yet He treats with them as responsible
creatures, putting forth His invincible power upon and within them, but in no
wise destroying their moral agency. These may present deep and insoluble
mysteries to the finite mind, nevertheless they are actual facts.
In what has just been
pointed out—to which other examples might be added (the person of Christ, for
instance, with His two distinct yet conjoined natures, so that though He was
omniscient yet He "grew in wisdom"; was omnipotent, yet wearied and slept; was
eternal, yet died)—why should so many stumble at the phenomenon of Divine law
and Divine grace being in exercise side by side, operating at the same season?
Do law and grace present any greater contrast than the fathomless love of God
unto His children, and His everlasting wrath upon His enemies? No indeed, not so
great. Grace must not be regarded as an attribute of God which eclipses all His
other perfections. As Romans 5:21 so plainly tells us, "That as sin hath reigned
unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness," and not at
the expense of or to the exclusion of it. Divine grace and Divine righteousness,
Divine love and Divine holiness, are as inseparable as light and heat from the
sun. In bestowing grace, God never rescinds His claims upon us, but rather
enables us to meet them. Was the prodigal son, after his penitential return and
forgiveness, less obliged to conform to the laws of his Father’s house than
before he left it? No indeed, but more so.
That there is no conflict
between the Law and the Gospel of the grace of God is plain enough in Romans
3:31: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish
the law." Here the Apostle anticipates an objection which was likely to be
brought against what he said in verses 26-30. Does not the teaching that
justification is entirely by grace through faith evince that God has relaxed His
claims, changed the standard of His requirements, set aside the demands of His
government? Very far from it. The Divine plan of redemption is in no way an
annulling of the Law, but rather the honoring and enforcing of it. No greater
respect could have been shown to the Law than in God’s determining to save His
people from its course by sending His co-equal Son to fulfill all its
requirements and Himself endure its penalty. Oh, marvel of marvels; the great
Legislator humbled Himself unto entire obedience to the precepts of the
Decalogue. The very One who gave the Law became incarnate, bled and died, under
its condemning sentence, rather than that a tittle thereof should fail.
Magnified thus was the Law indeed, and for ever "made honorable."
God’s method of salvation
by grace has "established the law" in a threefold way. First, by Christ, the
Surety of God’s elect, being "made under the law" (Gal. 4:4), fulfilling its
precepts (Matt. 5:17), suffering its penalty in the stead of His people, and
thereby He has "brought everlasting righteousness" (Dan. 9:24). Second, by the
Holy Spirit, for at regeneration He writes the Law on their hearts (Heb. 8:10),
drawing out their affections unto it, so that they "delight in the law of God
after the inward man" (Rom. 7:22). Third, as the fruit of his new nature, the
Christian voluntarily and gladly takes the Law for his rule of life, so that he
declares, "with the mind I myself serve the law" (Rom. 7:25). Thus is the
Law "established" not only in the high court of heaven, but in the souls of the
redeemed. So far from law and grace being enemies, they are mutual handmaids:
the former reveals the sinner’s need, the latter supplies it; the one makes
known God’s requirements, the other enables us to meet them. Faith is not
opposed to good works, but performs them in obedience to God out of love and
gratitude.
Chapter 3
Before turning to the
positive side of our present subject, it was necessary for us to expose and
denounce that teaching which insists that much in the Bible has no immediate
application unto us today. Such teaching is a reckless and irreverent handling
of the Word, which has produced the most evil consequences in the hearts and
lives of many—not the least of which is the promotion of a pharisaical spirit of
self-superiority. Consciously or unconsciously, Dispensationalists are, in
reality, repeating the sin of Jehoiakim, who mutilated God’s Word with his
penknife (Jer 36:23). Instead of "opening the Scriptures," they are bent in
closing the major part of them from God’s people today. They are just as much
engaged in doing the devil’s work as are the Higher Critics, who, with their
dissecting knives, are wrongly "dividing the word of truth." They are
seeking to force a stone down the throats of those who are asking for bread.
These are indeed severe and solemn indictments, but not more so than the case
calls for. We are well aware that they will be unacceptable unto some of our own
readers; but medicine, though sometimes necessary, is rarely palatable.
Instead of being engaged in
the unholy work of pitting one part of the Scriptures against another, these men
would be far better employed in showing the perfect unity of the Bible
and the blessed harmony which there is between all of its teachings. But instead
of demonstrating the concord of the two Testaments, they are more concerned in
their efforts to show the discord which they say there is between that which
pertained unto "the Dispensation of Law" and that which obtains under "the
Dispensation of Grace," and in order to accomplish their evil design all sound
principles of exegesis are cast to the wind. As a sample of what we have
reference to, they cite "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for
foot" (Ex. 21:24) and then quote against it, "But I say unto you, That ye resist
not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the
other also" (Matt. 5:39), and then it is exultantly asserted that those two
passages can only be "reconciled" by allocating them to different peoples in
different ages; and with such superficial handling of Holy Writ thousands of
gullible souls are deceived, and thousands more allow themselves to be
bewildered.
If those who possess a
Scofield Bible turn to Exodus 21:24, they will see that in the margin
opposite to it the editor refers his readers to Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy
19:21, and cf. Matthew 5:28-44; 1 Peter 2:19-21; upon which this brief comment
is made: "The provision in Exodus is law and righteous; the New Testament
passages, grace and merciful." How far Mr. Scofield was consistent with
himself may be seen by a reference to what he states on page 989, at the
beginning of the New Testament under the Four Gospels, where he expressly
affirms "The sermon on the mount is law, not grace" [italics ours]:
verily "the legs of the lame are not equal." In his marginal note to Exodus
21:24, Mr. Scofield cites Matthew 5:38-44, as "grace," whereas in his
introduction to the Four Gospels he declares that Matthew 5-7 "is law, and not
grace." Which of those assertions did he wish his readers to believe?
Still the question may be
asked, How are you going to reconcile Exodus 21:24, with Matthew 5:38-44?
Our answer is, There is nothing between them to "reconcile," for there is
nothing in them which clashes. The former passage is one of the statutes
appointed for public magistrates to enforce, whereas the latter one lays
down rules for private individuals to live by! Why do not these
self-styled "rightly dividers" properly allocate the Scriptures, distinguishing
between the different classes to which they are addressed? That Exodus 21:24
does contain statutes for public magistrates to enforce is clearly
established by comparing Scripture with Scripture. In Deuteronomy 19:21, the
same injunction is again recorded, and if the reader turns back to verse 18 he
will there read, "And the judges shall make diligent inquisition," etc.
It would be real mercy unto the community if our judges today would set aside
their sickly sentimentality and deal with conscienceless and brutal criminals in
a manner which befits their deeds of violence—instead of making a mockery of
justice.
Ere leaving what has been
before us in the last three paragraphs, let it be pointed out that when our
blessed Lord added to Matthew 5:38, "But I say unto you, Love your enemies,
bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you" (verse 44) He was not
advancing a more benign precept than had ever been enunciated previously. No,
the same gracious principle of conduct had been enforced in the Old Testament.
In Exodus 23:4, 5, Jehovah gave commandment through Moses, "If thou meet thine
enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to
him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden,
and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him." Again in
Proverbs 25:21, we read, "If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and
if he be thirsty, give him water to drink."
The same God who bids us,
"Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all
men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath" (Rom.
12:17-19), also commanded His people in the Old Testament, "Thou shalt
not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord" (Lev. 19:18); and therefore
was David grateful to Abigail for dissuading him from taking vengeance on Nabal:
"Blessed be thou, which hast kept me this day from coming to shed blood, and
from avenging myself with mine own hand" (1 Sam. 25:33). So far was the Old
Testament from allowing any spirit of bitterness, malice or revenge that it
expressly declared, "Say not thou, I will recompense evil; but wait on the Lord,
and He shall save thee" (Prov. 20:22). And again, "Rejoice not when thine
enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth" (Prov. 24:17).
And again, "Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done to me: I will render to
the man according to his work" (Prov. 24:29).
One more sample of the
excuseless ignorance betrayed by these Dispensationalists—we quote from E.W.
Bullinger’s How to Enjoy the Bible. On pages 108 and 110 he said under
"Law and Grace": "For those who lived under the Law it could rightly and truly
be said, ‘It shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these
commandments before the Lord our God, as He hath commanded us’ (Deut 6:25). But
to those who live in this present Dispensation of Grace it is as truly declared,
‘By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight’ (Rom.
3:20). But this is the very opposite of Deuteronomy 6:25. What, then, are we to
say, or to do? Which of these two statements is true and which is false? The
answer is that neither is false. But both are true if we would rightly divide
the Word of Truth as to its dispensational truth and teaching. . . .Two words
distinguish the two dispensations: ‘Do’ distinguished the former; ‘Done’ the
latter. Then salvation depended upon what man was to do, now it depends
upon what Christ has done." It is by such statements as these that "unstable
souls" are beguiled.
Is it not amazing that one
so renowned for his erudition and knowledge of the Scriptures should make such
manifestly absurd statements as the above? In pitting Deuteronomy 6:25 against
Romans 3:20, he might as well have argued that fire is "the very opposite" of
water. They are indeed contrary elements, yet each has its own use in its proper
place: the one to cook by, the other for refreshment. Think of one who set up
himself as a teacher of preachers affirming that under the Mosaic economy
"salvation depended on what man was to do." Why, in that case, for fifteen
hundred years not a single Israelite had been saved. Had salvation then been
obtainable by human efforts, there had been no need for God to send His Son
here! Salvation has never been procurable by human merits, on the ground of
human performance. Abel obtained witness that he was righteous, because he
offered to God a slain lamb (Gen. 4:4; Heb. 11:4). Abraham was justified by
faith, and not by works (Romans 4). Under the Mosaic economy it was expressly
announced that "it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul" (Lev.
17:11). David realized, "If Thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, 0 Lord, who
shall stand?" (Ps. 130:3); and therefore did he confess, "I will make mention of
Thy righteousness, even of Thine only" (Ps. 71:16).
By all means let the Word
of Truth be "rightly divided"; not by parceling it off to different
"dispensations," but by distinguishing between what is doctrinal and what is
practical, between that which pertains to the unsaved and that which is
predicated of the saved. Deuteronomy 6:25 is addressed not to alien sinners, but
to those who are in covenant relationship with the Lord; whereas Romans 3:20 is
a statement which applies to every member of the human race. The one has to do
with practical "righteousness" in the daily walk, which is acceptable to
God; the other is a doctrinal declaration which asserts the impossibility of
acceptance with God on the ground of creature doings. The former relates to our
conduct in this life in connection with the Divine government; the latter
concerns our eternal standing before the Divine throne. Both passages are
equally applicable to Jews and Gentiles in all ages. "Our righteousness" in
Deuteronomy 6:25 is a practical righteousness in the sight of God. It is the
same aspect of righteousness as in "except your righteousness exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees" of Matthew 5:20, the "righteous man"
of James 5:16, and the "doeth righteousness" of 1 John 2:29.
The Old Testament saints
were the subjects of the same everlasting covenant, had the same blessed Gospel,
were begotten unto the same celestial heritage as the New Testament saints. From
Abel onwards, God has dealt with sinners in sovereign grace, and according to
the merits of Christ’s redemptive work—which was retroactive in its value and
efficacy (Romans 3:25; 1 Peter 1:19,20). "Noah found grace in the eyes of the
Lord" (Gen. 6:8). That they were partakers of the same covenant blessings as we
are is clear from a comparison of 2 Samuel 23:5, and Hebrews 13:20. The same
Gospel was preached unto Abraham (Gal. 3:8), yea, unto the nation of Israel
after they had received the Law (Heb 4:2), and therefore Abraham rejoiced to see
Christ’s day and was glad (John 8:56). Dying Jacob declared, "I have waited for
Thy salvation, 0 Lord" (Gen. 49:18). As Hebrews 11:16 states, the patriarchs
desired "a better country [than the land of Canaan, in which they dwelt],
that is, an heavenly." Moses "refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s
daughter...esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the
treasures of Egypt" (Heb. 11:24-26). Job exclaimed, "I know that my Redeemer
liveth...in my flesh shall I see God" (19:25,26).
When Jehovah proclaimed His
name unto Moses, He revealed Himself as "the Lord, the Lord God, merciful and
gracious" (Exo 34:5-7). When Aaron pronounced the benediction on the
congregation, he was bidden to say, "The Lord bless thee, and keep thee: the
Lord make His face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: the Lord lift up
His countenance upon thee, and give thee peace" (Num. 6:24-26). No greater and
grander blessings can be invoked today. Such a passage as that cannot possibly
be harmonized with the constricted concept which is entertained and is being
propagated by the Dispensationalists of the Mosaic economy. God dealt in
grace with Israel all through their long and checkered history. Read through
the book of Judges and observe how often He raised up deliverers for them. Pass
on to Kings and Chronicles and note His longsuffering benignity in sending them
prophet after prophet. Where in the New Testament is there a word which, for
pure grace, exceeds "though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as
snow" (Isa 1:18)? In the days of Jehoahaz "the Lord was gracious unto them" (2
Kings 13:22-23). They were invited to say unto the Lord, "Take away all
iniquity, and receive us graciously" (Hosea 14:2). Malachi bade Israel "beseech
God that He will be gracious unto us" (1:9).
The conception which the
pious remnant of Israel had of the Divine character during the Mosaic economy
was radically different from the stern and forbidding presentation made thereof
by Dispensationalists. Hear the Psalmist as he declared, "Gracious is the Lord,
and righteous; yea, our God is merciful" (116:5). Hear him again, as he bursts
forth into adoring praise, "Bless the Lord, 0 my soul, and forget not all His
benefits: who forgiveth all thine iniquities, who healeth all thy diseases...He
hath not dealt with us after our sins, nor rewarded us according to our
iniquities" (103:2,3,10). Can Christians say more than that? No wonder David
exclaimed, "Whom have I in heaven but Thee? and there is none upon earth that I
desire besides Thee. My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of
my heart, and my portion for ever" (73:25,26). If the question be asked, What,
then, is the great distinction between the Mosaic and Christian eras? the
answer is, God’s grace was then confirmed to one nation, but now it flows
out to all nations.
What is true in the general
holds in the particular. Not only were God’s dealings with His people during Old
Testament times substantially the same as those with His people now, but in
detail too. There is no discord, but perfect accord and concord between
them. Note carefully the following parallelisms. "His inheritance in the saints"
(Eph. 1:18): "The Lord’s portion is His people, Jacob is the lot of His
inheritance" (Deut. 32:9). "Beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the
beginning chosen you to salvation" (2 Thess. 2:13): "I have loved thee with an
everlasting love" (Jer. 3 1:3). "In whom we have redemption" (Eph. 1:7): "With
Him is plenteous redemption" (Ps. 130:7). "That we might be made the
righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor. 5:2 1): "In the Lord have I righteousness
and strength" (Isa. 45:24). "Who hath blessed us with all spiritual
blessings...in Christ" (Eph. 1:3): "Men shall be blessed in Him" (Ps.
72:17). "The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 John
1:7): "Thou art all fair, My love, there is no spot in thee" (Song 4:7).
"Strengthened with might by
His Spirit in the inner man" (Eph. 3:16): "In the day when I cried Thou
answeredst me, and strengthenedst me with strength in my soul" (Ps. 138:3). "The
Spirit of truth ... will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13): "Thou gayest
also Thy good Spirit to instruct them" (Neh. 9:20). "I know that in me (that is,
in my flesh), dwelleth no good thing" (Rom. 7:18): "All our righteousness are as
filthy rags" (Isa. 64:6). "I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims" (1 Pet.
2:11): "Ye are strangers and sojourners" (Lev. 25:23). "We walk by faith" (2
Cor. 5:7): "The just shall live by his faith" (Hab. 2:4). "Strong in the Lord"
(Eph. 6:10): "I will strengthen them in the Lord" (Zech. 10:12). "Neither shall
any pluck them out of My hand" (John 10:28): "All His saints are in Thy hand"
(Deut. 33:3). "He that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much
fruit" (John 15:5): "From Me is thy fruit found" (Hosea 14:8). "He which hath
begun a good work in you will finish it" (Phil. 1:6, margin): "The Lord will
perfect that which concerneth me" (Psa 138:8). Innumerable other such harmonies
might be added.
Chapter 4
As it is particularly the
Old Testament promises of which Dispensationalists would deprive the Christian,
a more definite and detailed refutation of this error is now required—coming, as
it obviously does, within the compass of our present subject. We will here
transcribe what we wrote thereon almost twenty years ago.
Since the Fall alienated the creature from the Creator,
there could be no intercourse between God and men but by some promise on His
part. None can challenge anything from the Majesty on high without a warrant
from Himself, nor could the conscience be satisfied unless it had a Divine
grant for any good that we hope for from Him.
God will in all ages have His people regulated by His
promises, so that they may exercise faith, hope, prayer, dependence upon
Himself: He gives them promises so as to test them, whether or not they
really trust in and count upon Him.
The Medium of the promises is the God-man Mediator, Jesus
Christ, for there can be no intercourse between God and us except through
the appointed Daysman. In other words, Christ must receive all good for us,
and we must have it at second hand from Him.
Let the Christian ever be on his guard against contemplating
any promise of God apart from Christ. Whether the thing promised, the
blessing desired, be temporal or spiritual, we cannot legitimately or truly
enjoy it except in and by Christ. Therefore did the Apostle remind the
Galatians, "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith
not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is
Christ" (3:16)—in quoting
Genesis 12:3, Paul was not
proving, but affirming, that God’s promises to Abraham respected not all
his natural posterity, but only those of his spiritual children—those united to
Christ. All the promises of God to believers are made to Christ, the Surety of
the everlasting covenant, and are conveyed from Him to us—both the promises
themselves and the things promised. "This is the [all-inclusive] promise
that He hath promised us, even eternal life" (1 John 2:25), and, as 5:11 tells
us, "this life is in His Son"—so grace, and all other benefits. "If I read any
of the promises I found that all and every one contained Christ in their bosom,
He Himself being the one great Promise of the Bible. To Him they were all
first given; from Him they derive all their efficacy, sweetness, value,
and importance; by Him they are brought home to the heart; and in Him
they are all yea, and amen" (R. Hawker, 1810).
Since all the promises
of God are made in Christ, it clearly follows that none of them are
available to any who are out of Christ, for to be out of Him is to be out of
the favour of God. God cannot look on such a person but as an object of His
wrath, as fuel for His vengeance: there is no hope for any man until he be
in Christ. But it may be asked, Does not God bestow any good things on them
who are out of Christ, sending His rain upon the unjust, and filling the
bellies of the wicked with good things (Ps. 17:14)? Yes, He does indeed.
Then are not those temporal mercies blessings? Certainly not: far
from it. As He says in Malachi 2:2, "I will curse your blessings: yea, I
have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart" (cf. Deut.
28:15-20). Unto the wicked, the temporal mercies of God are like food given
to bullocks—it does but "prepare them for the day of slaughter" (Jer. 12:3,
and cf. Jam. 5:5).
Having presented above a
brief outline on the subject of the Divine promises, let us now examine a
striking yet little-noticed expression, namely "the children of the promise"
(Rom. 9:8). In the context the Apostle discusses God’s casting of the Jews and
calling of the Gentiles, which was a particularly sore point with the former.
After describing the unique privileges enjoyed by Israel as a nation (verses 4
and 5), he points out the difference there is between them and the
antitypical "Israel of God" (verses 6-9), which he illustrates by the cases of
Isaac and Jacob. Though the Jews had rejected the Gospel and had been cast off
by God, it must not be supposed that His word had failed of accomplishment
(verse 6), for not only had the prophecies concerning the Messiah been
fulfilled, but the promise respecting Abraham’s seed was being made good. But it
was most important to apprehend aright what or whom that "seed"
comprised. "For they are not all Israel [spiritually speaking], who are of
Israel [naturally]: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all
children: but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called" (verses 6 and 7).
The Jews erroneously
imagined (as modern Dispensationalists do) that the promises made to Abraham
concerning his seed respected all of his descendants. Their boast was "we be
Abraham’s seed" (John 8:33), to which Christ replied, "If ye were Abraham’s
children ye would do the works of Abraham" (verse 39 and see Romans 4:12). God’s
rejection of Ishmael and Esau was decisive proof that the promises were not made
to the natural descendants as such. The selection of Isaac and Jacob showed that
the promise was restricted to an elect line. "The children of the flesh, these
are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted
[regarded] as the seed. For this is the word of promise. At this time will I
come, and Sarah shall have a son (Rom. 9:8,9). The "children of God" and the
"children of promise" are one and the same, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. As
Isaac was born supernaturally, so are all of God’s elect (John 1:13). As Isaac,
on that account, was heir of the promised blessing, so are Christians (Gal.
4:29; 3:29). "Children of the promise" are identical with "the heirs of promise"
(Heb. 6:17, and cf. Rom. 8:17).
God’s promises are made to
the spiritual children of Abraham (Rom. 4:16; Gal 3:7), and none of them
can possibly fail of accomplishment. "For all the promises of God in Him
[namely Christ] are yea, and in Him amen" (2 Cor. 1:20). They are deposited in
Christ, and in Him they find their affirmation and certification, for He is the
sum and substance of them. Inexpressibly blessed is that declaration to the
humble-minded child of God—yet a mystery hid from those who are wise in their
own conceits. "He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all,
how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?" (Rom. 8:32). The
promises of God are numerous: relating to this life and also that which is to
come. They concern our temporal wellbeing, as well as our spiritual, covering
the needs of the body as well as those of the soul. Whatever be their character,
not one of them can be made good unto us except in and through and by Him who
lived and died for us. The promises which God has given to His people are
absolutely sure and trustworthy, for they were made to them in Christ: they are
infallibly certain for fulfillment, for they are accomplished through and by
Him.
A blessed illustration,
yea, exemplification, of what has just been pointed out above is found in
Hebrews 8:8-13, and 10:15-17, where the Apostle quotes the promises given in
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The Dispensationalists would object and say that those
promises belong to the natural descendants of Abraham, and are not to us. But
Hebrews 10:15 prefaces the citation of those promises by expressly affirming,
"Whereof the Holy Spirit is [not "was"] a witness to us." Those
promises extend to Gentile believers also, for they are the assurance of grace
founded in Christ, and in Him believing Jews and Gentiles are one (Gal.
3:26). Before the middle wall of partition was broken down, Gentiles were indeed
"strangers unto the covenants of promise" (Eph. 2:12), but when that wall was
removed, Gentile believers became "fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and
partakers of His promise in Christ by the gospel" (Eph. 3:6)! As Romans 11
expresses it, they partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree (verse 17)!
Those promises in Jeremiah 31 are made not to the Jewish nation as such, but to
"the Israel of God" (Gal 6:16), that is to the entire election of grace, and
they are made infallibly good unto all of them at the moment of their
regeneration by the Spirit.
In the clear light of other
New Testament passages, it appears passing strange that anyone who is familiar
with the same should deny that God has made this "new covenant" with those who
are members of the mystical body of Christ. That Christians are partakers
of its blessings is plain in 1 Corinthians 11:25, where quotation is made of the
Savior’s words at the institution of His supper, saying, "This cup is the new
testament [or "new covenant"] in My blood"; and again by 2 Corinthians 3:6,
where the Apostle states that God "hath also made us able ministers of the new
testament," or "covenant," for the same Greek word is used in those passages as
in Hebrews 8:8, and 10:16, where it is translated "covenant." In the very first
sermon preached after the new covenant was established, Peter said, "For the
promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar
off" i.e. the Gentiles: Ephesians 2:13—qualified by "as many as the
Lord our God shall call" (Acts 2:39). Furthermore, the terms of Jeremiah
31:33,34 are most certainly made good unto all believers today: God is
their covenant God (Heb. 13:20), His law is enshrined in their affections (Rom
7:22), they know Him as their God, their iniquities are forgiven.
The Holy Spirit’s statement
in 2 Corinthians 7:1, must, for all who bow to the authority of Holy Writ,
settle the matter once and for all of the Christian’s right to the Old Testament
promises. "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse
ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in
the fear of God." Which promises? Why, those mentioned at the close of
the preceding chapter. There we read, "And what agreement hath the temple of God
with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I
will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be
My people" (6:16). And where had God said this? Why, as far back as Leviticus
26:12, "And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be My
people." That promise was made to the nation of Israel in the days of Moses! And
again we read, "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith
the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a
Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty"
(2 Cor. 6:17, 18), which words are a manifest reference to Jeremiah 3 1:9, and
Hosea 1:9,10.
Now observe very
particularly what the Holy Spirit says through Paul concerning those Old
Testament promises. First, he says to the New Testament saints, "Having these
promises." He declared that those ancient promises are theirs: that they
have a personal interest in them and title to them. That they were theirs not
merely in hope, but in hand. Theirs to make full use of, to feed upon and enjoy,
to delight in and give God thanks for the same. Since Christ Himself be ours,
all things are ours (1 Cor. 3:22,23). Oh, Christian reader, suffer no man,
under pretense of "rightly dividing the word," to cut you off from, to rob you
of any of "the exceeding great and precious promises" of your Father (2 Pet.
1:4). If he is content to confine himself unto a few of the New Testament
Epistles, let him do so—that is his loss. But allow him not to confine you
to so narrow a compass. Second, we are hereby taught to use those promises
as motives and incentives to the cultivation of personal piety, in the private
work of mortification and the positive duty of practical sanctification.
A striking and conclusive
proof that the Old Testament promises belong unto present-day saints is found in
Hebrews 13:5, where practical use is again made of the same. There Christians
are exhorted, "Let your conversation be without covetousness: be content with
such things as ye have." That exhortation is enforced by this gracious
consideration: "for He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake
thee." Since the living God be your portion your heart should rejoice in Him,
and all anxiety about the supply of your every need be for ever removed. But
what we are now more especially concerned with is the promise here cited: "For
He hath said, I will never leave thee," etc. And to whom was that promise
first given? Why, to the one who was about to lead Israel into the land of
Canaan—as a reference to Joshua 1:5 shows. Thus it was made to a particular
person on a special occasion, to a general who was to prosecute a great war
under the immediate command of God. Facing that demanding ordeal, Joshua
received assurance from God that His presence should ever be with him.
But if the believer gives
way to unbelief, the devil is very apt to tell him, That promise belongs not
unto you. You are not the captain of armies, commissioned by God to
overthrow the forces of an enemy: the virtue of that promise ceased when Canaan
was conquered and died with him to whom it was made. Instead, as Owen pointed
out in his comments on Hebrews 13:5, "To manifest the sameness of love
that is in all the promises, with their establishment in the one Mediator, and
the general concern of believers in every one of them, howsoever and on what
occasion given to any, this promise to Joshua is here applied to the condition
of the weakest, meanest, and poorest of the saints; to all and every one of
them, be their case and condition what it will. And doubtless, believers are not
a little wanting in themselves and their own consolation, that they do so more
particularly close with those words of truth, grace, and faithfulness, which
upon sundry occasions and at divers times have been given out unto the saints of
old, even Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and the residue of them, who walked with
God in their generation: these things in an especial manner are recorded for
our consolation."
Let us now observe closely
the use which the Apostle made of that ancient but ever-living promise.
First, he here availed himself of it in order to enforce his exhortation unto
Christians to the duties of mortification and sanctification. Second, he draws a
logical and practical inference from the same, declaring, "So that we may
boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto
me" (Heb. 13:6). Thus a double conclusion is reached: such a promise is to
inspire all believers with confidence in God’s succour and assistance, and with
boldness and courage before men—showing us to what purpose we should put
the Divine pledges. Those conclusions are based upon the character of the
Promiser: because God is infinitely good, faithful, and powerful, and because He
changes not, I may trustfully declare with Abraham, "God will provide" (Gen.
22:8); with Jonathan, "There is no restraint to the Lord" (1 Sam. 14:6); with
Jehoshaphat, "None is able to withstand Him" (2 Chron. 20:6); with Paul, "If God
be for us, who can be against us?" (Rom 8:31). The abiding presence of the
all-sufficient Lord ensures help, and therefore any alarm at man’s enmity should
be removed from our hearts. My worst enemy can do nothing against me without my
Savior’s permission.
"So that we may
boldly say [freely, without hesitating through unbelief], The Lord is my
helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me." Note attentively the
change in number from the plural to the singular, and learn therefrom that
general principles are to be appropriated by us in particular, as general
precepts are to be taken by us personally—the Lord Jesus individualized the
"ye shall not tempt the Lord your God" of Deuteronomy 6:16, when assailed by
Satan, saying, "It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy
God" (Matt. 4:7). It is only by taking the Divine promises and precepts unto
ourselves personally that we can "mix faith" with the same, or make a proper and
profitable use of them. It is also to be carefully noted that once more the
Apostle confirmed his argument by a Divine testimony, for the words "The Lord is
my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me" are not his own, but a
quotation of those use by David in Psalm 118:6. Thus again we are shown that the
language of the Old Testament is exactly suited to the cases and circumstances
of Christians today, and that it is their right and privilege freely to
appropriate the same.
"We may boldly say"
just what the Psalmist did when he was sorely pressed. It was during a season of
acute distress that David expressed his confidence in the living God, at a time
when it looked as though his enemies were on the point of swallowing him up; but
viewing the omnipotence of Jehovah and contrasting His might with the feebleness
of the creature, his heart was strengthened and emboldened. But let the reader
clearly perceive what that implied. It means that David turned his mind away
from the seen to the unseen. It means that he was regulated by faith, rather
than by sight— feelings or reasonings. It means that his heart was occupied with
the Almighty. But it means much more: he was occupied with the relationship
of that omnipotent One unto himself. It means that he recognized and
realized the spiritual bond there was between them, so that he could truly and
rightly aver, "the Lord is my helper." If He be my God, my Redeemer, my Father,
then He may be counted upon to undertake for me when I am sorely oppressed, when
my foes threaten to devour me, when my barrel of meal is almost empty. That "my"
is the language of faith, and is the conclusion which faith’s assurance draws
from the infallible promise of Him that cannot lie.
Chapter 5
In these articles we are
seeking to show the use which believers should make of God’s Word: or
more particularly, how that it is both their privilege and their duty to receive
the whole of it as addressed immediately unto themselves, and to
turn the same unto practical account, by appropriating its contents to their
personal needs. The Bible is a book which calls not so much for the exertion of
our intellect as it does for the exercise of our affections, conscience and
will. God has given it to us not for our entertainment but for our education, to
make known what He requires from us. It is to be the traveler’s guide as he
journeys through the maze of this world, the mariner’s chart as he sails the sea
of life. Therefore, whenever we open the Bible, the all-important consideration
for each of us to keep before him is, What is there here for me today?
What bearing does the passage now before me have upon my present case and
circumstances—what warning, what encouragement, what information? What
instruction is there to direct me in the management of my business, to guide me
in the ordering of my domestic and social affairs, to promote a closer walking
with God?
I should see myself
addressed in every precept, included in every promise. But it is greatly to be
feared that, through failure to appropriate God’s Word unto their own case and
circumstances, there is much Bible reading and study which is of little or no
real benefit to the soul. Nothing else will secure us from the infections of
this world, deliver from the temptations of Satan, and be so effectual a
preservative from sin, as the Word of God received into our affections. "The law
of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide" (Ps. 37:31)
can only be said of the one who has made personal appropriation of that Law, and
is able to aver with the Psalmist, "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I
might not sin against Thee" (119:11). Just so long as the Truth is actually
working in us, influencing us in a practical way, is loved and revered by us,
stirs the conscience, are we kept from falling into open sin—as Joseph was
preserved when evilly solicited by his master’s wife (Gen. 39:9). And only as we
personally go out and daily gather our portion of manna, and feed upon the same,
will there be strength provided for the performing of duty and the bringing
forth of fruit to the glory of God.
Let us take Genesis 17:1 as
a simple illustration. "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord
appeared to Abram and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before Me, and
be thou perfect" or "sincere." How is the Christian to apply such a verse
unto himsel? First of all, let him note to whom this signal favour
and honour was shown: namely to him who is the "father of all them that believe"
(Rom. 4:11,12,16)—and he was the first person in the world to whom the Lord is
said to have appeared! Second, observe when it was that Jehovah appeared unto
him: namely in his old age, when nature’s force was spent and death was written
on the flesh. Third, mark attentively the particular character in which the Lord
was now revealed to him: "the Almighty God," or more literally "El
Shaddai"—"the all-sufficient God." Fourth, consider the exhortation which
accompanied the same: "walk before Me, and be thou sincere." Fifth, ponder those
details in the light of the immediate sequel; God’s making promise that he
should beget a son by Sarah, who was long past the age of child-bearing (verses
15-19). Everything that is for God must be effected by His mighty power:
He can and must do everything—the flesh profits nothing, no movement of mere
nature is of any avail.
Now as the believer ponders
that memorable incident, hope should be inspired within him. El
Shaddai is as truly his God as He was Abraham’s! That is clear from 2
Corinthians 7:1, for one of those promises is, "I will be a Father unto you. . .
.saith the Lord Almighty" (6:18), and from Revelation 1:8, where the Lord Jesus
says unto the churches, "I am Alpha and Omega. . . .the Almighty." It is a
declaration of His omnipotence, to whom all things are possible. "The
all-sufficient God" tells of what He is in Himself—independent, self-existent;
and what He is unto His people—the Supplier of their every need. When Christ
said to Paul, "My grace is sufficient for thee," it was all one with what
Jehovah said unto Abraham. Doubtless the Lord appeared unto the patriarch in
visible (and human) form: He does so to us before the eyes of faith. Often He is
pleased to meet with us in the ordinances of His grace, and send us on our way
rejoicing. Sometimes He "manifests" Himself (John 14:21) to us in the
retirements of privacy. Frequently He appears for us in His providences,
showing Himself strong on our behalf. Now, says He, "Walk before Me sincerely"
in the believing realization that I am all-sufficient for thee, conscious of My
almightiness, and all will be well with thee.
Let us now adduce some of
the many proofs of the assertions made in our opening sentences, proofs
supplied by the Holy Spirit and the Lord Jesus in the application which They
made of the Scriptures. It is very striking indeed to discover that the very
first moral commandment which God gave to mankind, namely that which was to
regulate the marriage relationship, was couched in such terms that it
comprehended a Divine law which is universally and perpetually binding:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his
wife; and they shall be one flesh" (Gen. 2:24)—quoted by Christ in Matthew 19:5.
"When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she
find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then
let him write her a bill of divorcement" (Deut. 24:1). That statute was given in
the days of Moses, nevertheless we find our Lord referring to the same and
telling the Pharisees of His day, "For the hardness of your heart he wrote
you this precept" (Mark 10:5).
The principle for which we
are here contending is beautifully illustrated in Psalm 27:8, "When Thou saidst,
Seek ye My face; my heart said unto Thee, Thy face, Lord, will I seek."
Thus David made particular what was general, applying to himself personally what
was said to the saints collectively. That is ever the use each of us should make
of every part of God’s Word—as we see the Saviour in Matthew 4:7, changing the
"ye" of Deuteronomy 6:16, to "thou." So again in Acts 1:20, we find Peter, when
alluding to the defection of Judas, altering the "let their habitation"
of Psalm 69:25, to "let his habitation be desolate." That was not taking
an undue liberty with Holy Writ, but, instead, making a specific application of
what was indefinite.
"Put not forth thyself in
the presence of the king, and stand not in the place of great men: for better it
is that it be said unto thee, Come up hither; than that thou shouldest be put
lower in the presence of the prince whom thine eyes have seen" (Prov. 25:6,7).
Upon which Thomas Scott justly remarked, "There can be no reasonable doubt that
our Lord referred to those words in His admonition to ambitious guests at the
Pharisee’s table (Luke 14:7-11), and was understood to do so. While, therefore,
this gives His sanction to the book of Proverbs, it also shows that those maxims
may be applied to similar cases, and that we need not confine their
interpretation exclusively to the subject which gave rise to the maxims." Not
even the presence of Christ, His holy example, His heavenly instruction, could
restrain the strife among His disciples over which should be the greatest.
Loving to have the pre-eminence (3 John 9,10) is the bane of godliness in the
churches.
"I the Lord have called
Thee. . . . and give Thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the
Gentiles"; "I will also give Thee for a light to the Gentiles, that Thou mayest
be My salvation unto the end of the earth" (Isa. 42:6; 49:6). Those words were
spoken by the Father unto the Messiah, yet in Acts 13:46,47 we find Paul saying
of himself and Barnabas, "Lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so bath the Lord
commanded us; saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that
thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth"! So again in Romans
10:15 we find the Apostle was inspired to make application unto Christ’s servant
of that which was said immediately of Him: "How beautiful upon the mountains are
the feet of Him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace" (Isa.
52:7): "How shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How
beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace" (Rom.
10:15). "He is near that justifieth Me. . . . who is he that shall condemn Me?"
(Isa. 50:8,9): the context shows unmistakably that Christ is there the speaker,
yet in Romans 8:33, 34 the Apostle hesitates not to apply those words unto the
members of His body: "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It
is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth?"
The unspeakably solemn
commission given to Isaiah concerning his apostate generation (6:9,10) was
applied by Christ to the people of His day, saying: "And in them is
fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah" (Matt. 13:14,15). Again, in 29:13, Isaiah
announced that the Lord said, "This people draw near Me with their mouth, and
with their lips do honour Me, but have removed their heart far from Me," while
in Matthew 15:7 we find Christ saying to the scribes and Pharisees, "Hypocrites,
well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto Me
with their mouth," etc. Even more striking is Christ’s rebuke unto the
Sadducees, who denied the resurrection of the body, "Have ye not read that which
was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the
living" (Matt. 22:31,32). What God spoke immediately to Moses at the burning
bush was designed equally for the instruction and comfort of all men unto the
end of the world. What the Lord has said unto a particular person, He says unto
everyone who is favored to read His Word. Thus does it concern us to hear and
heed the same, for by that Word we shall be judged in the last great day (John
12:48).
The fundamental principle
for which we are here contending is plainly expressed again by Christ in Mark
13:37, "And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch." That exhortation to the
Apostles is addressed directly to the saints in all generations and places. As
Owen well said, "The Scriptures speak to every age, every church, every person,
not less than to those to whom they were first directed. This showeth us how we
should be affected in reading the Word: we should read it as a letter written by
the Lord of grace from heaven, to us by name." If there be any books in
the New Testament particularly restricted, it is the "pastoral Epistles," yet
the exhortation found in 2 Timothy 2:19, is generalized: "Let every one
that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." Those who are so fond of
restricting God’s Word would say that, "Thou therefore endure hardness, as a
good soldier of Jesus Christ" (verse 3) is addressed to the minister of the
Gospel, and pertains not to the rank and file of believers. But Ephesians
6:10-17 shows (by necessary implication) that it applies to all the
saints, for the militant figure is again used, and used there without
limitation. The Bullinger school insist that James and Peter—who gave warning of
those who in the last time should walk after their own ungodly lusts—wrote to
Jewish believers; but Jude (addressed to all the sanctified) declares they "told
you" (verse 18).
"Ye have forgotten the
exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou
the chastening of the Lord" (Heb. 12:5). That exhortation is taken from Proverbs
3:11, so that here is further evidence that the precepts of the Old Testament
(like its promises) are not restricted unto those who were under the Mosaic
economy, but apply with equal directness and force to those under the new
covenant. Observe well the tense of the verb "which speaketh":
though written a thousand years previously, Paul did not say "which hath
spoken"—the Scriptures are a living Word through which their Author speaks
today. Note too "which speaketh unto you"—New Testament saints: all
that is contained in the book of Proverbs is as truly and as much the Father’s
instruction to Christians as the contents of the Pauline Epistles. Throughout
that book God addresses us individually as "My son" (2:1; 3:1; 4:1; 5:1). That
exhortation is as urgently needed by believers now as by any who lived in former
ages. Though children of God, we are still children of Adam—willful, proud,
independent, requiring to be disciplined, to be under the Father’s rod, to bear
it meekly, and to be exercised thereby in our hearts and consciences.
A word now upon
transferred application, by which we mean giving a literal turn to language
which is figurative, or vice versa. Thus, whenever the writer steps on to icy
roads, he hesitates not to literalize the prayer, "Hold Thou me up, and I shall
be safe" (Ps. 119:117). "I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for Thou,
Lord, only makest me dwell in safety" (Ps. 4:8) is to be given its widest
latitude, and regarded at both the rest of the body under the protection of
Providence and the repose of the soul in the assurance of God’s protecting
grace. In 2 Corinthians 8:14 Paul urges that there should be an equality of
giving, or a fair distribution of the burden, in the collection being made to
relieve the afflicted saints in Jerusalem. That appeal was backed up with, "As
it is written, he that hath gathered much had nothing over; and he that had
gathered little had no lack." That is a reference to the manna gathered by the
Israelites (Ex. 16:18): those who gathered the largest quantity had more to give
unto the aged and feeble; so rich Christians should use their surplus to provide
for the poor of the flock. But great care needs to be taken lest we clash with
the Analogy of the Faith: thus "the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker" (2
Sam. 3:1) certainly does not mean that "the flesh" becomes enervated as the
believer grows in grace, for universal Christian experience testifies that
indwelling sin rages as vigorously at the end as at the beginning.
A brief word upon double
application. Whereas preachers should ever be on their guard against taking
the children’s bread and casting it to the dogs, by applying to the unsaved
promises given to or statements made concerning the saints; on the other hand,
they need to remind believers of the continuous force of the Scriptures
and their present suitability to their cases. For instance, the gracious
invitation of Christ, "Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and
I will give you rest" (Matt. 11:28), and "If any man thirst, let him come unto
Me, and drink" (John 7:37), must not be limited to our first approach to the
Saviour as lost sinners, but as 1 Peter 2:4 says, "to whom coming"—in the
present tense. Note too the "mourn" and not "have mourned" in Matthew 5:4, and
"hunger" in verse 6. In like manner, the self-abasing word, "Who maketh thee to
differ!" (1 Cor. 4:7) today: first from the unsaved; second from what we
were before the new birth; and third from other Christians with less grace and
gifts. Why, a sovereign God, and therefore you have nothing to boast of and no
cause for self-glorying.
A word now upon the
Spirit’s application of the Word unto the heart, and our task is completed.
This is described in such a verse as, "For our gospel came not unto you in word
only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit, and in much assurance" (1
Thess. 1:5). That is very much more than having the mind informed or the
emotions stirred, and something radically different from being deeply impressed
by the preacher’s oratory, earnestness, etc. It is for the preaching of the
Gospel to be accompanied by the supernatural operation of the Spirit, and the
efficacious grace of God, so that souls are Divinely quickened, convicted,
converted, delivered from the dominion of sin and Satan. When the Word is
applied by the Spirit to a person, it acts like the entrance of a two-edged
sword into his inner man, piercing, wounding, slaying his self-complacency and
self-righteousness—as in the case of Saul of Tarsus (Rom. 7:9,10). This is the
"demonstration of the Spirit" (1 Cor. 2:4), whereby He gives proof of the Truth
by the effects produced in the individual to which it is sayingly applied, so
that he has "much assurance"—i.e. he knows it is God’s Word
because of the radical and permanent change wrought in him.
Now the child of God is in
daily need of this gracious working of the Holy Spirit: to make the Word work
"effectually" (1 Thess. 2:13) within his soul and truly regulate his life, so
that he can thankfully acknowledge, "I will never forget Thy precepts: for with
them Thou hast quickened me" (Ps. 119:93). For that quickening it is his
duty and privilege to pray (verses 25, 37, 40, 88, 107, 149, etc.). It is a
fervent request that he may be "renewed day by day" in the inner man (2 Cor.
4:16), that he may be "strengthened with might by His Spirit" (Eph. 3:16), that
he may be revived and animated to go in the path of God’s commandments (Ps.
119:35). It is an earnest petition that his heart may be awed by a continual
sense of God’s majesty, and melted by a realization of His goodness, so that he
may see light in God’s light, recognizing the evil in things forbidden and the
blessedness of the things enjoined. "Quicken Thou me" is a prayer for vitalizing
grace, that he may be taught to profit (Isa. 48:17), for the increasing of his
faith, the strengthening of his expectations, the firing of his zeal. It is
equivalent to "draw me, we will run after Thee" (Song 1:4). |